USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Charlotte County transit development plan : technical memorandum no. 5, public transit options

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Charlotte County transit development plan : technical memorandum no. 5, public transit options
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines--Florida--Charlotte County--Planning   ( lcsh )
Bus lines--Florida--Charlotte County--Public opinion   ( lcsh )
Local transit--Florida--Charlotte County--Planning   ( lcsh )
Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00441
usfldc handle - c1.441
System ID:
SFS0032462:00001


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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00441
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
0 245
Charlotte County transit development plan : technical memorandum no. 5, public transit options
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1996 April 19
650
Bus lines--Florida--Charlotte County--Planning
Bus lines--Florida--Charlotte County--Public opinion
Local transit--Florida--Charlotte County--Planning
710
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.441



PAGE 1

CHARLOTTE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Technical Memorandum No. 5: Public Transportation Options Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida CUTR April19, 1996

PAGE 2

Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization 28000 Airport Road A-6 Punta Gorda, Florida 33982-2411 (941) 639-4676 Director: Staff: Fax. (941) 639-8153 Lisa B. Beever, Ph.D., AICP Preston J. Ellio tt Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Flower Avenue, ENB I 18 Tampa, FL 33620 -5350 (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Director: Project Manager: Gary L Brosch Rosemary G. Mathias Laura Lachance Baichan Chen Project Staff: Reviewers: Dennis H inebau gh Joel Volinsk.i

PAGE 3

TABL:Il: OF CONTENTS Overview .... . . .... . . . ........ . .......................... .... ..... . l Community Workshop s .................................................... . 3 West County . .............................................. .... . . ... 4 Sou th County . .... .............. . ...... . .... ... ....... . ..... 4 Mid-Cotmty . . .... ........... . . . . .......... ... ................... 6 SUIVey Results .... ............................. ....... ................. 6 P u blic Transporta tion Options ..... .... . . . . ................ ............... 9 Option 1: Option 2 : Option 3 A: O ption 3 B : O p ti on4: No Expans i on of Existing Paratransit Service . . ... .... ....... 10 Expansio n of Exist ing Para transit Servic e to Gen eral Public Dial-a-Ride . ...... .... .... . . . ........ . . !I Pro visi on o f Min im a l Fixed-Rout e Serv i ce and ADA Complementary Paratrans i t Service ........ ........ .... 1 5 P h ase I n of Minimal Fixed -Rou te Service and ADA Com plementary Paratrans i t Service ...... ............. 1 9 Pr ovision of Traditional F i xed-Route Service and ADA Complementary Paratransit Service ..... ... ..... .... 23 Summ ary .... . . . . . . .... . .... ..... ... ... .... . . .......... . . .... 27 APPENDIX A Charlotte County TOP Comm u nity Worksh op Survey ............ A I I

PAGE 4

Tab le I Table 2a Table2b Tab le 3a Tab l e 3b Ta ble4a Table4b Tab le Sa Table Sb LIST OF TABL ES Charlotte County TOP Summary of Public Transportation Options ......... 1 0 Option 2: Capital & Operating Expenses ........ .... . ........ . . 13 Option 2: Capital & Operating Revenues .... .............. ...... 1 4 Option 3A: Capital & Operating Expe nses ........ . .... . ........... 17 Option 3A: Capital & Operating Revenues ... . ........... ... .. .. 18 Option 3B: Capital & Operating Expenses ............ ........ . ... 21 Option 3B : Capital & Operating Revenues ........... . . ........ .. 22 Option 4: Capital & Operating Expenses ..... .... ................ 24 Opt i on 4 : Capital & Operating Revenues ..... . ... . .... ....... 25 11

PAGE 5

Charlotte Cotmty Public Transpbrtatiou Options Overview Tecllllical Memorand um No. 5 draws on all of the information presen ted in the previous technical memoranda (and of the community workshops describ,ed in this teclul.ical memorandum) and presents a set of options for providing public transportation service in Charlotte County. Basic cost estimates for each option are provided. Additio nal infonnation relating to implementation of service for the option selected by the Charlotte County Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization will be included in the final Transit Deve lo pment Plan. Technical Memorandum No. 5 Pagel

