USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use transit information and scheduling for major activity centers
Portion of title:
Transit information and scheduling for major activity centers
Physical Description:
vi, 174, 138 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Hardin, Jennifer
Tucker, Lisa
Callejas, Linda
United States -- Dept. of Transportation -- Office of Research and Special Programs
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
National Center for Transit Research (U.S.)
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Available through the National Technical Information Service
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Springfield, VA
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Management -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Time-tables -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Scheduling   ( lcsh )
Choice of transportation   ( lcsh )
activity centers   ( trt )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 171-174).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Funding:
Performed for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration and Florida Dept. of Transportation under contract no.
Statement of Responsibility:
Jennfier Hardin, Lisa Tucker, Linda Callejas
General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
"December 2001."

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 - 001444444
oclc - 48947672
notis - AJM9623
usfldc doi - C01-00317
usfldc handle - c1.317
System ID:
SFS0032389:00001


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 nam 2200409Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001444444
005 20080429094256.0
008 020206s2001 flu bt 000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00317
027
NCTR 392-11
035
(OCoLC)48947672
9
AJM9623
b SF
040
CBT
c CBT
d FHM
043
n-us-fl
1 100
Hardin, Jennifer.
0 245
Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use :
transit information and scheduling for major activity centers /
[Jennfier Hardin, Lisa Tucker, Linda Callejas]
3 246
Transit information and scheduling for major activity centers
260
Tampa, Fla. :
National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ;
[Springfield, VA :
Available through the National Technical Information Service,
2001]
300
vi, 174, [138] p. ;
28 cm.
500
Cover title.
536
Performed for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration and Florida Dept. of Transportation under contract no.
DTRS98-G-0032.
"December 2001."
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 171-174).
530
Also available online.
650
Local transit
z Florida
x Management.
Local transit
Florida
Time-tables.
Scheduling.
Choice of transportation.
7
activity centers
2 trt
700
Tucker, Lisa.
Callejas, Linda.
710
United States.
Dept. of Transportation
Office of Research and Special Programs.
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
National Center for Transit Research (U.S.)
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
049
FHMM
090
HE4487.F6
H47 2001
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.317



PAGE 1

Assessment of Operational Barriers and Impediments to Transit Use; Transit Information and Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Oe.:ember 200 I

PAGE 2

1 R.opcwt No. 392-11 2. Gcwcl'f'CIOnl No. 3. Roci;licw'K$ cauiOO nno onG SubiSllo G. RoPGn 0$.0 Assessment of Operational Barriers a nd Impediments to Use: Transit December 2001 Information and Schedul ing for Major Activity Centers G. Po!fl:ll'lnln; Ofplbtion Code 7 """"'' ' Poclomiflg Orgonlzaliln Ropcn No. Hardin, Jennifer, Tucker Lisa, and Callejas, Linda 9. htf'Cmllng N e!M 10. Nationa l Center For Transtt Research (NCTR) Unive rs i ty of South Florida CUT 100 11. Connc1 ot GraiM 4202 East F owler Avenue, Tampa FL 33620 DTRS98-G-
PAGE 3

State of Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office 605 Suwannee Street Talla hassee, FL 32399-0450 (850) 414-4500 Project Manager: Tara Bartee Planning Administrator National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 Project Director: Project Manager: Project Staff: (813) 974-3120 Dennis Hinebaugh, Transit Program Director Jennifer A. Hardin, Research Associate Lisa Tucker Research Assistant Linda Callejas, Resea rch Assistant The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S Department of Transportation or the State of Florid a Department of Transportation.

PAGE 4

-----OPE RATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDI M ENTS T O T RA NSIT USE:-----Introduction Currently, there are 22 fixed-route bus transit systems in o p eration within the state of Florida. These systems operate in a variety of environments, from large, densel y populated urban areas such as M i ami, Florida, to more r ural environments such as those found In Ocala, Florida, and Indian River, Florida. The systems a lso vary in size, from those ope r a t ing more than 200 buses to systems operating 1 to 9 vehicles. Despite all of this variation, the 22 f iXed-route bus systems in F l orida all share a oommon goal -to in crease ridersh i p and enhance oommunity mobility. Increasing transit ridership is a oomplex task that may invo l ve a multitude of important variables, including many that are a ct ually externa l to the transit system, such as land use and density (i.e., location and concentration of residences, employment centers, and other oommercial/rec r eational areas}, income, and auto ownership rates. The externa l conditions, while having t remendous impact on ridership, are, In many ways, outside the contro l o f individual transit systems. However, a numbe r of the va riables that may affect transit ridership can be influenced by p ublic trans i t systems. By addressing these variab les, trans i t systems may be able to accomplish the goa l s of both increasing ridership and enhanc i ng community mobility, even In situations where the external variables mentione d p r ev i ously are not particu l arly favorabl e for transit The in d ividua l decision to use public transit as a means o f personal transportation is a somewhat multifaceted process The de c ision requires that potential passengers have knowledge of availab l e transit services, information on how to use the service, as well as Information related to the oost and method of payment for the service. Potentia l passenge r s will also base their decision to ride on whether or not the transit service travels to the places they would like to go at times that they woul d like to travel. Individual riders must know where to go to catch a bus, how to recognize bus stops, and perhaps even how to transfer betwe e n vehicles. Passengers must also understand bus schedules and route maps in order to plan their trip. The decision to use transit will also be impacted by the l eve l of safety and comfort associated with the bus sto p environment, as well a s the overall experience on board a transit vehicle. Each of these variables repres e nts a p oten t ial barrier to using public transit. If potentia l passengers experience difficult i es relate d to any of these variab les, their decision to use public transit may be reverse d Many of the p o t ential barriers described in r elation to the transit experience may be rectified by t r ansit systems with relatively little ex p ense. The objective of the present project is to identify those issues or problems encountere d by exis t ing and potential transit users In the overall transit e x p erience that may become barriers to using transit This document p resents the results of these efforts. This re p ort is divided Into two parts w i th a total o f four d i stinct chapters Part One is dedicated to the ident i fication of p otentia l barriers to accessing transit experienced faced by non-users Chapter One conta ins an extensive review o f Finitl Report Introductit>n

PAGE 5

----10PERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----local, state, and national literature pertaining to potential barriers to using transit in the United States. Chapter Two presents the results of a review of the barriers identified by current transit on-board passenger surveys conducted by CUTR for transit systems throughout the state of Florida. The information presented herein is drawn primarily from comparable customer satisfaction data collected from nine transit systems of varying size i n Florida. Part Two builds on the identifi cation of potential barriers presented in Part One by selecting two of the potential barriers (transit infonmation and scheduling for major activity centers) for further inve stigation in the field through various types of observational tests. Chapter Three, the first chapter included in Part Two, examines the potential for printed transit infonmation materials to become a barrier to transit use by presenting the results of field tests designed to measu re the understandability a nd effectiveness of existing printed transit infonmation in Florida. The chapter closes with recommendations offered to improve the user-friendliness and usability of printed transit information materials. Chapter Four focuses on transit scheduling to serve major activity centers. The field tests conducted for this chapter compare transit access to identified major activity centers in 13 communities throughout Florida with the operating hours associated with each activity center and offers recommendations for further assessment of transit scheduling practices.

PAGE 6

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Use:---Table of Contents ' : r .. l[f1tlr()(tlJc:ti()l1 i PART ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE Chapter One: Transit Barriers Literature Review ................ ......... ................... ... ...... ... 3 Public Transit in the United States .... .. .. ...... ........ ............................ ................... 4 Fixed-Route Transit in Florida .... ..... .... ....................................... ... .. ... ... ..... ... ....... .... .. 6 Public Tran s i t Safety and Security ................................. .... .... ................ . ... 7 Transit Information and Marl
PAGE 7

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---Statistical Analysis .. .... ... .......................... .... .......... ............................................ .... 84 Participants Who Quit One or Both Tasks or Were Unable to Complete in Allotted lime 94 Results: Quali tative Analysis of Partidpant Interviews .. ...... ....... .... ..... .............................. 97 Participant Reactions to Transit Trip P l anning ... . .... ... .... .... ... ......... ................ 97 Transit Trip Planning -The Frustration Factor .. ................. .... ................... ....... ...... 98 Positive Responses to Transi t Trip Planning . ... . ..... ................................................ .. 99 D i fficult ies Encountered Usi ng Transi t Information Mater ial s ........ .... .... ...... ........ .. 99 Overall Understanding of Transit .............. ....... ........................... ............. 100 Layout of Materials .. .... .. ......... ..... .............. ....... .. .... ........... ... ...... .... ............. ... ... 101 Using System Maps and Individua l Route Maps ................... ...... ....... .................... 1 02 Using 'Timetables ... ... ............... ... .... .. .... .. .... ... .. .. ............. .......... ............ .... .. .. .. . 1 03 Transferring ... .... ..... ....... ...... ..... ........... .... ................... . .... ..... .. ...................... 104 No Difficulties Identified .......................... .. .... ...... .. .............................................. 104 Perception s of Useful Design Elements: What Worked .... ... ........ ... ...... .. ....... .. .. 105 Bus Route Identification: Using System Maps and Route Maps ...... .. ..... ... ................ 105 Poi nts of Interest and the Map Legend ... ..... ..... ............ ..... .. .................. ..... ..... 106 Using Timetables ..... .... .. ................ .... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... ........... ... .. .... ........... ............ 106 Nothing Was Understandable or Easy .. .. .............. ..... ............ ...... ........... .... ........ ... 107 Major Findings of the Transi t Info rmation and Marketing Field Test ........ ...... ............ ........ 108 Summary of Quant itativ e Transit Trip Planning Major Findings ..... ..... ... ........... ... ... 108 Summary of Participant Interv i ew Major Findings .......................... ... .... ........... .. 111 Recommendations: Making Transit Information Materials More User-Friendly ......... ....... 114 The Big Picture : Transit Knowledge is Not Common Knowledge .... .. ........... . ........... 114 Recommendation 1 : Conduct Additional Research on Most Effective Design E lements .. 116 Recommendation 2: Educate Potential Passengers about T r ansferring ........................ 117 Recommendation 3: Help Potential Passengers Use Transit Info r mation Materials ..... .. 118 Consistency is Key ............... . ....................... .. .. .. ... .................. .... ... .............. ... ... 118 Provide Explanation about the Meaning and Use of Informat ion ..... ..... ... ...... ... ... ... 119 Materials Should Help Spatially Orient Passengers .. ......... ... ....... ...... ...... ...... 119 Use Contrast i ng Colors Whenever Possible .. . ... .... .......... ..... ............. ..... 120 Indude Map Legends and Points of Interest Infonmation ... ... .. .... ...... ............ 120 Avoid tile Use of Small Print Type .... .... .. .... .... .... ..... .. .. ........... .. ............. .. ...... ........ 121 Conclusion ... .. .. ... .. .. ...... . . .. .... ............ .... .. .............. ................ .. .................... ........ 121 Chapter Four: Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Field Test ................. 123 Met:llodology . .. ....... .... ... .. ....... ................. ...... ... .. ........ ............. .... ... ...... ... .............. 123 Major Activity Centers .. .. ... ......... .. .......... ...... ... .. .. .. ... ..... .. ............ .. ......... .............. .. 124 land Use Categories and Operating Hours ........ ... ... .... . ............ ..... ..... ......... 125 Airports & Medical ........ ... .... ........ ... ... ..... .. ... .. .. .. ..... ........... ... .... .... .. ......... ........ ... 126 Shopping .. ... .... ...... .... .. ... ....... .... .. .... ... ....... ... .. .. .... .......................................... 126 Business/Government .. ..... I I .................................. 127

PAGE 8

----OPERATIONAL BARRIER S & IMPEDIME NTS TO TRANSIT U S iE-----. ,: ., Education ..... ................. ...... ...... ................................. . .... ............. 127 Recr eat ion .. . .. .... . .. ... .. .... .. .... ... .... ....... .... .. ..... ...... .. .. ..... ....... .... ....... ... .... ... .. ... 1 2 7 Transit Routes and Frequency of Service ................................................. .. ......... .. ...... 127 Trans i t Scheduling for Major Act i v i ty Centers Analysis .................................................. 129 Results: Existing Conditions of Trans i t Service to Major Activity Cent e r s .. .... ...... .... ...... ..... 131 Airports ............................................................. ... ........ ............. .... ...... .. ....... . ... .. 1 32 Weekday Service ..... .... ... ............................. ....................................................... 132 Saturday Service . .. .... .. ... .. ... . ..... .......... .. .... ... ..... .. ... .. ......... ........ ... ...... ... . ...... .. 133 Sunday Service .......... .. . .. .... ..... .. .. ... ..... .. ... .... . ............ ....... ... ......... .... ............... 133 Patterns and Assessment ... ..... ......... ..... ....... .... .... ... ....... ......... ..... . .. .... .... .... . .. .. 135 Med i cal ... .. .. .................... .. ............. . .......... ..... ... ...................... .... ........ ...... ...... ... . ... 1 36 Weekday Servic e .... .... 00 ...... ...... ........... ... oo ........................ ................................ 136 Saturday Setvice .. ... . .. . .. ... ..... 0 ....... ........... ....................................... ................ 137 Sunday Service ..... o ...... ..... .............. .................. ..... I ....................... 137 Patterns and Assessment ... ... ........... .... ....... ... ... ....... ... .......... ..... ....... ....... ........ ... 139 Shopping ........ .............. ........... .... .............. ........ I ... ... ..... ....... .... .. ... ... .. .. ...... o .. 139 Weekday Service .... ... ......... ... . ...... ... ...... .... ..... .... . ............ ................................ 139 Saturday Service ............ .... .... .. .... .. .......... .. .... ...... .. ... ............ .... ........ ..... ......... 141 Sunday Service .... .... .... 0 .......... 00 ................................................. ......................... 141 Patte.ms and Assessment .. .... ... .... ...... ..... ... .... ... .... ....... .. ... ......... .......................... 141 Business/Government .... ..... .......... .......... ........ .. ... . ... . .. ...... ........... ... ...... ..... ...... 00 141 Patterns and Assessment ... ...... .. .. .... ....... .. .. .. ..... ..... .. ........ .......................... ........ 142 Education ......... .. ...... .. ... .. ... ... . .. .. .... .... ........ ... ... ... ..... ...... ........ . ........... . ...... ..... ... . 144 Weekday Service ... .... .. ... ..... .. .......... ...... ... ................ ................. .... ....... ..... ..... ... 144 Saturday Service ... ....... .... ... ... .... ....... ..... ............................... ..................... .. ..... 144 Sunday Service ..... ..... ............... ................ .... .. ...... ... ....... .. .. ..... ........... . ............. 146 Patterns and Assessment . .. .... ... ... .... ........ ......... ...... ........ ........... ... .................. ... ... 1 4 6 Recreation .... ....... ....... ... .. .... ....... .... .... .... ... ..... ..... ... ... . ...... ...... . ... .......... ............. 146 Shift Recreat ion Shift Recr eation Shift Recreation Weekday Service ............................................... ....... .. .... ....... ... ... 147 Saturday Service .... ..... .. ... . ... ..... ... .... .... ..... . ........................... 148 Sunday Service .................. . ....... ... .... ......... ........ ... ............... .... 148 Patterns and Assessmen t ... .. ... .... .. ...... ...... ... ........ .................... ... .. .... ...... ..... ..... .... 148 NonShift Recreation Non-Shift Recreat ion Non-Shift Recreation Weekday Service ....... ... .. ........... .... ..... ....... ....... ....... .. ... ..... .. 150 Satll rday Service ..... ... . .. ... . .. ......... . ... ...................... .. .... .. 150 Sunday Service .... .. .... . .. ..... ....... ...... ................... ................ 150 Patterns and Assessment . ..... ..... .... .. ......... .. .... ... .... ............. ... ... ..... ............. .. ..... 151 Conclusion 00 ................... ...................................................... ........ ............................ 151 Results: Level of Transit Service Acces s to Major Activity Centers .............. ...... .... ........ .... 1 5 3 Airport Activity Centers .. . .. . ...... ...... ........ ..... ... .. ... ........ o .............................. 153 Medical Activity Centers . .. . ... ... ...... .. .. ........ .......... .... ....... ....... .. ... ...... ... ..... .. ...... .. 154 Flmtl Roport

PAGE 9

----IO P ERAnONA L BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS T O TRANSIT U SE----Shopping Activ ity Centers ....... ....... .. ... .... . ............. ... ...... ......... ....... .... .......... ... ...... 155 Business/Government Activity Centers ...... . ......... .. ........ .... . .. . ........ . ..... . ... ....... .... 156 Education Activi ty Centers ..... ....... .. ... ... ... .. .......... ..... ... .. ..... .. ... .. ..... .. .... .. . ... .... .. . . 157 Recreation Acti vity Centers .... ....... ........... .... ........ ........ .. ........... .... ....... .... ...... ..... ..... 158 Major Findings of the Transi t S c heduling for Major Activ i ty Centers Field Test .... .. .. ........... 160 Summary of Major Findings -Existing COndi tions of Transit Service to Maj or Activity Centers .. . . ..... .. ....... . .. ... ..... .... .. ...... ......... ...... .. .............. ..... .. .... . .... ... .. .... .. ...... ..... 160 Summary of Major F i ndings -Level of Transit Service A ccess to M ajor Acti v ity Centers ... 162 Recommendations: Transit Sched ulin g for Major Activity Centers ... ...... .... ................. .. .... 166 Recommendation 1: Conduct Assessment of T ransit Service Access to Majo r T r ansit Attractors ..... ....... ... ..... . .... .. ...... ...... . ... .... .... . ... . ... .. .... .... .. . . .... ... .. . ....... ...... ... 166 Recommend ation 2: Eval uate Scheduling Process and Pri orities .. ...... ..... .. ...... .. .... .. ...... 167 Recommendati on 3: Devel op Gui d elines for Level of T r a n sit Service Access St a ndards .. 1 67 Recommendati on 4 : Assess the "Hu b and Spoke" COnfigur ation of Transi t Services .. .. ... 1 67 Recommendation 5: COI1s ider Increas ing Evening Span of Transi t Servi c e ...... .. .... .. .. .... 168 Afterw o rd ..... ...... ... . ............. ............... .............. .. ....... .. ........... ...... . .. . ......... .. .. 167 lli1Jii()!JIIS1Jtllf ... ...... ....... ... ... . ... ... . . .. .. . ... .. ... ... . .. ..... .... .. . ... Final ReptNt

PAGE 10

-----
PAGE 11

this page IS blank

PAGE 12

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Chapter One: Transit Barrii!ts Literature Review The results of the transit barriers literature review are pres ented in the fo llo wing sect ions. Several extensive literature searches were conducted using the TRIS literature database made available from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and CUTR's Resource Information Center (CRIC). Every attempt was made to obtain and rev iew the most current li terature available. All literature were reviewed for their relevancy to the topic and summarized. The literature revi ewed addressed barriers that restrict usage among current transit riders, as well as those barriers that inhibit usage among potential transit patrons. Based on the results of this data collection effort, the results of the review have been sy nthesiZed into the three categories of potential barriers to using transit determined to be the most significant personal safety, transit information and marketing, and service availability and convenience. It should be noted that the literature presented in this review does not include all data reviewed or all categories of potential barriers. Rather, the articles summarized herein were chosen for inclusion in order to represent the range of issues Involved with each identified potential barr ier It is also important to note that none of the potential barriers addressed should be considered in a mutually exclusive fashion. Rather, all of the barriers are, in many ways, interconnected. For example, perceptions of personal safety and security are often shaped by such operational characteristics as walt time and overall knowledge of the system All iden t ified barriers have been considered without re gard to potential costs associated with the resolution of each identified barrier. However, the barriers are presented in the literature review in the order of highest priority: those that appear to have the greatest relevance to Florida transit systems and the greatest potentia l fo r transit systems to address are presented firs t. The review begins with a brief discussion of transit in the United States, based primarily on the document, Americans in Transit: A Profile of Public Transit Passengers, published in 1992 by the American Public Transit Administration. Next, a review of transit in Florida based on National Transit Database (NTD) performance evaluation data collected by CUTR for the completion of the Performance Evaluation of Florida's Public Transit systems is provided. These overviews are followed by a discussion of potential transit barriers identified through a review of available literature. These data have been organized into the following sections: public transit safety and security, transit information and marketing, and service availability and convenience. As described previously, the potential barriers are p res ented in rank order: those that appear to be the most likely barriers, according to the l iteratu re reviewed and given the natur e of Florida's transit systems, are presented first. Literature Review

PAGE 13

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us,E---Public Transit in the United States In late 1992 the American Public Transi t Association (APTA) published a special report written by Jim Linsalata and entitled, Americans in Transit: A Profile of Public Transit Passengers, which explores the socioeconomic characteristics of the transit rid ing population in the United States. While the data presented in this report are almost 10 years old, the do cument remains the most comprehensive study of transit use in the United States. The report desc ribes the "average public transit rider" in terms of gender, age, race, ethnicity, income, and trip purpose, as well as addressing future trends in transit. The ridership data present e d in the report were collected from a survey of 136 transit systems of varying size within the United States. APTA reported that the size and diversity of the sample accounted for almost 60 percent of total transit rid ership in 1992. U.S. Census data also were used in compiling the rider profiles. Transit ridership in the United States has been exper iencing a period of revitalizat ion. An increase in the number of modes offered, the application of technologies, and the advent of innovative approaches to providing services have contributed to increasing growth of ridership. According the APTA Transit Ridership Report, more than 9 million bips were made on transit systems in 1999. This represents an increase of over 500,000 annual bips since the Americans in Transit report was published (1992). According to that study, the majority of trans i t riders were female. In smaller cities, a distinct majority of riders were female. For example, in places with populations of less than one million, females made up approxlmately 60 percent of transit riders. In some cases, rural transit systems reported that over 75 percent of their riders were female. At the national level almost seven percent of all transit riders were senior citizens, and smaller cities and rural areas had an even greater percentage of senior riders. In communities with populations of less than 50,000 persons, 1 8 percent of riders were 65 and older. APTA contends that this high percentage in dicates that transit is an indispensable service for seniors for important trip purposes such as medical care, shopping, recreation, and other non-work travel. Further, it was not uncommon to find that many senior cit izens in rural areas relied exclusively on transit for their transportation. Within the U.S. transit market, ethnic and racial minorities were found to be another large and important ridership segment. In areas with populations of one million or more, approximately 49 percent of riders were African-Americans or Hispanic. In contrast, areas with populations of less than 50,000 reported an average of six percent of African-American riders and nine peroent of Hispanic riders. Nationwide, 45 peroent of riders were White, 31 percent were African American, 18 percent were Hispanic, and 6 percen t were considered "Other."

PAGE 14

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS&. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E----. . ; J! ,'(': t-... The study also revealed that minority groups use .tran sit in disproportionate amounts compared to their population shares. African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities made up a larger percentage of transit riders in the more populous areas than did Whites. The proportion of White riders in areas with populations less than 50,000 was found to be 82 percent, but in areas with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 persons this share dropped to 48 percent, and Whites made up only 45 percent of transit riders in areas with populations with one m i llion or more. It is also notable that many transit systems serving sma ll cities and rura l areas reported a relatively high percentage of H ispani c ride rs. The APTA report also forecasted an increased demand for transit services in the future, based on the growing non-White population and the fact that Hispanics have the highest birthrate in the United States While the 1 992 APTA special report forecast that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 {ADA) would result in a dramatic increase in the number of persons with disabilities who have access to public transportation, the author reports that at the time of writing, transit riders with d isab ilities comprised less than two percent of the total ridership nationally. However, when New York City was excluded, this percentage increased to just less than three percent. The authors also reported that, as the community size decreases, the percentage of riders with disabilities increases. According to the author, i t was not uncommon for 10 to 15 percent of the transit rid ers i n smaller areas to have disabilities Much as with the senior population, peop l e with disab ilities often rely solely on public transportation for their mobility Transit holds great economic i mportance In the most populous areas of the country because approximately 70 percent of transit use is re lated to business and educational activities. More than half of all trips made using public transit in the Uni ted States are work trips The APTA study also reported that approximately 15 percent of transit trips are made for school purposes and the remainder are trips taken for the p u rposes of shopping, medical, soda l and recreation. The study found that trip purposes vari e d significantly in communities of different sizes. For examp le, in areas of less than 50,000 persons, almost 61 percent of transit trips were taken for medical, social, and recreational purposes, and 21 pe r cent were for work trips. In those areas with populations of at least one million persons, almost 55 percent of transit trips were taken for work and approximately 15 percent were for medical, social, and recreational purposes. With respect to i ncome, a lm ost 28 percent of transit riders at the nationa l level have an annual income below $15,000. Again, when New York City is excluded, this percentage increases to 38 percent. In areas with a population of less than one million, more than half of transit riders declared an annual Income of less than $15,000. In areas with populations l ess than 50,000, more than 61 percent of riders had annual incomes less than $15,000. Although there were rider s with higher incomes in areas of a ll population sizes, APTA demonstrates that it is those riders with l ower incomes, often with few other transportat i on a l ternatives, who constitute the largest market of transit riders in the United States. Nationwide 28 percent of transit riders

PAGE 15

------
PAGE 16

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e----funding to nearly 12 percent in 1998 .'. L'Ocal commitments to transit also remain significant, with local governments contri!JU.ting.more 51 percent of total transit funding in 1998. ... .'}:): : The use of fixed-route transit continues to grow in Florida. Between 1984 and 1998, statewide fi xed-route ridership increased by 39 percent. Between 1997 and 1998, ridershi p increased by nearly 3 percent from 171 million trips to approximately 176 million trips. In addition, total ridership has increased by almost 17 percent since 1992. Since 1984, the amount of service provided, as represented by service miles, by Aorida's fixed-route bus and rail systems has increased by 63 percent. This measure has increased by a full 25 percent since 1992. Although the operating cost per service mile has increased by 58 percent for all modes since 1984, the costs associated with bus transportation reveal a more positive trend Between 1984 and 1998, the cost per service mile for bus service increased by only 52 percent, which is a lower rate than inflation during this time period Despite the significant commitment to public transit in Florida and the favorable performance of Florida's transit systems, a great deal of mismatch exists between the hopes and expectations for public transportation and the role that these systems have been ab l e to play in oommunity mobility. As Polzin (2000) has noted, although ridership has grown at a rate that approximates population growth in the state, transit has not been able to retain its share of the travel market, as travel growth exceeds population growth. Use of a personal vehicle re mains the most popular mode of trave l in the state of Aorida. According to the 1990 Census, approximately 77 percent of Florida's drivers reported driving alone as the .ir primary means of travel to work. At the same time, traffic congestion in the state is growing at an alarming rate, popu l ation is increasing, and the environment is beooming more fragile (Polzin 2000). And while the number of public transit systems available in the state continues to grow, many potential barriers to using these systems exist, which may prevent new users from trying trans i t and/or inhibit use among current users These potential barriers are discussed in the sections that follow. Public Transit Safety and Security Concerns related to personal safety are cited within the literature as a deterrent to the public's utilization of mass transit. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) makes a distinction between transit safety and transit security. Safety refers primarily to programs designed to prevent or mitigate unintentional harm to people using transit. Thus, transit safety addresses issues of vehicle maintenance, alcohol and drug testing and emergen c y management. Transit security refers to programs and procedures that are developed and implemented to reduce crime on transit In the literature, issues of personal safety and the perception of safety are oommonly referred to In relation to the reasons that people do not use transit or are anxious Literature Review

PAGE 17

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----about using transit. Crime is perhaps most often cited as the primary personal safety issue, and several authors have exam i ned the public's perception of, as well as the realities of, crime on buses and the areas served by buses. The premise held by most researchers is that the perception of crime significantly affects mode choice, and that the perception and degree of affectation vary according to the region and the level of urbanization, as well as individual passenger characte ristics Reed et al. {1999) have examined passenger attitudes toward crime and crime reduction measures taken by transit authorities In the state of M ichigan. Their findings indicate that transit patrons generally hold the following perceptions: passengers mostly feel safe when using transit; passengers feel less safe traveling after dark than during the day; those who use smaller transit agencies feel safer than those traveling in larger systems; passengers feel less secure waiting at bus stops than they do when on the bus; and, there is dissatisfaction with the limited availability of weekend and nighttime bus service, which could be related to safety if people must walk late at night. The authors further contend that wait times are indirectly a safety issue because the longer the wait at the bus stop, the highe r the perceived level of possible crime. Of those passengers surveyed, 88 percent claimed that they rarely or never skip or alter their bus trip because of personal safety concerns. However, several of those who mad e such claims did admit to regularly tak ing more inconvenient routes to avoid what they perceive to be unsafe areas or "unseemly riders." Of further note, the ratings of perceived safety are lower for females than for males. The data also revealed that most perceived crime-related experiences are dasslfoed as "quality of life" offenses, such as obscene language/verbal abuse, public drunkenness, vandalism, and disorderly conduct. Property crimes and violent crimes are ranked second and third, but poor statistics from law enforcement and transit agencies make accounting for actual in cident difficult. The security Improvements most desired by the transit riding public were found to be emergency phones at bus stops and increased lighting at bus stops. Further, Reed et al. (1999) assert that there should be improvements in frequency and timeliness of buses so that wait times at bus stops are lessened. Based upon thi s study, the authors conclude that the greater is one's perceived exposure to crimes, the greater the appreciation of transit crime prevention measures.

PAGE 18

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----. It should be noted that this survey was among those who already utilize transit 4 .. ;... ... ,c services rather than the general public. liie'refore: 'no conclusions can be drawn from this study in relation to the effect of transit-related crime perceptions on non-transit users. According to Ingalls et al (1994), although most transit crime studies are focused upon large urban centers, smaller areas also have safety Issues with which they must contend. This study considers Greensboro, North Carolina, as a typical mid-sized southern city and examines the role of the public's fear of crime in relation to use of the city's transit system. Similar to the studies conducted in Michigan (Reed et al. 1999), safety is cited as one reason for not using the bus in Greensboro; however, both residents In areas where bus service is available and bus riders considered crime to be a citywide problem, rather than a transit Issue. In fact, the bus system was generally perceived as being safer than the community as a whole. However, the authors note that many areas served by the transit system, such as Downtown Greensboro, were considered to be unsafe by users and nonusers. The authors also note that one's level of experience with the transit system appears to have an effect upon feelings of personal safety Those residents who do not utilize the bus system, but live in proximity to bus service, were found to be two to five times more concerned about personal safety on the buses than were those classified as riders. The public perception of crime is, therefore, not necessarily based upon firsthand experience: For those who do have personal experience with transit-related crime, the two pr i mary problems reported were obscene language/disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. This study also found that non-user residents were two to three times more likely than transit riders to take precautionary measures for their personal safety. More than 80 percent of non user residents claimed to avoid drunk or "strange-looking" people. In addition, more than half of these respondents avoid groups of teenagers, traveling after dark, and traveling alone. Transit riders also reported the tendency to avoid traveling after dark and "strange-looking" people. Women were found to be more likely to take precautionary measures than were men. In addition to concerns related to transit crime, those factors cited as deterrents to riding the bus include, in order of importance: having a car; inconvenience; no need for using a bus; unavailability of bus service near the home; Jack of information about buses; and, Chapter OM Literature Review

PAGE 19

-----
PAGE 20

-----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----. .-:.: : .. change l ocation of routes/stop5/extensionsi improve frequency/schedule; provid e information, telephone, maps, publicity; offer free service for cultural events; provide better mass transit; provide disabled/medical and serv ices; make service more convenient/easier; lack of car; reduce cost of riding/fares; and, imp rove bus stops (benches, shel ters, etc). Benjamin and Hartgen (1994) reoommended the following safety-related measures to increase ridership on the bus system In Greensboro: create environments on/near transit that provide the perception of safety; implement campa ign to educate the public about the safety of public transit; and, imp lem ent economic i nc entives and system performance leve ls that will entice people to experience the level of safety on transit firsthand. Wallace et al. (1999) conducted a study of the public 's perceived safety of transit following safety enhancements in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The safety improvements imple mented by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority included the following programs and equipment: comprehensive new driver and refresher training related to safety and security; formal review and evaluation of accidents and incidents; security cameras at the two transit centers; security l ighting at the two transit centers; security phones at the two transit centers; police mini-station at the primary downtown transit center; and, a security station located at the secondary downtown transit center and maintained by student security officers from a loca l university. The authors conducted a survey of transit riders following these improv ements to determine the visibility of each oomponent among the transit riding population. Several factors were revealed that might r e late to the perception of safety on city buses, including age, sex, and ridership patterns. With regard to age, approximately 45 percent of the riders surveyed were between the ages of 18 and 35, while only seven percent were over the age of 65 The authors found that each 10-year Increase in age was associated With a 12 percent lower probability of noticing the phones and security cameras that had been installed in the transit centers. Review

PAGE 21

-------10PERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----In general, women felt less safe than did men, but also were more likely to notice security precautions that were undertaken by the transit authority, specifically increased lightin g. Thirty-th ree percent of female respondents reported taking note of the increased lighting in transit centers. Although not explicitly stated, the authors noted that income might be a factor in ridership patterns and even in perceptions of safety. Thirty-five percent of the respondents reported a household income of less than $15,000 and another 30 percent declared a household income between $15,000 and $30,000. Only 5 7 percent reported a household income of more than $75,000. The authors noted that the higher the income of respondents, the less likely they were to notice increased police, increased lighting, and security cameras. Those measures that were found to be most effective in promoting perceptions of safety were a stronger police presence and increased lighting. Emergency phones and video cameras also were cited as having a positive effect on feelings of safety. Further, the authors hypothesized that the more often passengers use transit, the higher the perception of transit safety. Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett (2000) provide information about how the physical environment at and near transit bus stops can impact the level of perceived and actual passenger safety. The authors discuss bus stop crime in los Angeles in terms of how the surrounding physical environment of the bus stop contributes to the transit crime rate. The concentration of bus stop crime in Los Angeles occurs at specific stops within a 13-square mile area of the city and the authors contend that there is a significant spatial concentration of crime within the downtown and in ner city region. Buses along these routes serve some of the poorest and most neglected, crime-ridden areas of the city, and it is the authors' assertion that this surrounding environment directly affects transit ridership and passengers' perception of personal safety while they wait for the bus. Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett (2000) claim that it is "astonishing" that bus stops within a small area along the same route could have such varying crime rates. While some stops seem immune to crime, others are consistently "hot spots" of criminal activity. The authors cite criminological research and their own observations as evidence that environmental attributes around the bus stop can play a vital role in the stop's safety and susceptibility to crime. The authors examined the physical and social environments of the 10 most dangerous bus stops In los Angeles In 1994 and 1995, which were determined from data obtained from transit police. Next, they conducted a survey among 212 riders waiting at the 10 bus stops and found that almost one-third of the respondents had been victims of crime on the bus or at the bus stop within the previous five years. In addition, one-half of those surveyed claimed to feel

PAGE 22

------OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----unsafe and "always on guard" at the btis Stop. 'i'J;E!se unsafe feelings were more prominent among women than among men. Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett's data indicate that most crimes occur in Isolated situations where there are numerous hiding places and escape paths for potential criminals, such as alleys and empty lots. Of the 10 bus stops that were studied, none were found to have any of the elements that would mark the bus stop as "defensible:" all were located in seedy and litter-filled commercial areas; the surrounding environment was derelict and forbidding; most stops were not visible from surrounding shops and lacked adequate lighting; many of the stops were next to empty lots and vacant, dilapidated buildings; and, the desolate settings lacked either formal or informal surveillance. Further, the authors found evidence to support criminologists' contention that specific land uses are more likely to generate, or at least allow, crime than others. These negative land uses surrounding the 10 bus stops include: bars and liquor stores located dose to eight of the 10 stops; che<:k-cashlng facilities and pawn shops were located near high-crime bus stops; and "hot sheet" motels and adult bookstores and theaters also were common. To understand how partirular features of the physical environment relate to bus stop crime the authors also studied 60 high-and low-crime bus stops in Downtown Los Angeles. They examined the urban-form characteristics of the surrounding area, the bus stop characteristics, and the street characteristics. Their analysis of these data led the authors to conclude that certain urban-form and bus stop characteristics seem compatible with crime. For example, crime rates were higher at bus stops in areas with alleys and mid-block. passages, near multi family housing, l iquor stores, check-cashing facilities, vacant buildings, and buildings marked by graffiti and litter. They determined that check-cashing establishments near bus stops have the strongest correlation with higher crime rates, followed by the presence of alleys. With regard to street characteristics, Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett found that intersections with on-street parking have higher crime rates and those with heavy vehicular traffic are associated with lower crime rates. Those factors that positively affect the rates of crime are good visibility from the surrounding establishments and the presence of bus shelters. The authors conclude that their data provide evidence that enVironmental attributes affect crime at bus stops and that it is the "microenvironments that matter." Litentture Review

PAGE 23

-----10PERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----The authors assert that, because bus stops are not permanently fixed, they may be moved up or down a street in accordance with passenger safety and the surrounding environment. Further, the general upkeep and cleanliness of the immediate public environment of the bus stop ind icates to transit passengers that "someone cares." Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett also suggest the retrofit of bus stops with shelters and lighting to make the passenger's wait more comfortable, less anxious, and safer. They also contend that transit agencies must recognize that bus stops are part of the overall transit system, and that agencies should focus their resources on the safety of their riders through the improv ement and maintenance of the bus stop environment. Transit Information and Martteting Tra nsit information and marketing represent two of the most fundamental means of "getting the word out" to the transit public However, they are also often two of the least successful areas involved in transit operations. The completion of a transit trip is dependent on a passenger having enough knowledge and information to know that the service exists, where the service travels, where and how to catch a bus, what time the bus arrives and departs, and where to disembark. Without any piece of this information, the trip may not be made or, if it is made, may be accompanied by anxiety and frustration on the part of the passenger. Therefore, it Is critical that transit passengers have access to easily available, up-to-date, and user-friendly transit information. This i nformation also needs to provide geographic information to passengers that will assist in orientation and illustrate how to make transfers or connections. In addition, transit information should be prepared in such a way as to be understood by customers from a wide variety of demographic, sodoeconomlc, and/or educational backgrounds. As the following discussion illustrates, the lack of user-friendly, reliable, and readily available transit information continues to pose a significant barrier to transit use in the United States. Everett et al. (1977) examined the effectiveness of transit pamphlets as a means of disseminating information about public transit systems. These authors acknowledge the importance of quality info rmat ion systems and recognize that transit info rmation "could certainly be one of the salient determinants of attracting riders to the system and/or increasing the effective use of the route network by existing riders." According to Everett et al. (1977), there has not been adequate study of what passengers perceive to be quality i nformation systems. They contend that studies have focused upon existing information systems or merely upon those that transit officials believe to be appropriate. The authors assert that passenger Insight is crucial to the improvement of

PAGE 24

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----information services, and cite previous studies as examples that have sought the consumer's opinion From 1964 to 1969, a telephone survey was conducted in Washington, D.C., r egarding transit information. The respondents were asked how they would navigate from one location to another; how they would obtain further information about transit within the city; and what typ e of bus information they would like that was not being provided at that time. The results of this survey led to new bus stop markers, bus route indicators, and timetable folders. Despite these imp rovements, survey respondents did not make fewer errors in trip planning or feel the need for less transit information following the additions. Furthermore, there was no noticeable effect on ridership. Everett et al. also described the results of a study completed by Liff ( 1971). This research is cited as another attempt to make transit improvements based upon public needs. Although this research also found that Imp rovements in information systems did not necessarily affect ridership, other information was gathered from this study that may assist transit professionals in designing transit information. As cited by Everett et al. (1977), Liff discovered that relatively equal numbers of people preferred to obta in their transit information via the tel ephon e, transit map, asking bus drivers or ticket agents, or asking friends/relatives. Very few people reported asking strangers on or near the bus for transit inform ation This study also reported consumer preferences for transit Information These results are listed below in rank order: inf ormation on what route to take; Information as to what station to disem bark; information about headways; location of stops; time of arrival at destination; and, Information on crowding in transit vehides. In addition, preferences related to transit information aids were found to be the following, in ran k order: electronic route finder at transit station; telephone information; transit information sign; bus drivers; information booths; pocket schedules; LitemureReview

PAGE 25

----...,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e----- computer i nformation at home; and, folding transit map. It is notable that, although the folding transit map was the least preferred infonnation aid, it is the one most commonly used. The fina l study dted by the authors was based upon information obtained through an Urban Mass Transit Association (UMTA) study (1969) in several areas of Mexico, Canada, the United States, and Europe. The preferred information aids reported in this study, in rank order, were the following : pocket schedule; telephone information; bus stop informa t ion ; other people at the bus stop; fold-out map; electronic route finder; bus driver; and, sign on the front of the bus. The focus of the article by Everett et al. (1977) is those attributes of information aids that would serve to increase the accuracy of transit trip planning and trip-making. The authors are specifically concerned with route and system schedules and maps that are distributed to passengers by transit authorities. The authors found there to be considerable variability in the effectiveness of printed schedule information both in terms of an Individual's trip-making ability and the pamphlet's ease of use and adequacy, which may therefore affect the likelihood of a consumer to make a trip via transit. A high degree of uncertainty or unpredictability in planning a transit trip also was imp lied through a lab experiment conducted by Everett et al. (1977). The subjects in the study were asked to plan a trip using pamphlets from various transit systems. The overall inability of the group to answer basic questions led the authors to conclude that the uncertainty Involved in trip planning may serve as an important deterrent to the utilization of mass transit systems. The authors found that neither previous bus-rid ing experience nor the past use of route information was related to an individual 's performance in the trip-making experiment. The infonnation found to be most effective were single-route pamphlets, produced in two colors, with features such as bus stops clearly designated. The authors contend that such a study should be replicated in a field setting for comparative purposes and in order to draw further conclusions regarding the efficacy of pamphlets in trip planning. UberatureRevlew

PAGE 26

----i0PERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMEN TS TO TRANSIT USE-----Abdei-Aty et a l. (1996) present the results of a study designed to determ ine the propensity of commuters to utilize public transit In Santa ,Cii3ri3 and Sacramento Counties In northern .. < The conducted a telephone survey to determine users' levels of with the transit system and with the information that was available. Non-transit users were questioned about their familiarity with transit, what type s of Information they would need to use transit, and their likelihood to do so. Of the live percent of respondents who used transit at least once in the two weeks prior to the survey, 25 pecceot did so because a car was not available every day, and 15 percent used transit because they wanted to save money. Appro ximately 72 percent of the transit users surveyed reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with the transit information. W1th regard to specific items 22 percent of surveyed transit users considered transit route maps as the most important, and 16 percent ranked information about waiting times the most important of Informa tion items. Those factors considered least among users were fare walking time to transit stop, and seat availability. Among surveyed non-transit users, approximately 41 percent in dicated that the frequency of transit service was one of the most important information items. Waiting times at transit stops, transit route maps, and operating hours were considered important, as well. A small percentage decl ared walking time to transit stops, park-and-ride, and seat availability to be Important elements of Information. It is worth noting that 38 percent of non-transit users surveyed indicated that they might consider using tran s i t if more information was available to them, and almost one-half stated that they were extremely likely to use transit if this condition was met. Those socioeconomic characteristits affecting the propensity to use transit, as Identified by Abdei-Aty et a l. (1996), were found to be the following: women were found to be less likely to use transit, possibly because of safety concerns; those over 70 years of age were more like l y to use trans i t if Information was available; automobile owners were less likely to use transit; and those with lower incomes were more like ly to use transit than those with high incomes. Furthermore, the association between income and mode choice was found to be statistically significant. Approximately 53 percent of the respondents In this survey earned annual Incomes of less than $30,000, and 25 percent had incomes between $30,000 and $50,000.

PAGE 27

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----Abdei-Aty et al. (1996) also determined that those commuters who do not use transit but already receive traffic reports are among those most likel y to utilize transit information when it is available, thereby potentially increasing their transit use. Despite these findings, the authors assert that their study was not designed to determine the effects of an integrated system that provided both transit and traffic information. However, they contend that "it would not be un realist ic in cases of substantial delays" for mo re drivers to obtain information on commute estimates and utilize the transit system. A ccording to Abdei-Aty and Jovan i s' (1995) research, there is a paucity of studies relating transit information systems to travel behavior and mode choice The effect of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) on public transit use is the topic of this article. Research was conducted in northern California to gather data about travel habits and public perceptions of transit. Transit users were asked to rank the three aspects of transit information that most needed improvement. Twenty-two percent of respondents chose transit route map changes and 16 percent selected informat ion on wait times. Those items least selected by the respondents were fare information, walking time to the transit stop, and seat availability. In the attempt to assess the likelihood of automobile driving commuters to utilize public transit when provided with the necessary informat ion, Abdei-Aty and Jovanis (1995) developed a model to measure these propensities. Their results show that travelers with longe r distances are less likely to consider public transportation as an option. Factors that were noted to increase the likelihood of commuters using transit were income (earning less than $30 000 annually); having one car in the household; and age (those under 20 years of age were more likely to consider using the transit system). It was found that drivers who already receive traffic information were likely to choose transit at least once per week, when given adequate transit information. Of the non-transit users who previously dec lared that they would use transit if adequate information was provided, approximately 49 percent ind icated they would choose transit when they were provided a hypothetical customized scenario. Based on their findings, Abdei-Aty and Jovanis (1995) contend that, if ITS were implemented to provide transit information, the number of commuters utilizing public transit could possibly be tripled. The following improvements were cited as having great potential in affecting commuter mode choice: electronic displays of actual bus and train arrival times; computeriZed maps and travel directions; and, real-time information on current delays and estimated travel times on alternate routes and competing modes.

PAGE 28

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:e----. . . .. . .. :. Southworth (1996) contends that, because of the diversity of transit users, the fonn of public transit information is just as Important as the content of transit information. The author reports that too frequently information systems are difficult to use and often ignore the special needs of non-English speakers, children, the elderly, those who are not familiar with the area, the illiterate, the vision-impaired, the hearing-impaired, and those who are disabled in some other way. Transit inform ation systems must be designed to accommodate the many groups who use transit if the benefits of the system are to be fully realized and if the public is to be adequately served. Due to varying levels of English proficiency and prose, document, and quantitative literacy, transit lnfonnation, In its typical format, may serve to overwhelm, rather than infonn, potential transit users. Southworth asserts that the information should be presented in a palatable way to minimal literacy levels and diverse language backgrounds These considerations led Southworth to promote the use of electronic methods of communication in transit information centers because computer systems are able to provide an individually tailored plan of travel based on the user's needs. The author recommends the following design guidelines to achieve a successful transit infonnation system: several levels of on-screen help for different skill levels; interactive systems that allow users to make specific requests; maps and aerial views denoting the organization of streets and paths; maps with recognizab le images of landmarks; sequentially arranged walk-through Images of routes with an overview of the environment; and, graphically-presented route information accompanied by written and spoken descriptions of the route. Whelan {1988) contends that automated vehicle location and control (AVLC) technology Is a superior method of schedule information to printed materials or other automated scheduling systems. This assertion is based on OC Transpo {Ottawa, Canada) customer perceptions of what constitutes good service and the timeliness and level of detail that automated vehicle locator information can provide in comparison to these other methods. Sased on the total calls to an automated telephone information system called Telerider, and a live telephone call center, Whelan detenmined that approximately 58 percent of callers to the Telerider system and 7 in 10 callers to the center were actually seeking "assurance" rather than hard schedule infonnation. Common perceptions of transit customers included: Uterature Review

PAGE 29

----0PERA110NAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E---- there are frequent changes in service; there are frequent bus delays and schedule changes; and, the information provided is superior to the predictions made at the time of schedule printing. Whelan states that these v iews indicate the level of confidence transit customers have regarding the Ottawa system When asked what type of information they would most like to see at a bus stop, transit users overwhelmingly responded that schedu l e information at the bus stop would be their preference This could be achieved through combining AVLC with Telidon (videotex) technology so that changes in service are updated as they are determined and are displayed immediate l y at the bus stops. Bakr and Robinson (1978) call for better application of the transit-marketing concept through the broadening of marketing ideas and the integrating of strategies in order to meet the needs of transit users. The authors contend that the success of a transit system is contingent upon adequate and appropriate bus stop signage. Further, assessing the public's preferences for information i s essential to creating effective signage. Accord ing to their survey, Bakr and Robinson ( 1978) determined the most important elements of bus sign Information to be the following: route number; hours of service; waiting time for the bus; route name and schedule; type of service; and, route map. In the analysis of the study results, a substantial relationship between commuter and trip characteristics and the importance of the various components of transit information was revealed. The authors speculate as to the value of customizing travel information, designing it to appeal to various groups who travel along particular routes or segments of routes. Bakr and Robinson do admit, however, that there i s a risk of "abridging uniformity" i f such custom i zed signage were Implemented, which may result in confusion on the part of the genera l transit riding pub lic. Those effects considered on the value of bus stop sign i nformation included commuters' education, ethnicity, sex, age, trip purpose, and transfer. L evel of education was shown to affect commuters' rated importance of trave l information. In general, there was a decline In the

PAGE 30

----OPERA DONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS T O TRANSIT Us;e----' ' { need for bus stop sign information with increased levels of education. The authors condude that it is like l y that the more educated commuter is l ess interested in sign information and turns to "more convenient sources" such as the telephone, direct Inquiry of bus operators, or fellow commuters. With regard to the effect of ethnicity on preferences for bus stop sign information, African Americans rated sign information of greater Importance, while American Indians rated it less important than any other group. In addition, African-Americans and Spanish-speaking Americans considered wai ting time information more important than information related to service hours. The level of Importance of different aspects of bus stop sign information was found to differ between the sexes. Route number, route name, type of service, hours of service, and route schedule information were all rated higher in importance among females than they were among males. According to the authors, "the value of sign information also increases with age." The purpose of the commuter's trip has a significant effect on the importance of bus stop sign information. The importance of sign information is highest among those who use the bus for shopping or for mult iple purposes. It Is lowest in importance for those who uti l ize the bus for school, followed by those who use it for social and recreational purposes. Information related to service hours typically was found to be more important to those who would need bus service in the evening or early morning hours. Transfers also seem to have an effect on the importance of bus stop sign information In th i s study, those who normally transferred buses during the ir trips consistently ranked the elements of bus stop sign information higher than those commuters who did not transfer. The authors, therefore, suggest that transfer points may require "special treatment" in sign des i gn. Through surveys o f rural public transportation managers, directors of area agencies on aging, and e l derly residents in the state of Iowa, Foster et al (1996) determined that there are several barriers that may prevent or restrict the rural elderly from using transit. Transit managers and agency directors cited information barriers as the most likely reason that the e lderly in rural areas do not take advantage of the t r ansit services that are available to them. A survey of the elderly resid ents In ru r a l Iowa confirmed this assumption, with almost one half claim ing to be unaware that there was a transit system available in their area. In addition to the lack of information, other elements of concern were discovered through the survey. A large proportion of the elders Indicated dissatisfaction with transit scheduling, booking, and ease of use. Forty-one percent stated that transit was limiting in that they may not necessarily be able to make desired trips at times when they would like to travel The

PAGE 31

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----advance reservation requirement was cited by 27 percent as a problem in using the system. Twenty-two percent also reported difficulty in boarding the transit vehicles. According to Foster et al. (1996), the rural elderly in Iowa may not use the available transit system because of the idea that the system is not intended for them or that others are more in need of the services. To test this hypothesis, the authors posited several trip-making scenarios to elderly transit users and non-users. Their answers revealed that most of those using transit disagreed that others were more in need of the system or that they would prefer to pay someone to drive them rather than use transit. The non-users were more likely to have no opinion on these topics, revealing more of a neutral attitude toward transit rather than the negative stance that is often presumed. A study described by Winterset al. (1991) examines how the provision of transit information affects the decision of ridesharing program participants' choice to use transit. This study was condu cted in the Richmond, Virginia, area to determine the effectiveness of providing public transit information to those registered with Ridefinders, the local ridesharing organization. The purpose of the study was to provide data that would complement information sources used by Ridefinders and the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC). The following data were gathered to assist in analyzing the market potential of Ridefinders transit information for the area served by the GRTC: 33 percent of Ridefinders' customers lived within the area served by GRTC; 19 percent of those who lived and worked in the service area worked in the central business district of Richmond; 57 percent of Ridefinders' customers worked in the downtown area; 25 percent of Ridefinders' customers who worked downtown used the bus for work trips; and, regardless of where they lived or worked, eight percent of Ridefinders' customers were already using the bus for work trips when they registered with Ridefinders. In addition, travel and demographic characteristics were compiled so that Rldefinders' customers and GRTC peak-time customers could be compared. The authors' analysis revealed that the two groups differed in several ways. First, the custo mers who were registered with Ridefinders were almost equally split between women and men. The GRTC had a larger percentage of female patrons (approximately 68 percent) than they did male patrons (approximately 33 percent). Ridefinders' customers also held more white-collar jobs than did GRTC peak-time customers, and they lived in households with higher incomes. Ridefinders' customers also had a higher degree of automobile ownership (87 percent versus 66 percent of GRTC patrons).

PAGE 32

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----With regard to determining the information that is most effective in encouraging Ridefinders' customers to utilize the transit services of the GRTC, the authors considered the following in their analysis: the GRTC phone number; a detailed route map for the nearest route; a general description of the nearest route; the name of the nearest route; travel t ime; frequency of service; and, schedule. However, Winterset al. (1991) concluded that the level of transit schedule information provided to Ridefinders' customers was insignificant in generating calls to GRTC or an increase In the use of GRTC's services. This conclusion resulted from the finding that only 10 percent of the respondents increased their perceived value rating between the GRTC phone number (the lowest rated piece of transit informa tion) and the name of the nearest route with time schedule (the highest rated). Furthermore, providing more detailed information to Rideflnders' customers on ride match lists was found to be unlikely to generate an increase i n calls to GRTC or use of its services. Rather, those factors that were found to affect the dedsion whether to use GRTC, in order of Importance, included: service availability; reasonable fare; courtesy of driver; comfort; and, other. It should be noted that the majority of those who cited service availability as the primary factor in dedsion-maklng lived In areas that were not served by GRTC at the time of the survey. Rnally, a study completed by Texas Transportation Institute and NuStats (1999) for the Transportation Research Board serves as a guidebook for those who are d es igning Information for the transit user. The guidebook includes, among other things, a compilation of principles for designing effective passenger information services. Rather than focusing on high-tech approaches to passenger information delivery systems, the guidebook is concerned With traditional transit information media (I.e., schedules, maps, and signage).

PAGE 33

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:e----In order to begin the process of creating adequate informat ion sources, the authors present three sequential steps of "how people navigate." Knowledge of this psycho log ical process can assist planners In developing the most effective method of information transmission for the transit user. This p rocess involves: orientation via land marks ; development of route knowledge to trave.l between those landmarks; and, a survey knowledge of the transit system. Transit information must be user-friendly and should convey the adequate elements of information that will assist the rider in successfully planning and completing a trip. According to the authors, these elements include geography, connections with other routes and systems, operations, and rules. Furthermore, Information should be available to the passenger at every stage of a trip. P re trip informat ion allows the rider to accurately p lan his or her rou tes and connections. The authors state that pre-trip informat ion should consist of the following : location of the nearest bus stop; routes that travel to the d es ired destination and transfer locat ions; fares; and, time of departure and approximate duration of the trip. In-transit information represents the second stage of information availability. While in the process of using transit, these data will assist the rider at each decision point during the trip. The authors suggest that the following in-transit information should be provided at various points during the trip: at departure point-identification of the correct bus to board; on the buHdent ification of the bus stops for transfers or disembarking; at transfer points-how to transfer to another route; the cost, time limits, and restrictions involved; and identification of the correct bus to board; and, at the destination-area geography (i .e., locat io n of the final destination in relation to the bus stop) and return trip information (e.g., departure times and changes in route numbers). Finally, supportive/confirming information should be provided to the transit user at any point during the trip when the rider may want to be reassured that he or she is progressing successfully to the desired destination. According to the authOfS, repeated information at points throughout the trip provides the rider with this confirmation.

PAGE 34

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E----' . .:_ . ; . Service Availability and Convenience The final areas addressed by this review are issues related to the availability and convenience of transit service. These areas include such considerations as system coverage, frequency of service, days and hours of service, wait times, and the need for transfers. When considering issues of availability and convenience, it is important to consider the two primary categories of transit ridership: "captive" riders (traditional customers) and "choice" users (potential customers) As discussed by Pratt et al. (2000), a person is considered to be a "captive" transit rider if she or he has few transportation alternatives other than public transit. When discussing the category of "captive" transit ri ders, i t is often assumed that these persons do no t have access to a personal automobile and, therefore, must use transit. These riders are contrasted with "choice" riders, peopl e who have a personal vehicle available and are able to make a dear choice between the automobile and transit. Changes to transit service may have the result of imp rov ing service for "captive" riders or serve to attract additional "choice" riders. The articles discussed below represent some of the most salient Issues related to the availability and convenience of transit service The role of wait times, comfort, and convenience as factors in mode choice are considered by Algers et al. (1975) for service in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the authors, most prev ious studies focused upon tim e-savings and estimates of time and cost elasticities. The roles of comfort and convenience In mode choice were con sidered important, but they wer e rarely incorporated as policy-or iented variables In economic mode ls. The authors also suggest that sociopsychologlcal studies have revealed that comfort and convenience do serve as determinants in decision making when travelers evaluate alternative means of travel. Citing Gustafson, Curd, and Golob (1971), Algers et al. (1975) discuss those factors that a re considered to be more Important than fares in determining mode choice in Stockholm: vehicle arriving when planned; hav ing a seat; no transfer trip required; calling w ithout delay; having shelters at pickup; less waiting time; and, choosing p icku p time. In an attempt to determ ine the perceived service quality (PSQ) of public transportation in Gothenburg, Sweden, 200 complaints and more than 200 reports of negative critical incidents (NCis) were analyzed by Friman e t al. (1998) The authors found that most complaints related Uteraturs Rniew

PAGE 35

----
PAGE 36

----OPERATIONA. L BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----drew a more favorable response. Also, when presented with the possibility of minivan service at half-hour headways with pick-up/discharge points within a block of the destination, approximately 50 percent declared they would utilize such a service. An in-home survey was conducted in the Atlanta area to determine if there were significant differences with regard to characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions about transit between users and non-users of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) (Byrd 1976). The issues of greatest concern revealed through the survey are presented as follows: more than 25 percent of non-use.-s claimed to be very likely or somewhat likely to use the transit system if service were "sufficiently improved;" 9 out of 10 non-users and 99 percent of users believed that MARTA was necessary or valuable to the city; non-users generally held a favorable view of the quality of service; transit was considered less convenient by non-users than by regular users; both transit users and non-users believed transit to be more convenient for shopping or personal business trips than for trips to work; despite a widely-publicized campaign prior to the survey, only 55 percent of non users knew the correct, reduced fare when asked; 45 percent either stated an incorrect fare or declined to answer; and users and non-users cited greater frequency of bus service as the most needed improvement, and bus shelters were second. Byrd (1976) contends that non-users may be attracted to transit if there was a positive change in the perception of convenience; however, there are limitations to this approach since 30 percent of non-users indicated that transit was very convenient or somewhat convenient in the in-home survey. Those improvements considered most significant in gaining new transit riders and raising the level of service to current patrons include: greater frequency of service; bus shelters; schedule reliability; and, schedule Information. Fielding et al. (1976) conducted six studies to examine the narure of public attitudes regarding transit. The studies focused on trip purpose, trip frequency, and demographic characteristics of the area. Fielding et al. (1976) recount their conclusions from these studies in summary form: cars are widely considered more satisfactory than public transit;

PAGE 37

----,OP ERAnONAL BARRIER S & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- mode choic e is determine d by reliability, time, cost, method of payment, and phys ical and psycho l og i cal comfort; those factors crucial to making transit more appealing to non users i nclude bette r transit a ccessib ility, more frequent scheduling, demand responsive rou ting, and lower cost; those factors c rucia l to making transit more appealing to users include mainta i n ing schedules, decreasing distances between o ri gins and ro u tes and routes and destinations, and red ucing trip-time expenditure; speed and punctuality are less important for nonwork trips than they are for work t ri ps; other conven i ences are Important fo r both; and, the importance o f transit attributes va ries accord i ng to the survey i nstrument used, geog r aphic location of the sample and existing public transportation use. Scheduling and fre q uency changes are some of the most common serv ice changes made by transit systems in order to improve effectiveness of service and increase ridership. Pratt (2000) in the Transit Coop erative Research Progr am (TCRP) Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook Project 8 -12, addresses the effects o f transit scheduling and frequency on transit ridership. The author examines the responses of riders to schedu l ing changes that have been applied to conventional fixed-route bus and rail service The scheduling changes a d dressed In the report I nclude frequency of serv ice changes, changes to hours of service the structure o f schedules, an d scheduling reliability. Transit systems commonly i nst itute su c h changes to service in order to decrease passenger tri p time and increase overall convenience of the transit serv ice, as well as passenger percept i on of serv i ce quality. In addition, schedule an d frequ e ncy changes may also i mp r ove passenge r comprehension of the system and make it easier for passengers to use transit. Also important are improving r elia b ility o f trans i t service and reducing wait times so that passengers experience less anxiety related to using transit. Pratt concludes that, u l timately, the result of sche dule and frequen c y changes that accomplish the above ment i oned objectives will be transit service that is attractive to potential users, thus i ncreasing ridership and reducing the amount of automobile travel. According to Pratt's conclus i ons, the highest pr i ority concerns that have been consistently expressed by transit ride r s relate to the dependab ility of service and the frequency of transit service in the midday and evening. As would be expected, the effect of d e pendability of transit service is particularly acute riders are much m o r e sensitive to unpredictab l e delays of service than to predictab l e delays. Ridership i s often negatively i mpacted when riders are uncertain about when and if the next s c heduled vehic.le will arrive Pratt a lso found that departure times that are easy to remember and schedules that are rea d ily available often result In Improved use r perceptions of wait times, especially i n areas with low or medium frequency transit service

PAGE 38

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----. . : ,, . Finally, Pratt also found that ridership is sensitive to frequency changes in areas that previously offered infrequent service (i.e. ; .. or ha.lfhourly) and in areas se.rving middle to upper-income groups. Again, frequency changes are also related to wait times in that, by increasing the frequency of service, wait times are reduced and transit service is viewed as more attractive by potential "choice" users. Robert Cervera (1997) addresses the issue of tracking regional accessibility, the ability to reach places across a region, as central to the goal of urban and transportation planners. According to Cervera, accessibility improvements should not be focused on the transportation system but on people places, and social activities because people engage In travel only to reach a destination, not for the sake of travel itself. Cervera {1997) conducted a study in the San Francisco Bay Area in which changes in regional accessibility to jobs between 1980 and 1990 were traced and used to determine whether these changes could assist in long -range transportation and land use planning. The author discovered that the area's more centralized neighborhoods were three to four times more accessible to jobs than those neighborhoods on the periphery. Also, despite increasing suburbanizatlon, disparities increased during the 1980s. The most job-accessible areas had the greatest gains in accessibility, and those neighborhoods that were already the least job accessible experienced the greatest losses. In addition, wealthier neighborhoods were generally more accessible to jobs for which their residents were qualified than were poorer areas. According to Cervera (1997), accounting for all variables, Income and race were strongly associated with accessibility. Cervera (1997) contends that utilizing accessibility as a performance measure, and keeping track of such data, will assist transportation planners in their tasks of making destinations easier to reach. LoukaitouSideris (1994) traces the development and dedine of downtown and inner-dty transit corridors, with particular attention to those within the City of Los Angeles. The author asserts that many central transit corridors within Los Angeles are "unfriendly to transit" due to the lack of pedestrians, landscaping, benches, and bus stops. However, despite these shortcomings, these areas are still the primary transit routes in the city. According to a survey conducted by the author, up to one-third of the respondents did not own a car and were, therefore, dependent upon transit, which served an "often hostile corridor environment." The majority of the respondents who did own cars stated that they would utilize transit if the system were more reliable, clean, and safe. Further, the car owners cited a more amiable environment surrounding the bus stops as an incentive to use transit.

PAGE 39

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Loukaitou-Sideris (1994) contends that, although transit agencies do attempt to increase their ridersh ip through such traditional means as lowering fares and imp rov ing frequency and reliability of service, transit officials must also consider the environment of waiting for a bus. They must attempt to make the streets "friendly" to pedestrians, thereby making those areas friendly to transit and transit users. The author concludes that the physical and economic retrofit of city transit corridors should be a priority for transit agencies in their attempts to attract and retain transit users. In a report prepared for the Transit Cooperative Research Program (Report 27}, Charles River Associates discusses the market share held by transit and examines the policies that have been found to affect transit use. Based on 1990 United States Census data, the authors assert that transit ridership leve ls are heavily dependent upon development densities and are, therefore, highest in urban centers with dense development. Further, the authors contend that transit ridersh ip is in fluenced by the following factors: le vels of travel-inducing activities; price and other characteristics of the service; availability and comparison of other transportation options; characteristics of the population served; and, other factors, such as variation in the weather and changes in public taste. Using both revealed and stated trans i t preferences, the authors cite several generalizations related to traveler behavior: travel times are relatively important; not all time savings are equal; travel prices do influence consumer choices; demand Is usually in elast ic with respect to price; and, aspects of "comfort" and "convenience" that are quantified usually prove to be very important. Although most mode choices are based primar ily on lifestyle choices, the authors contend that public policies greatly affect individual travelers' dedsions regarding transportation. The policies dted by the authors as being the most significant In mode choice Included transportation investment policies, transportation pricing policies, environmental policies, energy policies, tax policies, and land use policies. The authors conclude that, even with large improvements in service and public policies, transit most likely still will have a lower market share than private automobiles due to the perception of greater convenience and the low cost of automobiles. Further research should, therefore,

PAGE 40

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----. . . .. : ::. focus upon strategies that directly influence the attributes of private vehide travel and serve to make transit a more attractive transportation alternative (e.g., parking pricing). TCRP Report 55 (Urbitran Associates 199g) addresses the dramatic impact of suburban development on the transit industry in the United States. The report presents guidelines for improving suburban mobility utilizing public transit. With the expansion of suburban development in the United States, transit's market share declined from 6.4 percent in 1980 to 5.3 percent In 1990. Improving sub ur ban mobility is particularly challenging consid erin g that land use and settlement patterns are very different in suburban areas as compared to central cities: suburban environments contain multiple centers, lower densities, and multiple origin/destination pairs. Three waves of suburban development have occurred that, according to the authors, resulted in a dependence upon the private automobile rather than public transit in these areas. The first during the middle part of the 1900s, was the migration to the suburbs of middleand upper in come households in search of more living space. This was followed by the relocation of retail businesses to the suburbs positioning themselves closer to their clientele. The third wave of development was the decentralization of the job market from urban centers. While average suburban residential and employment densities are much lower now than in previous decades, trip origins and destinations are also farther apart, conbibuting to the convenience of the private automobile. The suburban environment now has multiple center areas and mul tipl e origin/destination pairs. According to the authors suburban development patterns have provided transit planners with the following challenges: extremely low densities; dispersed bip patterns; abundant free parking; and, inhospitable walking environments. In addition, buildings a re set farther back from roadways, reqUinng more deviations from primary routes. The authors also explain that, because suburban areas have several uses, travel peaks occur at different times throughout the day, thereby creating the necessity of different route patterns and configurations throughout the day. Coordination among various parties also becomes an issue because there are frequently several agencies involved in the provision of transit services in suburban areas. The attributes that conbibute to the dominance of the private automobile are an important consideration in transportation planning, and are a particular concern in the initial stages of developing suburban transit service. The authors have identified the following elements of Literature Review

PAGE 41

----10PERAnONAL BARRIERS & I MPEDIMENTS T O TRANSIT U s .E----consumer appea l that must be assessed when offering mobility alternatives to the private automo bile: directness and comparative travel time; comfort and serv i ce quality; scheduling for conv e n i ence (e.g., fl ex i bility minimized transferring, connectivity); pric ing, i ncluding overall cost and simplification of payments; and mari
PAGE 42

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----. : . . ,;. amenities, and proximity of destinations. Sidewalks were chosen because they affect transit attractiveness due to their importance as walking paths to access transit stops. The authors assert that roadways without curbs, shoulders, or sidewalks are the most hostile to pedestrians, and that few people will choose to travel by transit in these areas because of this fact. Conversely, wide sidewalks provide a level of comfort to transit patrons. The difficulty of reaching transit stops due to street crossings also affects the attractiveness of transit. The authors identify the following factors of street crossings that may be negative elements, and offer suggestions for their mitigation: Facility width wide fadlities require larger gaps in traffic because they take longer to cross; through-traffic speed high-speed traffic requires larger gaps than slower traffic to accommodate a pedestrian's crossing; turning traffic speed pedestrians may become confused in areas where free-flowing or multiple lanes are in use; and, type of tra ffic control device controls on all approaches to an intersection will assist pedestrians in making street crossings According to Evans et al. {1997), the least friendly element of street crossings for pedestrians is the location of transit stops along wide, free-flowing facilities that hav e no pedestrian crossing signals. The authors suggest transit stops that are located along low-speed facilities that are "easy-to-cross." With regard to transit amenities, the authors promote the construction of transit "superstops," where other activities besides waiting for a bus would occur. In-veh icle time and out-of-vehicle time are differentiated in planning models, and patrons tend to place greater disutility on outof-vehicle wait time. To combat this, the physical environment of the waiting area should include construction amenities such as concrete pads, benches or seats, shelter, and lighti ng. Service amenities define how the time Is actually spent and could include the presence of telephones, newspaper bins, and vending machines. The proximity of one's destination certainly affects the choice to use t ransit. Because the distance a bus iness is located from a transit stop tends to in fluence the rate of which its employees use transit, the authors conclude that it is logical to state that transit use at any particular stop is affected by the proximity of potential origins and destinations. With regard to the TFF, walking through parking lots to remote sites is the least desirable, and a cluster of activities near the stop (50-150 feet) Is most desirable.

PAGE 43

----
PAGE 44

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E-----. : The first service concept Rosenbloom (1998) discusses is faster or more direct transit for the traveler According to the author, transit systems must generally do one of the following to achieve this successfully: give priority to transit vehicles; significantly reduce the number of stops made by a transit vehicle; streamline the route; reduce boardi ng time; decrease overall travel time; or, reduce headways and increase frequ ency of service. Convenience is the next service concept the author presents as one of great importance for transit agencies. The author contends that those service ooncepts that make transit more convenient typically include changes to existing services, such as chan ges to fiXed-route scheduled services. However, these changes do not generally make non-transportation barriers, such as childcare needs, any more oonvenient for travelers. Transit oonvenience is typically increased in one of the following ways: method of easier payment for service is implemented; traditional service characteristics are changed to meet user needs; traditional services are adapted to changing situations; traditional services are brought closer to users; demand-responsive options are provided; or more alternatives for any given trip are provided to users. Making transit more affordable is another service concept that transit agencies must consider. Rosenbloom (1998) states that this can be achieved in two ways: directly reducing the cost of traditional services or i ndirectly reducing the oost of l ess traditional services. The final service concept that is ment ioned relates to making transit more feasible and practical. This concept addresses the basic problems that many people have with using transit. According to Rosenbloom (1998), the majority of these problems fall into the following categories: people cannot travel on transit because it does not support the other decisions they have made, such as r iding a bicycle; people cannot use transit because it does not serve their destination; and/or, people cannot use transit because they do not know enough (or anything) about how to use it. LiterBture Review

PAGE 45

----OPERATIONAL B ARRIE R S 8t IMPEDI MENTS TO TRANSIT U s ,e---The author states that the service concepts related to feasibility and p r acticality are often mutually supportive. For example, a park and-r i de facility can be made more attract i ve to a commuter by providing ch il dcare or concierge services on-site. Rosenbloom (1998) condu des that feasibility and p racticality o f transi t may be achi eved i n the foll owing ways: facilitating bicycle and par k -an d ride use; working w ith emp l oy e rs t o provide new transit services; address i ng non transportation barriers to trans i t use; providing information, education, and training on trans i t use; and, changing land use patterns so transit can or does serve more dest i nat i o ns. Rosenb l oom also discusses the implementat ion o f effective service conc epts an d the mark ets that w ill most l ikely experience an increase in the number of trips or trave l ers affected Those serv ices most li kely to result i n an increase in r i dership if offered i nclude: reverse commute services; services to emp l oyers; vanpools; route restructurin g ; feeder services; and, special event service. Those groups most li k e l y to take advantage of these servi ces and i ncreas e their transit use include: l ow i ncome workers; immigrants; Asians; Hispanics; Afr ic an-Americans; those with less than high schoo l education; peop l e age 17 to 29; women; work ers with some high school education; and, workers with high school educat i on. Those services that target non-workers or non work trips may affect the next greatest change i n ridership. Those services c o nsi d e r ed i n thi s g roup in c lude: service routes/community buses;

PAGE 46

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- far e incentives; and, travel training/t ransit f ami liarizati on. T hose groups most likely to be affected by these changes inc lude: people over age 65; people with limitations; school children; non work bipmakers ; and people with no household car Services such as comm unity buses and travel training have reached groups that are not co nsidered current tran s i t markets, su c h as children and the elderly. Considering their high l eve l of relia nce on tran s i t, Immigrants also may find these service o p t ions favorab l e for their non-work trips. Alth ough there are four times as many non work bips as there are work bips, riders woul d most likely not use them routinely and frequent l y, thereby resulting in less effects than are seen with commuter options. Rosenbloom (1998) states, however, that, because one in five Americans will be over the age of 65 within a few years, capturing a small percentage of the trips taken by elde rly passengers now may ensure their ridership for decades to come. The final service mncepts, and those with the smallest effect inc lude: express buses; light ra il; mmmuter rail; and, park -a nd-ride. Those groups most l ikely to be affected by these concepts are high-inmme workers highly educa ted workers, and men groups not traditionally considered as likely to use transit. These workers constitute no more than 25 perc ent of the labor foroe, and although they may comm ute, it is very unlik ely that they would depend upon transit e very day. Light rail and com muter rail have had sucoess in older, dense communities whe r e they have b een In use for deca des but the national effects are substantially smaller. Rosenbloom (1998) suggests that, i f these transit options were to be consi dered as new conce pts, their overall effects would be minimal. Fina ll y, Rosenbloom addresses concerns of equity and efficiency with regard to the implement ation of the suggested servioe mnoepts. The author asserts that the more equita bl e an outcome, the greater the overall benefit to society. Efficiency Is used here to refer to a measure of how well a transit system meets the goals it has establis hed with Its given amoun t

PAGE 47

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E----of resources. Public policy decisions must be weighed against many factors and these factors may sometimes conflict, potentially making something efficient and not equitable or e quitab le without being efficient. Rosenbloom suggests that when the goal of transportation p lanning is achieving equity as a measure of fairness, or condi tioning service on income or need, or the equality of input or output, those service concepts that are expensive, serve fewer people, and are targeted at higher income people would not be an equitable way of spending public money. Providing all transit users with the same lev el s of service or routing resources so that all gain the same benefit from the service may be considered equitable regardless of input. Ascribing to these definitions, service concepts such as park-and-ride lots and new rail system s may not be seen as being equitable. In contrast, other views on equity may lead to different conclusions. Some may consider spending public money on services such as rail systems and park-and-ride lots equitable if they believe that hi gher -in come users pay more taxes and fees that support public transit than do low in come users. Rosenbloom (1998) cautions that these views remain sensitive to reported ridership and market effects, and various concepts may demonstrate different effects In different communities. Further, the author contends that, while equity cannot be the only issue in determining public spending, it does appear that, in consideration of ridership patterns and limited funding, there are particular service concepts that will likely have a greater overall societal effect than others. These beneficial services include: reverse commute; services targeted to employers; route restructuring; service routes; fare incentives; and, travel training. Voters and policymakers do not typically view transit ridership as the overall goal of a system, but as a measure of attaining some other goal such as reduced traffic congestion, in creased access to jobs for low -income workers, decreased environmental pollution, or increased mobility for the elderly or disabled. In general, those service concepts consiclered to provide the greatest overall societal benefit in terms of equity and efficiency include: reverse commute services; services to specific employers and universities; vanpool incentives; route restructuring; and, LlterlltUt'e Review

PAGE 48

-----
PAGE 49

------
PAGE 50

-----ber One Lltentture Reriew

PAGE 51

this page IS blank

PAGE 52

----,OPERATIONAL BARR I E RS & IMPE D I M E NTS TO TRANSIT Us :e-----Chapter Two: Florida Transit Customer satisfaction Chapter Two presents the resul ts of an analysi s o f onboard passenger survey data collected from riders In nine of Florida's transit systems. The purpose of this analysis is to examine potential barriers i dent ified by current transit users In Florida. These data were collected and analyzed as part of the Nat ional Center for Transit Research research program project enti tl ed, OJstomer S atisfaction Index for Florida Transi t Properties. The analysis r eported in this section ref ers specifically to customer sat isfact ion inf ormation offered by c u rrent users of transit In Florida. These data will provide some insight i nto ltle aspects of Florida transit systems that are th e least satisfying for current users. Tr11n slt Custom e r Siltisfction Index As desaibed previously the data presented in this chapter are drawn from the NCTR research project Customer Satisfaction Index for Transit Properties. The objectives of the Transi t Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) project were to provide: a systematic evaluation of each participating transit authority's customer satisfaction; Insight i nto which factors drive customer satisfaction; a comparison of customer satisfaction data from each system with data from other Florida tra n s i t systems and other s ystems in the n at i o n, whiCh will enha nce understanding of each system's relative performance; and, recommendations for how to Increase customer satisfaction. S elected Systems For this study on-board survey customer satisfaction data that had been collected recently for nine F lorida transit properties were analyzed. The nine transit properties included in the analysis were the following: 5vstem Location Qf Total Retl.imed MCAT Bradenton 1994 736 MCAT Bradenton 1998 655 JTA J acksonville 1999 4,733 City Transit Key West 1999 200 PaimTran West Palm Beach 1999 3,090 SCAT Sarasota 1999 1,250 SCAT (Brevard) COcoa 1999 422 C1tllpbu 11M> Tnnsltllklu-

PAGE 53

---OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----VOTRAN RTS TALTRAN Daytona Beach Gainesville Tallahassee Handling of the Ridership Frequency Response Bias 1999 1999 1999 1,972 2,107 1,446 In Technical Memorandum Number Two of the 1996 Transit CSI project, a particular difficulty in sampling is described, where higher frequency riders are more likely to be surveyed in an on board surveying effort than low frequency riders. CUTR's analysis of the on-board representation problem yields a simple method for creating a rough estimate of the proper weighting for each response. The problem can be illustrated with the follow i ng example. Suppose bus ridership for a particular route has frequency of use character i stics as described in Table 2-1 below. If we assume equal trips per day for each category of use, the percentage of a ll system trips by each category of use can be calculated with the following formula: (Equation 1): % of trips by users in category I= (% of riders in category 1l (frequency of use by category ll I: ( (% of riders in category l) (frequency of use by category l)) for all/ For those who use the system once per week, the formula would yield the result from Equation 1: ((35 percent)* (1 day/week)) 1 ( .35*5+.1*4+.1*3+.1*2+.35*1) = (.35/3) = 11.7% Application of the fonnula to each category yields the results in the right hand column of Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1 Rel ationsh i p of R ider Use Frequency to Percentage of Trips Taken Frequency of Use Percentage of R iders Percentage of Trips 5/week 35% 58% 4 / week 3/week 2/week 1 / week 10% 10% 10% 35% 13% 10% 7% 12% Any sampling plan that d i stributes surveys randomly to riders on a bus (or people waiting for a bus) will necessarily resu l t in survey returns that are proportional to the trips taken by each

PAGE 54

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e----. . . . category of rider, rather than to the percentage of the overall system ridership. In this admittedly extreme example, it is clear that the ridership would not be properly represented. To minimize this problem, ClJTR utilized a weighting scheme based on the respondents' self assessment of frequency of bus ridership. Respondents were asked to note on which of the last seven days (Monday through Sunday) they had ridden the bus. Using the answers to these questions, CUTR determined the probability that each frequency category would have been surveyed and, from that probability and the total number of responses for each category, estimated the distribution of riders in each frequency category. Weights were assigned by dividing the estimated number of riders by the actual percentage of responses for each frequency category. The exact formula for estimating the total distribution of weekday riders is then determined with the following formula: % of riders in category I= % of surveys returned by category I I Frequency of use by category I L((% of surveys returned by category I) I (Frequency of use by category I)) for all I These results were analyzed for the system as a whole only, since route-level results were not required for this project. Ridership Frequencies There are several different ways that ridership frequencies were recorded on these surveys. Since one of the initial steps in developing the Transit CSI was to account for different probabilities of sampling people who have different levels of frequency of use (see 1996 Transit CSI, Technical Memorandum No. 2}, these differences had to be resolved in order to proceed. The different recording methods arise from the response categories permitted for the question, "On average, how many days a week do you ride the bus?" The different response formats in the various surveys are: Onoe per month to 7 days per week TAL TRAN, Key West Transit, VOTRAN, JTA

PAGE 55

----
PAGE 56

----'0PERAnONA L BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Among these, it seeme d most logical to we.ight by system r i dersh ip, thus a ll owing l arger systems (such as JTA and Palmtran) to affect overall scores more than sma ll er systems which, in turn, is more representative of attitudes among all F l orida riders. Ridership data were drawn from CUTR's 1999 performance evalu a tion o f all Florida systems. Weighting by rid ership is a c complished by creating a "weight" for each survey response. The weig h t is calculated in the following manner, using JTA as an example: a p r oportion is calculated as the comb ined riders In all 10 s ystems d ivided by the riders in the JTA system, as drawn from NTD d ata This p r oportion is m u lti p li e d by the p r oportion of survey responses in the ITA system divided by the numbe r of s urvey respons e s in all 10 systems The table be l ow summa r i z es the wei g hts: T able 2-2 Ride r s hi p W e i g hts by Transit Syst e m Svs t em (NTD) we ight Year of s u rve:t Key West 200 334,980 0 98428262 1 1999 JTA 4 733 8,491 986 1 054395878 1998 PALMTRAN 3090 4,312 ,442 0.820154594 1999 MCAT 736 657,588 0 525057661 1 994 MCAT 655 638,709 0.5 7 3050202 1998 SCAT 1250 1 ,656,654 o.n8848046 1999 SCAT Breva r d 422 251,834 0.350697643 1999 RTS/GA i N 1 300 2,948,150 1 .3327 1 4609 1999 T ALTRAN 1446 3,925 743 1.595454805 1999 VO T RAN 1972 3,674,718 1. 09508553 1999 15, 804 26,892,804 Satisfacti o n Item s The differe nc e s in sat isfaction items on the surveys p r o vi d ed a poten t ially much more ser i ous impact on the process of deve l oping the index. The surveys do not contain an i d entica l set of questions, so It is v i tal to d i stinguish which questions appea r in which surveys and t he extent to which non-identica l s u rveys can be u sed to create the index Table 2 summarizes the questions asked on the surveys.

PAGE 57

Question SCAT satisfaction satisfaction X [@end days of X service hours of X service time of day the earliest buses run on weekdays time of day the latest buses run on weekdays time of day the earliest buses run on weekends time of day the latest buses run on weekends frequency of X service convenience X of routes your ability to get where you want to I go Table 2-3 On-Board Survey Questions 1999 Transit Customer Satisfaction Index On-Board Questionnaire Item Matrix TALTRAN JTA Palm Key VOTRAN RTS Tran West X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MCAT MCAT SCATBrev 94 98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 58

Question SCAT b uses on time )( How regularly buses arrive on time travel time on buses X cost of riding the X bus availability of bus route X lnformatlonlmaos usefulness of bus route X Info/maps Vehicle cleanliness & X comfort temperature inside the bus how clean bus stops & buses are availability of seats on the buses operator X courtesv safety on bus & X at bus stoos safety after getth1a off bus transferring bit X buses bus operator s ability to drive the bus I Table 2-3 (continued) On-Board Survey Questions 1999 Transit Customer Satisfaction Index On-Board Questionnaire Item Matrix TAL TRAN JTA Palm Key VOTRAN RTS Tran West )( X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )( X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MCAT MCAT SCA T Brev 94 98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 59

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Many of the differences between the surveys amount to the level of detail for the topic in question. For instance, where some surveys contain questions where the customer responds by indicating satisfaction with "days of service" and "hours of service," others require customers to rate their satisfaction with the time of day buses leave earliest and latest on weekdays and weekends, creating four separate ratings instead of two. Another example of this is the question rating 'vehicle cleanliness and comfort' compared to separate questions on temperature inside the bus, how clean buses and bus stops are, and availability of seats on buses. Other sources of differences are minor wording changes. So where one set of surveys has questions about "convenience of routes," others have questions rating the customers' satisfaction with "your ability to get where you want to go." Another example is "dependability of buses (on time)" versus "how regularly buses arrive on time." Rnally, some surveys have additional questions on similar topics. One set of surveys has a question about "safety on bus and at bus stops." Another set has both that question and one about "safety after getting off bus." A factor analysis, conducting parallel analyses between the systems using one type of survey format and the set of systems using the second type, indicates that the safety issues are treated much the same way in the two surveys, as they load on to factors with comfort and driver. The span of service iss ues, however, are not so simple. The span of service when presented as earliest/latest weekday/weekend, is its own factor. When span of service is hours of service and days of service, it loads together with frequency of service as a kind of "system scheduling" factor. In the first instance, when we have earliest/latest weekday/weekend, the frequency loads on with items on convenience of routes and time to make trip. The differences In how these factors are constructed indicate that the two are not directly comparable, and that any comparison between the different forms of measuring span of service using the index could be very misleading. Hence comparison on those items should be limited to comparisons with other systems that used the same question format.

PAGE 60

----OPERATI ONAL BARRIERS & IMPE DIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----.. :, . Results Data were analyzed related to 29 categories of customer satisfaction. Because o f some of the diffe r ences in the ways tha t questions were asked for different systems, as noted in the preceding tables, some of the categories may appear repetitive. For instance, in some surveys three separate safety q u estions were asked (waiting for bus, on bus, after getting off bus) and In other systems only one safety quest ion was asked (safety on bus and at stops) In order to handle these differences, fwe items (SQ31-35) are presented at t he bottom of the table that combine the results from different questions. The resu l ts from each satisfaction category were further segmen t e d into frequency o f ridership of respondent The three categories of ridership frequency exam ined w e re low rid ership (less than once pe r week), medium (one to three days per week), and high (four or more days per week). Tab l e 2 4 contains each of the satisfaction categories that wer e examined for the nine transit systems inclu d ed and the satisfact i on sca l e calcula ted for each Item

PAGE 61

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRAN SIT Us:E----Table 2 4 Transit Customer Satisfaction Categori es All Systems {JTA, MCAT, PalmTran, VOTRAN, TALTRAN, Key West, SCAT, SCAT Brevard, RTS) W e ighted b y Syst em Ridership { NTD) and R iders h i p F requency Ri d ersh i p I ndices Satisfac tio n Categories All L o w M e d ium High ( < 1 wee k) {1-3 dayslwk) (4+ days per w eek) Sa1 S atisfac t ion ( a t beginning) 3.84 4.15 3 .84 3 .68 Sa2 Sat i s f action {a t end) 4.02 4.05 4 0 7 3 .96 Sa3 Days o f S e rv\ce 4.11 4 0 8 4 .2 1 4. 0 7 SQ4 Hours o f S ervice 3 53 3 .54 3.6 5 3 42 sa5 F requenc y of Service 3 30 3 5 1 3.32 3.14 Sa6 Ability to g e t where you want t o g o 3 85 4 .0 3 3 .83 3 .76 sa7 Number of transfers 3 .50 3. 63 3.48 3 44 sa8 Ea se o f tran sfer 3 .68 3 .89 3 .69 3.54 Sa9 How regularly buses arrive on-time 3 .37 3 .75 3 37 3 .16 Sa1o Time t o make trip 3 55 3 7 3 3 .53 3. 43 Sa11 V a lu e of f are /cost 3 9 4 4 0 7 3 .9 7 3 82 Sa1 2 E ase t o o btain schedule 3.95 3 92 3.99 3. 9 6 SQ13 E ase t o u s e s c hedule 3. 9 8 4 0 0 4 .00 3 9 5 sa1 4 Time ear1iest bus leaves on we-ekdays 3 6 5 3 .72 3 69 3.58 Sa15 Ti me l atest bu s l eaves o n weeKdays 3 .0 2 3 .2 6 3 0 5 2.86 Sa16 T i me earlies t bvs leaves on weeke nds 3 2 9 3.60 3 .33 3 08 SQ 17 T im e l atest bus l eaves on wee k e nds 2 9 9 3 35 3 .00 2 .78 SQ18 Convenience o f route s 3 .89 3. 9 4 3 .95 3 .80 S 019 De p endabil ity of buses 3 .67 3. 7 4 3 73 3. 57 SQ20 C l ean b u s e s & stop 3 n 4 .02 3.80 3 .61 SQ21 C l e an l i ness/comfort 4 .16 4.15 4 26 4.09 SQ22 Sa f e t y a t bus s t o p 3 80 4.00 3 .82 3.68 sa2 3 Sa f e ty o n bus 4 .09 4 .2 3 4 .0 7 4.03 Sa24 Safety afte r g e tti ng off bu s 3.96 4 1 3 3 .94 3 .88 SQ25 Safety o n bus & at stops 4 .17 4 .10 4 27 4.17 SQ2 6 Temp e ratur e i n bus 3.85 4.19 3.84 3 65 SQ 27 Availa b ility of sea ts 3.9 2 4.22 3 .87 3.78 SQ 2 8 Driver s ability t o drive 4 .29 4 .42 4 .28 4 2 1 Sa2 9 D r i v e r oourtesy 4 2 3 4 32 4 .25 4 1 4 SQ3 1 Sa t is f act i o n {combined sa 1 & 2) 3. 9 2 4.10 3 9 4 3 .77 sa32 Conve n i en c e of rou t es {combi n e d Sa 6 & 1 8) 3 86 4 0 0 3 .88 3 77 SQ33 Dependabil i ty o f buses {c o m bi n e d Sa 9 & 19) 3. 46 3.7 5 3 .46 3.26 Sa34 C l ea n l i ne s s/com f o rt {combin e d SO 20 & 2 1 ) 3.89 4 .07 3 92 3 73 Sa35 Combined Sa f e ty ( SO 22 2 3 2 4 & 2 5) 4.02 4.12 4.04 3 .95

PAGE 62

----
PAGE 63

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us,e----Transit users who completed the on-board survey form were asked to rate each satisfaction item on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the lowest level of satisfaction and 5 representing the highest level of satisfaction. As illustrated in the above table, the level of satisfaction of Florida transit users appears to decrease the more often one uses transit. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that satisfaction ratings above 3.50 represent fairly high satisfaction, whereas those ratings that fall below this benchmark reflect areas in need of improvement. A review of overall results indicates that the lowest customer satisfaction ratings were reported for the latest weekend hours of service (2.99), latest weekday hours of service (3.02}, earliest weekend hours of service (3.29}, and the frequency of transit service (3.30). The overall dependability of transit service also received a low satisfaction rating of 3.46 (includes dependability of buses and how regularly buses arrive on time). Overall, the highest satisfaction ratings were reported for driver ability (4.29), driver courtesy (4.23), and days of service (4.11). As described in a previous section, the satisfaction results also were segmented by respondents' frequency of transit use. Three frequencies of transit use categories were deve loped: low frequency use (ride less than one day per week), medium frequency transit use (ride one to three days per week), and high frequency transit use (ride four or more days per week). Overall, high frequency users reported lower satisfaction with transit service than did infrequent riders and med ium f requency users. However, the results were strikingly similar in terms of those customer satisfaction items that received the highest and lowest satisfaction ratings by each rider group. The results from each rider group are summarized briefly below. Low Frequency Transit Users (Ride less than once per week) The low frequency transit user group includes those passengers who reported using transit less than one day per week. It is assumed that this group includes many persons who would not be considered "captive" riders. low frequency transit users reported lowest levels of satisfaction with the times that transit service ceases operation in the evening on both weekdays (3.26) and weekends (3.35). low satisfaction ratings also were reported for the frequency of transit service (3.51) and overall hou rs of transit service (3.54). low frequency transit users reported the highest level of customer satisfaction related to driver ability (4.42). These transit r iders also appear to be highly satisfied with driver courtesy (4.32) and availability of seats on the bus (4.22). Overall, low frequency transit users appear to be relatively satisfied with the transit service provided, reporting no satisfaction ratings lower than 3.26 (latest weekday hours). Medium Frequency Transit Users (Ride one to three days per week) Passengers who reported using transit one to three days per week are included in the medium frequency transit user group. These transit users reported lower rates of satisfaction overall Trnslt Rider S.tidaction

PAGE 64

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----... . ... than did ltle low frequency riders; however, the categories receiving the three lowest ratings were Identical to those reported by the low frequency riders: latest weekend hours (3.00), . . : latest weekday hours (3.05), and frequency of transit service (3.32) Also rated low in terms of customer satisfaction were earliest weekend hours (3.33), ltle dependability of buses (3 46), and the number of transfers required to complete a trip (3.48). As with the low frequency riders, driver ability received the highest satisfaction rating (4.28) from medi um frequency users. This group of transit use.rs also rated driver courtesy (4.25) and days of service (4.21) quite highly. Finally, safety also received a high satisfaction rat ing (4.04) among these riders. This finding Is particularly notable given that non-users of transit often cite safety at bus stops and on buses a barrier to transit use. High Frequency Transit Users (Ride four or more days per week) The final rider group examined is the group composed of high frequency transit users. 1he respondents in this group reported using transit four or more days per week. These riders are lik e ly relying on transit for much of their personal travel, such as work trips, trips to the doctor or grocery, and{or recreational trips. This group of respondents reported the lowest levels of customer satisfaction, with ratings that ranged from 2.78 (latest weekend hours) to 4.21 (driver ability). This would be expected among transit users who rely on the service to meet their mobility needs and, thus, have the most experience using transit service. However, it must also be noted that these transit users reported the highest and lowest satisfaction ratings for the same categories as these reported by low and medium frequency transit users. High frequency transit riders reported low satisfaction with latest hours of operation on weekend evenings (2.78) and weekday evenings (2.86). Similarly, these transit users also reported dissatisfaction with the earliest hours of service on weekends (3.08). Dissatisfaction also was expressed in relat ion to service availability and reliability. High frequency transit users rated the frequency of transit service low (3.14) and also expressed dissatisfaction with the overall dependability of transit service (3.26). H i gh frequency transit users also reported low satisfaction with the hours of transit service (3.42), the time required to complete a transit trip (3.43), the numbe r of transfers required (3.44), and the ease of transferring (3.54). The highest satisfaction rating reported by high frequency transit users as for driver abilities (4.21). Riders with experience using the transit system also rated driver courtesy very high (4.14). Finally, high frequency transit users also reported high satisfaction with days of transit service (4.07) and overall transit system safety (4.02) Transit Rider SSiisfactlon

PAGE 65

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e----Conclusion This examination of current transit user satisfaction Illustrates, in general, a fairly high level of satisfaction among current transit users in Florida. Overall, low frequency transit users, those who reported using transit less than one day per week, expressed the highest satisfaction ratings. Conversely, those respondents who reported using transit four or more times per week expressed the lowest level of satisfaction with transit service. This may be due to their greater experience with transit use and a higher level of dependency on transit to accomplish their mobility needs. The ana lysis demonstrates a high level of consistency between the overall ratings and ratings by user group. Dr i ver ability and driver courtesy received high satisfaction rat i ngs by each rider group, as well in the overall ratings. Similarly, medium and high frequency transit users gave high satisfaction marks to days of service and overall system safety. Without exception, the three lowest rated satisfaction categories were latest weekend hours of service, l atest weekday hours of service, and frequency of transit service Medium and high frequency transit users a l so reported dissatisfaction with the dependability of transi t service

PAGE 66

-----
PAGE 67

------
PAGE 68

BARRIER S & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Chapter Three: Transit Information & Marketing: Efficacy Field Test The availability and clarity of p rinted transit system Information, sudl as bus schedules and route maps, play a paramount role In the decision to use public transit. Existing and potential tran sit passengers must often rely solely on such printed transit infonnation mate rials to plan and comp l ete trips in and through unfamilia r areas. Whil e the importance of thi s inf onnatlon i s widely recog n ized in the t ransit industry as a crit ical component of transit operations, transit lite r a tu re Indicates that exi.sting and potential transit passengers often may experien ce anx i ety re l ated to planning and completing a transit bip when using printed trans i t mater ia l s s uch as bus sdledu les and route maps. Studi es have Indicated that the highest information hu rdles for transit riders are encounte red during the "planning" phase of a transit trip. Tran sit agencies are dlallenged to develo p In formation that can be easily understood b y passengers of all sodoeconomic and demographic backgrounds. This Information must be written in a manner that conveys enough information for a potentia l passenger to accurately plan their bip without Inundating the reader with too much information that may confuse the planning process. As reported In Chapter One, uncertainty and/or unpredictability In planning a transit trip may pose a significant barr ier to t r ansit use. In order to evaluate the extent to which printed tra n sit information poses a barrier to transit use among current non -user s In Florida, CUTR conducte d a field test of the user friendliness and c larity of printed information {bu s schedules and route maps) developed by transit agencies throughout Florida This field test focused speci fica lly o n materials currently being used by Florida tra n sit properties in order to Identify strengths of existing transit mat e rial s, as well as opportunities to streng then the effectiveness of transit in fonn ation in the state The materials induded in the field test w ere presented to a sample of test subjects who were asked to plan specific transit bips using only the transit infonnation materials provided to them. The Intent of the bip planning task was to eva luate the effectiveness of printed transit materials when presented to potential passengers with li ttle to no transit experience, as well as to collect and analyze data related to the efficacy of particular design elements chosen for further evaluation in the study. This field test represented a preliminary, explora tory approadl to the subject of transit literacy Therefore, the primary focus was on the ability {or inability) of potential transit users t o plan transit bips u s ing available transit Informatio n materials. A secondary goal of the fi e l d tests was to evaluate a sample of design elements for their impact on the effectiveness of printed transit information. The methodology employed in this field test centered on the collection and analysis of both quantitativ e a nd qualitative data. However, parti c ular attention is focused on passenge r insight into the transit trlp planning experience by requiring field test participants to com plete trip p l anning activities as thoug h they w ere planning an actua l bip on fixed-route bus servic e and then gauging their responses to and im pressions of the trip planning

PAGE 69

-----
PAGE 70

----
PAGE 71

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----materials, and verbal explanation of the tasks, as well as an introduction to the transit information materials. In addition to the presentation of the trip planning tasks, verbal in structions introduced each participant to general elements of transit information materials Inc l uding the concepts of systemwide route maps, bus routes, and timetables. In add i tion, the origins and destinations were marked on the materials for partidpants who received extensive and complex transit systems such as Miami-Dade Transit or lYNX in Orlando. Each partidpant was presented two transit trip planning tasks: one simple trip and one complex trip. The presentations of trip p lann ing tasks were random ized by complexity and transit information mate rials. For the purpose of the present study, a simple transit trip is defined as a trip that could be completed on a single bus ro ute and a complex transit trip is one that requires the transfer from one bus route to a second bus route. The transit trip planning activities that were developed for the observational tests included information on the day of the week and the time of day of the intended transit trip. In addition, the instructions detailed the origin and the d estinat ion of the trip and the Intended arrival time An example of the instructions provided to participants for a simple transit trip follows: You are on the comer of Grant Stand Paper Dairy Rd on Sunday moming. You must get to the Downtown Bus Station by 8:30 AM. What Is the most direct route(s) to take In order to get there on time? Please note any required transfers. Assume that you are on time if you anive on or before the destination time. Please choose tf?e aniva/ time that is closest to vw required destination time and the ligedbus stop that is nearest to vour destination. The instructions provided for a complex transit trip are illu strated in the following example: You must get from University of Central Florida (UCF) to Apopka City Hall by 12:30 PM on Friday. What is the most direct route{s) to take in order to get there on time? Please note any required transfers. Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time. Please choose the anival time that is closest to vour required destination time
PAGE 72

-----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E-----or two of which were necessary to complete the assigned transit trip plan and three to six unnecessary bus route schedules. All transit trip origins and destinations were clearly marked points of interest on the systemwide bus route maps presented to participants or, in the cases of extensive transit systems, were depicted on the materials using adhesive dots. Participants were asked to locate their origin and destination as defined in the trip planning Instruction, determine the most direct bus route from the1r origin to their destination, the bus stop listed on the timetable closest to their origin and the best time to catch the origin bus in order to reach their destination by the intended time. Time points were used as bus stops in the assigned transit trip plans because the task of conceptualizing the location of an unlisted bus stop was considered to be too difficult for individuals with little to no transit experience. Participants also were instructed to choose the closest destination bus stop and dlsembarl
PAGE 73

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---completion of the second post-planning inte.rview, each participant also was asked to rate several aspects of bus service, based on their general fee lings and opinions about public bus service. Participants were asked to rate the following aspects of bus service: Convenience Comfort Dependability Personal Safety Transit Information Flexibility Availability Vehicle Safety Next, participants were asked about how the trip planning task may have impacted their confidence in terms of planning a trip on the public bus and whether or not partidpation in the observational test would result in a greater likelihood of using public bus service. A copy of the interview guide is included in Appendix C. Following the post-planning interview, each participant completed a post-test questionnaire that collected information pertaining to the participant's gender, age, ethnicity, personal income, education level, automobile ownership, and experience with public transit. These data were coded with the participant number for l ater analysis in connection to trip planning results. A copy of the demographics questionnaire is included in Appendix D. Data Analysis Each simple and complex trip planning task was scored according to the choices made by participants in relation to the following 10 data elements: Able to travel from origin to intended destination On-time arrival to destination Origin bus route Origin bus stop Origin time Transfer bus route (complex trip only) Transfer bus stop (complex trip only) Transfer t ime (complex trip only) Destination bus stop Destination time

PAGE 74

-----,OPERATIONAL BAR. RIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Use-----The quantitative assessment of participant responses to these data elements resulted in a composite score for each transit trip planning task attempted by parti cipants. A detailed . . . description of scoring methodology is provided in the Quantitative Results section of this chapter. Copies of the participant trip planning worksheet and score sheet are included in Appendix E. Statistical tests were applied to the quantitative data to determine the statistical significance of demog rap hic characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics and design elements on the final score associated with transit trip planning tasks The statistical analysis is discussed in greater detail in later sections of Chapter Four. In addition to the quantitative analysis presented for the transit trip planning data collected as part of the transit information and marketing field test, the results of the analysis of qualitative interview data collected from field test participants is also provided. These data were coded and analyzed according to the most salient themes emerging from participant responses to interview questions Ta ken together, the resu lts of the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the transit information and marketing fie ld test provide tre me ndous insight into the effectiveness and user-friendliness of existing transit route and schedule i nformation materials. Transit InfrHTnatiDn & Hluktrtlng Fkld Test

PAGE 75

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----Results: Quantitative Analysis of Transit Trip Planning Ability As described previously, the transit trip planning portion of the field test was based upon a mixed model design, incorporating a "within subject" design element (each participant completed a simple session and a complex session with the randomiz ed presentation order of simple and complex trip planning tasks) with "between subject" elements. The between subject elements in cluded the materials used. There were 22 examples of transit information materials used for simple trip planning tasks and 20 examples of transit information materials used for complex trip planning tasks. Each information item also was categorized as varying on three dimensions of design elements: Alignment of timetables 1 Horizontal (see Figure 3-1) 2. Vert ical (see Figure 3-2) Route information presentation 1. Single routes with systemwide map (see Figure 3-3) 2. All-in-Qne Ride Guide (see Figure 3-4), and Transfer information presentation 1. Listed on map and on timetable (see Figu re 3-5) 2 Listed on map only, not on timetable (see Figure 3-6) 3. Not on map, listed on t imetable only (see Figure 3-7) 4. Not listed (see Figure 3-8) 5. Listed elsewhere (e.g., front of route schedule pamphlet) (see Figure 3-9) The materials used in the field test also were randomized, with a randomization matrix developed for each administration of the study so that no material was over sampled. There were three primary continuous dependent measures (total time to complete and two variations of a oomposite score), although whether participants completed the tasks or not also was used for preliminary analyses. Task difficulty also was treated as a dependent measure. Total time to complete (hereafter called TotTime) was available for all people who completed the task within the allotted time (8-minute maximum for simple trip planning tasks, 10 minutes for complex trip planning tasks). Scoring of the trip planning tasks was completed using two variations of a oomposite score scheme. Each simple transit trip planning task contained 7 scorable events and each complex session had 10 scorable events (described previously). (Please refer to the participant score sheet contained in Appendix E for a oomplete list of scorable events for both simple and complex transit trip planning sessions.) In soaring variation one (hereafter referred to as Transit InfrNm11tlon A Hllrlti"!! Field Test

PAGE 76

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---. ::_-:. : : Compos1a), each of the seven scorable events were valued as 3 points for a "yes" response or 0 points for a "no" response, with a maximum value of 21 possible (after adjustment for complex sessions, explained below). In the second scoring variation (hereafter referred to as Compos2a), weighting was added to the scoring scheme to provide more points for the scorable events determined to be most importan t to transit customers ability to travel frOm the origin to the destination and arriving at the destination on-time. Therefore, In the Compos2a scoring scheme, 5 of the 7 scorable events for simple trip planning sessions and 8 of the 10 scorable events in complex trip planning sessions were valued as 3 points for a yes response and 0 points for a "no" response, and the remaining 2 scorable events were valued at 5 points for a yes response or 0 points for a "no" response, w ith a maximum value of 25 possible points. Scores for complex trip planning sessions were adjusted (summated composite score mu ltiplied by 0.7 for Compos1a, 0.735 for Compos2a) in order to maintain a consistent scaling. Additionally, participants were asked to rat e the difficulty of each session (using a 7-point scale, with ratings of 1 = extremely easy, to 7 = extremely difficult). Additional information gathered for the study included participant ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service (convenience, comfort, dependability, personal safety, transit information, flexibility, availability, and vehicle safety), using a 5-point Likert-style scale (with ratings of 1 = low, to 5 = high). Participants also were asked to report whether they were familiar with the d t ies used in the materials presented, as well as whether partidpation in the exercise increased their confidence in planning a trip using public transportation and whether participation in the exerdse increased their likelihood of using public transportation. Observers also evaluated visual symptoms of frustration, annoyance, and nervousness as the participants completed the experimental sessions. F ina lly, o bservers also asked a series of open-ended questions following the completion of both sessions. Findings The findings section has been compartmentalized into sections, including pilot study data, fina l study comparisons, simple condition comparisons, and complex condition comparisons. There also is a brief section regarding the materials used in sessions that people either could not complete or decided to quit the task prior to completion (includes partidpants who quit only one trip planning task of the two tasks, as well a section dealing with individuals who quit both trip planning sessions). Descriptive statistics (number, mean, and standard deviations) and frequency data are p resented in each section (with additional tables containing relevant data located in appendices). Additionally, where appropriate, mean comparison analyses (t-test or analysis of variance [ANOVA]) have also been conducted, and reported Tf'llflslt lnfonmltktn & Marketing Field Test

PAGE 77

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----Figure 3-1 Horizontal Timetable Alignment Example ROUTE 17 WASHINOTON S T 6 HWY. 441 WASHINGTOH S T 6 S. rt AVf.. J O HNSON ST. & N. 35 AVE. SHERIDAN ST. P ARK & AIDE SHERIDAN ST. & N 1 4 AYE. FEDERAl HWY & TAn ST IJrf:ICTIV E DECEMBER 27, 199 1 WEE K D AY - I 15 lfi 0" n - ,. l z .. @] ... @ _[p,&J_ [!) ... ... ... ... J' JtO 1':1!1 "' " ""' h t-l !Il Ill 12]

PAGE 78

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USoE----' Figure 3 2 Vertical Timetable Alignment

PAGE 79

-----...,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E-----LIN K 44 Clarc ona/Zellwood Mand,t : S-.ii!Jt4-.lJ ,,(>("!((. ..... .. ,.. .. -.. -.. .... ....... -----( l-...,(at._c_ Figure 3 Single Route Presentation Example ,.,.._ .... ,., .,. ...... .,..,r-Y ... ... ........ ,.$ .... . ........ ... .. +; -_ .. ._ ..... ... LINK 44 Clarcona/Ze llwood . .... e: h tJl4,.1 .. ,. .. - ... w .. .. .. ... "' ,. '" ... '" ., -"" -'"' ow> '" t ,1l '" '" l:ll wo "' Y O "' U > ... ... -"' ,. "' wo "' ... .,, \.\1\!IIU "')llll .. t ,,., ..

PAGE 80

-----
PAGE 81

B ARRIE RS 8t IMPEDIME NTS TO TRANSIT USE---. -- ,/ Figure 3-S Tra n sfe r Informatio n Listed on M a p and on nmetable Example / .? .. I ... II ._ I SS 1 I ; (') Atlantic Blvd, WEEKDAY "' '"' ,., "" at < :<$ .,Do tr ! '"!' <-; .; ('i u-?:; .,.,.,. II:H 0:17 ... : ) .. tA u ' ... Nolo ,,. :tH l :)S 1:11 ... ... l:lt > H I : U 1 :11 4Mj ,,,. .. . ... ... ... 4 : U , ., $:..,: t:l6 M m '" '"" ,,.. l< U '" tJ' f:)6 '""' om .. 1 :1) ... t :ll ... M -,,,. I : U "' 10. t :ot u x ." , .. , n < ; ; S ATUAOAY t $ r ..... t ......, j : i $o. : ': s : j :. ... f ; 1 1 '> 1 -' 'It I t ... o.o c c r.; f .('; l < :.o '<:0 .. f0 Y> '*f :.. n O ..C { 0 :: It >O>t;> 4 11"M .. 11 $ : lt;OI tU t2 :1t h 1;$0 Ul(l 7 '1 0 i:11> ? ; U liS' 't00 l.'t& ''" 2,-. m '<14 .-. .,._.j '7:5\ 01 C:H .., .. : 0 $.'>:1 tiM 4 : 10 4:)t U .o f:U f
PAGE 82

-----OPERAUONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E----Figure 3-6 Transfer Information Listed on Map Only Example ROUTE 2 -VA Medcal Center to Town Cvntcr Mi11UBoc., Rilton via Congress SOUTHBOUND WEEKDAY LEGEND ---------.. o.---0 Effective: AprilS, 200 1 MarCh 5, 2001 For QUn e nt routa i n f ormatlon call 841-41105 or 930-4BUS. ] & .ll l .ei! 1 fj "' 0 @ @ @ "'" ,,.... ..... -.,.... 11\0A -..... "'"' -G;o.>. ..,. -"'" -.... ""' ""' 1311 ""' """ ..... .. ,. ""' ,.,... ""' "'" = """ "'" ..,, !OOA ...... 1\ilA ,.,, '"'' -"'" . ,... .. ,. 84.)A $0 9J(IA 9004 """ -9\0.t. -.101. 10()011 ""' .,,, .... '""" I OTOI. 10\Jl!A ""' """'' 10101\ -I(Mn, Ill'> IOiOA """' >O, 11lliOA """ """' H lo.\ llit:"o\ no noor ll1CA. """' '"''' 120'lP t:Uef> IU."f> 1\SO. ..... 121 01' US.."P """' '""' ll:b: f' ""'' 12.0lP ""' 1 111P' I :!OP I(OP """ '"'' '"" " ""' '"" ""' 2101' 240P ""' ,.,.. ""' ""' """ ""' "" ""' " ;nor "'' ""' ,.,.. "" ''" ""' ""' ,:t ''" '"' ""' .\lOP "" "'" 0 P "'"' ...,, "" ""' '"' .. '"" S IC!P "" .... ,.., 5 101' ,.,, "'' """ '"" ""' "'' ""' ..,, ..... := ''" -''" """ lOOP '11'* n:P "" ? l O P '"" ?O:P SOOP NORTHBOUND j li h h j D @> 0 -""" ""' ""' .... -""' "'" ., ... --""' '"" "'" .... '"" ""' -..... '"" "" '""' """ """ ..... ""' " ...... ...... -"" lMA ... ""' ""' "'"' .... .... !IIO o\ !l:lOA g-,oA ""' '"' ""' ..,. 100Co\ 102CI\ --"'" I O !Qo\ I(II).Vt 10&< ""' ""' 10115A """ 110M 11204 ...... '""" ,..,. \130A \1&011. .... """ ..... """' """" """' 110!4 """ t14SA ftl(p UJOP 12'.&0i' 113!.4 """ 12tSP '""' ICOP 12111' '""" """ """ "" "'" I $tiP """ 121'1:1P '"" '"" " -IIIS"P """ ,.,. :nor 2$;11' '"" ""' '"'" 30lP 32\W ,._. "" '"" $$!P 8mP ""' """ 3 1111' "" .c$:P "" ""' "'" ""' ""' =ocf' -.... .... .... "'"' .... '" """ '" -""" -"'" ""' .... = .... -''" ..,, .... -, .. ''" ""' .... .. """ ""' .... '"' ""' "'" = -""' ''" 8101' ..,.. ,, "" "'' ""' """ ""' .... """ "" ""'' s f ll 0 @ '"' ...... -615A ""' .... "'" """ ""' ,.,. '"" ..... .,,. -..... .... .... '"" ""' 10\GA '" "" 111SA "'' nu """ 121111' "'"" UUi f' tilXP ""' '"" ""' ..... ""' '" ,., .. 3!151 .... ...... "" "'' """ "'' ""' ""' "'"' ""' '"'' ""' ..... '"' .. .. mP ,.,. .ll "' @ " 6;$A """ ""' """ .., '""' ,.,. -""" "" .... .. .. = ... I O:U.. 10),01\ 1 1 U:)M 1 1 3SA 11SOA '"'"' IZJ:.I' 12 P t W 1:01' """ """ "" "'' "" '"" ... "' ,.. .. -"'' """ '"" ""' ''" .... ""' """ ""' -""" '"" ,... .... ;; 3 ;s j h @> ... "'' ..... ...... "" '"' ""' '"' '"" "" """ ..... ""' '"" "'"" ""'' """ "" ""' '""" "'"' I USA ,., .... '""' 12!1!iP 10!.1' '"" '"" '"" .,.,. '"' ""' "'' ""' """ .... '"" 73!P ""' "'" """ "" ""' ""' w.r S2:1' ,.,. .... .... '"' "" ''" '"" """ "'' 0 ..,. -'"" 710 1\ .. "" '""" 810>\ ""' -= ""' .... 10:01o. IOWA -"""' """' 1110 1\ """' ..... I:KOP "'"' '"' '""' ,,,. I lOP ,,. '" 2 1CP "' """ 3lOP .... '"" "'" 41CP ., .. -""' ""' .... .... -""' .. .. ""' -7 101' ""' "" Transit Infomultion & Harlrding FleJd Test

PAGE 83

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Figure 3 7 Transfer Information Listed on Timetable Only Example "b." i ndicatts 1 \ 'hee lcnai awmib l e serYke. S il'ldk ates Sat u r d ayseM c e Eastwood Meadows to Downtown I .,, J :, l ... ld6 );4.1 1:'Jt. J;d

PAGE 84

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE-----Figure 3 8 Transfer Information No! Listed or Timetable Example . Route 1!1 TARPON SPRINGS TO ST. PETERSBURG ST. P ETERSBURG TO TARPON SPRINGS Tav;n S:n"V$ oi$ US lSI, Cov!W)'$'"\M; M a'l, O!ljf!l M31. Pl n dllfJ ?l:e:oJ, $it Sdlod, uto!kf! CcwJril), 1'1.)1'.), U$ $1 $ MOOA)' fAIOot.Y -........ -"\" ""'.... -. :: l1ll .., "' -= "" .,. ... = "'" "" ) loll = .... "' "' "' -' "" "' .,, '* ::: "" "' .... '"" "" = ... "" ... ,. .. '" .. -"" t4'l Ill "' ... = ""' """ ,.., "" ;loe = ... "' "" .. Ill ... -; 0 o :=-:..:::.-..::---

PAGE 85

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E----Figure 3 Transfer Information Listed Elsewhere Example Dunbar .LJU..l. son Mall Your Ride Is Here. Call 275-8 726 NOW OFFERING UMITED SUNDAY SERVICE SERVICING: -oMichigan Links -o-Correll Corners -oHea lth Dept./ -oS.W. Reg ional Hightech centra l Hospital -oMonroe Station -oEdison Moll Downtown Wheelct'Oir accessible buses available on most routes. eon us for cletoils TRANSFERS at MONROE: Routes 20. 70,1 00, 140 TRANSfERS at VO-TECH Rout es 20 & 1 0 0 TRANSfERS at EDISON MALL: Rou tes 80, 11 0, 120, 130 & 140 Revised 7/21/00

PAGE 86

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Pilot Study Findings : ' : ... . .. . . . After preparation of all materials and design of the study, the transit information and marketing field test methodology was implemented using a small group of participants, including research assistants, interns, and transportation professionals. Seventeen individua ls participated in this pilot study. The primary intent of the pilot study was to test the research design and trip planning instruments so that necessary revisions could be imp le mented prior to the final study. The mean age of pilot study participants was 32.8 years, with 8 males and 9 females. Sixty-five percent of the participants were White, 18 percent were of Hispanic origin, while 6 percent reported being black/African-American. Fifty-three percent of the res pondents reported income levels of $51,000 to $74,000, with 24 percent reporting inoome levels of $31,000 to $50,000. The remaining participants reported income below $31,000. All participants of the pilot study reported having at least some college, with 35 percent reporting having a college degree, and 41 percent of participants reported post -graduate experience. Sixty-one percent of pilot study participants reported having one or two household vehicles, with 17 percent reporting no household vehicles, and 12 percent reporting 3 or more household vehicles. There were three trip planning sessions that were not structured properly and could not be oompleted as designed. Therefore, for the pilot study, data were gathered from 17 simple trip planning tasks, and from 16 oomplex trip planning tasks. As illustrated in Tab le 3-1, the average score for the simple transit trip planning tasks was 14.29 out of 21 total possible points, which equates to a "grade" of 68 percent using Compos1a. The scores using Compos2a also were quite low17.24 points out of 25 total possible points (6g percent out of a possible 100 percent). The average scores for the complex trip planning tasks were somewhat lower at 11.94 points out of 21 possible points (57 percent) using Composla and 14.10 points out of 25 total possible points (56 percent) using Compos2a. Although the average scores for the simple trip planning tasks were higher than scores for the complex trip planning tasks (14.29 points compared to 11.94 points using Compos1a, 17.24 points compared to 14 10 points using Compos2a), this difference was not statistically significant. A t-test was conducted for order of presentation, but it was not significant. P i lo t study participants were able to complete all of the simple sessions, but oompleted only 56 percent of the oomplex sessions. There was a significant difference in the total time to complete, (t(24) = 2.66, p < .05), as participants completed the simple sessions in an average of 5.32 minutes, and completed the complex sessions in an average of 7.44 minutes. Participants in the pilot study rated the trip planning tasks as fairly difficult with simple tasks rece iving the average difficulty rating of 4.12 out of 7 and oomplex tasks receiving an average d iffi culty rating of 5.56 out of 7. A t-test also was conducted for ratings of task difficulty and, as expected, participants rated the complex trip planning tasks (mean = 5.56) as more difficult than the simple trip

PAGE 87

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>!:----planning task (mean = 4 12), (t(31) = 2.34, p < .OS). Consistent with the difficulty ratings observers reported more visible signs of emotion, 16 for complex, 11 for simple, with frustration being the most frequently viewed emotion. (Table 3-11, presented in a later section, contains a summary of reported emotions in all phases of the study ) Table 3-1 Dependent Measures in Pilot Study: Comparison of Simple and Complex Tasks Measure Pilot -Simple Only Pilot -Complex Only N Mean St. Dev. N Mea n St. Dev. Compos 1a Score 17 14.29 8.18 16 1 1 94 7.34 Compos2a Score 17 17.24 9.85 16 14.10 8.87 TotTime (in mins.) 1 7 5.32 1.74 9 7.44 2 30 Task Difficulty Rating 17 4.12 1 79 16 5.56 1.75 . Note. Maxomum possoble score for Composla was 21, for Compos2a maximum was 25 Maximum TotTime for simple sessions was 8 minutes, Maximum TotTime for Complex sessions was 10 minutes. P l ease note that scores for participants in the pilot study are higher than those for partic ipa nts in the final study, suggesting that college students and transportation professionals can generally complete these types of tasks more readily (especially the simple trip planning tasks). However, even college students and transportation professionals had considerable difficulty in completing the complex t rip planning tasks. Additionally college students and transportat ion professionals rated the trip planning tasks as difficult, especially the complex trip planning tasks. This finding will be discussed in greater detail in a later section. Statistical tests (t-tests and ANOVAs) were conducted on pi lot study data to Identify possible re lationsh ips between the s co res received by participants, total time to complete the trip planning tasks, and perception of task difficulty and the design elements included in the study, as well as participant demographic characteristics. A t -test was conducted for timetable alignment, but was not statistically significant. A t-test also was conducted for bus route presentation, but there were no significant differences when comparing participants in both simple and complex sessions combined. However, when analyzing the data for pilot study participants i n the simple sessions only, participants scored higher when using route mater ials that consi sted of schedule information for single routes rather than those defined as All-in-Qne Ride Guides (all r outes and system map contained within a single booklet) (t (15) = 2 05, p < .06 when using Composla; t (15) = 2.07, p < .06 when using Compos2a) Participants also reported higher task difficulty for Ali-in-One Ride Guide materials (t (15) = 2.19, p < .OS). Tnmslt Infomuttftm A Harketing Field Test

PAGE 88

----0PERA110NAL BARRIERS &IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e----. . Table 3-2 contains the breakdown of dependent measu res by routes for the simple trip p l anning tasks and reveals that the average )Pf the individua l bus route presentation was 4 37 versus 5.43 for Ride Gui de materiais : Table 3-2 Dependent Measures in Pilot Study Simple Sessions: Comparison of Route Materials Measure Single Routes Ride Guides N Mean St.Dev. N Mean St.Dev. Compos1a Score 19 14.68 7.80 14 1 1.08 7.47 Compos2a Score 1 9 17 7 1 9.30 1 4 13.02 9.11 TotTime (in mins.) 16 5 .78 2 12 10 6 50 2 .27 Task Difficulty Rating 19 4.37 2 .11 14 5.43 1.40 A t-test compar ing gender differences was significant (t(31) = 2.08, p < .OS), with males scoring an average of 16.08 points and females scoring an average of 10.72 po i nts (usi n g Composla) Similar patterns and results were found us i ng Compos2a. Add i tiona ll y, a t test was conducted for tota l t ime to complete by gender, (t(24) = 3.94, p < 01), with males (mean = 7.28 minutes) taking longer to comp l ete the trip plann i ng tasks than females (mean = 5 .32 minutes). Females also rated the task as more difficult than did males (both sessions slmple sessions, and comp l ex sessions), although the various t tests were not sign i ficantly different. Table 3 3 contains the means for the va ri ous dependen t measures presented by gender This finding of a general gender difference also was found in the final study, a l though the finding was not as strongly supported via statistical inference testing. This finding also is consistent with research findings ind i cating that males process spatia l information differently than females. Information also was co ll ected related to the prevalence and content of requests for assi stance. Twenty four percent of participants requested assistance while wo r king with simple trip p l anning tasks, while 50 percent of participants requested assi stance while working with complex tasks Due to the small sample size of the pilot study, no ANOVAs were conducted for transfer infonmation presentation Transit Informatk>n & -tlng Field Test

PAGE 89

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:I!'---Table 3-3 Dependent Measures in Pilot Study: Comparison by Gender Measure Pilot, Both Sessions Pilot, Simple Only Pilot, Complex Only Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Mean Mean Mean Compos1a Score 16.08 (15) 1 0 72 (18) 16.50 (8) 12.33 (9) 15.60 ( 7) 9.10 ( 9 ) Compos2a Score 1 9.19 (15) 12 82 ( 1 8) 20.00 (9) 14.78 (9) 18 27 (7) 10.86 (9) TotTime (in mins. ) 4.6 2 (12) 7.29 (14) 4. 1 8 (8) 6.33 (9) 5 .50 (4) 9.00 (5) Task Difficulty 4 27 (15) 5.28 ( 18 ) 3 .38 (8 ) 4 .78 (9) 5.29 (7) 5.78 (9) Rating . Note: Number of vahd cases on pa..,nlt!eses Finally, pi lot study part i cipants completed ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service (convenience, comfort, personal safety, transit informat i on, flexibility, avai l ability, and vehicle safety). These ratings are reported in Table 3-4. The highest ratings (on a 5-point scale ) rece i ved were for vehicle safety (mean = 3.88) and personal safety (mean = 3.50} Consistent with the findings of the literature review presented in Chapter One, the lowest ratings received were for flexibility (mean = 2.12) and for convenience (mean = 2.35). Add i tionally, 41 percent of the partic i pants reported some fami liarity with the geographic areas covered in the transit i nformat ion materials that they worked with in the transit trip p l anning tasks. Thirty percent of respondents also reported greater confidence i n planning a future trip using public transportation, but on l y 1 2 percent reported an increased likelihood of actually using publ i c transportation a s a result o f their participation in the field test. Table 3-4 Specific Characteristics of Public Bus Service (Pilot Study) Characteristic Mean St. Dev. Convenience 2 .35 0.99 Comfort 3 .23 1.15 Personal Safety 3 .50 1 .27 Transit Information 2 76 0.97 Flex ibility 2 12 0 .99 Availability 2.47 1 .07 Vehicle Safety 3.88 1.22 . Note: N = 17; Rating of 1 =low, 5 = hl!lh; No ratings available for dependability

PAGE 90

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & lMPE,DIMENT.5 TO TRAN.SlT U.s;E-----. . . ,, : Pilot Study Discussion As described previously, the preliminary phase of the transit information and marketing field test was conducted with university students and transportation professionals. Of the 17 participants in the preliminary study, 13 were transportation professionals. As described previously, the primary focus of the pilot study was to test the research design and trip planning instruments so that necessary revisions could be made prior to the final study. However, the results from the preliminary phase study also provided insight into the usability of the transit information materials used In the transit information and marketing field test. As reported earlier, the average score received by partidpants in the pilot study was 14.3 (approximately 68 percent) us ing Compos1a, or 17.2 (approximately 69 percent) using Compos2a, for the simple trip planning tasks. Average scores for complex trip planning tasks were even lower-11.9 (approximately 57 percent) using Compos1a or 14.1 (approximately 56 percent) using Compos2a. These scores are particularly telling given that 76 percent of the pilot study participants were transportation professionals who had some familiarity with public transit and transit information materials. It is, therefore, of significant note that many of these individuals experienced difficulty when faced with the challenge of planning a transit trip using existing Florida transit information materials. Although some individuals in the pilot study received perfect scores, most participants did have some difficulty with one or both trip planning tasks presented to them. These findings are consistent with ratings of task difficulty received from the participants of the pilot study, where the simple trip planning tasks received an average difficulty rating of 4.12 and the complex tasks received an average difficulty rating of 5.56 on a 7-point scale. In addition to having very specific comments related to how the transit information materials could be improved, participants In the pilot study also exhibited many visible signs of emotion during the trip planning tasks and also made many comments related to their emotional reactions to the tasks presented to them. Most of the participants exhibited signs of anxiety and discomfort while completing the trip planning tasks. As described previously, the observers/interviewers reported many visible signs of emotion from the pilot study participants, especially frustration, irritation, and laughter. The visual cues reported by interv iewer/observers are consistent with the verbal expressions of emotions expressed by participants In relation to the transit trip planning tasks that they were asked to complete. When asked how they would feel if they were planning to take an actual bus trip using the materials presented in the field test, many partidpants commented that trying to use the materials made them feel very frustrated and lacking in confidence. Taken together, these findings suggested to the research team that the task of planning a transit trip using existing transit information materials would present a significant challenge to individuals with little to no transit experience. This hypothesis was supported by the findings from the final field test study. Those findings are presented in the following sections of Chapter Four. TriltrSit Information & Marketing FIMd Te.t

PAGE 91

----
PAGE 92

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----black/African American, 13 percent were of H i spanic origin, and 4 percent were of Asiatic o ri gin. In terms of persona l income, 18 of. participants reported personal incomes below \ I ' $15,000, 33 percent reported i ncomes lietween $ 15,001 and $30,000, 25 percent reported I ncomes between $30,001 and $50,000, and 25 percent reported incomes greater than $50,001 (due t o rounding, cumulative percentage exceeds 100 percent) The income information received from participan ts in the fina l study is i ncluded in Table 3-7 Participants a l so were asked to provide informat ion about their educational background; the response rates to this question are i ncluded In Table 3-8 One participant reported having less than a High School ed u cation, 32 percent reported having a High Schoo l diploma o r GED, 43 percent reported having some co llege 14 percent reported graduating from college, and 11 percent reported having post-g r aduate experience. Category White Table 3-6 Ethnicity Number 35 African-Amer ican/Black 10 H ispani c 7 Asian 2 Other 1 No Response 18 Table 3-7 Household Income Category N umber Be low $15,000 13 $15,001 to $30,000 24 $30,001 to $50,000 18 $50,001 to $75,000 9 More than $75,000 9 Percentage 63.3 18 3 12. 8 3 7 1.8 24 7 Percentage 1 7.8 32. 9 2 4. 7 12 3 12.3 Information a l so was collected from participants regarding the number of personal vehicles available for househo l d use As shown in Table 3-9, four percent of respondents reported having no vehicles i n the household, 30 percent reported having only one persona l vehicle, 40 percent reported having two vehicles I n the household, and 26 percent reported having three or Tntnslt Intorm.tion & Marlceting Field Test

PAGE 93

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----more veh ides in the household Forty percent of the respondents also reported that they had used public transportation within the last six months. Statistical Analvsis Table 3 Education Leve l Category Number Less than high School 1 HS D i ploma or GED 23 Some College 31 College Graduate 10 Post-Graduate 8 Percentage 1.4 31. 5 42. 5 13.7 11 0 TableJ. 9 H ousehold Persona l Vehides Number of Autos N umber Percentage 0 3 4 1 1 22 30.1 2 29 39.7 3 or more 19 26.0 As stated previously data were gathered from 73 simple transit trip planning sessions and from 72 complex transit trip plann ing sessions. The same two scoring variation schemes used to calcula t e compos ite scores for the p ilot study were used for the final study, wi t h Compos1a having 21 total possible po i nts and Compos2a with 25 total possible points A series of statistical tests (t-tests and ANOVA) were performed on the composite data collected from field test participants in order to determine significant differences in the resulting scores for each transi t trip planning task. The statistical t ests e xamine possible relationships between the composite sco res received by participants and the co mplexity and perception of difficulty o f the tasks presen t ed, the design elements Included in the materials, and the demographic characteristics of partidpants Overall the scores received by partidpants for the transit trip plannin g tasks completed were quite low. As shown in Table 3-10 the average score for the simple transit trip planning

PAGE 94

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US,E----: . . sessions (no transfer necessary) was 9.25 out of 21 possible points using the Composla scoring scheme and 10.70 out of 25 possible pc!lnts using the weighted scoring scheme, Compos2a. ' : : These scores represent average "grades" of 44 percent (Composla) and 43 percent (Compos2a). The average scores for complex transit trip planning sessions also were very low 7.03 out of 21 possible points for Composla (33 percent) and 7.95 out of 25 possible points for Compos2a (32 percent). These scores Illustrate the overall difficulty encountered by part icipants in the final study. Although the average scores for simple and complex trip planning tasks were somewhat low, there were 25 tasks out of the 145 total trip planning tasks that received perfect scores (100 percent). Since 18 of the 25 perfect scores are associated with simple transit trips (no transfer required), these results suggest that participants had less difficulty with simple trip planning tasks than with complex trip planning tasks. The data for those trip plans that received perfect scores were reviewed in order to identify any existing patterns with regard to the transit materials Involved. The 25 perfect scores were associated with 15 examples of transit information materials. Sixteen of the perfect scores were from transit information materials that consistently yielded high scores from participants. The transit agencies that produced these materials are Broward County Transit, Bay Town Trolley (simple only), Space Coast Area Transit (simple only), Sarasota COUnty Area Transit (express route only), SunTran, and leeTran (complex only). These materials contain minimal information, either because the transit system i s relatively small or because the trip was designed to be extremely direct without many distractions. In the successful cases of the complex trip designed for the leeTran system, for example, the materials clearly denoted the major points of interest that were used as the trip origin and destinat i on, as well as contained clearly marked transfer points. As was expected, the average scores for simple trip p lanning sessions were higher than scores for complex trip planning sessions (mean = 9.25 compared to 7.03 using Composla, mean = 10.70 compared to 7.95 using Compos2a), but this difference was not found to be statistically significant (although approaching significance, with p < .08). Sixty-six per cent of the participants were able to complete the simple transit trip planning sessions, and they completed 53 percent of the complex trip planning sessions. A ttest was conducted to determine whether the order In which participa nts received simple and complex trip planning tasks affected the re sulting scores. However, this statistical test did not return significant results for the effect of presentation order on scores, suggesting that whether a participant received a simple planning task or a complex planning task first did not seem to affect their final trip planning task scores There was a significant difference in the time necessary to complete the trip planning tasks, (t(84) = 2.17), as participants completed the simple sessions in an average of 5.20 minutes and completed the complex sessions in an average of 6. 74 minutes A t-test also was conducted for ratings of task difficulty, with participants reporting the complex task (average = 5.20 out of 7.00) as more difficult than the simple task (average = 4.80 out of 7.00), but this was not Tr.tnsit Inft>rmatlon & Marketing Field Test

PAGE 95

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----statistically significant. Table 3-10 presents the average scores and standard deviations for the dependent measures included in the final study (two scoring variations, total time to complete task, and perception of task difficulty}. There was a significant inverse correlation between ratings of task difficulty and composite score (r = -.430, p < .01, for both Composla and Compos2a}, indicating that participants who found the task difficult tended to perform more poorly. The correlations between TotTime and Composla and T otTime and Compos2a were not statistically s i gnificant. [Authors' Note: Correlations are l ocated in Table F 20, i n Appendix F.] Table 3-10 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison of Simple and Complex Tasks S i mple Planning Tasks Complex Planning Tasks Measure N Mean St.Dev. N Mean St.Dev. Compos1a Scoring 73 9 25 8.42 72 7.03 6 67 Compos2a Scoring 73 1 0.70 1 0.20 72 7 .95 7.97 TotTime (In mlns.) 48 5.20 1 86 38 6.74 2 .55 Task D ifficulty Rating 73 4.79 1.77 72 5.19 1 .69 Nolle: Maximum possible score for Composla -21 poonts, maxomum f Compos2a = 25 points, maximum TotTime for simple sessions = 8 mlnulles maximum TotTime for complex sessions = 10 minutes maximum Task Difficulty sc:ore ; 7. Consistent w ith the scoring trends for s i mple and complex transit trip planning tasks, there also was a noticeable trend in terms of increasing observed emotions with increased task complexity with observers/interviewers reporting SO instances of emotion in complex sessions (with frustration most frequent, N = 16}, and 37 instances of emotion i n simple sessions (with laughter most frequent, N = 14) The most f requent observations of emotion reported by observers/interviewers in both the s impl e and complex transit trip planning sessions were frustration (N=25} and laughter (N = 26) Observers reported a greater number of observed emotions In complex sessions, and also reported a greater proportion of frustration and irritation In the complex sessions. This finding is consi stent with the quantitative and qualitative data (discussed in a l ater section} that indicate that participants had greater d i fficulty when presented with a transit trip planning task that required a transfer from one bus to another I n order to reach their intended destination. Table 3-11 includes data on observed emotions from all phases of the study. Finally, partidpants required more assistance from observer/interviewers when completing complex trip planning tasks than during simple trip planning tasks, with 24 percent of participants requesting assi.stance during simple trip planning sessions and 50 percent of partidpants requesting assistance during complex sessions.

PAGE 96

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----.. ; ; .. ; : .. .. . Table 3-11 Observed Emotions in All Phases of Study Preliminary Preliminary Final F i n al Study Quit (One Quit (Both Observed Study Study Study (Complex) Session Sessions) Emotion (Simple) (Complex) (Simp le) Frequency Only) Frequency Frequency Fr'{ueney (17) 161 (73 (72) (12) Frustration 4 6 9 16 8 5 Irritation 2 3 4 9 4 0 Anger 0 0 0 1 0 0 I Distress 0 2 3 3 0 0 Laughter 4 3 1 4 12 1 3 Nervousness 1 2 7 9 0 3 Notes : 1. Number of sess1ons In parentheses. 2 Observers could report multiple observed emotions for eadt participant. As described previoUsly, the transit information and mar1
PAGE 97

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E-----Table 3 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison by Timetable Alignment Overall Study Simple planning Complex planning tasks tasks Measure Horizontal Vertica l Horizonta l Vertical Horizontal Vertical Compos1a 8.13 (108) 8 2 1 (37) Seorinq 8.28 (54) 1 2.00 (19) 7.97 (54) 4.20 (18) Compos2a 9.31 (108) 9.41 (37 ) Scoring 9.54 (54 ) 14.00 (19 ) 9.07 (54) 4 .57(18) TotTi me (In 6 02 (68) 5.35 ( 1 8) 5.29 (35) 4.98 ( 1 3) 6.80 (33 ) 6 .31 (5) mlns.) Task Difficulty 4.80 (108 ) 5 57 ( 37) 4.81 (54) 4 .95 (19) 4.85 (54 ) 6 22 (18) Rating . Note: Number of valid eases on parentheses A t test was conducted on data from only simple trip planning sessi o n s l ooking at timetable alignment and, although not statistically significant, did approach significance p < 1). Of particular note, average scores (using Composla and Compos2a) were greater for materials with horizontal alignment than those with vertical alignment ( 12.00 compared to 8 28, and 14.00 compared to 9.54, respectively) The t-tes t conducted for t i metable alignment using only data collected from complex trip planning tasks showed statistically significant differences This test Indicated that scores for complex trip planning tasks were hi gher for tasks associated with transit information materials with horizontally-aligned timetables than for those with vertically alig n ed timetables [Using scoring variation Composla (21 possible points) as the dependent measure, t (70) = 2.13, with Q < .05, w ith mean scores of 7 97 (for horizonta l alignment) and 4 20 (for vertical alignment).] An almost identica l pattern was found when using scoring variation Compos2a (25 possible points) as the dependent measure However, there were no mean differences when using Tot'Time or task difficulty as the dependent variable The next design e l ement that was evaluated statistically was route information presentation This design element had two variations: I ndiv i dual bus ro ute schedules with a system wide map and the Ali-in-One Ride Guide where all bus route schedules and systemwide map are i n cluded i n a single booklet. A t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of bus route information presentation on the dependent measures i ncluded i n the foeld test The results of the t-test showed a significant difference when total time to complete the trip planning task (Tot'Time) was u sed as the dependent measure (t {84) = 2 .20, p < 05). Th i s result Indicates that trip planning tasks that requ i red the use of an A li -in-One Ride Guide took longer to complete than did tasks using i ndividual bus route schedules. When a ll of the trip planning task data were r eviewed together, there were no significant differences when using Composla, Compos2a, or Task Difficulty as dependent measures, suggest i ng that the type of route i nformation presentation did not have statistically significant impacts on the scores received by partidpants or on participant ratings of task difficulty However, these data showed interesting trends when Tnmslt A HM*etlrtg F1eld Test

PAGE 98

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Use-----. .. . . . --,. .. .. examining simple bip planning tasks only and comple x bip plann ing tasks only. Means for these variables are provided In Table 3-13. Table 3-13 Dependent Measures In Final Study: Comparison by Route Information Pr esentatio n Overall Study Simple plonn lng Complex planning tuks t asks Measure Single Ride S ingle Ride Single Ride Routes Guides Routes Guides Routes Guides Compos1a 8.16(82) 8.12 (6 3 ) 9.07 (30) 9 .50 (30) 7 .19 (40) 6.83 (32} Compos2a 9.38 (82) 9.27 (63) 10.56 (30) 10.90 (30) 8.10 (40) 7.76 (3 2 ) Totnme 5.46 (53) 6.66 (33) 4 .59 (30) 8 .23 (18) 6.59 (2 3) 8.95 (15) Task Difficulty 4.83 (82) 5.21 (63) 4.65 (43) 5.0 0 (30) 5.05 (40) 5.38 (32} . Note. Number of valid ases In parentheses A t-test also was oooducted analyzing route p r esentation In sim ple bip planning sessions only and complex bip planning sessions only. There was a signifi cant difference in the simple bip planning sessions when Tomme was used as the dependent measure and route presentation was the independent variable, (t (46) = 3.26, p < .01). As with the statisti cal analysis of route presen tation using all of th e data collected from part icipants, the analysis of simple trip planning data Indicated that completing the simple trip planning tasks took longer using Ride Guides than si mple trip planning tasks using Individual bus route schedules. The t-test for route prese ntation in terms of complex trip planning sessions only was not statistically signi ficant. There were no significan t differences when using Compos1a, Compos2a, or Task Difficulty as dependent measures, again Ind icating that the form of route presentation used in the materials did not have statistically significant im pacts on the scores received by partldpants or on rating s of task diffirulty. However, although the r e were no statistica lly significant differences evident when using Composla and Compos2 a as dependent measures, interesting trends were o bserved in term s of the sco res receive d for simpl e a nd compl ex trip pl anning tasks in relation to type of route presentation. Specifically, there wa s a trend with higher score s received for trip planning tasks completed using Ride Guides for the s i mple trip planning tasks, while co mplex bip plannin g tasks completed using individual bus route schedules recei ved highe r scores The means for these variab les are included in Table 3-13 The final des ign element that was evaluated in the final study was the method of transfer information presentation. This element had five possib le variations: transfer Information listed o n map and on timetable, listed on map only, listed on t ime table only not listed anywhere, and listed elsewhere. An ANOVA procedure was used t o test for mean differences for the t ransfer Information independent variable. The only significant differences found ocrurred when

PAGE 99

-----
PAGE 100

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----;:: .. . ... : :: Statistical tests also were conducted to test for mean differences for the following independent demographic variables: gender, age, ethnicity, education level, personal income, and personal vehicles available for use. T-tests comparing gender differences were not significant; however, patterns of average results similar to those found in the pi lo t study were present. Similar to pilot study findings, men tended to score higher and take longer to complete the trip planning tasks (espedally in the complex p l anning tasks) than did women The means for scores, total time to complete tasks, and task d i fficulty, by gender, are located in T able 3-15. Table 3-15 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison by Gender -I Simple planning tasks Complex planning tasks Measure Male Female Male Female Mean Mean Mean Mean Compos1a Scoring 9 .57 (42) 9 .10 (30) 8 .25 (41) 5.60 ( 30) Compos2a Scoring 11.10 (42) 10.5 (30) 9.38 (41) 6 27 (30) TotTime (In mlns.) 5 .02 (25 ) 5 .40 (23) 7.33 (25) 5 .59(13) Task Difficulty Rating 4 .98 (42) 4.60 ( 30) 5 .12(41) 5 30 (30) . Note. Numbe r of valid cases'" parentheses Analys i s of Variance procedures used to test mean differences for age, ethnicity, education level, and personal income did not reveal stat is tically significant differences. However, Tab les 3-16 and 3 17 provide mean comparisons for the dependent measures, by I ncome level and education level No obvious trends are evident in tenms of scores total time to complete the tasks, or perception of task difficulty. Transit In-tkm & MMketlng Field Ten

PAGE 101

----OPERATIONA. L BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE-----T able 3-16 Depend ent M eas u res in Study: Compar i so n b y Income L eve l Per sona l I ncome S imple Planni n Task s Complex Plann inQ Tasks $15 k $30k-$50 k $75k $15k$30k -$50k. $75k or Meas u re >$15 k or >$15k 29,999 49,999 74,999 29,999 49,999 7 4 ,999 more more Compos1a 7.85 9.63 8.17 1 0 33 11.33 4 8 8.31 5 93 6.53 9 33 Scoring (13) (24) (18) (9) (9) (13) (24) (17) (9) (9) Compos2a 8.92 11 .21 9 .39 12.11 13.11 5 .54 9.34 6 .66 7 .51 10.62 Scoring (13) (24) (18) (9) (9) (13) (24) (17) (9) (9) TotTime 4 72 5.67 5 .33 4.69 5.47 5 .68 8.13 5.79 6.86 7.10 (in min s.) (11) (11) (14) (6) (6) (8) (11) (10) (3) (6) Task 4 .69 4 .83 4 .72 4.89 5.33 5 .31 4 .92 4.82 6.33 5.33 Difficulty (13) (24) (18) (9) (9) (13) (24) (17) (9) (9) Rati n g Note: Number o f va lid cases in pa rentheses. T a b l e 3 -17 Dependent Measures in Fina l Study: Compari so n by Ed u catio n Lev e l E d ucation level S impl e P lanning Tasks C omplex Pla nning Tasks M eas u re > H S H S Some College Post > H S HS Some College Post D i p loma C ollege G rad G rad Diploma College Grad Grad Compos1 a 1 8 8 87 8 .62 1 3 .80 6 00 10.5 5 .93 7.99 6.30 6.83 Scorin g (1) (23) (31} (10} (8) (1} (23) {3 1 ) (9l 18) Compos2a 22 10.09 9.97 16.40 6il75 11.03 10 7( 1 1 7/:J Scorlnq {1} {231 131) 110) 8) {1} (23 31) 9) TotTime ( i n 6 5 1 3 4.94 6i1; {;} 6 .30 8 30 mins.) (1} (17) (18} (13) (5) Task 3 4.87 4 .81 4.90 5.13 2 5 .09 5 .13 5.44 5 86 Difficulty (1) (23) (31) (10) (8) (1) (23) (31) (9) (8) Ra ting . Note: N u mber of v a lid cases 1n paren theses The Analysis of Variance procedure that was conducted for personal vehi cles availa b le for use was statistically s i gnificant. Using total time to complete the tri p planning tasks ( Totlime) as the dependent variable, there were mean differences between the l evels of personal vehicles, (F (3, 82) = 2 78, p < .05). Post hoc analyses revea led tha t partidpants with z ero vehicles available for use scored the lowest, but took the least time to complete the trip p l anning tasks. Using Composla and Compos2a as dependent measures the ANOV As were not statis t ically significant, b u t approached sig nifi canc e (p < 08 and p < 09, respectively). There also was a significant difference i n ratings of task difficulty, (F (3, 141) = 3.26, p < 05). This result Transit InfonNtlon IIHJirlteting Field Test

PAGE 102

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----indicates that participants who had zero personal vehicles available for use rated the trip planning tasks as much more difficult (6.50 out of 7) than the other participants. Means for the dependent measures by personal vehicles are provided in Table 3-18 Table 3-18 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison by Personal Vehicles Measure 0 Vehicles 1 Veh icle 2 Vehicles 3or More Vehicles Compos1a Scoring 2 .4 (6) 10.00 (44) 8.07 (57) 7.01 (38) Compos2a Scoring 2.47 (9) 11.48 (44) 9.26 (57) 8.04 (38) TotTime (in mins.) 2 83 (4) 6 30 (25) 5.94 (36) 5.85 (21) Task Difficulty Rating 6.50 (6) 4.57 (44) 4.89 (57) 5.39 (36) Note: Number of valid cases on parentheses Finally, participants completed ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service (convenience, comfort, personal safety, trans i t information, flexibility, availability, and vehicle safety), which are reported in Table 3-19. The participants were Instructed to rate the characteristics of public bus service based solely on their experience with public transit and /or genera l perceptions or opinions about public transportation. As indicated in Table 3-1 9 participants tended to rate characteristics of public bus service as average, with no mean scores below 3.11 on a 5-point scale. The highest ratings received were for vehicle safety (mean = 3.82) and dependability (mean = 3.62). The lowest ratings reported were for flexibility (mean = 3.11) and for transit information (mean = 3.38). Table 3-19 Specific Characteristics of Public Bus Service (Final Study) Characterls11c Valid Number Mean St. Dev. Convenience 73 3.53 1 .23 Comfort 73 3.44 1 0 1 Personal Safety 73 3.52 1 .11 Transit I nformat ion 72 3 .38 1 14 Flexibility 72 3.11 1.17 Availability 72 3 .5 1 1.21 Vehicle Safety 72 3.82 1.11 Dependability 47 3.62 1 28 Transit Inft>rtnMitm & MMkftlng Field Test

PAGE 103

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----Participants also were asked to indicate their degree of familiarity with the geographic areas presented to them with their trip planning tasks in order to identify whether prior knowledge of the geographic area would have a positive impact on ability to plan the transit trip. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported some familiarity with the cities for which the materials pertained, but scores did not appear to be positively impacted by that knowledg e Fifty-three percent of participants reported greater confidence in planning a future trip on public transit as a result of their participation in the transit information and marketing field test. However, only 37 percent of participants reported an increased likelih ood of actua lly using public transportation in the future. Participants Who Quit One or Both Tasks or Were Unable to Complete in Allotted lime Data collected from participants who quit either one or both of their t rip planning tasks, as well as those who were unable to complete the trip planning tasks within the allotted time (8 minutes for simple trip planning tasks and 10 minutes for comp lex trip planning tasks) also were examined for any observable trends. Visual perusal of the demographic data, as well as use of nonparametric data analyses (Chi Square Test of Independence), did not reveal significant differences between these different classifications of participants. However, the demographic data for these participants are included in Appendix F, Tables F-1 and F-31. There are no data regarding the dependent measures from participants who quit on e or both sessions. However, there are data for task difficulty and for ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service. Means for these variables are reported in Table 320. It does appear that participants who quit both sessions had lower ratings of the characteristics of bus service, and viewed the task as being slightly more difficult than those who completed the trip planning tasks.

PAGE 104

----IOPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----: . . :. . , : Table 3-20 Descriptive statistics for Participants Who Old Not Complete or Quit Sessions Did Not Complete D i d Not Complete Quit One Quit Both S i mple Session Complex Session Session Sessions Task Difficulty 5 88 (25) 6.00 (34) 6.20 (10) 6.42 (12) Convenience 3.60 (25) 3.26 (34 ) 3.80 (10) 2 33 (6) Comfort 3.24 (25 ) 3.38 (34} 3.40 (10) 1 33 (6) Dependability 3.70 (20) 3 .58 (24) 3 .67 (6) 2.50 (4) Personal safety 3.64 (25) 3 .50 (34) 3 5 (10) 1.83 (6) Transit Information 3.24 (25) 2.94 (34) 2 .56 (9) 1.83 (6} Flexibility 3.16 (25) 2.94 (34) 2.89 (9) 2.17 (6} Availability 3.56 (25) 3.42 (34) 3.56 (9} 2 33 (6) Vehicle Safety 3.80 (25) 3.8 1 (34) 3.89 (9) 2 .50 (6) . Note: Number of vahd eases m Parentheses. Included in Table 3-21 is a l ist of the materials used in the trip planning sessions with which participants were unable to successfully complete the trip planning task(s) in the allotted time. These data include participants from the pilot study, from both s i mple and complex sessions, as well as from sessions in which a participant gave up (in only one of their two sessions, as wel l as In both sessions). This section is designed to attempt to identify materials that consistently seemed to be difficu l t to complete. Table 3 21 reveals that the trip planning tasks associated with certain transit information materials were more difficult for participants to complete in the allotted time. These findings are consistent with CUTR's hypotheses related to materials that would be parti c ular l y challenging to participants, based on the assessment of each piece of transit information material that was required prior to designing the trip plans that were presented to participants. More detailed discussion of these findings are presented following the discussion of interview findings presented in the next section. Chapber Three Transit lnftHmiltion & MMiteb'ng Field Tut

PAGE 105

-----'0PERAnONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Table 3-21 Materials that Participants Were Unable to Suooessfully Complete Preliminary Simple Complex Quit One Quit Both Materi a ls Study Sess ion Session Session Sessions F requency Frequency F r equency Only Frequency (All Comolex) (All Simolel (All Comolexl Frequency BCT-2 1 0 2 0 0 BTT 1 0 2 0 1 S, 1 C ECT-7 0 1 2 1-S 0 HRT 0 2 1 1C 1 C JTA-1 1 2 2 1-S 1 C LMT 1 0 1 0 0 0 LNX-4 0 0 1 1 -C 0 LNX-14 1 3 2 1 -C 0 LTS 0 0 0 0 1 C MCT-13 1 1 1 0 0 MD T-4 1 1 1 0 0 PST 0 2 1 0 1 S RTS-13 0 2 2 0 1C SCAT 1 1 4 2-C 1S SCT-17 0 2 3 0 1-S SUN-12 0 1 1 0 0 TLT 0 1 3 2-C 0 VOT-17 0 4 2 1-S 0 VOT-19 0 1 3 1 -C 1-S . Notes: 1 Partocopants were able to complete all sessoons for 4 materoals. 2. 1n column 5 and 6 S = Simple and C = Complex. Tnmsit Infomwtkln 4 Harltotlng Field T-

PAGE 106

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:e-----: t Results: Qualitative Analysis of Parti cipa nt Interviews Following the completion of each transit trip planning task, participants also were Interviewed regarding their percept ion of the tasks and the transit inform ation materials presented as part of the transit information and marketing field test. The analysis of transit trip planning scores presented in the previous sect i on represented the results from 145 of the 160 attempted trip planning tasks, due to the remova l of data for those participants who quit one or both trip p l anning tasks and/or clearly did not attempt to oomplete the tasks presented. However, the qualitative data presented in this section represents the comments received from all field test trip planning tasks, regardless of whether the participants completed the tasks or quit prior to completion. The comments re ceived from participants provide insight into the potential difficulties encountered by non-users of transit when attempting to use printed transit information materials to plan trips on the public bus. In addition, participants provided feedback on the aspects and qualities of the materials that they found helpfu l and/or user friendly. Further, consideration of participant interview responses In concert with the quantitative findings presented in the previous section raises a number of intereSting queStions related to apparent disoonnects between participants' perceptions of ability and actual trip planning results. The t ri p planning score results presented in the previous section reveal that most of the field test participants found the transit trip p l anning tasks to be rather complex undertakings. The comments received from participants support this finding and suggest possible conclusions as to the aspects of transit trip planning that are most confusing for non use rs, as well as aspects of transit information materia l design that assist non-users in the complex task of p l anning a transit trip. The discussion of the participant interview comments is p r ovided in the following sections: Participant Reactions to Transit Trip Planning, Difficu l ties Encountered Using Transit Information Materials, and Perceptions of Useful Design Elements Partidpant Reactions to Transit Trip Planning Immediately following each transit trip planning task, participants were asked about how they would fee l if they were planning to take an actua l bus trip using the materials presented to them in the trip planning task The responses shared by partic ipa nts revealed a wide range of emotional and oognit iv e reactions to the trip planning task. It is important to note that the focus of the transit in format ion and marketing field test was on the non-user in order to evaluate the effectiveness of ex i sting printed transit information materials when used by Individuals with litt1e to no p r evious experience with public transportation to plan trips on public bus service. The responses received indicate that the transit trip planning experience is often a comp l ex one that may result in anxiety and frustration. Tntnsit lnformlltion A Milrlceting Field Test

PAGE 107

--
PAGE 108

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----At least 20 of the field test partidpants were so flustered by the transit trip planning experience that they indicated they would not even tTy to make the bus trip if they had to use only the transit information materials presented to them. The responses received from these participants suggest that the task of planning a transit trip using only the printed materials presented pose so great a challenge, that it discourages individuals from trying out public bus service. This finding may suggest a formidable obstacle to attracting potential customers to transit service. Positive Responses to Transit Trip Planning Although the majority of comments regarding how partidpants wou l d feel if they were using the transit information materials presented to them to plan an actua l trip on the public bus indicated unease and discomfort, many affirmative responses also were offered to observers/interviewers. Thirtysix percent of the comments received exhibit a moderate degree of confidence related to both using transit information materials to plan bus trips, as we.ll as using publ i c bus service. These participants expressed that they felt somewhat confident that they would be able to plan and comp l ete the transit trip. From the perspective of these partidpants, the transit trip planning tasks did not pose too great of a challenge for them and did not appear to cause unease in terms of the prospect of actually using public bus service. Although several of the participants who expressed confidence regarding transit trip p l anning also received h igh scores on one or both of their trip planning tasks (between 75 and 100 percent), the majority of these respondents received scores lower than 50 percent, and several actually received either zero points for their tri p planning tasks or quit the trip planning task prior to completion. The prevalence of low scores suggests that many of these participants did not fully understand the task that was presented to them and, therefore, did not realize that they had performed poorly on the trip planning tasks. Alternatively, the participants may have desired to "please" the observers/interviewers by providing affirmative responses to the questions presented to them In either scenario, if an ind i vidual attempts to use transit service without a clear understanding of when and where buses travel, there is the risk that they will arrive at their destination l ate, get lost, or worse. The likelihood would then be slight that such an individual would be enthusiastic about continuing to use transit. Difficulties Encountered Using Transit Information Materials One of the primary objectives of the transit information and marketing field test was to identify elements of the transit trip planning experience that pose a challenge to non-users. As such, the research team was very interested in participant perceptions related to the type and degree of difficulties encountered during completion of the trip planning tasks Therefore, field test partidpants also were queried about what they perceived to be the most difficult or least understandable part of using the transit in formation materials. A review of these data reveals Tnlnslt Tnfotmation & Marketing Field Test

PAGE 109

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----that participants felt that a lack of overall knowledge of transit and/or the geographic area presented to them posed an almost insurmountable challenge. In addition, participants expressed difficulties pertaining to the ove rall layou t of some transit information materials, using systemwide and individual bus route maps, understanding timetables, and making transfers in order to complete their bus trip. These comments are addressed in the sections that follow. Overall Understanding of Transit The transit in for mation and marketing field test was designed to simulate the experience of either non-users of transit or indiv idual s unfami liar with a geographic area who would like to access available public transit services. For these reasons, individuals were recruited who did not have extensive experience with public bus service prior to the field test. Additionally, transit infonnation materials were used from a wide variety of transit systems such that most of the participants received trip planning tasks from unfamiliar transit service areas. Extensive instruction was provided to each participant related to how to use the transit infonnation materials to identify origins and destinations, bus routes, time points, and schedule times, as well as how to complete the trip planning tasks presented to them. Despite the instruction provided to participants, many respondents Indicated that they fe l t they did not have enough knowledge of how to navigate transit services and/or knowledge of the geographic area covered in the printed transit information materials presented to be able to successfully complete the t ransit trip planning tasks. When asked to indicate the most difficult and/or least understandable part of using the materials provided in the trip planning tasks, several participants responded that a lac k of knowledge regarding how bus service functions made understanding the materials and task more difficult. Several partidpants also reported that lack of knowledge about the area represented on the printed transit information materials also limited their ability to understand the materials and/or complete the exercises to their satisfaction. Additional comments received related to l imited understanding of transit service and/or the geographic area presented to participants include difficulty locat ing a bus stop near the intended destination and confusion whether times listed in the timetables referred to arrival or departure times. It is quite interesting to note that three of the participants who cited a lack of knowledge as the most difficult aspect of using the transit information materials receive d perfect scores on their completed trip planning tasks. The remainder of the respondents who offered this type of comment related to difficulties encountered received scores between 0 and 57 percent. Such responses might be expected from respondents in a sample consisting large ly of transit non users. However, participants were told at the outset that the research team was most Interested In administering the trip planning tasks to non-users. For the most part, such responses appear to provide an explanation for the apparent inability to complete the exercises,

PAGE 110

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E---,.; : . ;: as exhibited by these res p ondents' scores. The fact that three respondents who gave thes e types of comments were able to successfu lly complete the bip planning tasks suggests that there may have been some apprehension on the part of respondents regarding the inab ili ty to make sense of the materials to their own satisfaction. A majority of the participant responses r eceived in relation to the least understandable and/or most difficult aspects of the trip planning tasks pertained to the layout and use of the transit information materials Many of these comments also appear re lated to a lack of overall understanding regarding the functioning of public transit These comments are discussed in the following sections. Layout of Materials In 24 specific instances, respondents reported that the general layout of the transit i nformation materials presented was the most difficult and/or least understandable part of using them to complete the assigned tasks. Further, more than 15 additiona l general comments were received by participants related to d i fficulties encountered with the overall layout of materials. These comment ranged from emphasizing the respondents' difficulty i n making overall sense of the materials to the very specific c ri tique of the elements included in the printed transit materials. In particular, s e vera l respondents who were asked to complete trip planning tasks us ing the Ride Guide developed for the LYNX transit system in Orlando rep orted difficu l ties read ing the system map provided in the LYNX Ride Guide. A comm o n sentiment expressed by partic ipa nts who rece ived these materials was that the print used on both the system map and on individua l bus route maps and timetab l es was much too small. Another common comp l aint related to these mater ials was that the system map is sp r ead across nine separate pages, requiring users to flip through s e veral pages in order to link origins w ith destinations. These combined f actors made it particularly difficult for respondents to follow route lines and to ide ntify potentia l bus stops and/or landmarks. Another sentiment commonly expressed by participants related to the general layout of transit materials pertained to placement of route maps and timetables. Several respondents expressed d i ssatisfaction with materia l s that p lace maps and timetab les on opposite sides of the materials. These participants did not like having to flip a map back and forth in order to see the timetable associated with a part i cular bus route. These materials appeared to increase the level of frustration associated w ith the transit trip planning tasks. Additional comments related to specific design elements of trans i t Information materials are discussed in the sections that follow. Transit Information A Marketing Field Test

PAGE 111

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIME NTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Using System Maps and I ndividual Route Maps The systemwide bus route maps and individual bus route maps also were cited as problematic for many field test participants. In 43 specific instanc es, respondents indic ated that they had some difficulty using system maps and/or Ind i vidual bus route maps The r e were an additional 15 negative comments related to system maps and/or individual route maps offered In response to questioning regarding the participants' general Impression s of the transit informa tion materials. Many of these responses emphasized respondent difficulty in identifying bus routes on the systemwide route map. Participants reported particu lar d i ffirulties using systemwide route maps that did not differentiate individual bus routes effectively. For example, the systemwi de map included I n the TafTran Ride Guide employs the same color for many adjacent routes. This made It very difficult for participants to determine the correct bus route needed to comp l ete their trip, as well as where one route terminates and another begins. This problem a lso was cited in relation to the exte nsive MDT bus route network where in participants had a difficult time determining were one route terminated and another began A similar problem was cited consistently in re lation to the map of ITA's bus network. This map, essentially a county roa d map with overlain bus routes was particularly difficult to use to i dentify bus route numbers, time points, and other points of i ntenest because the same color was used to outl i ne all of the bus routes In fact, none of the part i cipants who received trip planning tasks associated with the JTA bus system were able to complete the trip planning tasks in the allotted time and these trip planning tasks received the low est average scores in the transit trip planning field test both clear indications of the difficulties inh e rent in using these materials to plan transit trips. Another 15 comments emphasize respondent difficulty I n identifying the origin and destination points outlined with i n the transit trip planning tasks. Respondents often reported being unable to find the exact point of origin or destination on the system map. This was especially the case with res pondents who were asked to complete exerc ises i nvolVing larger and more complex transit systems, such as the JTA or MDT system Such responses particularly were notable because the research team provided markers identify in g the origin and destination points for trips on all such system maps to avoid undue respondent confusio n or difficu l ty Despite the presence of markers Identifying the exact locati on of both origin and destination points, respondents still had difficulty discerning the appropriate bus stops necessary for the completion of transit trip planning tasks. This suggests that the difficulties experienced by these participants actually were related to identifying the bus stops (time points) nearest to the origins and destinations associated with the trip planning tasks. Five responses indicate that respon dents had specific difficulty with Individual bus route maps. While most of these responses were quite general, one comment specifically identified inconsiste ncies between the system map and related route maps. This participant reported

PAGE 112

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Use----being unable to find points of interest on the individua l bus route maps that had been identified on the systemwide route map. These types inconsistencies may make transit trip planning more difficult for non-users by e limina ting visual and spatial cues necessary to coordinate information from systemwide route maps to the information provided on route specific maps and schedules. Using Timetables Many participants Identified timetables as the most problematic aspect of the bip planning tasks. There were 27 specific references to problems with timetables and many more indirect comments pointing to timetable challenges. Overall, these responses suggest a lack of comprehension on the part of respondents with regard to interpretation of departure/arrival times and their relationship to particular bus stops. Many participants complained that they were unclear as to whether the times listed in timetables referred to arrival or departure time, another indication of a lack of overall understanding of how transit services operate. As one of these respondents put it, the most difficult part of the exercise was figuring "whether the numbers on [the] timetable mean anything or not." Perhaps the most interesting, and problematic, response with regard to timetables came from a respondent who identified her own lack of comprehension as the problem, rather than the timetables themselves: "[This is] not difficult. It's difficult for me to work the times out." Such a response, although a singular one, is Interesting because It highlights the potential for "test taking anxiety," or that the respondent's state of mind during an exerdse may affect the overall completion results. Such expressions of self-directed frustration were not uncommon during this research respondents in a number of areas related feeling Inadequate, uneducated, or even dumb when attempting to explain difficulties experienced during the exercise. This finding is cause for particular concern, as it is unlikely that, given a choice, individuals new to transit service would remain interested in using any service that makes them feel inadequate or unintelligent. Another 14 responses specifically emphasized participant difficulty in identifying bus stops (time points) and/or important points of interest while completing the assigned trip planning tasks. Half of these comments focus on the respondents' Inability to Identify what oonstituted a bus stop specifically, therefore making it difficult for them to know whether the stop(s) they had identified in the exercise were close enough to the assigned destination point. Six additional comments received stress the respondents' difficulty in identifying points of interest that might have helped them find the appropriate bus route or bus stop for successful completion of the trip planning tasks. Such responses provide some indication that respondents did not fully understand how to coordinate the use of timetables and the various maps in order to identify the time points that served as bus stops along a bus route. It should be emphasized that the verbal and written Instructions provided to the partidpants provided explanation that time Transit InfomliltiCn & Milrlceting Field Test

PAGE 113

-----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----points on the timetables represented bus stops along the bus routes and directed participants to choose the time point closest to the intended origin and destination. It is surprising that comments related to timetable difficulties were not more prevalent. Review of the transit trip planning worksheets completed by participants, as well as observations made by the observers/interviewers during the field test reveal that participants had a great deal of difficulty interpreting timetables in order to identify the nearest bus stop and the optimal times to catch the bus. In most of the trip p lanning tasks, participants successfully identified the best bus route(s) required to compete the trip planning task, but were unable to identify bus stops or schedule times associated with the bus route and bus stop. Timetable interpretation is a critical aspect of transit trip planning. Riders must be able to determine where and when to catch their intended bus in order to effectively use transit service. Misinterpretation that leads to late arrival will likely leave a negative imp ression with the r ider. Therefore, it is extremely important that the information contained in transit information timetables be accessible to all potential passengers. The observations noted by observers/interviewers related to participant experiences with timetab les, as well as those noted by the participants themselves, indicate that many of the ti metable presentat ion s utilized by transit agencies are not particularly intu itive for non-users. Transferring As discussed previously, the average scores received by participants for complex transit trip planning were extremely low, with 7.03 points out of a possible 21 points for Compos1a and 7.95 points out of 25 possible points for Compos2a. The scores received by participants for complex trip planning tasks, along with observations made by observers/interviewers, strongly suggest that the participants experienced difficulties when trying to plan transit trips that required transfe rring from one bus route to another in order to reach the intended destination. Approximately 20 of the field test participants cited the logistics involved in transfening as the most d ifficult or least understandable aspect of using the materials. Understandably, the comments related to transferring are associated with complex trip planning tasks (80 sessions out of 160 possible trip planning sessions). The comments focus on identifying actual transfer points, as well as fig uring out the logistics of transfening. The relatively low number of these type of comments is somewhat surprising given the overwhelmingly low scores for complex trip planning tasks and visual observations regarding areas of particular participant difficulties. No Diffi cult ies Identified When queried regarding the most difficult and/or least understandable aspect(s) of using the transit i nformation materials presented in the trip planning tasks, participants reported in 17 specific instances that there was nothing difficult about using the materials and/or completing

PAGE 114

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----. ,: : : . .:; the trip planning task(s). These comments are intriguing considering the preva l ence of low sc o res on the trip planning tasks indicating that most participants likely had some difficulty using the materials and/or completing the transit trip planning tasks assigned. The scores received we r e ident ifi ed for each instance that this type of comment was received i n orde r to determine whether any patterns related to the transit Information materials associated with the commentS and scores received. Although participants reported no difficulties in 17 specific instances, there were only four i nstances of scores of 100 percent for completed trip planning tasks. Another four participants received scores between 60 and 80 percent for the tasks that they reported no difficulties in completing. However, the other scores associated with the trip planning tasks for which participants reported no difficulties suggest a contradictory condusion. In two of the instances wherein participants rep orted no difficulties associated with using the mate rials or completing the trip planning tasks, the participants a c tually quit the exercise prio r to completion. In another Instance, the participant rece ived zero points for the comp l eted trip planni ng task. The remaining six respondents received combined scores of less than 45 percent for their completed tri p plannin g tasks. Perceptions of Useful Design Elements: What Worked In addition to collecting information about the emotional reactions of participants re l ated to using the transit Informat io n materials and the difficulties they encountered while comp l eting the trip planning tasks, data were obtained related to positiVe participant responses to the exercises and/o r transit informa t ion materials. Parti cipa nts were asked to identify the least difficult and/or most understandable part of using the transit i n formation materials to complete transit trip planning tasks. The comments received from participants in response to this question are not as va ried as the responses to the questions discussed previously. The discussion that fo llows will illust r ate that the design e l ements and/or aspects of the transit information materials that field test participants found to be the most useful include using the systemwide bus route map and/or i ndividual bus route maps, information re l ated to points of interest and/or the map legend, using timetables, and the sentiment that nothing about the mate r ials was easy to understand. Bus Route Identification: Using System Maps and Route Maps The overwhelming majority of comments received from participants regarding the least difficult or most understandable aspect of using the transit informat io n materials pertained to the identification of bus routes. There were 61 instances whe rei n part i cipants r eported having the least difficulty when working with systemwide route maps and individual route maps. These participants reported having little difficu lty identifying the bus route(s) needed in order to p lan the transit trip assigned in the exercise. Howeve r as described previously, participants had g reater difficulty when attempting to use timetables to identify bus stops, schedule times, and Transit Infonnatkm & Mluk
PAGE 115

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----transfer points. Review of the transit trip plans completed by participants provides supporting evidence that participants were generally successful at identifying bus routes. In most cases, participants were able to determine the bus route(s) required to complete transit trip planning tasks, especially the simple tasks. However, participants were much more likely to encounter difficulties when trying to determine when and where to catch the identified bus. Although many of the affirmative comments related to using route maps state a general sense of satisfaction with the ease of bus route identification, several respondents emphasized the use of contrasting colors to designate and differentiate bus routes within system maps as a significant asset toward exercise completion. These comments point to a preference for the color coding of bus routes such that individua l routes are able to be differen tiated from one another, as well as where individua l routes begin and end. It is clear from the comments received from participants that individuals prefer the use of well-defined color contrasts in the design of route maps. As described previous ly, a greater degree of difficulty was associated with systemwide route maps wherein bus routes were drawn with a single color (JTA) or not clearly differentiated (TaiTran ). Points of Interest and the Map Legend Several participants also cited Information provided about points of interest and information provided in map legen ds on how to interpret route maps as the most understandable aspects of using the transit information materials. In particular, these participants appreciated i nfo rmation about the bus routes that serve points of Interest This info rmation helped the participants to complete the assigned trip planning tasks. In addition, some participants cited the legends associated with systemwide route maps and Individual bus route maps as the most understandable part of using the materials. Legends with clear and concise information and symbols denoting time points, transfer points, and points of interest were particularly helpful to participants. Using Timetables Interestingly, there were 21 instances of participants citing timetables as the least difficult or most understandable aspect of using the transit information materials. Most of the comments regarding timetables are very general in content. However, several participants reported that the listing of arrival and departure times on timetables was helpful in completing the trip planning tasks. These comments again suggest that some participants lacked general knowledge of public transit in the United States, despite the instruction provided to participants related to public bus service and use of timetables and route maps. The affirmative comments regarding the timetables presented to participants are also surprising in relation to observations made by observers/interviewers, as well as review of the trip planning worksheets completed by

PAGE 116

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t TO TRANSIT USE---,_. participants. The obsenters/interviewers noted many instances wherein participants had apparent trouble interpreting timetables in order to identify time points and schedule times for particular bus routes, but then cited timetables as the least difficult or most understandable aspect of the trip planning exercise nonetheless. Similarly, a revi ew of the trip planning worksheets completed by participants indicates that, while most participants were able to successfully identify the bus route(s) necessary, participants were much less successfu l when attempting to choose the closest timepoint and schedule time to complete the assigned trip. Nothing Was Understandable Qr Easy Finally, there were 14 instances of participants commenting that there was nothing about using the transit information materials that was understandable or easy. Eight of these comments were received in rela t ion to the transit information materials used by three Rorida transit systems : JTA, VOTRAN, and LYNX (Ride Guide). Field test participants consistently experienced frustration when using these materials and had difficulty completing the assigned trip planning tasks. Prior to the field test, the CUTR research team also i dentified these transit information materials as among those that were expected to be the most difficult to use. Transit Inft>t"m3tlon & I'Umting Tttst

PAGE 117

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE-----Major Findings of the Transit Information and Marketing Field Test The intent of the transit information and marketing field test was to examine the effectiveness of printed transit information materials when presented to potential passengers with little to no previous transit experience, as well as to attempt to identify design elements that are particularly user-friendly. Toward this end, printed information materials from 18 transit systems in Florida were presented to 80 individuals who were asked to plan specific transit trips using only the printed materials provided by the research team. The data collected and analyzed consisted of both quantitative and qualitative information. First, the completed trip plans from the pilot study (N=33) and the final study (N=145) were "graded" according to two scoring variations: all elements equally weighted and the use of differential weighting. Statistical tests were then applied to the quantitative data to determine the statistical significance of participant perceptions of difficulty, time required to complete the trip planning tasks, demographic characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics, and specific design elements on the final score received by participants. Next, post-trip planning interview data collected from each of the 80 final study participants were analyzed with regard to participant reactions to transit trip planning, Identification of difficulties encountered by participants, and useful design elements cited by participants. The major findings from the quantitative and qualitative data analyses are summarized In the following sections. Summary of Quantitative Transit Trip Planning Major Findings A pilot study that included 17 individuals was conducted to test the research design and transit trip planning Instruments so that necessary revisions could be implemented prior to conduct of the final study. However, the findings from the pilot study also provide insight into the usability of the transit information materials included in the field test. The participants of the pilo t study included 13 transportation professionals and four university students Limited statistical analyses were conducted on the pilot study data and the major findings from the analyses are provided below. The pilot study was composed of 13 transportation professionals and 4 university students. Pilot study participants received higher scores than participants in the final study, but pilot study scores were still low (below "C" grade). Many transportation professionals with transit experience experienced difficulties when faced with the challenge of planning transit trips using printed transit information materials. The average score for simple transit trip planning tasks was 14.29 out of 21 possible points (68 percent), or 17.24 points out of 25 possible points (69 percent).

PAGE 118

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- The average s core for complex transit trip p l anning tasks was 11.94 points out of 21 possible points (57 percent ), or 1 4 .10 points out of 25 poss ibl e points (56 percent). Partidpants completed all simple trip plans, but completed only 56 percent of complex trip planning tasks. Total time to complete simple tasks showed statistically significant differences from total time to complete complex tasks-5.32 minutes versus 7.44 minutes. Simpl e trip planning tasks received an average difficulty rating of 4.12 out of 7. Complex trip planning tasks received an average difficulty rating of 5.56 out of 7. Frustration was the most frequently reported visible sign of emotion, along with Irritation and laughter Participants received highe r scores on simple trip plann ing tasks when using route information from individual route maps than when using Ali-in-One Ride Guides. Partidpants reported higher task difficulty for Ali-In-One Ride Guide materials than for materials consisting of ind ividua l route schedules and a systemwide route map. Score comparisons by gen der revealed statistically significant differences with males receiving higher scores than females. Males took longer to complete the trip planning tasks than did fema les but received higher scores than did females. The trans i t Information and marketing field test final study Initially Included 80 participants who were recruited from four shopping malls Each partidpant was asked to complete a simple and a com pl ex transit trip plan. How ever, the final data set analyzed included 73 completed simple t rip planning sessions and 72 completed complex trip planning sessions due to the removal of data from I ndividuals who quit one or more trip planning task prior to completion. Two scor ing variations (with and without the weighting of some variables) were used to calculate composite scores for the transit trip plans completed by participants. A series of stat istica l tests were performed on the composite data collected from the participants of the final study in order to identify any statistically significant differences in the resu lti ng scores. The statistical tests examined p ossib le relationships between the scores re c eive d by partidpants and the complexity and perception of diffi culty of the t r ip planning tasks, the design elements contained in the materials, and the demographic characteristics of participants. The major find ings from the final study statistical analyses are summarized bel o w A total of 145 compl eted trip planning tasks were considered i n the fina l stu dy quantitative analysis (73 sim ple trip plans and 72 complex trip plans). Twenty-one percent of participants reported some familiarity with the geographic areas presented in the trip planning tasks, but their scores did not appear to be positively impacted by that knowledge. Overall, participant scores for both simple and complex trip planning tasks were v ery low, with average "grades" of 44 percent and 33 peroent, respectively. Chapter 'f1ITee Transit InformatiOn & Marketing Field Test

PAGE 119

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE---- The average score for simple transit trip planning tasks was 9.25 points out of 21 possible points, or 10.70 points out of 25 possible points. The average score for complex transit trip planning tasks was 7.03 points out of 21 possible points, or 7 95 points out of 25 possible points. Sixty-six percent of participants were able to complete the simple transit trip planning taskS. Fifty-three percent of participants were able to comp l ete the complex transit trip planning tasks. Participants found the complex trip planning tasks to be more difficult (5 2 out of 7) than simple trip planning tasks (4.8 out of 7). Participants who found the trip planning tasks to be difficu l t tended to perform more poorly than those who did not. There was a greater amount of observed emotion in complex trip planning sessions than in simple trip p lan ning sessions, as well as a greater proport ion of frustration and irritation. Parti c i pants required more assistance when completing complex trip planning tasks than when completing simple trip p l anning tasks. Average scores for both simple and complex trip planning tasks were higher for materials with horizontally-aligned timetables than for materials w i th vertically-a l igned timetab l es. Trip planning taskS using Ride Guides took longer to complete than those using individual bus route schedules. Higher scores were associated with simple trip planning tasks that were completed us ing Ride Guides than those completed using i nd i vidual bus route schedules. Higher score were associated with complex trip planning tasks completed using individual bus route schedules than those completed using Ride Guides. Participants using transit materials from Category 5 of the transfer information presentation category (transfer information listed elsewhere -LeeTran only) to complete comp lex trip planning taskS received the highest scores Participants using transit materials from Category 1 of the transfer information presentation category (transfer information listed on map and on timetable -JTA only) to complete complex trip planning tasks received the lowest scores Males tended to score higher and take longer to complete the trip planning tasks than did females. Partic ip ants with zero personal vehides took the least amount of t im e to comp l ete trip planning taskS, but rated the task as "very difficult" and received the lowest scores Tntnsit a Harltetlng Field Test

PAGE 120

----
PAGE 121

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----- Despite the extensive instructions provided to participants, several responded that a lack of knowledge regarding how bus service operates and/or about the geographic area represented on the p rinted materials made understanding the materials and trip planning tasks more difficult. There were 39 instances of participants reporting difficulties related to the general layout of the printed transit information materials. The LYNX schedule book was commonly criticized for its small print and placement of the systemwide route map across nine separate pages. Many participants expressed dissatisfaction with materials that place the syste m map on the opposite side from timetables, thus increasing user frustration by requiring users to flip back and forth Fifty-eight negative comments were made in relation to difficu lties encou ntered using system maps and individual bus route maps. In particular, participants reported difficulties using systemwide bus route maps that did not diffe ren t iate individual bus routes effectively (e.g., Tafrran, JTA, and MDT). Despite the presence of markers identifyi ng the location of trip origins and destinations, respondents still reported difficulties related to discerning the appropriate bus stops, suggesting that these participants actually had problems identifying the time points nearest to the trip origins and destinations. Inconsistenc ies between systemwide route maps and individual bus route maps also were cited as problematic for part icipants There were 41 specific, as well as many indirect, references to difficulties associated with using and interpreting timetables. Many of the difficulties associated with using and interpreting timetables were related to identifying bus stops (time points) and/or important points of interest. Comments received regarding difficulties identifying bus stops and points of interest suggest that many participants did not understand how to coondinate the use of timetables and the various maps in order to identify the time points that served as bus stops, despite verbal and written instructions provided to participants. Review of the transit trip plann ing worksheets and observations mad e during the field test confinn that participants had a great deal of difficulty using timetables to identify the nearest bus stop and optimal times to catch the bus on the selected route. The scores received by participants, along with observations made by observer/interviewers, Indicate that participants experienced difficult ies when attempting to plan transit trips that required a transfer from one bus route to another. Approximately 20 participants also cited the l ogistics i nvolved in transferring, such as ident i fying transfer points and times, as the most difficult or least understandable aspect of using the printed transit information materia ls to complete the trip planning tasks. Seventeen participants cited no difficulties associated with using the printed materials or completing t he t rip planning tasks However, more than half of these participants either Transit Infwmlltlon ol Hilrl
PAGE 122

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----. : . ... : . quit the trip planning tasks prior to completion or received combined scores of less than 45 percent for their completed trip planning tasks. . . . Finally, field test participants provided information on their perceptions of the useful and/or userfiiendly design elements contained in the printed transit information materials presented to them. The responses received by participants Include: The majority of comments related to the least difficult or most understandable aspect(s) of using the transit information materials pertained to the Identification of bus routes. In 61 separate instances, participants reported having little difficulty ident ifying the bus route(s) necessary to complete their assigned transit trip. Review of the transit trip plans completed by participants provides supporting evidence that participants were generally successful at Identifying bus routes. Many participants offered affirmative comments related to the use of contrasting colors to designate and differentiate bus routes within a systemwide route map. Many participants appreciated information provided in the printed transit materials Indicating the names/numbers of bus routes that serve particular points of interest Legends with clear and concise information and symbols denoting time points, transfer points, and points of interest were particularly helpful to participants. Despite contrary evidence from score results and observations of partic ipants, 21 comments were received citing timetables as the least difficult or most understandable aspect of using the transit information materials, especially the provision of bus anival and departure times. There were 14 instances of participants commenting that there was nothing understandable or easy about using the transit information materials. Eight of these comments were received In relation to materlal s developed for JTA, VOTRAN, and LYNX (Ride Guide).

PAGE 123

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----Recommendations: Making Transit Information Materials More User Friendly The transit information and marketing field test was designed to collect preliminary data on the level of transit literacy that non-users may have when attempting to using printed transit information materials, such as route maps and schedules, to plan trips on public transit. As such, transit literacy is being defined as the ability to use existing transit information to make concrete trave l plans on public transit, even with little to no prior experience with public transit. Therefore, the focus of the field test was on determining whether existing printed transit information materials would lend themselves to use by indiv i duals unacquainted with public transit. The intent of the field test was to gather and analyze information about the user friendliness of existing transit information materials in Florida. The field test also was designed to begin exploratory research on effective and user-friendly design elements contained in printed transit information materials. Three specific design elements were included for in-depth analysis: timetable alignment, bus route information presentation, and the presentation of transfer inf ormation. Toward these ends, the field test collected information on how well participants could actually plan transit trips by determining bus route(s), bus stop(s), and schedule time(s). These data were then scored numerically using two scoring variations (described previously). Information was collected from 17 pilot study and 80 final study participants. Statistical tests were conducted on the numerica l data to determ i ne any relationships that might ex i st between participant scores, the time required by participants to complete the trip planning tasks, participant ratings of task difficulty, design elements included in the study, and participant sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, qualitative data were collected from participants pertaining to their perceptions of the trip planning tasks and the transit information materials used. F i nally, the CUTR research team reviewed printed transit i nformation materials from all transit systems in the state of Florida and identified characteristics that could be problematic for transit users and non-users attempting to plan transit trips using only the printed materials The data obtained through each of these efforts have been synthesized in order to provide specific recommendations to transit agencies re l ated to making printed transit information more user-friendly Specific recommendations resulting from the transit information and marketing field test are detailed in the following sections. The Big Picture: Transit Knowledge is Not Common Knowledge As the previous sections detail, the level of transit literacy among participants in the transit information and marketing field test was quite l ow. Participants had difficulty complet i ng both simple and complex trip planning tasks and exhibited v i sual s igns of frustration, Irritation, and nervousness while attempting the assigned trip planning tasks. The average scores received by participants for both simple and complex trip planning tasks were the equivalent of a grade of "F." Participants consistently found the tasks to be confusing, difficult, and complex. In addition, field test participants often failed in their attempts to complete trip plans for transit

PAGE 124

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----: . ,;,, i; ;; f trips that required a transfer from one blis rOllte td another, a very common situation on public transit in Florida. Each of these findings indicate that it is unlikely that Individuals in Florida without transit experience would be able to easily plan trips on transit if provided only existing printed transit materials. In addition, the field test results proVide several indications that the experience of using printed transit information materials to plan transit trips might be negative enough for many individuals to "give up" and find another method of transport. Many field test participants also reported that the experience of using the transit information materials make them feel "stupid" and "inadequate," feelings that typically do not lead to positive perceptions of any experience, let alone the transit one. These condusions are significant for transit agencies that are striving to increase ridership and are committed to making the public transit experience seamless and easy for passengers. Any recommendations offered as a result of the transit information and marketing field test must b e preceded by a discussion of general existing societal and organizati onal conditions affecting overall transit literacy, as defined by this study. First and foremost, the United States today is, with few exceptions, an automobile-oriented society. At l east two generations have passed since public transit was an everyday reality for the majority of Americans. This has significant implications for the marketing of transit. Not only is it crucial for transit agencies to translate the benefits of transit to the general public, but this means that entire generations of Americans must also be educated about how transit operates. The transit industry cannot afford the assumpt ion that "everyo ne knows how to use bus service." The results of the field test indicate that this i s simply not the case. It is also significant that most participants received low scores for completed transit trip plans even after receiv ing extensive instructions about how transit and transit information materials work. I n many cases, more time was spent providing instruct ion to participants than was allotted for the completion of two trip planning tasks and post-test interviews! The prevalence of comments received regarding arrival and departure times of buses, what constitutes a bus stop, and even regarding what a bus route i s indicates that transit knowledge is not common knowledge. Customers who are undear about how bus service operates likely will have difficulty using transit information materials, or at the very least, feel very uneasy about making trips on transit with only printed transit information as their guide. Related to the issue of a lack of general public transit knowledge among the population in Florida is the lack of intuitiveness of existing printed transit information materials. As the recommendations that follow will show, most of the transit information materials In circulation today are not designed with an eye towards being understood by people who have not had much, if any, experience using public transportation. Such materials should be designed so that individuals can pick them up and easily Interpret the Information necessary to plan a trip on public transit, such as locating their Intended destination, identifying the bus route{s) that travel to or nearby the origin of travel and intended destination, the dosest bus stop, and the Tl'anslt Information & -ting Field Test

PAGE 125

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E--estimated time that the bus will travel to the individual's origin bus stop and arrive at the destination bus stop. In addition, individua l s should be able to use printed transit information materials to identify the need for transferr i ng and how to accomplish the transfer from one bus to another (i.e., how to l ocate a transfer point, how to determine transfer times, etc.). Review of the existing printed transit information materials in Florida reveals numerous examp les wherein the information required to c omp l ete a trip plan is either not provided or lacks the clarity necessary for individuals without experience with public transit to figure out the specifics of bus trave l. It is important to note that, while many field test participants indicated that they would need to seek additional information from transit system customer service and/or bus operators, this is not an opt i mal solution to the barrier presented by existing printed transit information materials. One benefit of effective transit information materials is that passengers and potential passengers are able to plan trips and use transit without having to have access to a tel ephone in order to speak with transit system customer services. In addition, on time performance may be negatively impacted if vehicle operators are required to provide information in the form of trip p l anning assi stance to passengers on a regular basis. Many of the problems identified with the pr i nted transit information materials included in the field test can be rectified by transit agencies with little to no additional expense. The following recommendations highlight those possible changes, as well as the need for a d ditional research related to user-friend l y and effective design elements that assist transit newcomers with the process of transit trip planning. Recommendation 1: Conduct Additional Research on Most Effective Design Elements The quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted in the transit information and marketing field test suggest that the use of certain design elements in printed transit information materials resulted in higher transit trip planning scores and reduced level.s of frustration and anxiety among participants. These results include the following findings: Materials using horizontally-aligned timetables resulted higher scores Tasks involving Ride Guide materials too k l onger to complete. Simple transit trip plans associated with Ride Guide materials received higher scores. Complex transit trip plans associated with individual bus route schedules rece i ved higher scores Males tended to receive higher scores than did females Participants with zero personal vehicles available for use received the lowest scores and rated the tasks as "very difficult." The use of points of interest information was helpfu l to participants. The use of distinctive symbols denoting time points, transfer points, and othe r points of interest were helpfu l in completing transit trip plans.

PAGE 126

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E-----While these results provide insight that appear to have helped field test participants complete the trip plannirig taskS, tatltion must be used when drawing definitive conclusions from these results. Caution should be heeded due to the fact that the field test was not designed in such a way as to be able to isolate individual design elements in order to definitively draw conclusions re lated to their effect on trip planning scores. The transit information and marketing fie l d test provided existing transit information materials to participants to complete assigned transit trip plans. These materials diffe re d from one another in a multitude of ways, incl u ding the use of color, print size, types of paper used, page orientation, and amount of orienting Information. For this reason, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding the cause and effect of specific design elements on trip planning ability, as all of the additional variables were not controlled for in the field test. For, example, It is not possible to conclusiv e ly determine whether higher scores were associated with materials with horizontally-aligned timetables or, rather, that these scores were due to larger print type being used by materials that also have horizontally-aligned timetables. In order to draw definitive conclusions regard ing the relationshi p between specific desig n elements and the ability to successfully plan transit trips using printed transit information materials, it is recommended that research be conducted that allows for the Isolation of specific design elements. Such research should be designed in such a way that the information materials tested differ on only a single variable. It Is recommended that additional research be conducted wherein prototype printed transit information materials are developed for field testing. The field testing of these materials would be designed to present materials that differ from one another by only a single variable to field test participants who would be asked to use the materials to plan transit trips. This method would allow for defin itive conclusions to be drawn as to the effect of specific design elements on non-user ability to use printed transit information materials to plan transit trips. Specific conclusions and recommendations could then be made regarding the most effective design elements that should be used by transit agencies. Recommendation 2; Educate Potential Passengers about Transferring Transferring from one bus route to another is a common necessity for public transit passengers in Florida. The spatial layout of most transit service areas in the state make it necessary fo r passengers to make at least one transfer in order to complete their transit trips. The results of both the quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted as part of the transit information and marketing field test indicate that participants had a great deal of difficulty with transit trips that required a transfer from one bus route to another. Review of the transit information materials used in the field test also reveals that an understandin g of bus transfers is taken as co mmon knowledge. Uttle descriptive information is provided to p otential passengers related to how to accomplish a bus transfer. Transfer points are rarely shown on maps or marked on timetables.

PAGE 127

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USoE---While many transit agencies do provide transfer information in the form of "how to ride" guides, these descriptions often do not address the details of actually accomp lis hing transfers. Additionally, potential passengers should not be expected to obtain multiple pieces of transit information materials in order to gain an understanding of the basics of transit travel. Transit agencies must make a more concerted effort to educate potential passengers about the S!Je(ifics of transferring. This effort includes providing clear i nformation about transfer points within and throughout Ride Guides and/or individual bus route schedules. Even when transfer information is provided to users, the information is sometimes provided in a confusing manner. For example, transfer points may be listed as "Xl" or "M2" where these notations have no apparent relation to the bus routes or route maps provided in the printed transit informa tio n materials. The use of transfer point information that is not intuitive to users should be avoided. Recommendation 3: Help Potential Passengers Use Transit Information Materials Effective transit information materials he lp passengers by presenting dear, concise, and consistent information that leads users step-by step through the transit process. In order to be effective, the design and construction of printed transit informa tion materials must be attentive to detail. Missing or inconsistent information resul ts in a great deal of confusion among users. The following recommendations are offered, based on comments received by field test participants and review of the prin ted materia ls by transit professionals, to help transit agencies improve the clarity and usability of printed transit information materials. Consistency is Key Information provided in printed transit information materia ls, such as symbols for transfer po ints, time points, and points of Interests, are only useful to passengers if presented in a consistent manner. For examp l e, many field test participants described frustration and confusion related to bus stops (time points) listed on timetables but not included on route maps or vice versa This Inc ludes the terminology used to describe time points. For example, a time point listed on a route map as "Maple Avenue" should not be listed on the corresponding timetable as "U.S. 7 While many streets in Aorida are known by several names, printed transit information materials should be consistent in terms of the names used. Similar frustration was expressed regarding points of interest listed in relation to Spe(ific bus routes, but not marked on route maps. In addition, symbo l s used to denote transfer points (such as circles or diamond shapes) should also be applied consistent l y throughout all printed transit information produced by a transit agency. The use of consistently applied information and/or symbo l s will result In printed transit information materials that are intuitive and inviting for passengers because multiple cues are provided to guide users through the transit trip p l anning process. care should be taken to ensure that consistency is carried through to all route maps and timetab les produced for a transit system. The Florida Department of Transportation, Transit l""""'ation a -"ff-TB6t

PAGE 128

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDI MENTS TO TRANSIT USE----' ). -., ... working in conjunction with transit agencies throughout the state, should also consider the value of ensuring statew ide consistency in of symbols employed in printed transit informa t ion materials. Research shoula be c:Onducted to develop a report that documents trans i t mapping symbols recommended for statewide transit marketing efforts. Provide Explanation about the Meaning and Use of Information Many participants in the transit Information and marketing field test indicated a lack of understanding related to the information provided in timetab les and on route maps, as well as symbols used throughout printed transit Information materials For example, some trans i t systems list on Intersecting streets the numbers or names of transferring bus routes. However, no indi cation of what the names and/or numbers represent is provided to the person using the route schedule. Therefore, while this type of transfer information can be particularly helpfu l for transit users, the information is rendered m e aningless due to a lack of description provided to the user. Similar prob lems were identified with printed transit information mater i als that do not contain any map l egends. The potential problems with these materia l s are obvious without a descr iptive guide availab le to assist i n map interpretation, the Information provided on maps is use less. Finally, timetables should not be assumed to be se l f-explanatory. Descriptive informat ion should be clearly provided to the users of printed trans i t Information materia l s regarding the information contained in timetables For example, materia l s should indicate that time points represent major bus stops, that the t imes listed in timetables r epresent when buses are scheduled to arrive at those designated t ime points, and how to use the information provided in timetables to est i mate the arrival t imes at bus stops that fall between time points included i n the timetables. Many field test participants expressed confusion in relation to d i rect ional tags assigned to bus routes For example, the use of inbo und" and "outbound" directional route designators provides little guidance to potential passengers who do not know to what geographica l point or major landmark these titles refer Similar confusion is associated with directional notations such as "north" and "south" in reference to bus routes that do not trave l in a strict l y northerly or southerly direction. In order to make the information provided in timetab l es as intuitive as possi b l e transit age ncies a lso should strive to list time points in a linear fashion wherein the first time point listed corresponds to the first t i me point on the associated bus route and the last time point listed correspon d s to t he last timed bus stop on the route. It is not reasonable to expect users to be able to inte rpret non-linear timetab les Materials Should Help Spatially Orient Passengers Most of the printed transit information materials developed for transit systems in Florida have not been designed in such a way as to help spatially orient passengers It appears that most transit agencies in Flor i da design materials from a marketing perspective with an eye toward be ing aesthetically pleasing for users. Less attention appears to be pai d to ensuring that

PAGE 129

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E-----layouts are spatially accurate. Maps are rarely drawn to geographic scale and hardly, if ever provide legend information indicating mileage scale. Review of the materials revealed that landmarks, points of interest, and time points are often clearly misplaced on route and system maps. It is therefore, impossible for users who are not knowledgeable about all portions of the transit service area to determine the distance from their origin point to a bus stop or from a bus stop to their destination point. This results in unease among passengers who are not able to determine whether their intended bus route or destination Is within reasonab le walking distance. Similarly, intersecting street info rmation also often is omitted from system and route maps, making it very difficult for users to orient themselves using printed transit Information materials. In addition, some transit systems have omitted the use of a north arrow altogether on their maps, while others have north arrows pointing In directions other than the "up" position (i.e., the traditional positioning of the north arrow in cartography is pointing "upwar d towards the top of the map page), further confusing Individuals attempting to orient themselves both during the planning phase of transit trips, as well as while in -route on transit vehicles. The proliferation of geographic information systems (GIS) has made it possible for transit systems to develop information materials that are geographically accurate. Such accuracy assists passengers and potential passengers and makes the transit trip planning and travel phases less intimidating for those with litt le transit experience. Use Contrasting Colors Whenever Possible Field tests participants expressed an overwhelming preference for the use of contrasting colors to denote di stinct bus routes on systemwide route maps. The use of contrasting colors on route maps allows users to determine where specific bus routes travel and to distinguish individu al bus routes from one another. Despite the obvious advantages associated with using color contrasts in systemwide route maps, several transit systems In Florida have developed maps without contrasting colors. These materials were particularly frustrating for field test partidpants, as they had tremendous difficulty detenminlng the bus route(s) available to comp lete their transit trips, as well as points where bus routes intersect. Providing color contrasts results in printed transit information materials that are more intuitive for users by helping them to identify bus routes and transfer points. Include Map LeQeods and Points of Interest Infonmation Map legends play a critical role in the task of map interpretation. Map users rely on the infonmatlon provided in map legends to dedpher the spatial, locatlonal, and situational data presented in maps. Indeed, a map without a legend is akin to a compass without a needle. Without It, travelers would likely find themselves hopelessly lost and utterly confused. It may seem redunda nt, or even ridiculous, to offer a recommendation that a map legend be included with each systemwide and individual route map developed by transit agencies. However, a

PAGE 130

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E-----review of all printed transit information materia!s available i n the state of Florida i ndicates that map legends are often excluded from the printed materials ma d e ava ilab le to customers. An additional problem identified In the both the review of materia l s and the field test of the printed transit information materials is incomplete or Inaccurate map legen ds. In several cases where map legends are provide d important information rega rd ing the interpretation of symbols used in maps and timetables is not provided. Similarly, some agendes have used symbols on the systemwide and/or In dividu al route maps that are not included in the map leg end, thereby failing to provide any interpretive gu idan oe to the map user. Transit agencies should strive to include clear and comprehensive data in map legends and to ensure that these data are included with each and every route map produced for the system Field test part ic ipants consistently expressed a prefe rence for printed transit information materials that include information on points of interest and area landmari
PAGE 131

-----IOPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE--starting point for the improvement of printed transit information materials, the conduct of additional research is desirable In order to provide more in-depth guidance to transit agencies in relation to effective design materials. The intention of such research would be to offer concrete direction to transit agencies regarding prototype pr in ted transit informa t ion materials that have been shown to increase customer success in the trip planning phase of the transit experience and therefore, increase the likelihood that transit is viewed by potential customers as an accessible and attractive transportation alternative to the personal automobile.

PAGE 132

-----OPERATIONAL B ARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS T O TRANS I T U S iE-----, . . Chapte r Four: Transit Scheduling for Majo r Activity Centers Field Test Transit barriers with i n the category of service availability and convenience represent the most commonly-c i ted ba r r i ers to transit use, as w e ll as the most challenging to address Issues frequently raised by non-users in relat i on to service availability and convenience include system ooverag e frequency of servi c e, days and hours of service, wait t i mes, and the need for transfers. While many of these issues po te n t ially cou l d be addressed by transit agencies, the costs assodated with the potentia l solut i ons, such as increasing the frequency of service, are not always feasib l e to implement due to limited capital and operating resources. Therefore, it is crudal that transit agencies maximi z e the efficiency and effe ctiveness of existing transit servi ces as a method of increasing the attractiveness of t hese services. This chapter addresses the field test oonducted by CUTR in order t o examine the effectiveness of existing t r ansit services in Florida in terms of trans i t schedu li ng for trave l demands. A very oommon sentiment expressed by transit users and non-users regard i ng public transit services is that the bus does not serve d esired activity centers at times when passengers wish to trave l to those dest i nations. In some cases, it has been shown that bus schedules h ave been developed without a complete understanding of the peak trave l times to and fro m major travel attractors such as employment sites, medical centers, and universities This has led to transit schedu l ing being comp l eted, for the most part, without considerat ion for start and end times common appo i ntment times, norma l wor1< schedules, etc. In these cases, i ndivi d uals may not use t ra n sit because buses do not serve thei r intended destinations during peak trave l times. As part of the present project, aJTR examined the effectiveness of existing transit schedules by analyzing the availability of transit service to major act i v ity centers with clear start and end times associated with the activities and/or services offered at those destinations. The analyses that follow seek to provide a preliminary assessment of the exi sting level of t r ansit serv ice to major activity centers by i ll ustrating patterns of gaps in services and providing a l eve l of transit service compar i son between transit properties Methodo l ogy The primary focus of this field test has been to determine whether and to what degree major activity centers throughout Rorida are being served by transit. The following sections detail the process t hat was undertaken to identify major act i vity centers, define hours of operation, dete r mine the l eve l of transit service access to each activity center, and analyze transit service scheduling in relation to travel demand ChiiPter Four SchM/ul/ng liH' Hll/tH' Adlvlty Cenmn Field Test

PAGE 133

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----Major Activity Centers The Florida Department of Transportation provided CUTR with the major activity centers that were included in the transit scheduling field test. These data were provided to FOOT by individual transit agencies throughout Florida as required by the Florida MPO Transit Quality of Service Evaluation. The purpose of the quality of service evaluation was for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs} in areas with fixed-route transit service to evaluate the quality of that service. Due to tim i ng conflicts between the present project and the due date associated with the above-mentioned project, CUTR only received major activity centers from 14 of the 22 transit service areas In the state of Florida. The Aorida MPO Transit Quality of Service Evaluation project provided direction to MPOs for the detennination of major activity centers. Depending upon the expanse of the transit service area, each MPO was requ i red to determine six to ten major activity centers that attract the most vehicle traffic. Although some degree of freedom was provided to MPOs in the selection process, large MPOs (those in areas with populations of 200 000 or more) were directed to include activity centers with the following characteristics: At least one location in the central business district (CBD} of the largest city; Major intermodal terminals, such as passenger airports and AMTRAK stations, if present; At least one regional shopping center, if present; At least one university or community college, if present; At least one major park & ride facility, if present; A large office development outside the CBD; and A geographically diverse set of suburbs, neighborhoods, and/or tourist attractions. Smaller MPOs (those in areas with populations under 200,000} were instructed by FOOT to select their activity centers by considering the following guide l ines: A representative location in the CBD of the largest city; A shopping center; A university or community college, if present; A hospital; A residential neighborhood; and A large employment center outside the CBD. CUTR was provided a total of 136 major activity centers from 14 transit service areas. One entire service area was omitted from the fteld test due to the degree of difficulty encountered while attempting to utilize the transit agency s available Information materials to identify the

PAGE 134

BARRIE RS & IMPEDIM ENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----. . transit routes that serve each reported activity center. The 13 service areas and transit agendes that were Included in the field test include: Pensacola E.scambia County Area Transit (ECAn Gainesville -Regional Transit System (RTS) Ocala -SUNTRAN Hillsborough Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HARn Volusia VOTRAN Broward Broward County Mass Transit DMsion (BCT) Sarasota-Sarasota County Area Trans i t (SCAT) ManateeManatee County Area T ransit (MCAT) Polk-Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTO) Tallahassee -Tallahassee Transit (TAL TRAN) Pal m Beach -Palm Beach County Transportation Agency (PALMTRAN) Miami Miami-Dade Transit (MDn Brevard-Space Coast Area Transit (SCAn Several i ndividua l activity centers from these 13 service areas also were e li minated from the analysis for one or more of the following reasons: Residential areas -these activity centers are considered traffic generators rather than traffic attractors; Transit-specifi c facilities these location s are designed specifically for transit use (e.g. park-and lide lots and transfer centers) and, therefore, do not meet the intent of the present analysis; and Unidentifiable activity center an activity center was eliminated I f there was incomplete Information available re lated to location andjor l and use category. A total of 42 major activity centers were omitted from the analysis, resulting In a comparative analysis of the level of transit service access to 94 major activity centers from the 13 included transit serv ice areas. Land Use Ciltegories and Operating Houts For analysis purposes the major activity centers were grouped according to land use rather than by county or service area, resulting in the following six land use categories : Airports (9); Medical/Hospital (8); Sho pping (25);

PAGE 135

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----- Business/Government (25); Education (16); and Recreation ( 11). One of the primary components necessary to establish whether a particular activity center is served by transit is a comparison of activity center operating hours and the hours of transit service available to each activity center. Therefore, it was necessary to determine the operating hours for each major activity center inclu ded in the analysis. This was accomplished by either obtaining the precise hours of a particular activity center via its website or through telephone contact, or by establishing general parameters based on similar resources in the area. A distinct i on was made between weekday (Monday through Friday), Saturday, and Sunday operating hours. In addition, because the focus of this field test was to evaluate the level of useful transit service access to major activity centers, 30 minutes was added to both the beginning and end of each activity center's operating hours. The purpose of adding this time was to evaluate how well transit service is able to accommodate the travel needs of workers and students who must arrive at an activity center prior to opening and/or depart after completing neoessary activities. For example, if a business is actually open from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, its operating hours, for the purpose of this analysis, are considered to be 8:30 AM to 9:30PM. This additional hour is a general range that affords workers the time to anive prior to the actual start of business and to leave when their closing duties are complete. The operating hours for each land use category are discussed in the following sections. Airports & Medical Because airports and hosp itals are 24-hour operations, the operating hours for the airport and medica/land use categories were divided into three general shifts based on the information received from several hospitals and airports regarding their general approach to employee scheduling and peak airport traffic. The three general shifts for airports are defined in this analysis as: Shift 1 5:00 AM to 2:00 PM; Shift 2 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM; and Shift 311:00 PM to 5:00 AM. Hospitals have somewhat different scheduling needs and the three most common shifts are considered to be Shift 1 7:00AM to 3:00 PM; Shift 2 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM; and Shift 311:00 PM to 7:00AM. Therefore, considering the 30 minutes added to each end of the activity centers' hours, a hospital would be considered served by transit for the first shift if a bus arrived as late as 6:30 AM and one departed the hospita l as early as 3:30 PM. Shopping The shopping land use category comprises malls and shopping centers or plazas. Precise operating hours were obtained for each mall and, although ind ividua l stores may establish their own hours in the shopping centers and plazas, the hours for these activity centers were derived

PAGE 136

-----OPERATIONAL BARR IERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E----based on generally common mall hours, and are typically oonsidered to be 8:30AM to 9:30 PM. These operating hours include the 30 mlhutes thiit was added to each end of the actual operating hours. Business/Government The operating hours for the business/govemmentland use category (7:30AM to 6:00PM) were established based upon the typical traditional workday, with 30 minutes added at each end of the day to allow for arrival and departure opportunities. Governmental centers and office complexes also were included in this classification. Saturday and Sunday were omitted from this land use category, as they are considered weekend days rather than part of the conventional work week of Monday through Friday. Education The education land use category includes oommunity colleges and universities. On-line oourse schedules were consulted for each institution, and operating hours were established based upon 30 minutes prior to a school's earliest class and 30 m inute s after the latest class dismissal time. This affords students time to navigate the campus in order to reach their intended destination or the bus stop when leaving campus. Many community colleges hold frequent Saturday classes and some are also in session on Sunday; these times were oonsidered, as well. When considering whether transit serves a community college or university, only the first and last class were considered. Courses that are scheduled between the earliest and latest classes were not a factor in determining whether the institution is served by transit. Recreatjoo Beaches, pedestrian malls, and tourist attraction/entertainment venues were considered within the recreation land use category. Because of the proliferation of hotels and open access to the beach in this environment, beaches were considered 24-hour operations and were assigned the same shift hours as hote l s. If availab le, the exact operating hours of a particular facility, such as a museum, were used, again adding 30 minutes to each end of the activity center's day. Ti'ansit Routes and Frequency of Service A second component necessary to analyze the leve l of transit service access to major activity centers Is information about the bus routes that serve each activity center. In addition to identifying the bus route(s) serving each activity center, the analysis also required information about the days and hours of transit service and the frequency of transit service. For many of the transit properties included in the analysis, this information was obtained through the use of Scheduling fOr M4jor .Adfvfty CenttNT Field Test

PAGE 137

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E----transit "points of interest" listed on the transit information materials along with information provided related to the bus routes that serve each point of interest. Because most transit system maps are not drawn to scale geographically, CUTR declined to "eyeball" distance from bus routes to activity centers, whenever possible. However for those activity centers not listed as a point of interest on the transit informat i on materials, as well as those materials that did not include informat ion on bus routes that serve points of inte rest, the transit system map was used in combination with individual route maps to determine the bus routes that serve a particular major activity center. It should be noted that CUTR used transit information materials collected from transit agencies in March 2001. The materials received were dated between 1999 and 2001. Therefore, it is possible that transit schedule information for the transit agencies included in the analysis may have since changed, as transit service provision is a dynamic process wherein agencies must constantly respond to changing conditio ns As a result, it is important to note that the findings of this analysis are valid only for transit schedule information availab l e as of the data collection period, March 2001. For each activity cente r, the total number of bus routes that serve an activity center are inclu ded as well as the name or number of each individual route. This infonnation has been collected for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The frequency of transit service for each individual route was determi ned by examining the bus route's timetable. For most bus routes, the frequency of transit service is consistent throughout the span of daily service. The number of buses per hour was determined based on how many times a bus accesses each activity center. For example, bus routes with one hour frequency access activity centers with one bus per hour while those with 30 minute frequency have two buses per hour, and so forth. However, some of the bus routes have variable frequencies throughout the span of daily service, typically due to increased frequencies during peak travel times. For those routes, the average number of buses per hour was calculated by dividing the total number of times the bus stops at a particular activity center in a day by the route's daily span of service. For the purpose of analyzing the level of transit access to major activity centers, the transit span of service is measured as the amount of time between each bus route's earliest arrival and latest departure from an activity center. This measure refers to the earliest time that an individual would be able to arrive at a major activity center and the latest time that one could depart from that activity center using transit. Because many activity centers are served by multiple bus routes, the final transit span used In the analysis of transit level of service refers to the amount of time that elapses between the earliest route that serves the activity center to the latest that any route departs the activity center. Each of these factors was assessed for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday transit service. Appendix G Includes the data table conta ining each of the above-mentioned data elements for each route serving each activity center included in the analysis.

PAGE 138

-----OPERA n ONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E-----Transit Scheduling for Major Activity . The transit service access to major activity centers was evaluated by weekday, Saturday, and Sunday, as activity center operating hours may vary depending on the day of the week and most trans i t agendes that operate on Saturday and/or Sunday a lter their weekend schedule, as well The hours of operation of each activity center was compared to the useful hours of operation of the bus route(s) that serve it. This provided a mechan ism by which to determine whether a particular activity center is served by transit or not. The analysis of transit l evel of serv ice to major activity centers Is presented in two parts. F irst, the existing conditions of transit service availability are discussed. This approach examines the data for each activity center, by land use category, and analyzes the availability of transi t service in terms of the earliest and l atest t r ip available to transit patrons. For the purposes of this anal ysis, an activity center is consi d ered "served" by transit if at least one bus accesse s the activity center within one hour before adjusted operating hours (30 minutes before and 30 minutes afte r ). In addition, an activity center is considered "served" by transit as long as at l east one bus route accesses the site. This porti on of the anal ysis focuses on whethe r activity centers are served during the AM and PM, AM on l y, or PM only. The Intent of this ap p roach i s to i dentify patterns of t r ansit service access to activity centers, such as gaps in serv ice and other characteristics of transit service availab il ity. The second portion of the anal ysis cons i sts of a comparative analysis of the level of transit service to major activity centers, by land use category. The primary unit of measurement for this portion of the analys i s is the number of times per hour that transit service accesses each activity c e nter during the activity cente r 's normal operating hours. This is measured by evalua t ing the numbe r of routes that serve a particular activity center, the average frequ e ncy of transit service to the activity center, and the percentage of the activity center's operating hours that are covered by transit service. The r efore, the following equation was used to calcul ate the level of transit service access that is provided to each activity center: Leve l of transit service access = N x F x R The equation comprises three variab les that were calculated to determine the leve l of transit service access to major activity centers The variables are expressed as fo ll ows: N = Numbe r o f bus routes accessing the activity center F = Average frequency of service for all routes serving the activity center Scheduling for Major Activity c:Hbln Field Tut

PAGE 139

------
PAGE 140

-----
PAGE 141

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----The following sections present overall aggregate bus route service data for each major activity center by land use category, as well a discussion of service trends and potential gaps in transit service. The number of bus routes serving major activity centers in the AM-only, the PM-only and both the AM and PM are indicated in Tables 4-1 through 4-10. Airports Nine airports were reported as major activity centers by 10 of the 13 transit agencies included in this analys i s Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present information on the total number of bus routes that access each airport, when bus service is provided to each airport, and the total number of bus routes that serve the airport land use category. Because airports must be staffed 24 hours a day, the airports' operating hours were divided into three general shifts (Shift 1 5:00AM to 2:00PM; Shift 22:00PM to 11:00 PM; and Shift 311:00 PM to S:OO AM) based upon information obtained by CUTR related to airport operations. As previously stated, prior to determining whether an activity center is served by transit or not, 30 minutes was added to the beginning and end of shift to account for the logistics of arrival and departure of airport employees. Please note that the AM and PM designation of Shifts 1, 2, and 3 in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 refer to the beginning (AM) and end (PM} of the shift, rather than actual AM and PM times. Therefore, the AM of Shift 3 actually refers to 10:30 PM the shift's starting time (including the extra 30 minutes) and Shift 3's PM end time is 5:30AM. Weekday Service Table 4-1 provides information on bus service to the nine airports during weekdays, by shifts. A total of 15 routes access these major activity centers Monday through Friday. Shift 1 is considered to be served by bus service exclusively in the PM on weekdays (15 of 15 routes), meaning that one may depart tile airport at the end of Shift 1 (2:30 PM or l ater), but no bus arrives at any of the airports by 4:30 AM, when employees would be required to arrive for the start of a 5:00AM shift. For Shift 2 (1:30 PM to 11:30 PM) during weekdays, three of tile 15 routes access the activity centers during both the AM and the PM, meaning tllat one could arrive for tile start of a 2:00 PM shift by 1:30 PM and depart the airport at the end of the shift at 11:30 PM. However, the majority of tile routes ( 12) tllat access tile airports only provide service during the AM portion of Shift 2, providing bus service at the beginning of the shift but not at the shift's end. No routes provide service exclusively during tile PM of Shift 2.

PAGE 142

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----As illustrated in Table 4-1, Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 5:30AM) receives bus service similar to Shift 2 This shift is served by three of the 15 for both the AM and PM, and seven routes serve this shift only in its PM. There are no routeS that serVe Shift 3 only during the AM of the shift. Table 4: Weekday Transit Service to Airport Major Activity Centers Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Number AM PM Activity Center of AM/PM AM/PM AAI PM AM/PM AM PM Routes Only Only Only Only Only Only Pensacola ReglonaJ Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tamp a I nternational Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Daytona 8oacll Tot a l 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ft. Lauc:lerdaleiHolywoocl Total 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Sarasota (Sarasota County) 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 Total Sarasota (Manatee County) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total lskeland lender Regioll31 Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 West Palm Bea<:tl International 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Total Mlamllntcmational Total 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 Melbourne I nternational Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tolo:ll 15 0 0 1 5 3 1 2 0 3 0 7 Saturday Service A total of 14 routes serve the airports on Saturday, as indicated in Table 4-2. Shift 1 (4:30AM to 2:30 PM), as with the weekday schedule, is served exclusively during the PM-only. All 14 of the routes provide bus service for the AM of Shift 2 (1:30 PM to 11:30 PM), 12 of which are during the AM-only, and two routes serve both the AM and PM. There are no routes providing PM-only sesvice for Shift 2 on Saturdays. Finally, four of the 14 routes provide service during Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 5:30AM), three routes in the AM-only and one route in the PM-only. None of the routes sesve Shift 3 In both the AM and PM. Sunday Service Table 4-2 also shows that a total of nine bus routes provide service to and from the airports on Sundays, and again, Shift 1 is served in the PM-only by all of these routes. All of the routes serve Shift 2 during the AM-only, providing no service for the PM end of this shift Shift 3 receives bus service by two of the nine routes i n the AM-only and one in the PM-only. C!MpW"Four Scheduling tor Maft>r Activity centers Field Test

PAGE 143

Table 4: Saturday and Sunday T ransit Service to Airport Major Activity Centers Sotwcloys.M $uncSey Service Shifl1 Sflilt 2 Shi ft 3 Shifl1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Numbtr AM PM AM PM AAI P M Number AAI P M PM AeUvlty Conttr of AMfPM M!/PM AM/PM of AM/PM M!/PM AAI AAIIPM AAI P M Routet Ot11y Onty Only Only Onl y Only Rout es O nly Only Only Onl y Only Only Pensacola Regional Totol 1 0 0 t 0 1 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 t 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tampa1 0 0 I Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Daytona S.aeh Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ft. Lauderdale/HOllywood 1 0 0 t 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Toto! Sarasota(Sotaso4a 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cot.nty)Totol Sarasola 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coon ty)Tota l I Lakeland Lender 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RegionaJ Totat W e s t Palm Beach 1 0 0 1 l.ntemational Tota1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Miami tn,emational 4 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 Total M&lboume 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 lntemstlonal Total Total 1 4 0 0 1 4 2 1 2 0 0 3 1 9 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 2 1 ------. -

PAGE 144

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Patterns and Assessment The totals presented in Tables 4-1 and 4 reveal that airports receive less bus service (9 routes) on Sunday than that provided on weekdays (15 routes) and Saturdays (14 routes). This is likely the result of the scaledback bus service provided by many transit agencies on Sundays, and the fact that many of the systems do not operate on that day. Five of the 13 transit systems included in this analysis do not provide any bus service on Sundays and the remaining 8 provide a reduced level of service on Sundays. In addition, of the nine routes accessing the airports on Sundays, four of these are MiamiDade Transit routes, the largest system in the study. The remaining five routes that access airports on Sundays are spread among five transit systems, each operating one route to the airport. The early start time of Shift 1 (4:30AM) is the most li kely reason that none of the routes serve the AM portion of this shift. Although many of the systems have begun service by 6:00 AM, particularly during the weekdays, this timing does not allow for arrival at the airport for workers with a 5:00 AM shift. However, by the mid-afternoon end time of Shift 1 (2:30 PM), all of the systems are providing service that would allow workers to depart the airport at the end of their shift. It is somewhat the opposite situation for Shift 2 at airports. Because of the time of day this shift begins (1:30 PM), all of the routes serve Shift 2 in the AM. However, tile late endtime of the shift (11:30 PM) generally is not served due to the fact that most of the systems have ended their service prior to that time, frequently by a matter of hours. It should be noted that for both weekdays and Saturdays, the fwe routes that do serve Shift 2 during both the AM and PM are the routes of larger systems, such as Broward County Transit and MiamiDade Transit. There are no routes that serve the AM and PM of Shift 2 on Sundays. Due to its late start time (10:30 PM), Shift 3 often is not served for the AM portion of the shift, again because most of the transit systems have ended their service for the day by that time, with the exception of the larger systems. The PM of this shift Is more often served because many o f the agencies have begun transit service within an h our following 5:30 AM, the end time of this shift for airports. Of further note, it may be the case that transit scheduling to and from the activity centers In this and other categories in this analysis is structured to serve the patrons of the activity centers rather than the workers. St:lredullng for M
PAGE 145

-------
PAGE 146

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----Shift 2 (2:30PM to 11:30 PM) is served by bus transit exclusively In the AM (16 of 16 routes) on weekdays, as all routes access the activity centers only at the start time of this shift Although some of the larger systems are still in operation at the end time of Shift 2 (11:30 PM), the routes that provide service during the later hours are not serving the particular activity centers in this land use category. A total of 14 routes serve Shift 3 (10 : 30 PM to 7:30 AM) during weekdays and this shift is primarily served during the PM-only (12 of 17 routes). Two routes provide service dur ing the AM and PM of the shift, meaning that there is bus service to the activity center between 9:30 and 10:30 PM (the AM of the shift) and that bus service operates early enough so a worker could depart between 7:30 and 8:30 AM, after completing Shift 3. The remaining three routes that access the medical activity centers do not provide service within the defined parameters of useful service. Saturday Service Table 4-4 illustrates the existing transit conditions for the medical land use category on Saturdays. These activity centers are accessed by a total of 16 routes on Saturdays. Eight routes serve Shift 1 In both the AM and PM, therefore arriving prior to 6:30 AM and departing after 3 :30 PM, providing service at both ends of Shift 1. Seven routes provide bus service for the PM-only, and no bus routes serve the AM-only portion of Shift 1, indicating that almost half of the routes that access the medical land use category during Saturdays do not arrive early enough for workers to reach these activity centers for the beginning of Shift 1. Of the 16 routes that access the medical activity centers on Saturdays, 15 serve Shift 2 in the AM-only No routes serve both the AM and PM of this shift, and no routes serve the PM-only. Therefore, the only Saturday bus service available to those medical activity centers provides access in the AM of Shift 2 (2:30 PM), necessitating other travel arrangements for departure from the hospital or medical center for those completing a shift at 11:30 PM. Only two of the 16 routes serve these activity centers in the AM and PM of Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM), but they are served by 12 routes in the PM-only (7:30 AM). No routes provide AM only (10:30 PM) service for this shift on Saturdays. This i s not surprising given that most agencies have begun service prior to 7:30AM, but many do not operate until10:30 PM. Sunday Service Table 4-4 also indicates that five routes provide access to the activity centers within the medical land use category on Sundays. Shift 1 is served by all five bus routes In the PM-only, meaning that none arrive at the medical activity centers by 6:30 AM for the start of Shift 1. As with

PAGE 147

T a bl e 4 4 Satu rday a n d Sunday Tra n sit Service to M edical M ajor A ctivity Centers sac.urd.ay Service SundoyS ...... Sl'lifl 1 Shift 2 Shllt3 Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Num.,._. />HI P M />HI P M />HI P M Number AAI PM />HI PM ... P M AciMty Ctl'ltt t of I>HIIPM Only Only MI/PM Only Only AM/P M Only Only at MI/PM Only Only MI/PM O nly Only /UAIPM Only Only Route s RoutH: Memorial 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Hoof)QI TOIII HolyCross 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Hool)ito1 TOIOI OOCIOI'S Hoop;ta l 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TOOl! Sarasota Memo!lal 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hosp;tal TOial _,.... 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T-Lakeland 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regloool Total W il'lt&t Haven 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T otel TMHC To411 4 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 i Total 16 8 0 7 0 1$ 0 2 0 12 5 0 0 5 0 s 0 0 0 0

PAGE 148

-----
PAGE 149

----
PAGE 150

----
PAGE 151

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----category was assigned the same operating hours (7:30 AM to 6:00 PM) because these are considered to cover the range of a typical business day. Service within this category is considered only Monday through Friday as these days are considered the traditional workweek. Although many of the bus routes may serve business and government centers on Saturday and/or Sunday, for the purpose of this analysis, weekend days have been omitted from consideration and are indicated by N/ A in Table 4-6. Information detailing the individual routes and the transit service access provided by them is presented in Table H-6 in Appendix H. The business/government category genera lly is well served by the transit routes that access these areas. Of the 159 routes, these activity centers are considered served in both the AM and PM by 114 routes, p roviding workers the opportunity to reach these areas via transit by 7:30 AM and to depart following a workday ending at approximately 5:30 or 6:00 PM. Another 27 routes serve these areas in the AM-only, and four routes serve in the PM-only. Although there are another 14 routes that access the business and government centers, they are not classified as serving the category because their arrival and/or departure times fall between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM. However, these routes likely do provide transit service access to individuals who may not work at the business/government centers, but do need to access their services throughout the day. Patterns and AsSessment The business/government land use category likely is well served by transit because most of these activity centers are major employment attractors and typically are situated within the downtowns of most cities. Downtowns often form the central core of a modified ra dia l network from which the majority of a system's routes originate and return at the end of the service day. Th e primary transfer centers of many transit systems often are located within these downtown areas, as the focus of transit has traditionally been an area's business/government core. Not all of the business/government centers are in downtown areas, however. Employment centers such as office complexes and corporate campuses commonly are located outside the city center, thereby changing the typical pattern of commuter traffic entering downtowns in the morning and exiting towards the suburb s in the evening. Despite the traditional radial network focus on downtown areas and the riSe in suburban employment centers, the outlying business centers in this analysis are relatively well served by transit. Of the nine routes that access the four activity centers that are not located In what may be considered the downtown of a given area, six routes are considered to serve these centers in the AM and PM, and the other three routes serve in the AM-only. S }or Activity CentrNs Fittld rnt

PAGE 152

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIER S & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---Table 4-6: Transit Service to Business Governmen t Major Activity Centers . . ,' Weekday Service Saturday SCfVieo Sunday Service Number IW PM Number Number Aeti\lity Center of AIII/PM of AM/PM Nil PM of Alii PM Onl y Only Only Only AMIPM Only Only Routes ROU1C$ Routes M.C. Blanchard J udiclal 4 0 4 0 NIA NIA B u il ding T otsl Marc u s Poi n te 2 0 2 0 NIA N / A Commerc& Pa11< Total Oownt0'111l P laza Total 9 6 2 0 N/A NIA Downtovm Square 2 2 0 0 NIA NIA T ota l Cou nty Coll.C'thouse 2 2 0 0 NIA NIA (Ocala) T olal Marion County Health 3 1 0 0 N/A N/A Dept. Total Oow n to'lln Tampa Total 29 1 7 1 1 1 N/A NIA W0$1$hoce BU$ines,$ 4 4 0 0 NIA N / A District Total Port Tamps To t a l 1 1 0 0 NIA NIA Macllill AFB Tola l 3 2 1 0 N I A NIA Downtown Oay1ona 1 6 13 2 1 NIA NIA Beach Tolal New Smyrna 3 0 0 0 NIA NIA Downtown Total Oownto"''" Ft. 15 15 0 0 NIA NIA Lauderdole T otol OOYantown Sarasota 13 10 1 1 N/A N/A Total Cou nty Courthouse 5 5 0 0 NIA NIA (Manatee) T olal Downtown Palmetto 2 2 0 0 NIA NIA T otal Lakeland City Hall T otol 2 1 0 0 N/A NIA Koger Center 2 2 0 0 NIA NIA (T o t lot>assee) Tota l County Government 10 6 4 0 NIA NIA Cen ter (Tota l ) TREX Bluelake Office 2 2 0 0 NIA N/A Complex Total KogOl COnte< (M;aml) 3 3 0 0 NIA NIA To t al Downtown Miami Total 22 20 0 1 N I A NIA Tilu$ville CBO Total 1 0 0 0 NIA NIA Coooa CBD Total 1 0 0 0 NIA NIA County GOVQtflment 3 0 0 0 NIA NIA Cente r (Brevard) Tota l Total 159 1 14 27 4 NIA NIA Scheduling for llf3jor Actfvlty Centen FIB/d Test

PAGE 153

----
PAGE 154

----'OPERATIONAL BARRI ERS 8r. IMPI;DIMENTS TO TRAN SIT USE----. . . T able 4-7: Transit Service to Education Major Activity Centers I Weekday Service Saturday Servlco Sunday Service Number AM PM Numbor AM PM Number Activity Center of AMIPM of AM/PM of AM PM Onl y Onty Only Only AM/PM Only Only RotltGS R outes Routes U niversity of west F l Orida 1 0 0 0 N/A NIA Total University of FIOrldo/ShandS 1 1 0 7 0 NIA N/A Total SFCC Main 2 0 2 0 N/A NIA Campu$ T otal SFCC-0 0\vo l ow n 3 0 2 0 NIA NIA Campus TotaJ Centfal Fl Com m u nity 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 NIA College T olal HIIJs.borough Community 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 NIA Colleg e Total Un i versity o f South F l orida 11 0 10 0 1 0 5 0 5 NIA Total D aytona Beach Comm unity 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 NIA Co ll ege T otal S0<1th FIO
PAGE 155

-----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Sunday Service Only one of the educational activity centers (Miami-Dade Community College) is in session on Sundays, and it is served in both the AM and PM of its operating hours by all three of the routes that access the school on that day. Although most transit systems decrease the hours of operation on Sundays and often begin service on this day later than during weekdays or even Saturdays, the early start time of Sunday classes (7:30 AM) is within the r ealm of service for a la rger system such as Miami-Dade Transit. Patterns and Assessment In general, the education activity centers are not well served in the PM portion of their operating hours during weekdays. This primarily is due to the fact that, as suggested by the data presented Table 4, most of the transit systems have ceased daily operations by the time evening classes have ended. However, many of the major activity centers included in the education land use category do receive transit service during the portion of the school day during which the majority of classes are conducted. Despite a typically shorter transit span of service on Saturdays, more education activity centers that are in operation on that day are served in both the AM and PM because Saturday course scheduling does not exceed the hours of transit operation. Although only one of the education activity centers is in operation on Sunday, it is served in both the AM and PM. The activity centers in this category are sometimes accessed by transit outside the realm of the operating hours of each activity center, such as on Saturdays or Sundays, because several of the education activity centers, particularly the community colleges, are used as transfer points for some of the transit systems. Transit scheduling, therefore, may not necessarily be structured around class meeting times, but rather at intervals that lend themselves to making transfers to other routes within the system. In addition, the majority of the classes meet within the hours of transit service. This results in severa l routes that access the education activity centers during their operating hours, but do not serve them in the AM or PM. Recreation The final land use category to be considered in this analysis includes 11 recreational activity centers. The recreation land use category has been divided into shift recreation (5 activity centers) and non-shift recreation (6 activity centers}, and the totals for this category are presented in Tables 4 through 4. Due to the proliferation of hotels on Florida beaches and the nature of that business being a 24-hour operation, all of the beaches and the one hotel provided as major activity centers for this category were considered under the classification of shift recreation (Tables 4-8 and 4). Non-shift recreation (Table 4) is made up of those

PAGE 156

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----. : activity centers with established operating hours that do not necessitate the division of three shifts. Shift Recreation Wegkday Service Information obtained regarding hotel shift hours was similar to that of the major activity centers i n the medical land use category. Despite some variation acco rding to job title, Shift 1 is generally considered to be 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Shift 2 is 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM, and Shift 3 is 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. As with the other categories, 30 minutes was added to each end of these shift times to account for the logistics of arrival and departure in determining whether the activity center is served by transit. As illustrated in Table 4, the beaches and hotels of the recreation category are accessed by a tota l of 12 routes on weekdays. Shift 1 (6:30 AM to 3:30 PM) is served in the AM and PM by five bus routes, and seven bus routes serve the PMonly. There are no bus routes that exdusively serve the AM of this shift. Four bus routes serve Shift 2 (2:30PM to 11:30 PM) in the AM and PM, and seven routes serve this shift in the AM-only. No routes provide service in the PMonly. Shift 3 (10 :30 PM to 7:30 AM) is served at some point by ten of the 12 routes. Three bus routes serve this shift in both the AM and PM. Two bus routes serve the shift in the AM-only, and fiv e bus routes serve the third shift in the PM-only during weekdays. It should be noted that the two ro utes that serve Pensacola Beach during Shift 1 in the PM-only, Shift 2 in the AM and PM, and Shift 3 in the AM-only operate from May to September, and Friday is the only weekday that these routes are in service. Table 4 Weekday Transit Service to Shift Recreation Major Activity Centers Shift 1 Shift 2 Shlft 3 Number of AM/PM ANI PM AMIPM ANI PM ANIJPM ANI PM Activity Center Routes O..ly O..Jy O..ly Only O..Jy Only Pensaoola Beach Total 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 Ft. Laudetdafe Beach 4 4 0 0 Total 2 2 0 3 0 1 Manatee Beactl Total 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Boca Raton 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Hotel/Resort Total Beaches (Brevard 3 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 Coun ty) Total Total 12 6 0 7 4 7 0 3 2 5 Operates Friday only; May-Septembet Scheduling fOr Major Activity Cf&N'I Field Test

PAGE 157

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Shift Recreat io n Saturday Service Nine transit routes provide access to the shift recreation activ i ty centers on Saturdays, as presented in Table 4. Of these routes, three serve Shift 1 (6:30AM to 11:30 PM) in the AM and PM and six routes serve Shift 1 in the PM-on ly. No routes serve the AM-only portion of this shift. Similarly, Shift 2 (2:30 PM to 11:30 PM) is served by three bus routes during both the AM and PM, but the remaining six routes for this shift provide service in the AM-only. However, it should be noted that two of the three bus routes that serve the AM and PM portion of Shift 2, and the PM of Shift 1 on Saturdays are the aforementioned summer routes along Pensacola Beach, and their service characteristics apply only from May to September. Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM) is served in a fairly equal d i stribution by eight of the nine routes that access these activity centers. Three routes serve both the AM and PM, two routes serve the AM-onl y (both of which are the Pensacola Beach summer ro utes), and three routes serve the PM-only of this shift on Saturdays Shift Regeatjon Sunday Service Access to the shift recreation centers on Sundays is provided by a total of six bus routes. Indicative of the typically shorter transit operating hours on Sundays, Shift 1 (6:30 AM to 3:30 PM) is served exclusive l y in the PM-only by these six routes. Two routes serv e Shift 2 (2:30 PM to 11:30 PM) in the AM and PM and four routes serve in the AM-only. Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM) is served by two bus routes in the AMonly and one bus route in the PM-only on Sundays. However, as previously stated, the two routes accessing Pensacol a Beach operate from May to September only, and the composition of transit service, therefore, changes fo r the period from October to April. Shift 1 would be served in the PM-only by four routes rather than six; Shift 2 would be served by its four bus routes in the AM-only and no bus routes in both the AM and PM; and Shift 3 would be served by one bus route in the PM-only during this period Patterns and Assessment As was observed for the airport and medical land use categories, Shift 1 is served most frequently in the PM-only and Shift 2 typicall y is served in its AM-only. This is to be expected as the beginning time of Shift 1 (6:30 AM) often is prior to the start of transit service and the PM of Shift 2 (11:30 PM) occurs after many transit agencies have ceased operations for the day. Shift 3, if it is served at all, typically is served by transit only during the PM, as most of the systems are in operation by this time (7:30 AM). However, most are no t operating at 10:30 PM, the AM of Shift 3.

PAGE 158

Table 4 9 Saturday and Sunday Transit Service to Shift R ecreation Major Activity Centers Slt"ViCO Sunday Servlco S h ift 1 Shi ft 2 Shi ft 3 Shift 1 Shift 2 Shlft3 Numbtr AM PM JW. PM JW. PM Numb&r AM PM JW. P M PM ktiVIty of IW/PM AM/PM llM/P M of AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM -.... Routu Only Only Only Only Only Only -only Only only Only Only only Pensaoola 2 0 0 2' 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2' 2' 0 0 0 2' 0 e eoch Ft Lau6erdale 4 3 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 Beach Tols l 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beadl Totaf Boca Raton Hote l/Resort 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 fk Tocal ,. -' (. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/, County) Tolal Total 9 3 0 6 3 6 0 3 2 3 6 0 0 6 2 4 0 0 2 1 Operates -------..

PAGE 159

----
PAGE 160

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & TO TRANSIT Us:E----. bus routes that access these activity centers on Sundays only serve the AM portion of operating hours. Two routes provide service during both the AM and PM and one route serves the PM only portion of the activity centers' operating hours on Sundays. Patterns and Assessment One of the most obvious characteristics of non-shift re c reation service is that these activity centers are primarily served in the AM-only (32 of 45 routes), further Indicating that transit is not adequately serving the PM needs of the various activity centers included in this analysis. It also should be noted that the one bus route that consistently served the PMo nly within this category is an overnight route in the Miami-Dade system. Only ten of the 45 routes in this category provide both AM and PM service throughout the span of the wee k. One reason that these areas may not be well served during the PM of their operating hours Is that, with the exception of lincoln Road Mall in Miami (10 of the 19 weekday routes), these activity centers typically may be considered strictly daytime attractions, and, for the most part, they are. However, current scheduling negates the needs of employees who do not complete their workday in t ime for the last transit departure from the activity centers. Conclusion The existing conditions of transit service to major activity centers, as reported by the MPOs for the 13 transit service areas included in this analysis, have been evaluated by determining whether an activity oenter is served by the bus routes within a particular transit system. This determination was made based on whether an a ctivity oenter is served by transit In the AM only, the PM-onl y, or both the AM and PM. While providing service that spans the entire operating hours of an activity center and slightly beyond to account for workers' needs i s optimal, structuring transit service around a particular activity center is not always feasible due to financial and operational constraints. However, the categorization of the major activity centers into land use categories and subsequent analysis of their useful transit service allow for the observation of general patterns and trends that may provide insight into the t r ansit needs of the many who access these activity centers, especially the employees of these establishments. The assessment of the useful transit service accessing the major activity centers in this analysis provides insight into the current conditions of transit service and offers the opportunity to evaluate the gaps in service that may exist, as well as the potential for improvements in the leve l of transit service for major activity centers. Transit users and non-users alike frequently cite the inconvenience of bus transit scheduling to desirable locations as a barrier to transit use. An evaluation of current transit conditions at popular destinations affords the opportunity to structure bus transit routes and their scheduling to maximize the benefits of transit service. Sch
PAGE 161

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Table4-11 General Operating Hours of Transit Systems Included in Analysis General OperJting Hours Sys,tom Weekdays Saturdays Sundays ECAT 5:30AM 5 :30PM 6 :00AM 6 : 00 PM 7 : 45 AM7 :00 PM R T S 6 :00AM 7:00 PM 7 :00 AM-6:00 PM N o Serv it$ SUNTRAN 6 :15AM-6:45PM 6:15AM6:45PM No Setvlce HARTline 5:00AM 9 :00 PM 7 :00AM-8:00PM 7 :00AM 7:00PM VOTRAN 6 :00AM 7:00PM 6 :30AM-6:30PM 7:30AM 6 : 30 PM' BC T 5:30AM -11: 00 PM 6 :00AM-10:00 P M 6 :00AM7:00 P M SCAT 6 :00AM-6 : 00 Pt.1 6:00AM 6 :00PM No Service MCAT 6 :00AM-7:00 PM 6 : 00 AM 7:00PM NoSGMcc T ALTRAN 6 :00AM-6:30 PM 7 :00AM7 :00PM 12:00PM 6:00PM PAL MTRAti 5 :30AM$:00 PM 7 :00AM-7:00PM 9 :00AM5 :00PM MOT 5:00AM-1 :00AM 5:30AM12 :00 AM O : OOAM 1 1 : 00 PM 7:00AM 5 :00PM 6:30AM 4 : 00 PM 11: 30 AM2:30PM LMAT 5:45AM 7:00P M 7 :00AM 6:00PM No Service Only two routes on Sundays: one makes three trips and one ma k es four flips dvtlng operotitlg ho u rs 2very l im i ted Sunday serv ice; 6 routes in Greatet Daytona Beach onl y. Scheduling for Hajor Activity c-ters Field Teot

PAGE 162

----10PERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENT S TO TRANSIT USE---Results: Leve l of Tran sit Service Acoess to Major Activity Centers This section of Chapter Four presents the results of a comparative analysis of the lev e l of bus transit servic e access to major activity centers, by land use category. The comparative analys i s provided in this section build s on the data related to existing co nditions of transit service access to major activity centers that was presented in the preceding section by addressing the level of transit service that is provided to major activity centers, rather than simply determining whether or not service is provided. This analysis takes Into consideration the number of bus routes, frequency of bus service as well as activity center operating hours covered by transit service. The evaluation of the level of transi t service for each land use category Is made based upon the number of times per activity center operating hour that a bus accesses each of the activity centers associated with the 13 transit study areas Included In this analysis. A s desaibed previously, the number of buses per activity center operating hour for each major activity center was ascertained through the use of an equation consisting of the number of routes accessing the activity center, the average frequency of transit service to that activity center, and the percentage of the activity center's operating hours that are served by transit. The maximum, minimum, average, and median number of buses per activity center operating hour (referred to as "aooh throughout the rest of this analysis) were then calcu l ated for each land use category, and are presented I n the tables that follow. The detailed data by activity center are included in Appendix G. Airport Activity Centers The number of buses per activity center operating hour, by weekday, Saturday and Sunday, for the airport land use category Is summarized in Table 4-12. Weekdays have the highest level of transit service, ranging from 0.50 to 5.65 buses per aooh, with the average being 1.45 and the median being 1.00 buses per acoh at the a i rports. Saturdays show a slight decrease In the level of transit service, with 0.24 being the minimum and 4.08 bein g the maximum number of buses per acoh that access thes e activity centers. The average number of buses per acoh on Saturdays Is 1.01 and the median Is 0.53. Sundays reveal a l ower level of transit service to and from the activity centers In the airport category. The maximum number of times per acoh that buses access this category Is 3.14 and, as illustrated In Table 4, since 5 of the 1 3 transit systems do not operate on Sundays, the minimum number of buses per acoh on Sundays is zero. Therefore, the average number of buses per acoh on Sundays is 0.48 and the median i s 0.13.

PAGE 163

-----
PAGE 164

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS S.. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----: ; Table 4 Level of Transit Service Access for Medical Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Center Operating Hour N=S Maximum Minimum Average Median Weekday Service 5.30 0.46 1 .84 1.11 Saturday Service 4.49 0.38 1.66 1.11 Sunday Service 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.00 The transit system in T allahassee provides the highest average leve l o f service in the med ical category for weekdays and Saturdays. However, TaiTran's limited Sunday service results in Broward County T r ansit hav ing the highest average level of transit service in the medical category on Sundays, with slightly more than one bus per acoh on that day. Similar to airports, the activity centers in the med i cal land use category are 24-hour operations and, therefore, receive a lower overall level of service. Shopping ActiVity Centers The number of buses per acoh accessing the shopping activity centers on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays is presented in Table 4-14. The weekday buses per acoh range from a minimum of 0.70 to a maximum of 13.20 at the shopping activity centers, with an average of 4.29 and a median of 3 93 buses per acoh. Saturdays receive only a slightly lesser lev e l of transit service, ranging from a minimum of 0.50 to a maximum of 10.00 buses per acoh. The Saturday average is 3 25 and the median is 3 33 buses per acoh accessing the shopping activity centers. As illustrat e d in Table 4-14, the typically scaled-back transit service on Sundays results in a maximum bu ses per acoh of 8.00, while the minimum falls to zero due to some transit systems providing no Sunday service. The Sunday average is 1.14 and the median is 0.00 buses per aooh accessing the shopping activity centers. Scheduling for Hll}9/' Activity Field Test

PAGE 165

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----Table 4-14 Level of Transit Service Access for Shopping Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Center Operating Hour N=25 Maximum Minimum Average Median Weekday Service 13. 20 0.70 4.29 3 .93 Saturday Service 10.00 0 50 3.25 3 .33 Sunday Service 8 00 0 .00 1 14 0.00 As with the airport and medical land use categories, Miami-Dade Transit p r ovides the maximum number of weekday buses per acoh (13.20) in the shopping category, as well. Manatee County Transit provides the minimum level of transit serv ice i n the shopping category on weekdays (0.70) and on Saturdays (0.50) However, the activity cente r with thi s leve l of service is a 24hou r shopping destination, the only activity center in this category w ith such hours. Overall, this information indicates that the shopping activity centers appear to be relatively well served, with an average of more than fou r buses per acoh on weekdays and more than three buses per acoh on Saturdays. Business/Government Activity Centers The business and government activity centers in this analys i s receive the highest l evel of weekday transit service As shown in Tab l e 4-15, the maximum number of weekday buses per acoh accessing these activity centers is 59.40. However, there i s a broad range In this service, w ith a minimum number of buses per acoh of 0.15. The weekday average is 9.55 and the median is 3.00 buses per acoh Saturdays and Sundays were not figured into the assessment of thi s category since the operating hours of the business/government activity centers were c onsidered only for the traditional workweek, i.e. Monday through Friday.

PAGE 166

---OPERATIONA L B A R R I ERS & IMPEDIMENTS T O TRAN SIT Us;E---Tabll! 4-is L e v e l o f Tra nsit Service Access for Business/Gov ernment Activity Ce nters ?"-' : : .... : .::: Buses Per Activity C enter Operati n g Hour Maxim u m Minimum Average Median W eekday Serv i ce 59.40 0 15 9.55 3 .00 Satu r da y Service N/A N/A N/A N/A Sun day Serv ice N/A N/A N/A N/A As w ith the prev i ous categories, Miami-Dade Trans i t provides the maXimum number of buses per acoh accessing the activity centers in this category (59.40). Hillsborough A rea Regi onal Trans i t (HARTLine) serves Downtown Tampa with 40 60 b uses per acoh, the second highest level of transit service to the business/government activ ity centers. The re l atively high level of s e rvice to these activity centers may be exp l ained by the fact that radia l t r ansit systems were typica ll y developed with d owntowns/CBDs as thei r core and most of the activ i ty centers I n this category are situated in these areas. The minimum number of buses per acoh (0.15) is p rovided to the Titusville centra l business district (CBD) b y Space Coast Area T r ans i t (SCAT). It shou l d be noted, however, that this transit system evolved from a doo r -to-door parat r ansit operation, originally developed to serve the el derl y populat ion in Brevard County The c urrent transit situation in this area is somewhat of a combined paratrans it-typ e service and regu l ar fixed route system Education Activity Centers Table 4-16 reveals that the education category activity centers re c eiv e the s e cond h i ghest level of weekday transit service with a weekday maximum of 29.79 and a minimu m of 0.47. The average i s 6.66 a n d the median I s 2.91 buses accessing these activity centers per hou r o f operation The range of Satu r day transit service in this category is greatly reduced, from the mi n imum of 0.00 to the maximum of 7 .20 buses per acoh. However, the Saturday average i s 4 .09 bus p e r acoh an d the median is 3 10 buses pe r acoh, not significantly lower than the weekday ave rage (6 66) and me dian ( 2 91). C lasses are held on Sundays at only on e of the educatio n activity centers and this is t h e only act i vity center tha t receives Sun day transit serv i ce, therefore account ing fo r the ident ical maximum, m inimum, ave r age and median figures of 4.95 buses per acoh for Sundays Sdreduling For Meior Activity Centsrs F/old Test

PAGE 167

---
PAGE 168

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---Table4-17 Level of Transit Service Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Ce-nter Operating Hour N=11 Maximum Minimum Average Med ian Weekday Service 27.00 0 .47 4.28 1.50 Saturday Service 18.40 0.00 3.21 1.48 Sunday Service 1 5.92 0.00 1.80 0.00 As exhibited in the previous categories, the largest transit system in the analysis, Miami-Dade Transit, provides the highest level of transit service to recreation activity centers on weekdays (27 .00), Saturdays (18.40), and Sundays (15.92). The minimum levels of transit service are spread among the transit systems during the three time periods. During weekdays, the minimum (0.47) buses per acoh are provided by PalmTran to the recreation activity center located in Boca Raton. On Saturdays, Space Coast Area Transit does not provide t ransit service to the recreation activity center within its service area, resulting in 0.00 buses per acoh on that day. However, all of the other activity centers includ ed in the recreation land use category do receive some transit service on Saturdays, as is evident from the Saturday average of 3.21 buses per acoh. This is significant as most recreation activity centers, such as beaches and parks, are most heavily used on the weekends. As with the Sunday service in other categories, the fact that some transit systems do not operate on that day results in zero vehicles serving some of the recreation activity centers on Sundays. In fact, the leve l of transit service access to the recreation activity centers is drastically reduced on S undays, as more than half of the activity centers included in this category do not receive any transit service on Sundays. ScfNN!uling for Major Actirlty Ctmle!S neld Test

PAGE 169

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Major Findings of the Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Field Test A common complaint made by transit passengers, as well as non-users, is that public transit does not travel to desired destinations at the times when people would like to travel to and from those destinat ion s The intent of the transit scheduling for major activity centers field test was to provide a preliminary assessment of whether and to what degree transit service in Aorida is accessing major activity centers in order to i dentify possible gaps in the scheduling of transit service to activity centers. Toward this end, information was collected and analyzed in relation to the operating hours of and transit service provided to 94 major activity centers located in 13 transit service areas throughout Florida. These data were organized into six l and use categories (airports, medical, shopping, business/government, education, and recreation) and compared in order to determine the existing conditions of transit service access to major activity centers in Florida and the level of transit service provided to these activity centers The existing conditions analysis evaluated whether or not the activity centers included in the analysis are served by transit in terms of the earliest and latest bip(s) available to transit patrons This analysis focused on the availability of transit service, while the level of transit service access analysis addressed the question of how much transit service is provided to the 94 major actiVity centers. This was accomplished by considering the number of bus routes, frequency of bus service, and percent of the activity centers' operating hours that receive transit service. Thus, the assessment of the level of transit service access to major activity centers provides a comparative analysi.s of the number of buses that access each major activity center per activity center operating hour. The major findings from each analysis are provided in the follow ing sections. Summary of Major Findings Existing Conditions of Transit Service to Major Activity Centers All of the major activity centers Included in the existing conditions of transit service to major activity centers analysis are accessible by transit; however, they may or may not be accessible at the most desirable or necessary times. Some activity centers require a relatively early AM start that may not be served by a transit system that is not yet in service for the day. Other activity centers are in operation beyond the daily span of service of many of the transit systems and are, therefore, not served by transit in the PM period Table 4-11 presents the genera l operating hours of each of the 13 transit systems included in this analysis. These hours were obtained by examining the printed trans i t infonnation materials (schedules and route maps), as well as through direct contact with several of the transit agencies. In the event of discrepancies between the printed timetables and the information prov ided by the transit agencies, an estimation was made to describe a transit system's general hours of operation

PAGE 170

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE-----Based on data presenred in Tables 4-1 through 4-10 of this chapter, as well as the Information compiled in Table 4-11, the following have been identified related to transit service '' .. availability to the major activity centers iri8udecffn this analysis. The major actiVity centers in the airport land use category are generally not served or are poorly served by transit for the AM portion of the first shift, the PM portion of the second shift, and both portions of the third shift. These times are generally outside the operating hours for most of the transit systems included in this ana l ysis. The airports are consistently served by transit in the PM portion of Shift 1 and AM port i on of Shift 2, which are situated in the mid-afternoon when all of the transit systems are in full operation. A similar situation exists at the major activity centers of the medical land use category, in that the AM portion of Shift 1 and the PM portion of Shift 2 are frequent l y not served by transit, but the PM portion of Shift 1 and the AM portion of Sh ift 2 are consistently served due to their mid-afternoon start (Shift 2) and end (Shift 1) times. As with the airport category, Shift 3 is infrequently served in the AM portion However, in contrast to the airports, the PM portion of Shift 3 is frequently served by transit because most of the bus routes are in operation by the time this shift ends The overa ll pattern of transit service at the shopping major activity centers is that they are served in the AM but are generally not served in the PM. The mid-to l ate-morning AM start times associated with these activity centers allows for transit service, but many systems have ceased daily operations by the typically late-evening PM end times of these activity centers In addition, the shopping major actiVity centers often serve as transfer points to other routes, and frequent l y are served by transit hours before shopping activities begin. In general, the business/gove r nment major activity centers are well served by transit. The business day falls well within the daily span of service, and these activity centers are commonly located in downtown areas, the traditional hub of transit actiVity around which a radial network is structured. Those business centers located outside the dty center also are relatively well served by transit. Major activity centers in the education land use category most frequently are served by trans i t in the AM-on l y, although course scheduling results in the PM portion of these activity centers ending in the late evening during weekdays. Similar to the shopping category, most of the transit systems are not in service by the time evening classes have been dismissed, resulting in a gap in service for the PM portion of the education category's day Saturdays generally are well served In this category, however, because t:MpttuFour Scheduling for Major A
PAGE 171

----
PAGE 172

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----. . .. .... . attributable to the fact that business/government activity centers typically are located in downtown areas, which are often the hub of transit activity. Comparatively, other land use categories, such as the medical category, seem to be less well served by transit during weekdays. The low numbers for this category likely are related to the fact that, for the purposes of this study and in reality, medical centers and hospitals are considered to be 24hour operations. Because transit service is generally not provided 24 hours per day, these activity centers appear to have a lower level of transit service. Furthermore, the level of transit service access to major activity centers is most certainly affected by the day of the week that is be.ing measured. As demonstrated In Table 4-11, several of the transit systems provide shortened service on Saturdays and Sundays, and some do not operate on Sundays at all. In determining the level of transit service access for the major activity centers, the variation of an activity center's operating hours, as well as the variation in the hours of transit operation, must be considered. Based upon the data compiled in Tables 4-12 through 4-17, the following are general findings in relation to the level of transit service access to the major activity centers in this study. Miami-Dade Transit consi.stently provides the highest level of transit service access to major activity centers when compared with the other 12 transit systems Included in the analysis. The major activity centers located in Brevard County tend to receive the lowest level of transit service in comparison to the other 12 transit service areas included in the analysis. Most of the land use categories included in the analysis appear to receive a sufficient level of transit service during weekdays and Saturdays. However, transit service In most transit service areas is drastica lly reduced or curtailed on Sundays, resulting in low levels of transit service to major activity centers on this particular day The activity centers categorized under the airport and medical land use categories receive the lowest level of transit service due to the fact that these activity centers are 24-hour per day operations and none of the transit systems included in this analysis provide 24-hour service consistently. Airports while receiving some transit service, are not well served by any transit system included in the analysis. The weekday average of 1.45 buses per acoh and the Saturday average of 1.01 buses per acoh suggest that transit service to airports is not designed to accommodate the airport worker or, In most cases, travelers. Similar1y, of the six transit Scheduling for Major ActMty centers Field Test

PAGE 173

----
PAGE 174

-------
PAGE 175

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Recommendations: Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers The transit scheduling for major activity centers field test was conducted to examine the effectiveness of existing transit schedules in Florida by analyzing the availability of transit service to major activity centers, based on a comparison of transit schedules to activity center operating hours. Two types of analyses were conducted: a determination of the existing conditions of transit service access to major activity centers and a level of transit service access analysis that addressed how much t ransit service is available, on a comparative basis. Togethe r, the existing conditions and level of transit service availability analyses are intended to provide a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of existing transit scheduling in terms of providing service to major activity centers during the days and hours tha t patrons desire to access those sites. Ninety-four major activity centers from 13 transit service areas were organized into 6 land use categories for the purpose of the analyses. As the previous sections detail, each of the 94 major activity centers ind uded in the analyses are accessed by widely varying degrees of transit service. Most of the major activity centers examined do not receive a high level of transit service access in the PM period or on Saturdays and Sundays. Sunday transit service access is particularly limited with 5 of the 13 transit agencies included in the review not operating any transit service on Sundays and another 3 transit agenc ies providing drastically scaled back Sunday services. The land use categories con s istently receiving the highest levels of transit service access (business/government, shopping, and education) are also those that typically serve as major transit transfer points for Florida transit systems, suggesting that scheduling at these activity centers is affected more by overall system needs than by transit passenger travel demand. The following re commendations are offered to assist the F lorida Department of Transportation and t ransit systems in Florida to further address and evaluate the effectiveness of transit scheduling in relation to customer trave l demands. Recommendation 1 : Conduct Assessment of Transit Service Acress to Major Transit Attractors While the intent of the transit scheduling for major activity centers field test was to conduct a preliminary assessment of the availability of transit service access to major activity centers, the focus of the analyses was on traffic attractors identified by MPOs for a Transit Quality of Service Evaluation required by the FOOT and based on crite r ia set by the FOOT. Review of the major activity centers submitted to the FOOT by MPOs throughout the state of Florida suggests that these activity centers do not, in all cases, correspond to the major transit attractors for a given transit service area the activity centers to and from which transit custome rs most desire to travel. It is recommended that existing conditions of transit service availability and level of transit service access analyses be conducted with the major activity centers that are associated with existing and latent high transit service demand. These analyses would provide transit agencies with an even wider frame of reference from which to make decisions related to scheduling adjustments, route additions, and/or the reallocation of existing resources.

PAGE 176

---_...,OPERATIONAL B ARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Recommendation 2: Evaluate Scheduling Process and Priorities .,: ,; ,.. .: Scheduling decisions made by transit planners and schedulers at transit agencies are guided by a myriad of variables that include, but are not to, travel demands. Scheduling decis i ons also are Influenced by decisions relate d to transit system p rio r ities such as the goal of geogra p hic cove rage versus ridersh i p maximizat i on, union rules, funding considerations and their re l ationship to the span of service days of service, and frequen c y of transit service, as well as political influences re l ated to custom e r requests and complaints. In order to achieve a full understanding of the tran sit scheduling p r o cess, especially as it relates to transi t service access to major activity centers, i t is recommended that the transit planning staff and s c hedulers at each of the 22 F l orida trans i t systems be surveyed to gain ins i ghts into the fonna l and informal scheduling processes employed and the pri orities of each system as they pertain to scheduling existing transit services and planning future services Recommendation 3: Develop Guidelines for Level of Transit Service Access Standards The re l ative simplicity of the l e vel of trans i t servi c e access equat i on that was intro duced previously in this document should allow transit agencies th r oughout the state to conduct similar anal yses of their own ridership attractors, as was suggested in a previous recommendation. As the systems conduct this typ e of analys is, however, invariably, they will want to have a standard or acceptable range with which to compare t h eir scores. To this end, i t is recommended that further research be completed on t his type o f analys i s with rega r d to the devel opment of "rules of t humb" scores (or ranges of scores) for each o f the activ ity cente r types. This will provi d e the transit agencies with the comparatiVe va l ues that they will need for the i r level of transit serv i ce access analyses, which can also serve as goals fo r future accessibili ty improvements to thei r activity centers. Recommendation 4: Assess the "Hub and Spoke" Configuration of Transit Services The predominance of "hub and spoke," or ra dial configura t ion of transit services throughout Florida was ment i oned several times in this chapter with rega r d to transit service access to the major activity centers included in the trans i t sche duling field test. This configuration of trans i t serv ices is characteri z ed by transit "hubs," typi cally located in downtown a reas, from which transit services "radiate" o u t into the transi t service a r ea The typical design of th i s configuration, with the majority of bus routes begi nning and ending a t hubs located in downtown business districts, was well-suited for past employment and resi d ence patterns. H o weve r the preva lence of suburb to suburb travel and commutes today suggests that some transit service areas m i ght be better sui ted for alternat i ve fonms of transit system confi gurations, wherein suburb-to suburb travel does not necessitate travel to downtown areas Sdreduling for Miljor A
PAGE 177

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----that significantly increase total travel tim e and make transi t a less attractive transportation option than the personal automobile. Therefore, it is recommended that, based on the results of the transit service access to major transit activity centers analyses, transit agencies strongly consider alternative system configurations better suited to today's travel demands, as well as those of the future. Recommendation 5: Consider Increasing Evening Span of Transit Service The transit scheduling for major activity centers field test revealed a consistent pattern of ceasin g transit operations prior to the closing times associated with the major activity centers induded in the analyses. This pattern of AM-only service was evi dent in each of the six lan d use categories This is li kely a major source for the common perception that buses do not travel to the places that people wish to go at the times that they wish to travel. The lack of evening service is particularly prob lem atic for workers who wish to use transit for commuting purposes. Of the 13 t ransit systems indud ed in the field test, only 3 operate services until 9:00 PM or later on weekdays, only 2 transit systems provide service beyond 9:00 PM on Saturdays, and only MDT operates service this late on Sundays. Given the prominent role of the service industry in Florida's economy, it is likely that a very large portion of the permanent and visiting population either works beyond the typical 8:30 AM to 5 :30 P M workday or i s utilizing services beyond those hours. Therefore, it is recommended that transit agencies consider making later evening service a high pr iority in either the reallocation of existing resources or the planning of system enhancements. Sch
PAGE 178

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----. . . Afterword We can only imagine what life was like for the thousands of employees of the MTA in New York City in the days following the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Several hours passed before there was an assessment of whether there were people trapped in the subway station below the World Trade Center or whether the transit system itself was subject to attack. Street, bridge and tunnel closings forced the MTA to immediately re-route services that have operated on the same routing and schedule for many years. The tireless efforts of MTA employees at every leve l of the organization created heroes whose stories are not reporte d in the media; however, the relevance of MTA to the people in New York City and surrounding areas can never be underestimated. In the wake of this tragedy, the relevan ce of transit may become clearer in all our lives throughout the United States in the months and years to come. Just like the employees of MT A, transit professionals everywhere experience a myriad of pressures in the day-to-day reality of serving their local communities. In the production of transit Information materials, transit agencies are always under time pressure. Changes in bus schedules almost always center around the bidding process, which usually occurs three to four times a year, when bus operators bid on the work they will be performing. Therefore, the process usually entails the bus scheduler(s) developing route schedules and runs, which are then transmitted to the marketing department for production of bus schedules that are eventually distributed to customers. All of these activities must be carefully orchestrated over a period of time to ensu re that bus schedules are printed by the time a service change occurs. This process brings up an important issue between an agency's mission to ensure smooth operations and its mission to be customer-or iented. This report provided preliminary data on the ability of potential transit customers to Interpret transit information materials and, to the extent possible, data on design components that facilitate customer understanding. The data presented herein may be controversial to transit professionals who feel that the current l eve l of effort In producing transit materials is the best they can do within the constraints of their agency. However, it is the controversy itself that is the most important component of the report, for I f we never reflect on our modes of operating then we will be handicapped in our efforts to continuously improv e our methods. Public transportation service is more demanding than other modes of travel. Imagine a person who has grown up in a hometown whereby navigation is l earned through lefts and r ights as opposed to directions. Some people never team or develop the ability to read a map. The manner in which t ransit operates is not common knowledge. With the exception of major metropolitan areas, t here are at least two generations of individuals who have grown up with the automobile as their primary form of transportation and without transit ever being a major Final Report Afterword

PAGE 179

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----part of their lives. In this study, the project team found that many people do not intuitively understand the concept of transit service they do not know how to orient themselves when looking at a map, do not grasp the concept that there are bus stops b etween timepoints, cannot estimate time between timepoints, and could not plan a trip based on their necessary time of arrival, thus planning the trip backwards. On the one hand, we should rejoice that transit customers who rely on transit service have been able to adapt to the leve l of sophistication required to understand transit information materials; however, the problem is that potential customers who have no sense of the nuances are quickly lost and their confidence is almost immediately undermined. Potential customers who have a choice will often choose to not be bothered with the complexities of transit. Correspondingly, when scheduling services to major activity centers, bus schedulers may face many constraints such as available funds, revenue hours, span and frequency of service, political demands, and geographi c coverage and routing. This report shows that almost universally, major activity centers were adequately served in the morning hours but not in the evening hours. Therefore, the most important message for transit planners is that you must constantly stay in touch with activity centers and customers to ensure that services provided to major activity centers reflect the actual customer and potential customer demand. Even in cases where r esources are limited, reallocation of resources is possible to meet demand. Finally, the beauty of research of this nature and scope is tha t the research team does not face the same kind of time constraints and pressures that transit agencies face In producing schedules and printed transit information materials. The project team was able to utilize many examples and approaches to printed transit information materials in order to identify stumbling blocks and obstacles to using those materials. The next step is to take design techniques and components to develop utopian transit information materials and then conduct a new field test to see if comprehension increases. This would provide transit agenc ies with definitive data on design schemes that increase comprehension and usability. FIM/Roport

PAGE 180

-----
PAGE 181

-----
PAGE 182

---OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----Polzin, Steven E. (2000). Public Transportation in the 2151 Century: Challenges and Opportunities in Aorida. Paper presented at the Transpo200QThe Future is Now conferenoe, Kissimmee, Florida, April17-19, 2000. Pratt, Richard H. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Interim Handbook. Prepared for the Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2000. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, TCRP Project B-12, Web Document 12. Reed, Thomas B., Richard R. Wallaoe, and Daniel A. Rodriguez. "Transit Passenger Perceptions Regarding Transit-Related Crime Reduction Measures." Transportation Research Record, forthcoming. Rosenbloom, Sandra. Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change. Transit Coopera tive Research Program, 1998 Report 28. Washington, DC: T ransportat ion Research Board, National Academy Press. Southworth, Michael. "SmartMaps for Public T ransit." Access (8) (1996): 19-23. Texas Transportation institute and Nustats international. Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems. Transit Cooperative Research Program, 1999, Report 45. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). Transit Infonnation Aids : Mass Transportation Demonstration Project Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1969 Urbltran Associates, incorporated. Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation. Transit Cooperative Research Program, 1999 Report 55. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press. Wallace, Richard R., Daniel A. Rodriguez, Christopher White, and Jonathan Levine. "Who Noticed, Who Cares? Passenger Reactions to Transit Safety Measures." Transportation Research Record1666 (1999):133-138. Weber, Edward P., David Nice, and Nicholas P. Lovrich. "Understanding Urban Commuters: How are Non-SOV Commuters Different from SOV Commuters?" Transportation Quarterly 54(2) (2000) :105 -116 Whelan, Mary S. "A P assenger Information Perspective." I n Proceedings of The International Conference on Automatic Vehide Location In Urban Transit Systems, pp.425-441. ottawa, Canada: Canadian Urban Transit Authority. Fina/lbJporl Blblk>{lnlphy

PAGE 183

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----Winters, Philip L., Rollo C. Axton, and James B. Gunnell. "Transit and Ridesharing Information Study." Transportation Research Rerord1321 (1991):97-102. Bibfiogntphy

PAGE 184

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE!----Appentf/XA Appendix A Transit Matrix rranslt Matrix

PAGE 185

this page IS blank

PAGE 186

Ttblo A 1 -Time S<:hodulina Do Schldulln Sin lo Routes Weekday /Sal/Sun S... ()ny Houl1y Week Week (Week (May SaiJ Week-Tl""' Tome (by E>cact /WI day day/Sat end.) AI Mon . Sal include Sun. end Table Table Map Transit Tvoe Min.) Time PM Only Separate Separate Week Sat Only Holidays) Separate Only O!her Only Only Baytown Ride Guide X X X X Trollov BCT B Transit Gulde Time Table Routes #1,2 5 7 912,14 15,17,20 ,28, 3(). X X X 31,3 4 ,36,40 ,50,55-56,60,72,81 8384 93 Time Table Routes #18 22 X X X X Time Table Routes X X X 113 57 62 75 95 Time Table Route #75 X X X Tillie Tabl e Routes #92, 94 X X Combined Maruate :::.c: Routes .c.o X X X Pembnloke Pines Con-mmily Shuttle Bus Service Rou1e and X X X Tome Table Miramar Community Shuttle BIIS Service Route and X X X TimeTabl e Coconut Creek Shuttle Service X X X Bus Route a n d Time Table Ceoper C it y Community Bus X X X Route end Time Tab l e Broward Urban Shuttle X X Westem-=ress Guides X X X X Tamara\T::,'sij Timetables ed Gr Yw X X X X Free sMinibus Service X ECAT Ride Guide 13012000 X X Ride Guide r214/2001 X _X_ -------

PAGE 187

Time Scheduling D a Schedutin Sin l o Routes W ee!< day ISCaCt AMI day day IS
PAGE 188

Iabl!tA1 Time Schedu ling Oav Sehce
PAGE 189

' :a: ::11... Time Schedulina DaY ScheduUn Sin le Routes /Sat./Sun. Sun. Only H ourly Week Week(May Sal./ Week-Time Time (by Exact AM/ day day /Sat. end ) Al l Mon.S at. incfude Sun enJ>ring Serv ice Schedu l e X X S arasota South Exo ress County X X X X County Aree Soulh & No rth Counly Guides Transrt (spi l l counly. each one Is a X X complele a u ide) Sara sota Trolley X X X X X Space Coast Counlywl
PAGE 190

A I . Time Sclledu lfna DaY Schodulina S i n le Routes Weekday Sun. 0111) i /Sat/Sun. I Houoly Week Wee!< (Week (\o\ay SatJ Week lime lime (by Exact AMI day day /Sat end ) AI Mon.-Sat. include Sun. end Table Table Map, Tran s it Tvae Min ) Tr,. PM Only Separate Separate Week Sal. Only Horodays) S eparate Only Only &Map Only TRI-RAIL Train Schedule a nd SyoJem X X X Information sw-.o Shoo ShuJUe X X X TMAX Shuttle X X X Roote 63 X X X X MlA Terminal X X X Koge<, Miami Airport Station, & X X X Route 79 Routes 33,53, & 74; Boca X X X X Raton Station Combined Routes: 41142143 & X X X X 23/24 VOTRAN Bus 5eNiee Guide (Sun. -. X X X Servioe\ T='SeMce X X X x Ho-...;;; Schedule X X X Beach Tran X X X West Volusia Bus Servioe X X X X Guide SE Volusia Bus Service Guid o X X X X VolusiaiOr lando Bus Service X X X X Guide Oaylona Beach Bus Service X X X X Guide WHAT Route Mao & Sclledules X X

PAGE 191

M ultiple Routes Color Scheme SloD All nment Route & Tranafen Time Written Separate Separate on Transer T ime r.,., & HcO Only OnaMap M aps Only Color Color B&'l\ Plco Right) Boltom) Narrative Ust Table Nul1lbei'S Map Bey1own Ride Guide X X X X Trolley BCT B Transit Guide X X X X Time T able Routes 111,2,5-7,912 14-15,17 20 28 30X X X X X X 31,3 4 ,36 40 .50, 5556 60 n 81. 83-84.93 Tim e Ta ble Rout e s 1118,22 X X X X X X T i me T abl e Routes X X X X X 3 57 62 7 5,95 Time T able Route #75 X X X X X Time Table Routes #92, 94 X X X X X Combined Mar9 a te Inner City Routes CA, B.C oi X X X X X X Pembtooke Pines Community Shuttle Bus Service Route and X X X X T11110 Table M iramar Communily Shuttle Bus Sentice Route and X X X X X X r meT able Cocon ut Cree k Shuttle Setvioe X X X X X Bus Route and Time Table C oope r City Comm unity Bus X X X X Route and T ime Tab l e Brow a rd U rba n Shutt l e X X X X Westem Exoress G uides X X Tamarac Tra11$it Route X X X X X X Timetables (Red Gr Ywl Free "B" Minibus Service X X X ECAT Ride Guide (7/3M0001 X X X X X X Ride Guide (214120011 X X X X X X

PAGE 192

M ulllple Routes Color Schemo Stop Ali nment Roulo & Tran.loro Time W ritten Separale Separat e T a ble s on Trense< Time Time & Horizonlal V ertical Table, Guide l.ellero. Point s T able Tables & Mu lti ple Map(s ) 2 Multi (Left lo (Top to In f o Map 01 and/or Does, or o n Transit Tvoe O nly O n e Map Maps Only Color Color B&W Pies R i ghi) Bottom) Narrative Ust Table Numben; Map HART il ne Transit Guide X X X X X Exnress Routes X X X X South Counly Circulator X X X X X Hart1ine Routes #1,2,5,6, 7, 8 10,11, 1 2 ,15,19 ,30 ,32,34,36,3 X X X X 746 Hartline Rou t es #3,14.39 X X X X Hartlin e Routes #4,9,16,17,18 ,31,33, X X X X 38,41,87,88 JTA Transit Guide X X X X X X Routes : BlandingFJy, MngtonFty OrgPkf ly, X X X "' ttohidFIY R out es : SI.AugEJcpSS-35, CCX X X 37 Routes: SS.2,4.20: WS-3 6,10 ,20; Ns-9,12 ,22; X X X X Minoton2-3 Routes: Northwest Loooe< X X X X Route: NS-11 X X X X Routes : Arlington 1,5,20; BH-. 1,2,3: ws-1.2.4,5.7,8,9: ss-X X X X 1,3 5 ,6, 7,8,9 21.40: NS1 8 101520 C ity of K e y Bus Schedule X X X X X X west LMAT or Route Map & Schedule : Bartow X X X X X X X CknJS Exoress 22X Conneclio n Roote Map & Schedule ( all the X X X X X X X res!) ---------

PAGE 193

o Dlo#IO ....... Multiple Routes Color Schemo StoJ) Ali nment Route & Transfer.J Time Wrillen Separale Separate Tables on Transer Time Time & Horizontal Vertical Table. Guide letters. Points Table Tables & Muniple Map(s) 2 Multi(left to (Top to Info Map, or and/or Dots, or on Transit Type Only One Map Maps Only Co l o r Color B&W Pies Right) Bottom) Narrative List Table Numtws Map teeT ran SvtemMao X X X Trol lev Guide X X X X Combined Routes: 110/115 X X X X X Routes: 20 85 X X X X X X Route: 150 X X X X X X Route Maps !all the resll X X X X X X lYNX Public Bus Svstem Mao X X X X X Schedule Book X X X X X Downtown Disney Direct X X X X X X Unk 13,5,1 0,12,14,18 27,34,43X X X X 44 47 52 54 liNK all the resu X X X X X MCAT Ride Guide X X X X X X Mlami-Oade STS Ridefs Guide X X Transit Transil R ide(s Handbook X X X X X X MetroMove r Guide X X X X X Transit Map X X X X X MetroRai' Guide X X X X X Dade-Monroe Eores s X X X X X Buswav/Coral Reel Max X X X X X Metro Area Express Routes X X X X X (the rest), Trf-Rail Koger Shutt! Kendall Area Transit X X X X X Busway local, Night Owl Shuttle, West Dade & SeaPort X X X X X Connection North Dade & Doral Connectior X X X X X Metrobus Schedule: R, V X X X X X 6 28 29 48 ,56 57 65 104 Metrobus Schedu l e: A W, 1 -91 (letters & Numbers not X X X X X included in above listing) --"'elf!lbUS Schedule: 95X X X X X X

PAGE 194

Tabl A-1 M ultlole Routes Co1or Seheme Sto o Ali nment Route & Tranatere Time Written Separate Separate Tables on Transer Time Time & Hoffzontal Vertical Table, GlAde Letters, Points T-Tables& Multiple Map(s) 2 Multi(left to {Top to Info Map 01 and/or Dots, or on Transh Tvoe Orty One Mop Maps Only Color Color B&W Pies Righi) Bottom) Nana tive Ut Table Numbers Map Okeloosa Ride thewGuide X X X X X X Trenslt Palm Tran Man & Ride(s Guide X X X X X X X SvstemMan X X X X X X X Rou t e Map & Schedu l e #4 2, 60 X X X X X i Route Map & Schedule X X X X X Combined 54155 Route Map & #1 W..ekendOn X X X X X I Route Map & Schedule X X X ': X X 1111,52 53 94 Weekdav Onl Route MaDSiaR lhe reSil X X X X X PCPT Route Mans & Schedules X X X X PCPT 'SYStem Pocket Mao X X --X X PSTA SUncoa$t Beach r-;;;o;;;;X X X X -=-emu..n X X X X "'X X Route Maps & Schedules: 100x,444, !i8,64,91,92 94 ,9S,9! X X X X Route #4, 19,38 52,59.74 X X X X Routell82 X X X X Routes 117,75 80 X X X X Route #22,30 32,67,73 78 ,82 X X X x X Route Maps & Schedules (a ll X X X X X the resO RTS Sorino Service Schedu le X X X X X X X X X Sarasota South Ex-=ss CouiiiV X X X X County Area South & North County GuidO$ Tramh (split county, aach ona is a ouidel X X X X X X X X Sarasota TrofteV X X X X X X SpaceCoao Schedu!Bs & Rout< X X X X X X X X Area Transit Maps SUNTRAN Bus Route Mao X X X X X TALTRA N The Ride Guide X X X X X X X X

PAGE 195

c ; Multl ole Route. Co lor Scheme Stoo A U nment Route & Tranfers Time Written Separate Separate Tables on Transer Time Time & Horilonlal verocat Table, Guide LeHIIt$, Points T-Tables & Multiple Map(s) 2 M ulti -(left to {Top lo Info Map, cw andlct DolO, Of on Transil Tvoe Only One Map Maps Only Color Color 8&111 Pies Righi) Bottom) Narrative List T-Numbefs Map Train Scnedule and System X X X X X X X X lnfonnallon Swap Shop Shuttle X X X X X T MAX Shutue X X X X X Route63 X X X X MIA T ermina l X X X Koger. M i ami Airport Statio n & X X X X X R oute 7 9 Routes 33,53. & 74: Boca X X X X R o lon Station Combined Rout e s : 4 1/42/43 & X X X X 23124 VOTRAN 8\1$ Service Guide (Sun X X X X X X Service\ T rollev Service X X X X Scnedule X X X X Beach Tran X X X West Volus ia Bus Service X X X X X X Gui de SE Volusia Bu s Service G uido X X X X X X Bus Service X X X X X Gulde Daytona Be ach Bus Service X X X X X X Gui de WHA T Rou t e M ao & S c h edules X X X X X X x

PAGE 196

Table A-1 Mls cell anous P o i n t s on Non-Time Syst em Fare Syslem Trans i t Tvoe T a ble Info I nf o Legend Ads. Baytown Ride Guide X X Trollev BCT B Transit Guide X X X Time Table Routes #1, 2 5 -7,912 ,14-15,1 7 ,2 0 ,28,3 0-X X X X 31 ,34.36,40,50,5$-56,60 72 8 1 Time Table Routes #18,22 X X X X Time Table Routes X X X X #3 57,62,75, 95 Time Table Route #75 X X X X Time Ta ble Roulos #92, 94 X X X X Combined Margate i1 nner-C!Ji Routes A B C D X X X Pembrooke P ines CommunitY. S huttle Bus Service Route and X X X X TimeTa ble Miramar Community Shuttle Bus serv ice. Route and X X X TimeTable Coconut Creel< Shuttle Service X X X Bus R oute and T ime Tabl e Cooper C ity Com m unity Bus X X X Route and T i me Table Broward Urban Shutt l e X X Western Exoress Guides X X X Tamarac T imetab l es Red Gr. Yw X X X X Free "s-' Minibus Service X X ECAT R ide Guide 7/3012000 X X X X Ride Gui de 12/4/2001 X X X X

PAGE 197

TableA-1 M isceUanous PoiniS on NonTime System Fare System Transit Tvoe Table Inf o Info Legend Ads. HARTlin e Tra n sit Guide X X X X X X X South Countv Circulator X X X X Hartline Routes #1 ,2, 5,6, 7, 8 ,10, 11. 12.15, 19,30.32 34,36 3 X X X 7,46 Hortine Routes #3 14 39 X X X Hartline Routes #4,9 16 17,18,31 ,33 X X X 38418788 JTA Transit Guide X X Routes : B l andi ngFty, ArtlngtonFty,OrgPkF iy Hnhl dFtv' X X X Routes: St.AugExpSS35 CC X X X 37 Routes: S$.2 ,4 ,20; WS3 6 ,10,20; NS-9,12 22 ; X X X 2 Routes: Northwest Loo""r X X X Rout"' NS1 1 X X X Rout eo: Artington 1 ,5,20; B H1 2,3: WS-1,2,4,5,7,8,9; SS X X X 1 ,3,5,6,7 8.9.2 1 ,40; NS-1 8101520 City of Koy Bus Sc hedule X X X X West LMATor Route Map & Sclledute: Bartow X X X Citrus E xoress 22X Connection Route Map & Schedule (aft the X X X rest) ------

PAGE 198

Tabi&A-1 Miscellanous Points on Non Time System Fare Sys tem1 Tr anslt Tvoe Tabl e Info Info legend Ads L eeTren SvtemMao X X X Trollev G u ide X X Combined Rootes: 110/115 X X X Routes: 20. 85 X X Route: 150 X X Rout e Mans Call the resll X X LYNX Public Bus Svstem Ma X X X X X Schedul e Book X X X X Downtown Disney Direct X X X X Link 1 3 5 10,12,14, 18,27,34,43 X X X 44 47,52 54 LINK all the r est\ X X X MCAT Ride Guide X X X Miami-Dade STS Ride(s Guide X X Transit Transit Ride(s Handbook X X MelroMover Guide X X X Transit Mao X X X X MelroRa i l Gui de X X X Dade-Monroe Exoress X X X X Buswav/Coral Reef Max X X X X Metro Area Expr ess Routes X X X (the res!), Tri -Rai l Koger Shuttle Kendall Area Transit X X X X Busway local Night Owl Shutt le, W est Dade & SeaPort X X X Connection N orth Dade & Doral Connection X X X Metrobus Schedule: R, V, X X X 6,28,29 48 58 57 65 104 Metr obus Schedule: A -W, 1 -91 (L e tters & Numbers not X X X i nc l uded In above list i n g) Metrobus Schedule: 95X X _X X -

PAGE 199

Table A-1 Miscellanous Points on Non-Time System Fare System Transit Type Tabl e Inf o Info Legend Ads. Okaloosa Countv Ride the Wave Guide X X X Transit PalmTran System Map & Rlde(s Guide X X X X X System Map X X X Route Map & Schedule #42, 60 X X X X Route Map & Schedule X X X X Combined 54155 Route Map & Schedule #1 X X X X Weekend Ontv Route Map & Schedule X X X X #1 52,53,94 Weekday Only Route Maps (all the rest) X X X X PCPT Route Maps & Schedules X X X X PCPT System Pocket Map X X X PSTA Suncoast Beach Trolley X X X System Map X X X X Route Maps & Schedules: X X X X 100x,444 58,64,91 92,94 96,9$ Route #4 19 38 52 59 74 X X X X Route#62 X X X X Routes #7, 75,80 X X X X Routes #22, 30 32.67 73,78.82 X X X X Route Maps & Schedules (all X X X X the rest) RTS SprinQ SeNice Schedule X X X X Sarasota South EXPress County X X County Area South & North County Guides Transit (split county. each one is a X X X X complete auide) Saresola Trolley X X Space Coast Countywide Schedules & R ou t X X X X Area Transit Maps SUNTRAN Bus Route Map X X X X TALTRAN The Ride Guide X X X X

PAGE 200

Table A-1 Miscellanous Points on Time System Fare System Transit Tvoe Tabl e Info Info Legend Ads. TRI-RAIL Tra i n Sche d ule a nd System X X X X Information Swao Shoo Shuttle X TMAXShutue X Route63 X M I A Termina l X Koger, Miami Airpott S t a tion, & X X Route 79 Rou tes 33,53 & 74; Boca X X Raton Station Combined Roules: 4 1142/43 & X 23124 VO T RAN Bus Service Gui d e (Sun. X X X X Servieel TroJJev Service X X X Holiday Schedule X BeachTran X X West Vol u sla Bus Serv ice X X X X Guide SE Volusia Bus Service Guide X X X X Voi usia/Orlando Bus Service X X X Guide Daytona Beach Bus Service X X X X Guide WHAT Route X X X

PAGE 201

S stem-Wi de Trans f er Routes R ide Ride Guide Guide N o t N o t (All w ith Sys t em On On on on r o utes/ Syste m Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ No \ollide Guid e On N o t On N o t Transit Tvoe SWM) Map O n l y TT onTT TT onTT Baytown R ide Guide X X Trollev BCT B Transit Guide X Time Tabl e Route s # 1,2,5 7,9 1 2 ,141 5.17,20. 2 8 3(). X 31,34,36, 4 0 50.55 56 60 72 81 83-84 93 Time Tabl e Routes #18. 22 X Time Table R outes X #357627595 Time Tabl e R oute #75 X Time Table Rou tes #92 9 4 X Combined Margat e Inner-City Route s rA.B,C,Oi X I Pembrooke Pines Community I Shuttl e Bus Service R oute and X TimeTable Mi ramar Community Shultle I Bus Service Route and X TimeTable Coconut Creek Shutt l e Service X I Bus Route and Time Table Coo per Cijy Commun i ty Bus X Route and T ime T able Broward Ur b a n Shutue X Westem Guides X T amarac Timetables Red G r Yw X Free "B" Minibus Service X ECAT Ride Guide 7130 12000 X Ride G uide (2/41200 1 1 X X

PAGE 202

Table A S s tem-Wide T"'nsfer Routes Ride Ride Guide Guid a N ot Not (All with Syst e m O n O n on on rou tes/ System Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ N o Wide Guide On Not On N ot Tran s i t TVlle SWM) Map Onl y TT onTT TT onTT Othe HARTline Trans i t Guide X Exnress Rou tes X South Countv Circulator X Hanllne Routes # 1 2 5,6,7, 8, 10, 11 12, 15, 19,30,32,3 4, 36 3 X 746 Hartline R outes #3, 1 4 39 X Hanl ine Rou tes #4,9 16, 17,1 8 ,31 ,33, X 3841, 87 88 JTA Transit Guide X X Routes : B l a n dlngF i y Art i ngt on Fiy,OrgPkF iy, Aravl aFIY: HahldF i v X Rou tes : S I. AugEx p SS-35, CC X 37 Rou t e s : SS 2, 4 20; WS3,6, 10,20; NS-9,12 ,22; X Arllnoton Routes: Northwest Loooer X Route: N&-11 X Routes: Arl i ngton 1 5 ,20; BH 1 ,2, 3; WS1 ,2,4 5 7,8,9; ss. X 1 ,3,5,6 7 8 ,9,21 ,40; NS-1 8,10,15,20 C ity of Key Bus Schedule X X West LMATor R ou l e Map & Schedu le: B a rtow X Citrus Exoress22X Connection Route Map & Schedu l e {al l llle X resll

PAGE 203

s stmWfde -Transfor Routes Ride Ride Gu ide Guide NO( NO( (All with System On On on on routes/ Syslem Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ N o \\Ide Guide On Nol On Not Tranoit Tvoo SWM) Map Only TT onTT TT onTT Olher leoTran Svtem M ap X X Trotlev Guide X Combined Routes : 110/115 X Routes: 20 85 X Route : 150 X Route M aps (all the rest) X LYNX Publ i c Bus System Map X X Sched ule Boo!< X X I Downtown Oisnev Dired X Lin k 1 3.6.10, 12,14,18,27 ,34 43X 44 47,52 54 LINK (a ll the rest} X MCA T Ride Guide X X M iamiOode STS Ride(S Guide Transit Transit Rider's Handbook MettoMov er Guide X I Transit Map X X MetroRe D Guide X Oade-Monroe Express Bus wav /Corat Reel Max M etro Area Express Routes X (tho r est), Koger Shuttl Kendall Area Transit X Bu s w o y Loca l, N i ght Owl Shu tt l e, West Oade & SeaPort X Connection N orth Oado & Oorat Connection X i M e tr obus Sc hoduta : R, v X 6 28 29 48 56 57 65104 Metrobus Schedule: A W 1 (Le ttet s & Numbers not X included In above utlnol M eUobusSchedui6:95X X

PAGE 204

Tabl e A-1 s stem-Wid e Transfer Route s Ride Ride Gui de Guide Not Not (All w ith System On On on on routes/ System Map Map/ Map/ M ap/ Map/ N o Wide Guide On Not On Not Transn T y p e SWM) Map Onl y n onn n onn O lller Okaloosa very! Counlv R ide the W av e Guide X X Transi t bad Palm Tran S v stem M a o & Ride( s Guide X X SVstemMao X ? ? ? ? Route Map & Sch edule #42, 60 X I Rou te Map & Schedul e X C ombined 54/55 Route Map & Schedul e #1 X Weekend Onlv Route Map & Schedul e X # 1 52,53 9 4 Week da v Onlv R o u te Mao s I all tile restl X PCPT Route Mao s & Schedul es X PCPT Svstem Pocket Mao X X PSTA S u ncoast Beacll Trol l ev Svstom Ma o X X Rout e Maps & Schedules: X 1 00x.444 ; R o u t e #4,19,38,52.59, 7 4 X Roule#62 X Routes #7 75 80 X Routes #22,30,32,67 ,73,78,82 X R oute Maps & S chedul es (a ll X t h e rest) RTS Sorino Service Sche dule X X S arasota South Exor ess Counlv X Count y Area South & N orth Cou nty Guides Tra nsit (split county, each i s a X X complet e Quide S arasota Trol ley Space Coast Countywi de Sch ed ules & Rou t X X Area Transit Maps SUNTRAN B us Route Mao X X TALTRAN The Ride Guide X X

PAGE 205

S stem-Wide Tran sfer Routes Ride Ride G uide Gu ide Not N o t (All wilh S ystem O n On on on routes/ System Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ No \Mde Guide On Not On N o t Transit SWM) Map Only TT onTT n onTT O t h e r TRI RAIL T ra i n Sched u le a nd System X Information Swap Shop Shutt l e TMAX ShutUe Route 63 MIA Terminal K oger, M i ami Airport S t ation. & Ro ute 7 9 Route s 33.53. & 74; Boca Raton S tation Combine d R ou t es: 41142/43 & I 23/24 V O TRA N Bus Service Gu ide (Sun X See Serv ic .!l_ Mao Servic e Holid!!t Schedule X Beach Tran X Very Bad West Volusi a Bus S ervice X Very Guide Bad SE Volusia Bus Service Guide ? ? ? ? Very Bad Vo lu sla/Orlando Bus Service X Very Guide Bad Daytona Beach Bus Service X Very Guide Bad WHA T Route Ma & Schedu l es ? ? ? ?

PAGE 206

---OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Appendii
PAGE 207

PARTICPANT #: -------ACTIVITY 1: Activity/Materials Code __ Present transit information materials and written task instructions to participant Verbally explain the task that the partie/p ent Is being asked to complete. Ask the partldpant If she/he has eny questions. I nstruct the partldpant to begin the activ ity. Time Activ ity Started : ------( P rojected end time: -------1 ( N o more than 8 minutes for eacfl stMPLEff activity ) (No m ore than 10 minutes for each activity) Vi s ual Observations: Please note areas where the partidpant appears to be having difficulty with the activity (be specific -e.g., Difficulty understanding timetab le; difficulty locating destinat ion, etc .) Old the participant display any of the following emotions while completing the task.? (Please check all that apply) 0 Frustration 0 Irritation 0 Anger 0 Distress 0 Laughter o Nervousness P lease note the content of any requests for assistance. P articipant completed actiVity within allotted time: D Yes D No TIME ACTIVITY COMPLETED ---------------------------

PAGE 208

II PARTICIPANT#: --------ACTIVITY 2: Activity/Materials Code __ Present transit information materials and written task lnstroct/ons to partidpant Verbally explain the task that the participant is being asked to complete. Ask the participant If she/he has any questions. Instruct the participant to begin the activity. Time Activity Started: ------(Projected end time: -------1 (No more than 8 minutes for each nsiMPLE" activity) (No more than 10 minutes for each "COMPLEX" activity) Visual Observations: I u II Ill Please note areas where the participant appears to be having difficulty with the activity (be specific Ill e.g., Difficulty understanding t i metable; difficulty locating destination, etc.) Ill Ill Did the participant disp l ay any of the following emotions whil e completing the task? (Please check II all that apply) 0 Frustration 0 Irritation 0 Ange r o Distress 0 Laughter o Nervousness Please note the content of any requests for assistance. Participant completed activity within allotted time: 0 Yes 0 No TIME ACTIVITY COMPLETED -------I L I.

PAGE 209

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 81. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----AppendlxC .. Appendix C Interview Guide .rntervfew Guide

PAGE 210

PARTICIPANT# : -------Activity 1 PostTest Interview: How would you rate the task that you were asked to complete In terms of difficulty? o Extremely difficult o Moderately difficult o Somewhat difficult 0 Neither difficult, nor easy o Somewhat easy o Moderatel y easy o Extremely Easy Based an your experience with these materials, how would you feel if you were actually planning to take a trip by bus? What is your general impression of the Information materials? (E.g., colors, map, dear information, What was the most difficult and/or the least understandable part of using these materials? What was the least difficult and/or most understandable part of using these materials?

PAGE 211

PARTICIPANT #: Are you familiar with the area prese nted to you i n thi s activity? a Yes o N o I f yes, how familiar with the area are you? Q Very familiar 0 Moderately familiar Q Minimally fam ili ar Ill w Ill II II II l l L

PAGE 212

PARTICIPANT #: Activity 2 Post Test Interview: How would you rate the task that you were asked to complete in terms of difficulty? 0 Extremely difficult 0 Moderately difficult 0 Somewhat difficult 0 Neither difficult, nor easy o Somewhat easy 0 Moderately easy o Extremely Easy Based on your experience with these materials, how would you feel if you were actually planning to take a trip by bus? What Is your general impression of the Information materials? (E.g., colors, map, clear information, etc.) What was the most difficult and/or the least understandable part of using these materials? What was the least difficult and/or most understandable part of using these materials?

PAGE 213

PARTICIPANT #: Are you familiar with the area presented to you in this activity? a Yes o No If yes, how famil iar with the area are you? 0 Very familiar a Moderately familiar o Minimally familiar Based on your general feelings and opinions about public bus service, how would rate the following aspects of bus service, based on a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating and 1 the lowest rating? Convenience 5 4 3 2 1 Comfort 5 4 3 2 1 Dependability 5 4 3 2 1 Personal Safety 5 4 3 2 1 Transit Information 5 4 3 2 1 Flexibility 5 4 3 2 1 Availability 5 4 3 2 1 Vehicle Safety 5 4 3 2 1 Has your participation in this activity resulted in greater confidence related to planning a trip on the public bus, or not? a Yes o No 0 Don't know Are you now more like ly to use transit as a result of your participation today, or not? 0 Yes a No a Don't know Thank you for participating in ttlis study. We are collecting ttlis information in order to make transit information materials more user-friendly. The final piece of information that we would like fnom you is some demographic information. All of the information that you provide to us will remain anonymous and confidential. Thank you again for your time and participation! IU m u II ll I. L I. I I.

PAGE 214

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT UsE:---AppendlxD Appendix D Demographics Questionnaire Demographics Questionnaire

PAGE 215

PARTICIPANT# : --------Thank you for choosing to partidpate In our research. Please answer the following questions as as possible Your responses will be used fqr. statistical purposes only. Your name will not be connected to these responses in any way and a/1/nfoimat/on you provide shall remain confidential at all times. Wh a t i s your: Sex: o Male 0 Female (check one) Age (check one o f the following ranges): Ethnlcity: 0 18 34 0 35-49 0 50-64 0 65 and older Personal income {check one of the following ranges): 0 Less than $15,000 0 $15,000 to $29,999 0 $30,000 to $49,999 Cl $50,000 to $74,999 Cl $75,000 or more Education Level (check last g rade level completed): 0 Less than High School Diploma 0 High School Diploma or GED 0 Some College 0 College Graduate 0 Post Graduate How many personal vehides a r e available in your household? (please check one) 0 0 0 1 0 2 Cl 3 or more Do you use public transit buses at least once per week? (please check one} o Yes 0 No Have you used public transportation in the past six months? (please check one) Cl Yes 0 No If yes, where? ---------------------

PAGE 216

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Use:----Appsndix I! Appendix E Participant Worksheet &. Participant Score Sheet

PAGE 217

PARTICIPANT#: TRIP PLANNING WORKSHEET BTT-29-S It's Monday. You're at the Panama City Mall and you need to get to the Greyhound Bus Station by 4 PM What is the most direct route(s) to take in order to get there on time? Please note any req u ired transfers. Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time Please choose the arrival time that i s closest to your required destination time and the listed bus stop that i s nearest to your destination. Origin Information: Route: Bus Stop : Time: Transfer Information (If necessary): Route: Bus Stop: Time: Destination Information: Bus Stop: Time :

PAGE 218

PARTICIPANT#: TRIP PLANNING WORKSHEET LNX-4-C It's Saturday and you are at the Altamonte Mall. You need to get to Orange Blossom Trail and Central Florida Parkway (Greenway) by 6:00 PM. What is the most direct route(s) to take in order to get there on time? Please note any required transfers. Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time. Please choose the arrival time that is closest to your required destination time and the listed bus stop that is nearest to your destination. Origin Information : Route: Bus Stop: T ime : Transfer Information (If necessary) : Route: Bus Stop: T ime: Destination Information: Bus Stop: T ime:

PAGE 219

PARTICIPANT # : Activity 1 Score Sheet Activity /Materials Code __ . ' Total Time required to complete task: 0 6 10 minutes 0 0 -3 minutes a 3 6 minutes o N ot completed in allotted time Did the participant request assistance? o Yes 0 No If Yes, please specify the type(s) of assistance requested Was the participant able to plan the requested trip (I. e., travel from origin to Intended destination)? o Yes 0 No Did the participant arrive to the dest ination ont ime? o Yes o No Did the participant choose the optimal i nitial route for their trip? o Yes o No Old the partldpant choose the best origin bus stop for their trip? 0 Yes 0 No Did the participant choose the best time point at the origin? 0 Yes 0 No Did the participant choose the best transfe r route? o Yes 0 No 0 N/A D i d the partidpant choose the best transfer point? o Yes 0 No 0 N/A Did the partidpant choose the best transfer time? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A Did the partidpant choose the best bus stop at the destination? 0 Yes 0 No Did the partidpant choose the best time at the destination? 0 Yes 0 No

PAGE 220

--PARTICIPANT #: Activity 2 Store Sheet Activity/Materials Code __ Total iime required to complete task: 0 0 3 minutes 0 3 6 minutes Did the participant request assistance? 0 6 10 minutes 0 Not completed i n allotted time o Yes 0 No If Yes, please specify the type(s} of assistance requested Was the participan t able to plan the requested trip (i.e., trave l from origin to intended destination}' a Yes o No D i d th e participant arrive to the destination on-time? 0 Yes o No Did the participant choose the optimal Initial route for their trip? o Yes o No Did the participant choose the best origin bus stop for their trip? 0 Yes o -No Did the participant choose the best time point at the origin? o Yes 0 No Old the participan t choose the best transfer route? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N /A Did the participant choose th e best transfer point? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A Did the participant choose the best transfer time? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A Did the participant choose the best bus stop at the destination> 0 Yes 0 No Did the participant choose the best time at the destination? 0 Yes 0 No I_ I.

PAGE 221

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS&. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----AppendlxF Appendix F Additional Demographic Data & Statistical Correlations Dtlmographic Datil & Statistical O>rreUtluns

PAGE 222

SECTION 1: PREUMINARY STUDY DATA,. INCLUDING DEMOGRAPHICS Table F -1 Gender of participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 8 47.1 47.1 47.1 2.00 9 52.9 52.9 100.0 Total 17 100 .0 100 0 Table F-2 Age of participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Perc ent Valid 1.00 4 23.5 23.5 23.5 2.00 6 35. 3 35.3 58.8 3.00 4 23.5 23 5 82.4 4.00 2 11. 8 1 1.8 94,1 5.00 1 5.9 5.9 100.0 Total 17 1 0 0.0 100.0 I Table F-3 Ethnicity of participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 1 64.7 68.8 68.8 2.00 1 5 9 ,6 .3 75.0 3.00 3 17.6 18 .8 93.8 5.00 1 5.9 6.3 100 0 Tota l 16 94.1 100.0 Missing System 1 5.9 Total 17 10 0.0

PAGE 223

TableF-4 Household Income of partldpants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulativ e Percent Percent Valid 1.00 2 1 1 8 1 1. 8 1 1.8 2 00 2 1 1 .8 11. 8 23.5 3.00 4 23 5 23.5 47 1 5 00 9 52.9 52. 9 10 0 .0 Total 17 100.0 1 0 0.0 Table F-5 Education Level of partidpants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 3.00 4 23.5 23 .5 23 5 4.00 6 35. 3 35.3 58.8 5.00 7 4 1.2 4 1 .2 100 0 Tota l 1 7 100.0 1 00.0 Table F 6 Personal Vehicles in Household of partldpants In Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 00 3 17 6 17.6 17.6 2.00 5 29 .4 29.4 4 7.1 3.00 7 4 1 2 4 1.2 88. 2 6 00 2 11. 8 1 1 8 10 0.0 Tota l 17 100.0 1 00.0 Table F-7 Use of Public Transportation by participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Val i d 1.00 9 52.9 90. 0 90.0 2.00 1 5 .9 10 0 100.0 Total 1 0 58.8 100.0 Miss in g System 7 4 1 .2 Total 17 100.0

PAGE 224

Table F -8 Comparative stat:istit'f'cir Preliminary Study (comparing simple and complex sessions) SIMPCOMP N Mean St d. Deviation COMPOS1A 1.00 1 7 14.2941 8 18.36 2.00 1 6 11.9438 7 3437 COMPOS2A 1 00 17 17.2353 9.8459 2.00 1 6 14.1 0 2 8 8.8657 Table F-9 Std Error Mean 1.9 848 1.8359 2 .3880 2 2 1 64 Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing males and females) GENDER N Mean Std Std. Error Deviation Mean COMPOS1A 1.00 15 1 6 .0800 5.7704 1.48 99 2.00 18 1 0.716 7 8 .4 8 7 0 2.0004 COMPOS2A 1.00 15 19.1927 7 .0621 1 8234 2 00 18 12. 8 1 9 7 1 0.2338 2.4121 Table F -10 Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing simple and complex sessions, total time as dependent measure) SIMPCOMP N Mean Std. Std. Error Deviation Mean TOITTIME 1.00 17 5.3176 1.7367 .4212 2 00 9 7 4444 2 2973 .765 8 Table F -11 Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing males and females, total time as dependent measure) GENDER N Mean Std. Std. Error Dev i ation Mean TOTTTIME 1.00 12 4.6167 1.136 6 3 2 8 1 2.00 14 7.2857 2.0 9 1 3 5589

PAGE 225

SECTION 2: DATA FOR FINAL STUDY Tabie i': i3 Gender of Partidpants of Study Frequ ency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 42 57.5 58.3 58 3 2 .00 30 41.1 41.7 100.0 Total 72 98 6 1 00.0 Missing System 1 1.4 Total 73 100 .0 Table F -14 Ta ble for Age of Participants of Study Age Categories Number (Total N = 48) Age Categories Number (Tota l N = 25} 18-34 25 18-25 11 35-49 16 26-33 5 50-64 6 34-41 6 65 and older 1 42-49 1 50-5 7 1 58 and older 1 Table F-15 Ethnl dty of Partidpants of Study Frequency Percent Vali d Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 35 47.9 63.6 63.6 2.00 10 13 7 18.2 81.8 3.00 7 9 6 12.7 94 5 4 00 2 2 7 3 6 98 2 5 00 1 1 .4 1.8 100.0 Total 55 75.3 1 00 0 Missing System 18 24.7 Total 73 100.0

PAGE 226

Table F -16 Household Income of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 13 17. 8 17.8 17.8 2 00 24 32. 9 32. 9 50 .7 3.00 1 8 24.7 24.7 75.3 4.00 9 12 3 12 3 87. 7 5 00 9 12 3 12.3 100.0 Total 73 100.0 100 .0 Table F -17 Education level of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.00 23 31. 5 31 5 32.9 3.00 3 1 42 5 42 5 75.3 4.00 10 13.7 13.7 89. 0 5.00 8 11.0 11. 0 100.0 Total 73 100.0 100 .0 Table F -18 P ersonal Ve hicles of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 3 4.1 4 1 4.1 2.00 22 30. 1 30. 1 34 .2 3.00 29 39.7 39. 7 74.0 4 00 19 26.0 26.0 100.0 Tota.l 73 100.0 100.0 TableF-19 Public Transportation usage of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid C umulative Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 29 39.7 39.7 39 7 2.00 44 60.3 60.3 100.0 Total 73 100.0 100 0

PAGE 227

Primary D ependent measu _res: Compos! a : 3 points for each of the 7 (simple) and 1 0 (complex) component parts of the route, with simp le not having transfer items, and complex having the 31ransfer items This is th01 a djusted by .7 for complex scor e s to create max of21 for both simple and complex ComposZa: 5 points for first 2 items then 3 points for each o f th e olhcr 5 (simple) and 8 (compl ex) componen t parts of the route, with simp1e not having transfer items, and comp l ex having the 3 transfer items This is then adjusted bY .'US for complex scores to crea t e max of25 for both simple and co mplex ToiTime (tota l time) : th i s was only availabl e for those that completed task wilhin maximum al l owab l e time. Table F20 Intercorrelations between primary dependent measures, as well as ratings of task difficulty. TOTnME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A TASKDIFF TOTT IME Peason Corre l ation 1.000 047 055 .203 Sig. (2 tailed) .668 .617 .060 N 86 86 86 86 COMPOS1A Peas o n Correlation -.047 1.000 .998 .. -.430** Sig (2-tai l ed) .668 .000 .000 N 86 145 145 145 COMPOS2A Peason Correlation -.055 .998** 1.000 -.430** Slg. (2 tailed) .617 0 0 0 . 000 N 86 1 45 1 45 145 TASKDIFF Peason Correlation .203 .430** -.430'* 1 000 Sig. (2-tailed) .060 .000 .000 N 86 145 145 1 45 . Correlation Is Slgntficant at t he 0.01 level (2-tatled) Table F-21 Descriptive Statistics for Primary Dependent Mea sures, Simple Sessions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation TOTT I ME 48 2.00 8 10 5.2044 1.8566 COMPOS1A 73 .00 21.00 9 2466 8.4225 COMPOS2A 73 .00 25.00 10.6986 10.1 990 Valid N (listwise) 48

PAGE 228

Table F 22 Descriptive Statistics for Primary Dependent Measures, Complex Sessions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation TOTTIME 38 1 00 10 24 6.7363 2.5533 COMPOS1A 72 .00 21.00 7.0292 6.6703 COMPOS2A 72 00 24 99 7.9523 7.9692 Valid N (listwise) 38 Table F-23 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, simple sessions MATER IAL TOTTI ME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A BCT 19-S Mean 4.8250 17.2500 20.2500 N 4 4 4 Std. Deviation 2.5145 7 5000 9.5000 BCT-2-S Mean 3.2800 16.000 19.3333 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.2701 1.2701 5 5076 BTT-29-S Mean 5.0000 21. 0000 25.0000 N 1 1 1 Std. Deviation . ECT-7-S Mean 4.6667 11. 2500 13.2500 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.1547 8 6168 10.2429 HRT-2-S Mean 4.0000 5.0000 5 0000 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.7321 1.7321 JTA-1 -S Mean 2.4900 7.0000 8 3333 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 12.1244 14.4338 LMT-S1 Mean 4.0950 9.0000 10.3333 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 1344 10 8167 13.0512 LNX-14-S Mean 6.0000 4 5000 5 5000 N 1 4 4 Std. Deviation 9.0000 1 1. 0000 LNX-4-S Mean 6.0167 7 .0000 8 .3333 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 2.887E-02 9 6437 11.9304 LT-5-S Mean 4.8700 8.2500 9 2500 N 4 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.5731 8.9582 10.8743

PAGE 229

tabie i' ...:h Means of Primary Depend ent M easures by Materi als used, simple sessions (CIOnt. ) MATER I AL TOTTI M E COMP OS 1 A COMPO S2A M CT1 3 S Mean 8.035 0 8.0000 8 0000 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 4 .950E-02 1.732 1 1.7321 MD T -4 -5 M e a n 3 7100 7 0000 8 3333 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviati o n 2.2627 6.9282 9.2376 P ST-2-5 M e an 5.0 000 4 5000 5 50 0 0 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.4142 7. 1414 9 1104 PT2-5 Mean 5 2000 1 0.5000 11.5000 N 2 2 2 Std. Devia tion .2828 2 .1213 3 5355 RTS13-5 M ean 5. 0 000 7 5000 8 .500 0 N 2 4 4 Std Dev iation .0000 9.9499 11. 78 9 8 SC A T2 8 S Mean 6 0000 14 0000 1 6 0 0 00 N 2 3 3 Std Deviation 2.8284 7 5498 9 5394 S CT -17-5 M ean 4 .4175 1 7 2500 20.2500 N 4 4 4 Std Deviation 2.83 2 5 7 5000 9 5 0 0 0 SC T -7 -NS M ean 5 0000 9 7500 10 7500 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviati on 1.4 1 42 7.8899 9 8107 S UN 12-5 M ea n 8 0333 1 5 7500 18 7500 N 3 4 4 Std Deviati o n 5 .n4E-o2 1 0.5000 12 5 000 TLT 12-5 M ean 7 5000 1.0000 1.0000 N 2 3 3 Std Devi a t i o n 7071 1 .7321 1.7321

PAGE 230

Table F-23 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, simple sessions (cont.) MATERIAL TOTIIME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A VOT-17-S Mean .7500 .7500 N 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.5000 1.5000 VOT 19 S Mean 5.4000 8 0000 9. 3333 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.3718 11.3578 13 .6504 Total Mea n 5.2044 9.2466 10 .69 86 N 48 73 73 Std. Deviation 1 8 5 66 8.4225 10.1990

PAGE 231

table F 14 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, complex sessions MATERIAL TOTTI ME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A BC T -2-C. M ean 3 1400 4 7250 4 .9613 N 2 4 4 Std Deviation 3.0264 1 0500 1 1025 BTT-29-C Mean 6.1500 4 .9 000 5 1450 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 5.2649 5.5491 ECT-7-C Mea n 10.0000 11. 2000 1 3 2300 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 10.5698 12.5597 HRT -2C M ean 9.0000 7.3500 7 7175 N 1 2 2 Std Deviation 4.4548 4 6775 JTA-1-C M ean 1.0500 1.1025 N 2 2 Std Deviation 1.4 649 1 .5592 LNX-14-C Mean 5 7550 0000 .0000 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviation 5 3104 .000 0 .0 000 LNX-4-C Mean 7 1533 6.3000 6 9825 N 3 4 4 Std. D eviation 2.4904 4.5365 5.4509 LT-5-C Mean 6 .6667 18.2000 21. 5600 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 5774 4.6497 5.9409

PAGE 232

TableF-24 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, complex sessions (cont.) MATERIAL TOTT I ME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A MCT -13-C Mean 5.4567 1 2 6000 15.0675 N 3 4 4 Std Deviation 1.5019 1 0.2879 12 2034 MDT-4 C Mean 7.2500 5 .775 0 6.0638 N 3 4 4 Std Deviation 2 4192 4.6564 4.8893 PST-2-C Mean 7 0000 10 5000 12.4950 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 2 6458 7.2746 9.3358 PT-2-C Mean 6.7050 10 5000 1 1 5000 N 4 5 5 Std. Deviation 2.9329 7 857 5 9.5324 RTS-13-C Mean 4.4400 2.8000 2 9400 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 2.4249 2.546 1 SCAT-28C Mean 3 6750 3.8588 N 4 4 Std. Deviation 3 5864 3.7658 SCT-17-C Mean 4.0000 3.6750 3.8588 N 1 4 4 Std. Deviation 3.5864 3 .7 658 SCT-7-SC Mean 8.6667 4 9000 5.1450 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 1 5275 5.2849 5.5491 SUN-12 C Mean 7.1633 13.1250 1 5.6188 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 2 4698 6.2708 7 8791

PAGE 233

TableF-24 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materia l s used complex sessions (cont.) MATERIAL TOTTI ME COMPOS1A COMPO S2 A TLT-12.C Mean 8.3200 7 3500 7.7175 N 1 4 4 Std. Deviation 6 0622 6 3653 VOT-17.C M ean 7 1300 5 8800 6 7620 N 3 5 5 Std. Deviation 4.4 760 7.7728 9.4040 VOT-19.C Mea n 3 5000 3 .6 750 N 3 3 Std. Deviation 3.20 78 3.3682 Total M ean 6.7363 7.0292 7 .9523 N 38 72 72 Std. Deviation 2.5533 6.6703 7 9692

PAGE 234

Table F-25 Frequency of Categories of Alignment In Simp l e Sessions Freq u ency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 5 4 74 0 7 4 0 74.0 2 .00 19 26 0 26 0 100 0 Total 73 100.0 100.0 Table F-26 Frequency of categories of Routes in S imple Sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumu lative Percen t Percent Valid 1.00 43 58.9 58.9 58. 9 2.00 4 5 5 5 5 64.4 3 00 26 35. 6 35. 6 100 0 Total 7 3 100 0 100.0 Table F-27 F requency of categories of transfers In Simple Sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Perc ent Val i d 1 .00 5 6 8 6.8 6.8 2.00 31 42 5 4 2 5 49.3 3 .00 10 13.7 13.7 63.0 4 .00 23 31. 5 31. 5 94.5 5 .00 4 5 .5 5.5 100 0 Total 73 10 0.0 100 0 Table F 28 Frequency of categories of Alignment I n Complex Sessions Fr e quency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Perce n t Valid 1 .00 54 75.0 75.0 75. 0 2.00 18 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 7 2 100.0 100.0

PAGE 235

' tabl e;:Frequency of Categories o f Routes In Complex Session s : .. "' . . ,, Frequency Per cent V ali d Cum ulative P e r cent Per cent Valid 1 .0 0 39 54.2 54. 2 54.2 2 00 3 4 2 4.2 58 3 3 .00 30 4 1.7 41.7 100 .0 Total 72 100.0 100.0 Table F 3 0 Frequency of Categories of T r ansfers in Complex Se ssions F r eq u e ncy Perce n t Valid Cumul ati v e P e rcent Percent Valid 1 .0 0 2 2.8 2.8 2 8 2.00 34 47.2 47 2 50. 0 i 3.00 11 15.3 15 3 65.3 4 .00 22 30. 6 30.6 95.8 5.00 3 4 .2 4.2 100.0 To ta l 72 100.0 100.0 Demographics for participants who quit both session s Tab l e F-3 1 Gender o f participants who quit both sessions Frequency P e rcent V alid Cumulative Percen t Percent Val i d 1 .op 1 16.7 20 .0 20 0 2.00 4 66 .7 80. 0 100 0 Total 5 83.3 Mi ssing System 1 16 .7 Tota l 6 100.0

PAGE 236

TableF-32 Age of participants who quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percen t Percent Valid 1 .00 1 16.7 16.7 1 6.7 2 00 2 33. 3 33.3 50 0 3 .00 3 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 6 100 0 100.0 Ta b l e F -33 Ethnidty of participants w h o quit both sessions F r eq uency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 4 66.7 66.7 66.7 2.00 2 33.3 33.3 100 0 T otal 6 100.0 100. 0 T a ble F -34 H ousehold I ncom e of participants w h o quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 1 16 .7 16.7 16.7 2.00 2 33.3 33.3 50 0 3.00 1 16.7 16.7 66 .7 4 .0 0 2 33. 3 33.3 100 0 T otal 6 100.0 100.0 Ta b l e F 3 5 Education Level of partldpants who Quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 16.7 16.7 16 7 2 00 1 16 .7 16 7 33. 3 3 .00 3 50. 0 50.0 83 3 5 00 1 16.7 16. 7 100 .0 Total 6 100.0 100.0

PAGE 237

. : . Table F-36 Personal Vehicles of partidpants who quit l:loth sessions _, ... ; ... . . . Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 16.7 16.7 16.7 2.00 1 16.7 16.7 33 3 3.00 3 50.0 50.0 83.3 5.00 1 16.7 16.7 10 0.0 Total 6 100.0 100 0 Table F-37 Public Transportation usage who quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 16 .7 16 .7 16.7 2 00 5 83.3 83. 3 100.0 Tota l 6 1 00.0 100 0

PAGE 238

----10PERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---AppendixG Major Activity Centers Detailed Data AppendlxG M8Jor Activity centen Detailed Dilu

PAGE 239

Tble G 1 : A irport Activity Centers IW<>t IS.1 #Sun I of Routt Airport ()p.Hn Satutd.ayHou
PAGE 240

...... ---Final Avo. Span of Wl
PAGE 241

Tab l e G-1 : Airport Activity Centers Final Final Avg. Span of Sat. Avg. Span of Sun. Sat. Sat. Transit I Sun. S&rved Sun. f# Sun. Sun. Sun. TraMit Airport buslhr First Bus Last Bus Service Span Routes Sun. Froquency buslhr bus lhr First Bus: Last Bus Servic e Span Pens-acola Regional Airpo rt 1.0 0.00 12.08 1 0.00 o.so 6.00 5 1 PM: 52' --.every 2 8:50AM 8 :55PM 12.08 AM h ours 0.60 o.so 11:SOAM 5:50PM E S:57 AM/W E7:57PMIW 51 PM; 52 -every 2 E8:35AMI E 8:35PM/ Tampa tnrl Airport 1.0 6:43AM 7:43PM 13.23 13 23 1 AM hours 0.60 o.so W7:12AM W8;42PM 13. 50 Daytona Beach Airport 2.0 8:05AM 6:05PM 10.00 10 00 0 Fort Lauderdal e N5:30AMIS N 10:35 PMIS 51 PM; 52 $ 1 PM; $2 N9:15AMI N 6:30PM/ /Hollywood Airport 2.0 6:20AM 11:15 PM 17.75 17.75 1 AM AM 2.00 2.oo $9: 15AM S 6:45PM 9.60 Sarasota Airport 1 0 6:35AM 5 : 47PM 12.60 0 ., Inbound 6:24 In bound 6:18 ;,: AMI OutbOund PMI Outbound jj 7:01AM 7:00PM . .. Sara.$ota Airp ort 1.0 6:35AM 6:35PM 12.00 0 Lakeland Lender .,. ... Regional Airport 1.0 8:34AM 5:41PM 9 12 0 . .... WC$t Palm Boaeh E 7:13AMJW E 6 : 03 PMIW $1 PM; 52 E 10:13AMI E 3:13PM/ lnt l Airport 1 0 8:07AM 6:07PM 10.90 1 AM every hour 1.00 1.00 W9:07AM W4:07PM 1 .00 ' E6:23AM/W E7:25PMIW 51 PM; $2 E6:23AMI E7:34PMI Miamllnrl Airport 1.3 7 :33AM 6:34PM 13.03 18.85 4 AM; S3PM every hour 1 1 1.05 W 7 :32AM W6:34 PM 13 18 17.95 5 1 PM ;S2 I N6:25AMIS N 11:27 PM/S AM;S3 N6:28AMI N 10:29PM 6:47AM 11:10 PM 17.00 AM/PM every h o u r 1 1 S6: A8AM S 10: 44PM 16 27 N 6:36AM/$ N 6:20 PMIS 51 PM; 52 N6:45AMI N 7:10PM/ 6:59AM 6:27PM 11.85 AM every hour 1.0 S 7:42AM S 7:13PM 1 2A7 51 PM;$2 E6:10AMIW E 1:01 AMIW AM:S3 E 5:06AM/ e 11:03 PM1 6:17AM !2:35AM 18. 85 AMIPM hou r 1 1 W5:45AM WI 0:34PM 17.95 Melbourne lnrl 11:48AMI $1 PM: $2 12:48 : 1:48 Airport 9'.29 AM 4:00PM 6 .50_ 1 AM PM 1 .50 1 .50_ 1 1:48AM 1 :48PM 2 .00 -------------------

PAGE 242

Wd1y I Sal sun Op. Op. Op. tot RO
PAGE 243

T able G 2: Medical Activity Centers Final Avg Avg. Span of Wkdy NSat Sat. Wkday Wkday Wkdy Transit tSat. bus busJ Hospital Wkdy Froquency bus/hr bust hr First Bus Last Bus Service Span Served Sat. Routes Sat. Frequency /hr hr lllarion County Health every hr i n AMI every Inboun d 6:5 7 AMI Inbo und 5:53 PW every hr i n APt.V every Dept 70minin P M 1 0 0.1 Out b ound 6:30AM Outbound 6:32 PM 12 03 12.0 3 10 min i n PM 1.0 0.1 -every 2 hours 0.5 6:59AM 6:00PM 1 1 .02 -every 2 hour& 0.5 every 2 hours 0 5 7:59AM 5 :10PM 9.18 -every 2 hours 0 5 N 6:05AM/ S 6:30 N 9:40PM/ 5 10:25 5 1 AM/PM;' 52 M&morial Hospital every 40 minutes 1 5 1.5 A M PM 16.33 16.50 AM: 53 PM 2 every hour 1 0 1.3 E 5:55AMIW6:30 E 8:25 PIN W 7:50 5 1 AM/PM; 52 every 40 minutes 1.5 AM PM 14. 50 AM;S3PM every 40 minutes 1 .5 51 AM/PM ; 52 N :05AM/ S N :20 P M I 5 AM/PM : 53 Hol y C ross Hosp ital every 30 minutes 2.0 1 6 5:45AM f:10PM 17.58 17.58 MI/PM 2 every 30 m inutes 2.0 1 8 N:30PMI5 St AM/PM; 52 every 40 minutes 1.5 : 1 5 AM :45PM 15 25 AM; 53 P M evGry 40 minutes '1.5 l n bound-6:10 AMI l nbound-6 :10 PM/ S1AMIPM;S2 l!. ...: H ospital every hou r 1.0 1.0 Oufboun d-6:55 AM Outbou n d-6:50P M 12.67 13.58 AM; 53 PM 2 every h our 1 0 1.0 lnboun d .. 5 :55 AM/ lnbound .. 5:35 PM/ St AM/P M ; 52 every hour t.o 0Utbovnd:50 AM O u t bound--7: 30PM 13.58 AM;S3PM f11/ery hour 1 0 sarasota Mom'l Inbound 6:31A M / Inbound 6:24 PM/ 51 AM/PM: 52 ,,.. ,., Hosplt.al ovary hou r 1.0 1 0 Outbound 6 :5S AM Outbound 6:55PM 12.4 0 13.00 AM;S3PM 2 every hou r 1.0 1 .0 Inbound 5:55AM/ Inbound 6:31 PM/ 51 AM/P M ; 52 every h our 1.0 O utbOund 6 : 23AM OutbOund 6:51 PM 12 93 AM ;S3PM every l'lour 1 .0 $1 AMii'M; 52 S take Hospital every hour 1.0 t O 6:35AM 6 :35PM 1 2 .00 12.38 AM:S3PM 2 evaryhour 1 0 1.0 E6:46AM/W6:25 E 6 : 48 PMIW 6:2 5 51 AM/PM; 52 every hour 1.0 AM PM 1 2.38 AM: S3PM every hour 1.0 lakelan d Rog1 St PM; 5 2 AM, Medical Center every 3 0 minutes 2 0 2.0 12.00 12.00 S3PM 1 overy 30 minutes 2.0 2.0 Winterhaven Hospltal every hour 1 0 1 0 7:18AM 6:18 P M 11.00 1 1.00 51 PM: S2AM 1 evoty hour 1.0 Tallahassee Meml lnbovnd 7:09 AMI Inbound 6:29 PM/ S1AM;S2AM; Heal th c are Center every 40 minutes 1.5 1.7 Outbound 6 :47AM Outbound 6:07 P M 11.70 14.97 53 P M 4 40 m inute:s 1 .5 1 8 I n bound 7:25AM/ Inboun d 6:05 PM/ S t PM ;S2AM; every 40 minutes 1 .5 Outbound 7:1 0AM Outboun d 5:50 P M 10 .92 53 PM wt:Jry 40 minutes 1 5 I nbound 7 !28 AM/ Inbound 6 : 50 PM/ every hou r 1 0 Outbound 6:50AM Outbound 6:20 PM 12.00 0 0 Inbound 7:28A M / l nbound 6:58 PM/ 51 AM/P M; 52 every hour 1 0 Outbound 6 : 4 7 AM Outbound 6:17PM 12. 1 8 AM;S3PM everyhou c 1.0 In: 7:05 ; 7:45 ; 8:25 ; In: 7 :05: 7:45; 8:2 5 : 9:05: 9 :45 PM/ Out 9 : 05 ; 9 :45PM/ O u t 6:4a: 7:28; 8:08: I n b ound 7:05PM/ Inbound 9 : 45 PM/ 6 :48; 7:28; 8 : 08; 8:4a: 9:28 PM 3.4 Oulbo u nd 6:48PM O utbound.9:28 PM 2 .95 8 : 48 ; 9:28 PM 3.4

PAGE 244

, _ .,. .... --- ..---'"'1' Final Avg. Final Sp.anof Sat. I# Sun. Sun. Sp.anof Sun. Sat Tnnslt sun. Sttv0d Sun. bus bUI Sun Tr1nslt Hospltal Firwt Bu LHIBus S.Moound-6 :55 AM O utbou.nd-6:50 PM 1 3.58 0 lnbound-5 : 55 AMI lnbound: 35 P M / Ou1bound :50 AM Outbound: 30 P M Sarasota Mem'l I nbound 6 :3 1 AMI Inbound 6 : 24 PM/ Hospital Ouft>ound 6:55AM Oolbound 6 :55 PM 1).00 0 lnbound5:55AMI lnbound&:31PIN Oulbound 6:23 Ml OutbOund 6 :51 PM Blake Hospital 6:35AM 6:35PM 12.3 8 0 E 6 : 48 AMI W 6: 2 5 E 6 : 48PM/ W6: 25 AM PM Lakeland R-o'l Mod lcal Center :55AM -5:25PM t .50 0 Winterhaven Hotpltll 8:18AM 5:18PM 9.00 TaUahassee Mvm'l Inbound 7 :09 AMI I nbound &2'9 P M / tt.ahhc are Center OuU>ound 6 : 4 7AM Ootbound 6 : 07 PM 14.97 1 1 50 $.12 I nbound 7:25 AMI -6:0SPMI OUibound 7;10 A M Inbound 7 :28 AMI lnl>ound 6 : 58 PM/ Outbound 6 : 47AM Oolbound 6 : 17 PM lnl>ound Inbound 12:25 S :45PW I nbound 7:05 PM1 9 : 45 PM/ Outbound 51 PM; every 40 PM/ Outbound Outbound Outbound 6 : 6 PM 9 :28PM S2AM minutes 1.50 12:08PM 5 :26PM

PAGE 245

Table G-3: Shopping Act i vity Centers I Sat I Sun Op. Op. Op. tot RO\Ile -Wkday Sho!>I>Ons ..... -dayHout$ K ro Saturday HeMin Hn Sunday Hours Hrs RoutH Wl
PAGE 246

T able G 3: Shopping Activity Centers lcorol 1Ma11 Ma11 Op. Hn 12,j 12. 1 I Sat Op. Hou
PAGE 247

Table G-3: Shoppi n g A ctivity Cen ters #Wda #Sat #Sun I Op. Op. Op. #of Route Wkday Shop pi n g Mall Weekday Hours Hrs saturday Hours Hrs Sunday Hours Hrs Route s # Wkdy Wkdy F r equency bus/h 1 2 12 6.5 51 AM every 30 minutes 2 0 s pring Lake Sq Shopping Center 9:30 IW. 9:30 P M 12 9 :30AM 9:30 PM 1 2 11: 30AM-6:00PM 6 5 1 10 AM every hour 1.0 Governor's Sq. M a ll 9:30AM 9 :30PM 12 9:30AM 9:30PM 12 12:00 PM6: 0 0 Pf'JI 6 4 22 AM every hour 1.0 12 12 6 25 AM every hour 1 0 12 1 2 6 26 AM ovoty h o u r 1 0 12 12 6 29 PM evory 40 minutes 1 5 IPifm Beach Gardens Mall 9:30AM 9:30 PM 12 9:30AM 9:30 PM 12 11 :30AM :30PM 7 4 1 /W, every 30 minu tes 2.0 12 12 7 3 /W, every 30 minutes 2 0 every 30 min in AM/PJA peaks; 12 12 7 20 AM every h r 8:35AM-3:35 PM 1.5 12 12 7 2 1 AM every hou r 1 0 -every 15 20 m inf every hr aftc-t Allentura Mall 9:30AM:00PM 12.6 9:30AM 10:00 PM 12.6 10: 30 AM 7:30PM 9 6 3 AM/PM 10P M 2.7 9 AM/PM 1.7 N 6 : 38; 6:58; 7 :43AM/ S 6 : 00; 12.5 12. 5 9 95X AM 5:47 ;6:15PM 0 5 12.5 1 2 6 9 E AM every hour 1 0 12.5 12. 5 9 s AM/ P M -evefY 12-15 m inutes 4.3 12. 5 1 2.5 9 neMAX /W, every 15 minutes 3.1 M elbourne Square every 30 m i n after 9.AMI every h r M a ll 9:30AM 9:30 PM 12 9:30 AM 9:30 PM 1 2 11:3 0 AlA 6:30PM 7 5 21 /W, afte< 3 :10PM 1.4 12 1 2 7 23 /W, every hour 1 0 1 2 12 7 24 every hou r 1.0 12 1 2 7 28 AM every hour 1.0 12 12 7 32 MWF 10:00 AMflWF 2:00PM 0 5 I n : 8:35; 9 : 55; 11: 3 5 AM; 1:35 ; Merritt Islan d Sq. 3:10; 4:20PM/ Out:8 : 30 : 9:50; Mall 9:30AM 9:30 PM 12 9:30AM 9:30 PM 12 11: 30 AM 6 :30PM 7 4 6 AM 11:20 AM; 12:50 : 3 :00; 4 :20PM 1 5 1 2 12 7 7 AM 1:25PM 1 0 12 12 7 8 AM -every hour 1 0 12 12 7 9 --every 100 m 1nutes 0.6 -------

PAGE 248

Tobie G.J: Shopping Activity Centers Final Avg A "'I-Span of Wkdy I SaL Sat Wkday Wkdy Transft Served Sat. bus bus/ Man bus/lw IMtlkls So Nice Span RoutH Sat. Froqu.ncy nv hf First Bus UnlvomtyMoll 1.0 7 :41AM 6 :511 PM 11.25 13.35 AM 2 every hour 1.0 1.0 7 : 41 NA 5:35AM 5 :)5 PM 12.00 AM eveJNS8 :45 N 7 : 07 PM/ S 7:05 N AMI S AM PM 12.28 AM .....,y2hotn 0 5 AM 8:29AM 7 :35PM 11.10 AM JN S 7';08 N 4 :51PM/ S 7:03 N 8 .51 AMI S 9:05 AM PM 12.15 AM fNel'f2lloul$ 0 5 AM 6:26AM 5 :46PM 11.33 AM fNety hour 1.0 7:28AM Sawgra1 M IUs Mall 3 0 6:45AM I 0:50P M 16.08 17.25 AM/PM 3 __ 30 minutes_ LO 8 :55AM

PAGE 249

Table G-3 : Shopping Activity Centers Moll AvuWkday 1.8 1 0 1.0 12.92 13.16 S.rvod I f Sot. Sat. AM/PM AM 3 AM AM AM 5 1 SaL 30 minutes hour hovr hoor Avg SaL _,_ lhr hr 1.0 I 1.3 1.0 2.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 s :52AM 6:05AM

PAGE 250

_.,.,.,. -'""'t't""'U "'"'UYU.1 VCIIIU J t a Flna1 Av9. Avg. Span of Wkdy #Sat. Sat. Wkdoy Wkdy Trans-It Served I Sat. bus bus/ 5-ngMaU buslhr First Bus LMtBus S.Nic:e Span Sot. Routes Sat. Frequency /hr hr Ftrst Bus 6:28AM 6 :28PM 12.00 AM evory 30 minutes 2 0 7 :58AM Sprlng Lake Sq Shopping Center 1.0 6:48AM 5:48PM 11. 00 11.00 AM 1 every hour 1 0 1.0 7:48AM Inbound 7:22 AM/ Inb o und 7:44 PM/ Inbound 7:22 AMI Governor's Sq. Mall 1.1 Outbound 6 :54AM Outbound 7 :22PM 12.83 14.78 AM 4 f/Vety hour 1 0 1.1 OutbOund 6 : 54 AM Inbo u n d 7:45AM/ Inbound 6:45 PM/ \ nbound 7:45 AMI OutbouOO 7 :23AM OutbOu nd 6:23 PM 11.37 AM evef'/ hour 1 0 Outbound 7:23AM Inbound 7:15 AMI l nbound6 : 15 PM/ Inbound 7 : 15AM/ Outbound 6 :53AM Outbound 5 : 53 PM 11. 37 AM every hour 1 0 OutbOund 6 :53AM 7 :00PM 9:40PM 2 67 PM every .so minutes 1.5 7 :00PM Pa l m Beach Gardens Mall 1.6 7:30AM 8 :00PM 12.50 13.33 AM every 30 minutes 2 0 1 3 8 :30AM 6:40AM 7: 15PM 12 58 AM every hour 1 0 7:45AM 6 :55AM 6 :35PM 11. 6 7 A M every hou r 1.0 7:55A M 7:55AM 6:00PM 10.08 AM every hour 1 0 8 :55AM N 6 : 20 AMI S 5:42 N AMI S 12 : 06 ... every 15-20 m i ni every 30 min N6:28AMIS5:f8 Aventura Mall 2.2 AM AM 19.43 2o.t3 AM/PM 4 8PM 11PMI every h r 11PM -2AM 3.2 2.5 AM 5:58AM 10:04 P M 16. 10 AM/PM 1 .4 7:14AM N 6:38 AMIS 5:00 N 6:15PM/ S 7:43 PM AM 11.62 7:30AM 7 :40 PM 12. 17 hour 1 0 1 0:17 AM 6:05AM 12 :38AM 18 33 AM/PM --every 12 minutes 4 3 6 :05 AM 6 :50AM 6:03PM 11.22 0 0 M e l bourne Square Mail 1 0 6 :00AM 5 :20PM 9 .33 9.42 1 -.every 70 minutes 0 9 9:35AM 7 :55AM 4:00PM 8.08 ftleOOAM 2:00PM 4 .00 8:00AM 4:00PM 6 .00 !O :OOAM 2:00PM 4 00 I I Merritt lt:l.and Sq. Mall 1.0 8:30AM 4:20PM 7 83 8.58 1 1.6 1.6 9:50AM I 9:25AM 3 :40PM 6.25 8 :45AM 3 :40PM 6.92 9 :40AM 5:05PM 7.42

PAGE 251

Table G-3: Shopping Activity Centers Final # Avg. Fi nal Sp an of Sat. Sun. Sun. Spa.n of Sun. Sa _t. Transit #Sun. Served bus bus Sun. Transit Shopping Mall Last Bus SeMc:e Span Routes Sun. Sun. Frequency /hr lhr First Bus Last Bus Service Span Malt 6 :56PM 11.2 5 12.35 0 5:35PM 11.00 Oaks M all 6:30PM 11.05 1 1.33 0 6 :30PM 11.08 6:45PM 1 1.28 BunerPiaza 6:00PM 10.52 11.30 0 -6:00PM 10 .50 6 :45PM 11.30 tnboundS>IO PM/ Paddock Mall Outbounc;t.-.5:40 PM 11.00 11 00 0 E9:47PWW9:04 E 7:47 AMI E7:47PMt Citrus Park Mall PM 14.00 14.00 1 A M /PM every hour 1 .00 1.00 W8:04AM W8:04PM 12.28 10: 45 AM; 12: 46; 2:55 ; Brandon Towne 4 :55 PM/10:55 AM: Ceo ter 6 :35PM 8.05 11.20 2 AM 12:55: 2:55; 4:55PM 1.30 0.90 \0:45AM 4 :55PM 8.02 N 6:39 PM/ S 6:29 PM 1G.83 6:35PM 11. 08 AM/PM 2 hours 0.50 !0:39AM 6:40PM 6:35PM 11. 1 3 Inbound 6:08 PMI Votusia Mall Outbound 5 : 17PM 10 .8 5 11 .43 1 1 .00 9.23 6:28PM 10.10 Ml every hour 1.00 6 : 20AM 5 :34PM Inbound 6 : 0 1 PM! Outbound 6:27 PM 11. 5 5 Dunlawton Square 5:17PM 9 .17 12.67 0 Inbound 7:07 PM/ O utb ound 6:32PM 1 2 .57 6:16PM 11.13 6 : 16PM 11.17 5: 13PM 10.15 N 5 : 51 PM/ S 6 : 03 CrowM Center PM 1 0.20 1 0.82 0 N 4 : 51 PM/ S 5 :05 PM 8 23 5 :46PM 10 .33 Sawgran Mill s Mall 1 1 :25 PM 16.50 17.25 3 AM 30 minutes 2.00 1.67 9 : 45AM 7:00PM 9 .67 -

PAGE 252

1ao1e u..;s: snopplng A ctiVIty Centers -Fln1f Avg. Ftnal Span of Sat. Sun Sun. Span cf Sun. Trantlt I Sun. Served bus but Sun. Transtt Last lkls -Spon -Sun. S un.Froquonc y lht lht FftSt8us Last Bus Spon 11:30 PM __ ...... 1 00 t t:OOAM 6:10 PM 11:30 PM Nlo 2.00 7 : 10 PM "-"' Lakes E-7:20PWW Mall -6:35PM 17.01 2 1.25 11. 08 E 9 :00PM/ W 8:00 E E 8:00PM/ PM JW./PM every hour 1 00 W8:55AM W8: 00 PM E 10:20 P M f W E 11:40/WJ E6:10PM/ I 0:55P M AM every 40 minutes 1.50 W10:40AM W8:10PM N 10:30PMIS N9:t5AMI N7:15PMI Coral SquiN Mall 11:20PM 17. 33 3 AM/PM every hour 1 00 1 00 $9:25AM S 8:05PM 10,83 8 :00PM every hour 1.00 10:50AM 6 : 00PM E 9:30 PM/ W 8 : 4 5 PM P M every !\Our 1 00 10:50AM 7 : 00PM ISaraaOUI Square Matt 6 : 35PM 12.13 0 5:43PM Inbound 7 :05 PW Olltbound 6 : 02 PM ln-6:34PMI SL Armond's Ckelo Olltbound 6:24 PM 1U8 0 In-6:23PM/ Olltbound PM Inbou nd 6:16 PM/ Sout11911t Plua Outbound 7:01 P M 1:1.15 0 Inbound 5:40PM/ Outbound 6:32 PM 6 : 35PM Inbound 6:27 PM/ Outboun d 6:57 PM Co rte z Plaza (Trlntfr Plaza 6:05PM 12 00 0 6 :05 PM 6:05PM 6 :05PM

PAGE 253

Table G-3: Shopping ActlvHy Centers Final # Avg. Final Span of Sat. Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. I Sal Transit Served bus bus Sun. Transit Shopping Mall Last Bus Servi-ce Span Routes Sun Sun. Frequeney /hr /hr Fir&tBus Last Bus Service span 5:28PM ISptong Lake Sq. Shopping C&nter 4:48PM 9.00 0 I Inbound 7;44. PMI I GovemOf's Sq. Mall Outbound 7:22 PM 14.78 1 1 .50 5 33 I n bound 6 :45 PM/ I Outbound 6:23 PM Inbound 6 :15PM/ Outbound 5:63 9:40PM every 40 m inute s 1.50 12:20 PM 5:40PM Palm Beach Gardens M all 6:50PM 11.08 4 AM every hour 1.00 1.00 f f:OOAM 5 : 00PM 7 'Ul 5:50PM AM every hour 1.00 9:45AM 4:45PM 5 :05PM AM every hour 1.0 0 10:55AM 3 : 55PM 5 :00PM AM (!Very hour 1.00 10:55AM 4:00PM N 1 :09AM/ S 1 2 : 05 N 6 :41 AMI N I 2 : 08AM/ Aventura Mall AM 19. 85 19.85 4 AM/PM -evel)' 20 minutes 2 6 2.00 S5:05AM S t O PM 19.05 19 .53 11:00PM 1 5 .77 AMIPM 1 1 7:15AM 9:21PM 14.1 6:24PM 8 .12 AM every hour 1 .0 10:19AM 6:24PM 8.08 12:36AM 18.55 AM/PM -evety 20 minute-s 3 3 6:05AM 12:37 AM 18. 53 Melbourne Square 11:54 AM: 12:54; 1 :54 Mall 4:35PM 7.00 1 PM/12; I; 2 PM 2 86 2.86 1 1 :54 AM 2:00PM 2.10 Merritt Island Sq. Mall 4 : 15PM 6.42 0 0.00 0.00

PAGE 254

1 aote U-4: Gove rnm ent ActlvHy C enters sat Sun IWday SaL Op Sun, Op. ot Served Government/Business Op.Hrs Hrs Hrs Hours Hra Routes Route I Wl
PAGE 255

Table G-4: Government Activity Centers I Sat Sun tWdrtY Sal Op. Sun. Op. tof s......s GoYernmtnttBus:iness Op. Hrs Hrs !In; HOUI$ H"' RoutH Route I Wkdy Wkdy Frequ0ncy 6:30; 7:10; 7:45; 8:15 AM/4:12; 5 : 19: 5:21: 5 : -; 10. 5 22)( NA Plot 10. 5 23X NA 7:12; 7:421WJ 4:27: 5:27; 5 :47PM 10.5 28X AM 6 : 36; 7:20; 7 :55/WI 4 :10:4:45: 5:15 PM 10 5 27X AM 7 : 19; 7:42 ; 8:12 AM/4 : 17; 4:47; 5 :22; 5:46PM 10.5 28X AM 7:20; 7:50; 8:20AM/4 : 40; 5 :15PM 10.5 30 MWM -every 30 mfn 10.5 31 PM -every 2 !lours 10.5 4 6 AWPM 10.5 sox AM 7:30; 8 :20 AM/4:40; 5 :15PM 10.5 54 X AM 7:23 AM/5:22 PM E 6:46; 7:57; 8:57 AM/1: 47; 4 :47; 5 : 57; 8:46 PMIW 10.5 58LX AM/PM 4:59; 5:59; 6:59; 11:59 AM/2:59 ; 4 : 10; 5 :10PM E 6:50; 7:24; 7:51 ; 8:20AM; 1 :34: 5:40; 8 :07; 5:3S: 6:55PM/ W6: 02; 6 : 28; 6 : 50AM ; 1 2:15: 4 : 10 ; 4 :40! 10.6 200X Not S : 10: S :.C.O PM .. ---..... Dislrict 7 :30AM. e :oo PM 1U 4 tO -tNerf30"*' . . 30 every 30mfn .. 1U AM/PM 10.5 38 AMIPM every30mln E 6 : 36: 7: 45; 8:45AM ; 1:37; 4 : 37; 5 :45; 6:36PM/ W 10.5 58LX AMIPM 5:09; 6:09; 7:09AM; 12:09; 3 : 09; 4:25 : 5 : 25PM Port of Tampa 7:30AM 6:00 PM 1D.5 t 19 AM/PM every30mln 7:30 7 :30 AMAM MatDIIIAFB 7 : 30AM 6:00 PM 10.5 6PM 10.5 6PM 10.5 3 AM/PM every hour 1D.5 17 AM/PM every 30mln 10.5 25X AM 7:10AM; 5:10PM Downtown Daytona Seaeh 7:30AM 6 :00 PM 10.5 18 lA AMIPM evety 1\our 10.S 18 AMfPM eyery hour 10.5 3 AMIPM eYery hour 10.5 4 IW. ....., ...... 1 0.S 5 IW. ....., ...... to.s 8 AM/PM """'Y'-' 10.5 7 -.....,....., 10.5 8 AMIPM every hour 10. 5 9 PM evef'/ hcur

PAGE 256

sat Sun #Wdoy Sat Op Sun. Op. of Governmen USuslness Weel
PAGE 257

Table G-4: Government Activity Centers #Sat Sun #Wday Sal Op. Sun. Op. ot Served GovemmenUBu&iness Weekday Hours Op. Hrs Hrs Hrs Hours Hrs Routes Route f# Wkdy Wkdy Frequency 10.6 12 AM e""'Yhout 10. 5 15 AMIPM every oour 10.5 17 AM/PM every hour 1o.6 1 8 every hour County Courthouse 7:30AM 6:00 PM 10.5 5 2 AM/PM every30 m i n 10.5 3 AM/PM every tlour 10.5 4 AM/PM every 30 min 10.5 9 AM/PM ev&ry hour 10.5 10 AM/PM every hour Downtown Pal motto (10th Stand 8th I Ave) 7 :30AM 6 : 00 PM 10.5 2 1 AM/PM every hour 10.5 10 AMJPM every hou r Ukoland C ity Hall 7 :30AM 6 : 00 PM 1 0.5 2 20 AM/PM every hou r 10.5 30 every hour .. . .. Koger Center 7:30AM6:00 PM 10.6 2 25 AMIPM overy hour : ... 10. 5 2 6 AM/PM every hOur .. . COunty Government Cent&r 7:30AM6 :00PM 10.5 10 1 AMIPM every30min "';. 10.5 2 AM/PM every30mln 10.5 31 AMIPM every hour 10.5 40 AM/PM every30 min 10-6 41 AM every hOur 10. 5 42 AM every hoor 10.5 43 every hour 10.5 44 every hovr 10. 5 46 AM/PM every30mln 10.5 54155 AM every 3D min TREX Bluelake Offi c e Complex 7 :30AM 6:00 PM 10. 5 2 2 AM/PM every 30 min 3 AM/PM every hour Koger Ctr (Airport W..st Area) 7:30AM 6 :00 PM 10.5 3 36 AMIPM I DORAl 1Q.6 Con. AMIP M tJVery45 min I Tri-Rall Koger E 6:41; 7:43AM; 3:45; 4 :62; 6: 1 3 PMIW 6:41; 7 : 43; 1Q.6 Shu ffle AMIPM 8:51AM; 4 : 46; 5:53PM Downtown Miam i 7:30AM 6 : 00 PM 10.5 22 2 AM/PM -every 10 min

PAGE 258

. -- sat Sun #Wday Sat. Op. Sun. Op. to! Served GovernmentiBut.lness WHkday Hours Op. Hrs H"' H"' Hours Hrs RoutH Route# Wl-30 min 1o.5 6 every hoor 10.5 7 AM/PM --every 20-30 mi n 1o.5 9 AM/PM -every 20-40 min 1o.5 10 AM/PM ... every 30 mi n 10.5 11 AM/PM -every 7-15 m ini--every 40-60 min after -.to PM 1D.5 16 AM/PM every20 min 10. 5 21 AM/PM every30 mi n 10.5 24 AM/PM 1 S-30 m!n 10.5 48 AM/PM every hour 10.6 77 AMIPM ... every 10-30 min / every h r after -to PM N every 3-15 m i n 3 :32PM-6:15PM/Severy 5 10.5 95X AM/PM m i n 6 ;48 AM .. 9:03 AM 10. 5 B AM/PM -every 15 min 10.6 c AM/PM every 20 mint every hr after -10 PM 10. 5 K AM/PM -every 20 min 10.5 s AMIPM -.every 12-20 m in 10.5 T AMIPM .. every 20-30 min Biscayne 10.5 MAX AMIPM every 15 m in F lagler 8V'(!ry 15 m in/ no servke E 9:25AM4 :54PM/ W 9: 1 5 10.5 MAX AMIPM AM 4:08PM Night OWL 10. 5 Shultle PM every hour Seapo rt 10.6 Con AMIPM every 15-30 m in TltusviUe CBO (North Gov't Center@ Inbound 7:00: 10:20 AM; 1:30; 2:40 PMI Outbound Polm Ave. & Soulh St.) 7 :30AM 6 :00 PM 10.5 1 5 AM 10:05 AM: 12:30; 6 :00PM Cocoa CBO (Orange SL@ Florida Ave.) 7 :30AM 6 :00 PM 10.5 1 6 8 : 15; 9:35; !1:15AM; 12:45; 2:55;4:15 PM Inbound 7 :50; 8 : 55; 11:20 AM; 2:35 ; 5:00PM/ County Government Center 7:30AM :00PM 10.5 3 5 Outbound 8:00; 9:00; 1 1:30 AM; 2 :45: 5:07 PM 10.5 11 7:50AM: 5 :07PM Inbound 8 : 00; 9:05; 1 1 :30 AM; 2:50; 5 :07 PMI L___ -----29 Outbound 7:50; 8:5$; 11:21 AM: 2 :45; 4 :41 PM ------------

PAGE 259

Table G-4: Government Activity Centers Final Avg. Avg. Span' of Wlcdy I SaL Sll. Wkdoy Wtdoy Wlcdy Transit St.,.., I SaL bus buol Oowmmoni/Buslnoss bus/h. butlhr Firat Bu.s Last SUs Service Span Sat -Sat Frequency ltv hr M.C BLa11ehard Judicial Building 1 0 1.3 8.119AM 5:09PM 11.00 12.00 4 evoryhour 1 .0 1 0 :45AM -5".45PM 12.00 every hour 1 0 1 0 ... 5 :40AM :40PM 12.00 every hour 1 0 2.0 -6:10AM -5:40PM 11.50 every hour 1 0 Marws Pol nt8 Commerc Park-marcus point b4vd w.st of 29 1.0 1 .0 7 :211AM 5:211 PM 10.00 10.28 1 .0 7 : 12AM 5:12PM 10.00 Downtown Plaza 2.0 1.2 6:30AM 6 :30PM 12.00 13.60 every30 mln 2.0 2.0 6 : 00AM 7:30PM 13.50 18AM 8:00PM 14.20 6Votyh0ur 1 0 2 0 6 :32AM 7:35PM 13.05 t:Neryhour 1 0 1 7 5 : 55AM 7:35PM 1 3.67 every hour 1 0 2 0 8 :30AM 7:35PM 13.08 f!llet'J boor 1 0 2.5 5:55AM 10:00 PM 1 8:08 -ry30min 2.0 1 0 8 : 42/W. 6;18 PM 11.60 1 5 8:$4 /Wo 8.'00 PM 11. 1 0 evoryhow 1 .0 2 0 7'$17/Wo 6:53PM 11.n every hour 1 0 2 0 8:28AM 7 :30PM 13.()) """"'hour 1 0 0 5 8:43AM S:15 PM 10.SS 0.4 7: 20AM 5 : 15PM 9.92 ---------------

PAGE 260

Final Avg Avg Spa.n o r Wkdy I SaL Sat. Wkday Wkday Wl
PAGE 261

T able G4: Government Activity Centers Final Avg. Avg, Span of Wkdy Sat. Wkd4y Wkday Wkdy Tran$l t S
PAGE 262

. ........... ---..-Final Avg. Avg. Span of Wl
PAGE 263

Table G-4: Government Activity Centers Avg Span of Wkday Wkday Wkdy Government/BusinesS; buslh buslhr First Bus last Bus Service 2 6 5:26AM 1 :10AM 19.70 N9:fOAMIS N 5:10 PMIS 1.0 9:01AM 5:01PM 8.15 2.8 5:28AM 10:00 PM 1 6 .53 2 .5 5 : 33AM 1 1:10 PM 17.62 1.5 6:03AM 11:40 PM 17.62 5.4 5:18AM 1 2: 40AM 19.37 3 0 5:58AM 10:2 0 PM 16.37 2 0 5:57AM 11:34 P M 1 7.62 3 .3 5:28AM !2:10AM 16.70 N6:00AMIS N8:00PMIS 1.0 5: 40AM 7:40PM 14 .33 4.1 5:28AM 1 :10AM 19.70 N3:32 PMIS N 6: 15PM/ S 4.1 6:46AM 9:03AM 1 1.45 3 0 6:54AM 7:45PM 12 .65 2.7 5: 16AM 12:12 PM 1 8 90 2.8 6:08AM 9 :02 PM 14.90 4.5 5 :34AM 1:10AM 19.60 2.5 6:58AM 9:03PM 14.08 2.3 6:58AM 6 :30PM 11.53 E6:21 A M I E 7:01PM/ 1 .7 W7:20AM W7:06PM 1 2.7 5 CW 1 1 : 09 CW6:19 PMICCW AMICCW 1.0 11:16 PM 6 :26AM 7.28 3.0 6 :22AM 9 :30PM 15.13 Tftusvme C S O (North Gov"t Center@ Palm Ave. & South St.) 0 6 0.6 10:05AM 2:40PM 2 .58 Cocoa CBD (Orange St.@ Florida Ave.) 0.8 0.8 8:15AM 4 :15PM 8 00 County Government Conter 1 1 0.8 7:50AM 5:1l7 PM 9.28 0.2 7 :50 A M 5:07PM 9.28 1.1 7:50AM 5:1l7 PM 928 Final Wkdy Transit Servod II Sat. Span Sat. Routes Sal Frequency --every 15 min -..every 20..30 min -every 4()..60 m i n -every 41).60 min -every 10..15 min/ --every h r :30 PM every 30 min every hour every 30 mini every hr after 8 PM every 20 mini every hr after -a PM every40mi n -every 20-30 min/ every hr after -10 PM every 30min -every mini -every 30-60 min after ... 10 PM every 3D min every hout every 30 min 2.S8 8.00 0 9.28 #Sal bus lhr 2. 0 1 .0 1 .5 2 0 2.0 1 0 2 .0 Avg Sal busl : hr ,o : ..: ... 0.0 . : . .,

PAGE 264

iu:ue u-4: uovemment Acttvtty Centers Final Flnaf Spon of Sal Sun. Avg. Span of Sun. SoL Tran$1t I Sun. Sttved I Sun. Sun. Sun. Tronllt FlmBuo Laat8us -Span Routes Sun .. ney busltll FlmBus U$t8us Stfvlu s pen M.C. BlaMhatd J""l<:lol Bulldlng 6 :30AM 5:30 PM 11.00 12.00 o .oo 0 00 : 50 AM : 50PM 12.00 o .oo :40PM 11.50 0 .00 -5:45PM 11. 00 0.00 Mlrcut Pointe Commerce Parte I mercut point blvd west of 19 I Downtown Plaza 7 :00AM 5 :30PM 11.00 ' 7 :00AM 6 :00PM 7:57AM 5:00PM 7:57A M 5 :00PM 7 :00AM 5 :00PM 7:57AM 5 :00PM 7:57AM 5:00 PM 7:57 AM 5 :00PM eo-town Sq-. 7 :15AM 6:15 PM 11.00 11 00 0 ' 7:15 AM 6:15PM 11.00 County Courthouse 7:15AM 6 :15PM 11.00 11.00 0 7 :15AM 6:15 PM 11 .00 Downtown T""JN! 7:41AM 8 29 PM 13.93 7 :25AM 7 : 35 PM 8 :23AM 5 : 35 PM 7 :23AM 8 :35PM 8 :42AM 7 :27PM 8 : 17AM 8 :35PM 8 :32AM 8 :35PM 9:22AM 7 :35PM a4AM 6 :35PM 7 :30AM 7 :35PM 9:35 AM 5:35PM 5 : 4 1AM 5 :20PM 8:28 AM 8 :35PM

PAGE 265

Tab l e G-4: Government Activity Centers Final Final Span of Sat Sun. Avg Span of Sun. Sat. Transtt fl Sun. Served Freq #Sun. Sun Sun. TraMit Governmentr8uslness First Bus Last Bus Service Span Routes Sun. uency buslhr busltlr First Bus Last Bus Service Span . . every ... We$tshoro Busineas District 7:03AM 7 :0SPM 14.30 3 hour 1.00 0.8 3 7 : 01AM 6:03PM 14.20 : E7:08AMIW E 8 :10PMIW every E 8 :46AM/ E 8 : 51PM/ . . 6 : 2SAM 7:31PM 2h .. 0.50 W6:58AM W8: 30PM N 7:29AM/ S N 7:29PMIS every N 6:39AM/ N 6 : 39 PMI 7:44AM 6:44PM hou r 1 00 S 7:06AM S 7:07PM every Port of Tampa 7:27AM 7 :34PM 12 12 1 hou r 1 .00 1 .00 7:25A M 6:30PM 11.06 MacOlll AFB 7:21AM 6 :30PM 11 .18 8:27AM 6 :32PM Downtown Daytona Beach 7:26AM 6:32PM 12.57 7:58AM 6:02PM 7:28AM 6:02PM 7:58AM 5:32PM 7 :28AM 8:32PM 6 :58AM 7:02 P M 8:28AM 5:32PM 7:28AM 6:02PM -

PAGE 266

ote li-4: Activity Centere Final Final Span of Sat. Sun. Avg. Sponol Sun. Sa L Transit I Sun. Sti'Vtd I Sun. Sun. Sun Transft GO't'tfl'N'MntiBuslneu Ftrst8uo Last Bus S.Nito Span Routn Sun. uonc:y buollw buslhr FlntBus Last Bus Stt'olko Spon 6:58AM 6:o2PM 7:58AM 6;02 PM 6:58AM 6 : 32 PM 6 : 28AM 8 : 32 PM 8 :28AM 7 .02PM 7 :58AM 6 : 32 PM N e w Smyrna Downtown 7 :43AM 5 :4S PM 10.08 7 :40AM 4 :45PM 8 :40AM 5 : 45PM Downtown Fort Lauderdale (community routn not Included) 5 :55AM I 1 :00PM 17.87 7 :00AM 9 :0SPM 6 :10AM 1t:OOPM E&N5: 45 E & N 10 : 40 NNS&W PMIS&W 5:'0AM 11:20 l'fo! 7:00 AM 11:00 l'fo! 6:40AM 9 :10PM 8 : 10PM tt:OO l'fo! 625AM I 0 :50PM 6 :55AM tt:OOPM E6:05AMIW E 10 : 55 PM/ 7 : 15AM WI O :OOPM 6 :20AM 11:00P,M 6 :50AM 8 :00PM 5:55AM 10:25 PM 8 :00 AM 11:00PM 6:25AM 7 :30PM Downtown Sarasota (1st & \.emon) 8 :12AM 6 : 15PM 12.67 7 :07AM 6 : 15PM 6 :40AM 8:45PM 8:06AM 6:15PM 8:40AM 6:45PM 6:40 AM 6:45PM lk10AM 6:15PM 6:40AM 6 :45PM 6:10AM 6 :15PM

PAGE 267

Tble G-4: GovemrnentActlvlty Centers Final Final Spano! Sat. Sun. A vg. SpMof Sun. Sat. Transi t I Sun. Served Fe
PAGE 268

u u.-..; uovemmen t ACUVrty centera Frnal final S..t Sun. Avg Sponol Sun. S..t Transit I S4ln. Served I Sun. Sun. Sun Transtt GowrnmentiBvslneH Ftn.t BUI LntBUI Span Routn Sun. uoncy bus l1v buolhr First Sus S.rwt ce SPin 1 : 1 0AM 6 :17AM 9 :00PM 5 :58AM 12 :10AM 6 :18AM 9 :05PM 5 :48AM 12: 10.AM 6 :03AM 10: 30 PM 6:47AM 11:10 PM 5:58A M 12:10AM 5 :58AM 1 : 10AM 7 :58PM 4 : :511<14 12:12 AM 8:18AM 8:50PM 5 !34AM 1 :10AM 6 :58AM 9 00 PM CW 12: 19AM. CW5:29AMI CCW 1 2:28 CCW5:36 AM AM 6 :22AM 9 : 30PM Titusville CBD (North Gov't Cenler@ P 1tm Ave & South St.) 0 Cocoa ceo (Onnge St@ Flc
PAGE 269

Table G-5: Education Activity Centers # Wday #Sat #Sun Op. Op. Op I of Served Actlvtty Center Wkday Hours Hrs Sat H ours Hrs Sun. Hou rs Hrs Routes Route t# Wkdy Wkdy Froqu&l'lC)' 7:45; 8:45 AM/12:45; 1 :45; 3:45 ; University of West Florida 7:30AM 8 :5 5 PM 13A2 1 22 4:45PM University of Florida/Shand& 6 :55 AM -10:40 PM 15.75 11 1 At.! evory20mlo 15.75 5 AM tivory 30 min 15 .7 5 8 30 m i nutes evel)' 1 0 m i n 6:45AM 5:30PM/ 15 .75 9 every 20 min 5:30 PM-8 PM 15 .75 10 overyhou r every 1 5 min 6:45AM-5:00PM! 15.75 12 every 20 min 5 PM 8 PM every 15 min 6:30AM .. PMJ 15.75 13 AM every 30 m i n 5:30 PM 1 15.75 16 AM evory 1 5 min 7:00AM-6:00PM/ every 30 min 6 : 00PM 7:45PM every 15 min 6:00AM ,.;6:00 PIN 15.75 20 AM every 30 m i n 6:00 PM ; 8:30 PM 15.75 35 every 15min 15.75 43 AM every hour SFCC-Maln Campus 7:30AM -10:15 PM 14.75 2 10 AM evety h our 14.75 43 AM every h our SFCC-Downtown Campus 7:30AM-10:1 5 PM 14.75 3 5 AM eve-ry 30 min 6 e very hour 10 AM every hour Central FL Comm. College 7:30AM -10:10PM 14.67 2 3 AM every h r in AM/every 7 0 mi n in PM 4 AM every hr m MA/every 70 min in PM Hillsb o rough Comm. Conege 7:30AM-10:15PM 14 .76 7:30AM-5:15PM 9.75 2 1 1 AM every 30 min 14.75 9.75 32 AM every hour University of south Florida 6 :30AM -10:20 PM 15.83 7:30A M 5:30 P M 10 11 1 AM every 2030 min every 15 30 mfn/ every hr affer-8 2 AM PM 5 AM twery 30m!n ----------------

PAGE 270

Wdoy I Sot I Sun Op. Op. Op. I of S t rwd Acdvlty Center wtday fiours Hrs Sal Hours H"' Sui\ HOUtS H<$ Routes Route I Wl<
PAGE 271

Table G-5: Educatlon Activity Centers # Wday #Sat II Sun Op. Op. Op. ActMty Center Wkday Hours Hrs SaL Hours Hrs Sun. Hours Hrs FAMU (Florida Agrl!laml.O.de CC North Campus 6:30AM :30 PM 17 7:30AM 4:30PM 9 7:30AM 2:30 PM 7 17 9 7 17 9 7 17 9 7 17 9 7 17 9 7 BCC Main Campus 7 : 30 PJA 9:30 PM 14 7:30AM 5:30 PM 10 14 10 14 10 #of Served Routes RoutoN Wkdy 7 5 AM 11 AM 14 AM/PM 42 AM 43 IWI 3 2 AM 61 AM 62 AM 6 7 AM 21 AM 27 AM/PM 27 MAX AM 32 AM/PM 75 AM 3 6 AM 10 30 Wkdy Frequency every40 min every40 min ovary 20 min 5:50 -8:50AM and 2:20 6:30 PM; every 40 min at othor times every 30 minutes every hour f'/Very 30 min every hour every hour @very h ou / -every 15 mn -15 20 min -20mi n every 30 min 7:25; 8 : 45; 10:25; 11:55 AM; 2:05; 3:25: 4:40 PM 7:50AM PM/ OUibo und 8:20; 10:20; 2:20; 4:20PM :-_ ' :..

PAGE 272

AYg, FlnJ.I Avg WlJNW E 7 :13AMIW Unl..,.,..lty of Florldo/Shands 3 0 s.o 6:10AM 7 :10PM 1 3 60 14.22 I every 3D min 2 0 1.4 7 :13AM E8:50AMlW E8;20PMIW E7: 121>JNW 2.0 6 :07AM 7!37 PM 14 .22 fNety 30 rn.in 2.0 7:07A M 2 0 6 :30AM 7 05 P M 12.58 every hour 1.0 7 :30AM 5 5 7 :02AM 7 :42PM 12. 67 0.0 E 7 :48AMIW E6:48PM/W E 7;48AMIW 1.0 7 :05AM 6:05PM 11.88 tNeryhOu r 1.0 7 :05AM 3 9 7 :00AM 7 :37PM 1 2.62 min 1.3 7 : 15AM 3 8 8 :46AM 7 :45PM 13.00 everyhout 1 0 7:15AM 3.7 8:45AM 7 :45PM 13 .00 every hour 1.0 7 :45AM 3 6 8:30AM 7:30 PM 13.00 ..ery30nW1 2.0 7:30AM 4.0 7:00AM 5:47PM 10.78 0 0 E6:40AMIW E6:40PMIW 1 0 1:20AM 5:20PM 12.33 0.0 SFCC-MIIn Com pus 1.0 7'27 AM 6'27 PM 11.00 11. 53 every hour 1.0 7 :27AM 1.0 6 :55AM 6 :05PM 11.17 I E-li:55AM/ E-8:25 PM/ E:25MII I SFCCDowntown C.mpus 2.0 W.I:05AM W-7: 35 PM 14.33 14. 33 eVf.l ry 30 min 2.0 W: 05AM N :05 AM/ No-7:26AM / 1.0 $:50AM S:50PM 13.00 INM'f hour 1 .0 S:50AM 1.0 7 :27AM 6:27PM 1 1 .00 &very hour 1 .0 7 :27AM Centr1l FL Comm. CoUege 1.0 1 .0 6 :45AM 5:42PM 10.95 10.95 AM 70min m PM 1 0 1.0 6:45AM 1.0 6 : 45AM 5:37PM 10.87 70mlnin PM 1.0 6 :45AM N-5:50AMI N :50 PM/ N-7:50AM/ Hnlaborou.gh Comm. College 2 0 1.5 $-6:15AM $-7; 45 PM 14. 92 13. 82 PM every hour 1.0 1.2 $-7:55AM E8:30MIIW E7:30PMIW 1.0 6 :38AM 7 :38PM 13.13 PM every45 min 1 3 7:39AM Un,_.lty of Soutll Florld.a 2.5 1.1 5:54AM 9:35PM 1U7 PM 10 f!Vety 30 min 2 0 1..4 7:37 AM 2.4 5:47 AM !0:05PM PM eY4"fY 30 min 2 0 7:39AM N 8:15AM/ S N9:1SPWS N 7:14 AJN S 2 0 5:07AM 9 :37PM 16.50 I>JNPM every hour 1 .0 6:43AM

PAGE 273

Table G-5: Education Activity Centers Avg. Wlcdy Wl .:

PAGE 274

Avg Final Avg. I Wl
PAGE 275

Tab l e G-5 : Educatio n Activity Cen t ers Final Avg. Final Span of Sat. Sun. Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. Sat. Transit fl Sun. Sorved Freq. bus bus S u n Tr.ant.Jt Activity Center Last Bus Service Span Routes Sun. ueney /hr /hr F irst Bus Last Bus Service Span University o f west Florida 0 E6:13 PMIW University of Flo rfda/Shands 5:43PM 11.00 11.67 0 E6:50PMIW 6:07 P M 11.72 5 : 30PM 10.00 E 5:-48 PMIW 5:05PM 10.7 2 5:45PM 1 0 .50 5:45PM 10.50 6:15PM 10.50 6 :00PM 10 50 S F CC-Ma l n Campus 5:27PM 10.00 10. 00 E-6:55PW SFCC -Downtown Campus w-6:05PM 11.83 11. 83 N-5:05PM/ S-5:50PM 1 0 .42 5:27PM 10.00 C..ntral FL Comm. College 5:42PM 10.95 10. 95 0 5:37PM N-6: 4 5 PM/ Hillsborough Comm. College S-6:55 PM 11.08 1 1 .35 0 7:00PM 1 1.35 University of South Florida 8:50PM 16. 1 5 0 8:20 PIA N9:14 PMIS 8:43PM 1 4.52

PAGE 276

1 ao1e G-5: Education A ctivity Cent ers Fina l Avg Fina l Span Of Sol Sun. Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. Sat. sun. SOMOd Freq """ bus Sun. Transit AC'tlvlty Center LaltBuo Sorvlco Spon Routes Sun. uency "" /hr First Bus Last Bus Strvlct Spon N--8:40 PM/ S-7:55 PM 13.75 7 : 05PM N8:32 PMIS 7:27PM 7:33P M t>-6 :15PMI S--6 :40PM IU2 E 7:56PMIW 7 :10PM E9:34PMIW 9 :52PM 13.80 Inbound -7: 00 Daytona Beach Comm. PM/ Outbound Colt---6:40PM 12 .5 3 1 2 53 0 Inbound -6:15 PMI Ou!bound -5:15PM 11.00 Inbound --o"'s PM/ Outbound -5:41PM 1 2.08 South Florida Education N 10 :05 PMIS Center 9:35PM 15 75 0 N & W7:05 PM/ E&S7 :05PM Manatee Comm. College NIS:18 PMIS (Btadonton) 6 :52PM 12.67 0 N6:55PMIS 8 :15PM County Comm (US F) PM U2 0 5 :10PM Polk County Comm. CoUtgt (Wlntertlavtn) 5 :22PM 8.00 0

PAGE 277

Table G-5: Education Activity Centers Final Avg Final Span of SaL Sun. Sun. Sun. Span of sun SaL Transit I Sun. Served Froq bus bus Sun. nan sit Activity Center Last Bus Se
PAGE 278

"'" n.e:rea ton ActiVIty ..,;enters tWdl) I Sat sun Op. Op. Op. lot Recmotk>ll Loeotlon WMkday Hours Hro Saturday Hours Hn St.rtday Hours Hr$ RoutH Roue. National M useum of Naval Aviation 8:30AM 5:30PM 9 8 :30AM 5 :30PM 9 8:30AM 5 : 30 PM 1 14 S hift 1 : 7 AAI 3 PM; Shift 2:3PM Shfft 1 :7AM 3 PM: Sh;R2 : 3PM S hfft 1 :7AM 3 PM ; Shift 2 :3PM Pensacola Bnch 11 PM; Sh;R 3: 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3: 11 P M 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3 :11PM 7 AM 24 Sou th Beach Street 9:30AM 9:30 PM 12 9:30AM 9:30PM 12 11:30 AM & :00 PM 6 5 4 lA 12 12 6.5 4 i 1 2 12 u 7 i 12 12 6 5 12 Ocean Center 2 lA 18 Shift 1 :7AM 3 PM; Shift 2:3PM Sh;R 1 :7AM 3 PM; Shift 2 :3PM Shift 1:7AM 3 PM; Shift 2 :3PM Fort Lauderdale Beach 11 PM ; Shift 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM ; Shfft 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3: 11 PM 7 AM 24 4 11 24 24 24 36 24 24 24 62 24 24 24 72 S hift 1 : 7 AM 3 PM; Shill 2 : 3 PM S"ill 1 :7AM 3PM; Shift 2 :3PM Shllll: 7 AM 3 PM; Shift 2 :3PM Manatee Beach 11 P M ; Shift 3: 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3 :11PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Sh;fl 3: 1 1 PM 7 AAI 24 2 3 24 24 s Jake GaJther Park 8:00 AM 8:00 PM 1 2 8:00AM 8:00 PM 12 8 :00AM 8 : 00 PM 12 1 5 Shift 1 :7AM 3 PM ; Shift 2 :3PM Shift 1 : 7 AM 3 PM: S hift 2 :3PM Shift 1 :7AM-3 PM; Shift 2 :3PM Boc:a Raton Holti 1 1 PM; Shill 3 : 11 PM 7 AA! 24 11 PM; Shift 3 : 11 PM. 7 AM 24 11 PM: Shift 3: 11 PM 7 AM 24 1 92 lliaml -(lincoln Rood) 1 0:00 AAI 12:00 PM 14 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 13 11 :00 AAI 1 2:00 AM 1S 1 0 A c 14 13 13 H 14 13 13 L

PAGE 279

Table G-6: Recreation Activity Centers IWdB/'f #Sot Op. Op. Reerea11on Location Weekday Hour& Hra Saturday Hours H,.. 14 13 14 13 13 14 13 14 13 14 13 M etroZoo 9:00AM 6 :00PM 9 9 :00AM 6 : 00 PM 9 Beaches (4th Street & Shlll1: 7 AM 3 PM; Shlf12: 3 PM 1: 7 AM 3 PM; S h iA2 : 3 PM A1A) 1 1 PM; ShiftS : 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 P M; Sh ift 3:11PM 7 AM 24 #Sun Op. #of Sunday Hour& Hro Routes 13 13 13 13 13 13 9:00AM 6:00 PM 9 1 1:7 A M 3f'M; 3 PM 11 P M ; Shift3:11 PM-7AM 24 3 Route II M R s w F l ag l er MAX Night OWl S h uttle Coral Reef MAX ., . : ' 9 1 1 26 .-.: . =. ...

PAGE 280

n ble G-6: Rec:reation Activity Cente111 Final Wkdy Avg. Span cf Wkdy bust Wkdy Wkdy transit RKNaiJon loatk)n SetvedWkdy Wkdy F-""Y hi buslhr First Bus Last Bus Servtce Strved So1l N otlonalllUMUmol Navat AvtaUon NO evtty how 1.0 1 .0 6 :23-5:23PM 11.00 11 .00 -Be ach Inbound ... 7 : 25 AMI Outbound Inbound -7: 40 PW Outbound South Beach Street NO 6VIf'Y hoUJ 1 0 1.0 .. 5 :45AM 13.92 13.12 NO lnbound 6:45 AMI Outbound 6:36 PMf Outbound AM every hour 1.0 6 ;40AM 6:39PM 11.98 AM Inbound 6 ;21 AM/ Outbound Inbound 6:48 PM/ Outbound AM every hour 1.0 :10PM 13.00 A M I nbound 6:19 AMI Outbovnd Inbound 6 :45 PM/ Outbound AM &Vel')' hour 1 0 :40AM :35PM 12 .43 AM Inbound 7 :11 AMI Outbound lnboul\d 7:32 PM / Outbound Ocoan Cente r evtryhOur 1 .0 5 :53AM 6 :45PM 13 .65 Inbound 6 :45AM/ outbOund Inbound 6 :46 PW Outbound every hour 1 0 6 :15AM 6 :13PM 12.52 51AWPM;S2 E & N bound -5.'55 AMI 54 E 4 N bound :50 PMI 5 & 51 AMJPM;52 F0t1 Lo-lo lleadl AM:S3AM/PM .wry 30 minutes 2.0 2.3 W .... nd c30AM Wbo
PAGE 281

Table G-6: Recreation Activity Centers Final Wl
PAGE 282

Avg. Final Sot. Sat. Span of Sot. I Sat. bus busl Sat. Transit I Sun Served RKrutton Location -SaL Frequency lbr tv First Bus Latsus Service Span Rcut.s Sun. Nltlonalllu$eum of N Wiil Avtdon fNOfYhour 1 0 1 0 7:08AM 8:08 PM 11.00 11.00 0 Pensacola Btach Inbound -7:25 AMI Inbound :40 PM/ Sooth e.a<:h st. .. t .very hour 1.0 1.0 OUII>ound 1\M O..tbound -6:35 PM 13.08 13.50 0 Inbound 7:45AM/ Inbound 5 : 45 PM/ every hour 1 0 Outbound 6 :40AM Outbound 5 : 4 3 PM 11 .0 8 Inbound 6:48 AMI Inbound 6 : 48 PIIN every hour 1 0 O utbound ... 6:10AM Oulbound :10 PM 1 3 .00 I nbou nd 6:49 AMI Inbound 6 :45 PM/ every hour 1 0 Ou tbo und ... 6:35AM Oulbound :35PM 12.17 Inbound 7:11 AMI Inbound 7 :32PM/ Ocean Cnter every hOUf 1 0 Outbound 6:41S AM Outbound 8:45PM 12.78 Inbound 7 :-46 AMJ Inbound 8:46 PM/ every hour 1 0 Outbound 6:15AM Outbound 6 : 13 PM 12.52 S1 PM; E & N bound ;55 AMI S E & N bound :50 PM/ S2AM; Fort Lau
PAGE 283

' .. ... Ta bl e G-6 : Recr eation Activity Ce nters Avg. Final Sal Sal Span of Sat. t Sat. bus bust Sat. Transit #Sun. Sorvcd ReCfeation Lo<:atlon Routes Sat. Frequency lht hr Firs t Bus Last Bus Servtee Span Routes Sun wery hour 1 0 E 6 : 26 AMI W 5:45AM E 11:14 PMIW 10:22 PM 17.47 PM 12 minufeslevety 30 m fnutes after .... 10:30 PM 4. 3 N 5:23 M11 S 5 :12AM N1:33AMJS1:21AM 20.35 AM/PM every 20 minutes/every 45 min u tes afle-r-7:00 PM 2A 8:14 A M 8:33PM 12. 32 AM Clockwise 11:59 PM/ 6:09 AMI Counterclockwise 1 b48 Counterclockwise 5:56 evetyhoo r 1 0 PM AM 6 38 PM MetroZoo 1 every 40 minutes 1 5 1.5 N 0:56 AI>N S 9:06A M N 5 : 36PM/ S 5:48 PM 8.07 8 .87 1 AM A . . Beachos (41h Street & ; . AlA)

PAGE 284

----
PAGE 285

Table H-1:

PAGE 287

... 2 : A l l'poftS-Sattmfay/Sunda y ...... r -' -.. ------. . . :. ; Shift ,Sbllt 11y NUm!Si:r >na1 1 1 18 18 "' .r (\eg!onal.', Tol a l . : r: .. r -. . 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 d 0 . T_ampa l _orornallonal 1 1 30 "' 30 "' "' .' t:. v(( ::. ...... ''li . 1 0 1 0 1 0 o Total' '": :. .... '"'" -: .. ' ...... 0 o 1 . 0 0 1 0 I o o -,. 0 :. o on.a each 1 0 10 "' Oa naBoo Tolal 1":-::. ::..!: : ... o .. o 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 . _; Fl 1 1 Laudetda 1 ./ 1 "' "' F\ . .. :. :: .. -'" .. . .. . .. 'i o ..... : ... , 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 I (j 0 1 0 1 0 0 'd.: . -Totl ', :, '1. ,.: --.... : ... . ........... . .. . . .....,,. Count 2 0 2 .. 15 .. "' Sa>.,ol' ( Ia . 2' ;.:;} r:.::? .: 0 ) 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 c.>untvi tol. 1 . .. eouiw l 1 0 10 .. s ... ,. IM' ... ;!. () "'! ." I :j j 0 . .... .. vCl": 0 0 0 0 0 . ToCol : !' ... . 1 1

PAGE 288

' .... . . Sunda -. hlft 1 hll1Z Shlftl Shlfl1 SNit 2 s ACWI I)' Nwnbe r AMI All PM AMI AM PM -AM PM N umber AMI AM P M AMJ All P M AMI AM PM of of Routos C entfl ROUIH PM Only P M Only Only PM Only Only RoutH P M Only Only PM Only PM Only Only lntemabOnal 44 _., "' "' .-west Polm !leach 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 , 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 IMernatiON:I Totll lam nt ornatlo nal 4 4 1 .-"' 7 .-.-"' 37 ol "' .37 .-.-. 42 ol 4 2 ol .J ol J .-,. Mllmt '.!'ternattonal Tota l 4 0 0 4 I 3 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 1 -Melbourne 1 1 lntema!lonal 21 ol 21 ,. ./ lnlematioclll Total 1 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0

PAGE 289

Table H-3 Medicai-Weet
PAGE 290

... .,. + , Shift I h z Activity Numb RoutM NN AM PM AMI P M Center of PM Only Only PM On1y RoutH Me morral 2 Hosollal " 7 M.mo.UI HosPital Totol 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 Holy Clos s 2 I 10 20 ./ Hoty Cf'Ot.s Toto l 2 2 0 0 () 2 0 OOGtOf's 2 Hospoal 14 .r 1 ./ Doctor's 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 Hooolta l T otol 2 Memorial HOSI>ital 5 ./ 1 7 2 1 0 I 0 2 0 Mernorilf Hosolt.lf Total Blake 2 4 ./ 6 Bloke Hospital 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 Total Lol
PAGE 292

Table H-5: Showing .. .1:t: . .. .. .. q.::..: \.-. ; ...... 'I ervfce .. ,, Sunday 9er'ifco ,::"1 . :< '\ --IY Nuft)blf Routes IJN _AM PM Number of Rout .. AMI AM PM Number of Rout" AMI AM PM center .. , -PM Only Only Routee P M On I)' Only Routes PM OnlY Only 0 -I'" ..,. Route. ,,. .. ... Universit Ml:Jit 3 2 5 0 5 ./ 9 ., 9 ., ., 19 ., UniV6t'$ Mall Total 3 0 3 -0 2 0 2 0 0 f-------OakS MaH 3 3 0 5 ., 5 ., 20 '''''! 20 ., 75 ., 75 ., Oaks Mall Total 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 -Butler Piaza 3 3 0 1 1 ., 1 2 12 ., 75 75 ., Butler Plaza Tot1J 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 Paddock Malt 1 1 0 4 ., 4 ./ Paddock Mall Total 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Citrus Park MaD 1 1 1 39 39 ., 39 ./ Citrus Park M all Total 1 1 0 0 I 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 ----Brandon Towne Center 4 4 2 8 .( 8 8 31 ., 31 .( 37 37 .( 37 ., 38 ., 38 .( Brandon Towno Cnter 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 2 I 1 0 TOUI Vol u sia Mall 4 3 1 9 ., 9 .( 10 10 ./ 10 .( 1 1 ./ 11 ./ 60 .( Volutla Mali TotaJ 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 Ounlawton Souare 5 5 0

PAGE 293

,/ ' -1;'-, .: T ,/ 2 1 o .L 3 3 ,,, 3 ,/ Q L __ s 0 ,/ T ;; ,/ 7 2 "' T:T-----r ,/ 2 0 .:I : ,..;r,: ----0 0 2 0 2 3

PAGE 294

. """-h '! s .. Actlllfly ---R..--AM Pill Numbttof R.. AM Pill Numbe r of ROUI llkelancfSliUare M.a11 2 2 0 50 50 51 "' 51 "' loktltnd Squo"' Mall 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 Total . lakeS uare , 0 10 10 8 n Total 1 1 0 I 1 0 0 Stluare MaU 4 I 22 22 29 25 25 26 26 29 ./ 29 ,j' Go-nor's Sq\1110 M all 0 3 0 3 I I 0 0 0 Tolll i>tlm Bold> Galdens Mall 4 I ./ "'

PAGE 296

Table K-G: . J -,.. J .. !" u Sun s.moe . AetMty ""'"bot -AM PM Number R""'" A M I AM PM Num!'"' Routes AMI AM PM C.ntor 01 ><' Only Only 01 PM Only Only 01 P M Only Only RCiuiH Routes Routtt M .C. 81anchl1rd Judidal 4 : Buildina 4 .r 6 .r 15 .r 1 6 .r M.C.BI_,.nl 4 0 4 0 N/A HIA JU
PAGE 297

'''"II. m!Olltet< t I n .... ..... . I ,Y,mor .. . ... :' .. / p .,'{.;, ;, ' ; ,-l't r < ''"1. r > >' '''l!i'" ',' ,. ? .,. , ' o._ ; lj . ,, :. . ,,."! . ; 1,1fflt, (o_.. :t,:: .a:; '""Q. r .. e '/{. :. .IJJ"' ....... ,H;.""' ..... : , <: . 2 0 : 0 N/A ; . NIA .'Total '1 .. .. \ .' _:: ::: . :...,:.. Marton Co_!'_::IY Heallh 3 IJGt. 2 7 SA 58 ,.;, , :c' ... 1 0 0 N/A N/A DOnl; 'Totil'\(v . . .. : : Downtown Tam a 29 1 ,/ 2 7 3 ,/ 4 ,/ 5 ,/ 6 ./ :!: 7 ./ 8 ,.,. . . 9 r 1 D ./ 12 ,.;' :<. 14 ,/ 17 ,/ 18 ,/ 19 ,/ 20X ,/ 21X 22X ,/ 23X 7 26X ,/ 27X ./ 28X ./ 30 ,/ 3 1 46 ,/ SDX 54X ./ 58LX ./ 2DDX ./ .;;:: ... .. .. . . 1 1 1 Nj'!-. : .. .. . . lit . ... .... . . . .,... . . . . West shOt"e Business 4

PAGE 298

. _...,_ __ -!."\-.d' "'-:. .. -.. . s.Me AeiMiy -A M PM N"mblr Routes A AM P M N umber Routes -AM ce.o.. 01 P M Only Only 01 PM Only Only Of P M Only RcKao Routes -Dblrict 10 .1' .1' 36 sax .1' wea_!Shore &u.tnn 4 0 0 N/A N/ A Total Port Tampa 1 19 ., Port Tamp a Totlt 1 1 0 0 N/A N/A . O E -MaolliiiAFB 3 2 0 ., 4 t7 17 25X _!lacOIU AF8 Total 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 DcwotOm Oayt0<1a Bead> 16 lA .1' 18 .1' 3 .1' 4 ., ., 8 ., 1 ., 8 ., 9 ., 10 .1' I .1' 12 ./ 5 ./ 17 ., -178 60 .1' Downtown Dayton. 16 13 2 1 BnchTotal -New Smyrna 3 Oownll>wn 42 43A OB -Smmo 3 0 0 0 NIA NIA

PAGE 299

,/

PAGE 300

. J: '$r.-..::-.. .... ,_ . ......., ; . Satuntw ;;.;;.. ' ... SundavS.Niee .. .. . \fiUinbtf', Rou AMI' AM Num be r RO
PAGE 302

.... ,,.. Sert1oe,. Sunc:Jar Sen-ice -. . AciMIJ llwni>Or R..--;:, PM Numbe-r RoutM AMI Alii P M N umber Routeo Alii Cwllot or P M Only or PM Only Only or PM Only RoUIH Rout. RO\Ittt {Brtvafd Cou nty) 3 5 11 29 County Government cemrTotat 3 0 0 0 NIA N/ A

PAGE 303

Table H-7: Education ; . ": I '; ' : ,,.

PAGE 304

.._,... _;J. ,Wtek . ..;j. >' "!'" .,_._ 'SOMe. .ir : .,.; ... Sunda ervlce i..., .. ,.,, :.;-:;;'_ -A M P M Num-.r RoutH A M / A M PM Routes AMI A M P M Abtlvttv Cent.r .-! .. Orily Ol!ly ol PM Onl y O nly Numbtto f PM O nly O nly ''"" ';>.. RO
PAGE 305

.. :allYl,.-,_., . (:ii>IS .uililiii\B !I!JM: r:.AM ,:; ;o'P.M"': ; Wl -"'1 .. ... ... rM vtJ :_,:, iJaii .Of. ' ;.: ... ,!',: !! .. ""' f1; : , , ., .a :t South FlDfida Education Center 2 9 12 ./ SoJJth Florid3 ; ' ?. :.:: .:"' : C'..; .... ..... ti" c .. _. .. .-:: _. vn o;rouer. . . . . . . r ota l -: < .: .1};: : o'' 1 o ,., ll '. ... 1"\ """ Manatee t BradEontom 2 2 9 ../ 9 10 .,. 1 0 .,. M'hate& : > : ..... : ; .:. :: : t::g; : > :. < : . . COIIego Tofil : ... , .: .d ''.' 2 0 2 2 0 0 N/A ... : ".-POlk COunt y < Community College .... IUS Fl 2 2 20 .,. 20 21 . V.: . ... : .; . ', . . CommiinllY' ,. ... (USF j : :t::r2 .. . : . 2 o 2 2 o o . T tal -. ..... .._.-:.:;r ... : . : : '. . ... 0 . . .:t : ...... ... ... ...... --. . : Polk Coonty Community Collego MlintG111avenl 1 1 20 20 ./ PolJsCou.nb' : . .. .. : ._.... ..... .:.n,: / ; r : .:. C''I J ' '"'" 't""'l'). , y:.:.,.:JJ : ; >::. .. ._.: . ; 1 0 1 0 0 1 Nl' viJEt0e.QWI; I .. .-. , U . 1"\ '' FAMU (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical univemi i;i' 5 3 5 ./ 5 1 1 11 14 14 v a 43 ./

PAGE 306

-Iii' : ........ -R CAliJ AM PM N umber RUI 5 1 0 3 0 0 NIA Pal m Beach Co4teoo 3 3 2 ./ 2 61 61 ./ 62 ./ 62 ./ P a lmBe.ch Community c Total 3 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 NJA MIMJi.;Oade CC North Camoos 6 3 3 7 7 7 ,/ 2 1 27 27 ,/ 27 ./ sr32 ./ 27MAX 7 32 ./ 75 ./ Mllml.Oa de cc N orth Camput Total e 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 N/A 6 10 30 sec M ain Comous Total 3 0 I 0 0 N/A ----

PAGE 307

'hal lOtion ioiai'. l'''::r l .;, : o .. I I \. r ...... ( < .... ; .... ,_. : ;,_ .,. : ".::.' ll Table H-8: Non-Shift Recreation 14 1 .:. .. I I O ;,I-.01 0 . "'I : ,," . ,, .;.: I South Beach Stre4 ;'4 : ---:. ..::i . 4 0 I .. I .. \' .'... .. .._. "....... . . Total: . . ;,;,: . . ... 4 o-1 I o . I o .: 18 I 18 I I I I I =f I . Suri Splash Park r i 2 . n . p 2 0 2 0 2 0 o k :;. .. ; .. .. ;--.. .. . .. . .aolal . -.' -.J:.: .. : .. . ,,._, .. I 1 5 J a ke Gaither Park .:'-.. ... .. 1 o o -.. Total . ." : :.:'.,('. w Night OWL '?' 7 ,/ ,/ 6 .. (:'. 1 1 ..8 .;; 7 ./' 7 Nigh t OWL I I I ,/ 4 I 3 I 8 7 ./' Night I I I ,/ OWL 2 I 5" t;. I I I I 1 eel I I I I I
PAGE 308

f 0

PAGE 309

Table H: Shift Recreation-Weekday

PAGE 310

.:::. -Center I of ----BoadiTOial Ft. Bosch Ft. l.auderdlle >T.UI Boach 'Tolal 2' 2 2 2 Boca Raton I I I Total 0 Totti' Ro' B lu ----.,3 5 Tablo tl-1 0 Sh ift Roc:roatio<>-SawrdtyiSu""-y - 'AMI I AM I PM I AMI PM AMI um_,.r RovW. AM/ PM AM/ PM AM I ..... PM Only Only PM Onl y PM of PM Only PM Only PM -,-f" o I o I 2 I 2 T o I -o I o I 2 I o I I 1-'1 I I I I I I ' I I I I I"' 7 O IOI2JO I 2 7 o 1 o 1 o 1 2 2 -3 3 0 I 0 I 0 I H I 0 I I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I I 0(0(0(0(0(0( 0(0(0( 0 Rod 92 7 o 1 o T r12 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 2 1 o I I -' 7 I I o 1 o 1 3 1 o 1 3 1 o 1 o 1 o I o 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o OIOIO(O o 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o r o r o 1