PAGE 6

Public Transportali(m Optitml C harlotte County I' AGE LEFT BLANK INT EN'TIONALLY Page2 Technical Jlfemorandum No. 5

PAGE 7

Charlotte County Public Trnnsportatlbn Optibns Community Workshops Public input is a vital component in developing options for the Charlotte CoW1ty Transi t Developmen t Plan (TOP). To comply with the requi r ements of the Public Involvement Plan developed for the TOP, the Center for Urban Transportation Researc h (CUTR) conducted three community workshops to present findings to date on the project process and to elicit public comments regarding the mobi lity needs of the local community. The workshops were advertised in the February 24, 1996, Sarasota Herald-Tribune Charlotte and Englewood AM Editions. Two additional public service announcements were run on F eb ruary 18 and March 7, 1996. Flyers were mailed to approximately !50 concerned citizellS, public agencies, and other interest groups on the mailing Jist maintained by CUTR. Workshops were held on the following dates. February 26, 1996 F eb ruary 26, 19 96 March 7, 1996 West Cou nty/Englewoo d Joseph Tringali CommW1ity Center. South CoW1ty/Punta Gorda Public Library Mid-County/Charlotte Coun ty Administratio n Center in Murdock. At eac h workshop, CUTR presented an overview of the TOP process, the draft public transportat ion goals, and the poiential options for public transportation in Charlotte County. This information was presented to inform the attendants of existing resources and to elicit feedback from the community members Fo ll owing the presentation, participants were invited t o give their ideas and opinions regarding public traru;portation and mobility needs in Charlotte County. To obtain the greatest possible response, a brief survey (prepared by the MPO) was circulated among the audience members. Participants were encouraged to take copies of the survey to distribute at other meetings. Most of the workshops yielded similar results, with a perception of community need for some kind of expanded availability of public transportation setvices for the transit dependent. At the same time c onsiderable concern was expressed relating to the potential expense of providing p ublic transportation. It also was generally agreed that the need is for smaller transit vehicles and more personalized service not larg e transit -type vehicles found in large cities These comments generally reflect the goals endorsed by the various committees and described i n Technical Memorandum No. 3 The following sections present summaries of the public input from each workshop. This input was in corporated into the goals developed to address the needs of the transit dependent in Charlotte CoW1ty. Technical Memorandum No S Pnge3

PAGE 8

Public 1'ransportatlqn Options Cll arl()lle County West County The Wes t Cowtty workshop was held at 10:00 a m Monday February 26, 1996 at the J os eph Trin gali Community Center. Only four people attended this m eeting perhaps i n pa r t, because another meeting on MSBU funding issues was scheduled opposite the pub l ic t ransportation works h op. The predominant comments were that pub lic transportation is no t a big i n terest in West County Most peopl e have cars and would n ot use a transit system. However it is poss i ble that people wo uld use a b us fo r longer trips to Port Charlo tte or to dinner shows i n Venice. Large r b uses are not suitable for the West County area; sma ller b us es wou l d be preferabl e To a ttract ddcrs, service should be marketed to the generd.l public and the bus es should be painted artractively on the outside (e g. t h e painted b uses used to generate advertising revenue by HARTline in Tampa Lynx in Orlando, and Space Coast Area Transit in Brevard County). Mos t said public transit s hould target those pe o p le who are dependent on p u b li c tra nsporta tion or other peopl e fo r tri ps, bu t shou ld not duplicate p u b lic transporta t ion services tha t are a lready available. In addition, sh uttles migh t be appropriate t o transport people from Eng l ewood Beach to the beach at Manasota Key, which has poor access an d limited park i ng. The c itizen c omments also i n c luded a concern for the Jack of sidewalks in the co mmun i ty It was stated that sidewalks are essential to the community and the new ly wi de n ed road (S.R. 776) s h ou ld ha ve m erchan t crossings at majo r shopping centers to make i t safer to cros s the s treet. South County The So uth County wo rk sh o p was h e ld a t 7:00p. m ., Monday, February 26, 1 996, at the Punta Gorda Pu blic Library The workshop was scheduled as partofCounty C ommissio ner Cuntmings' regularly sch edu led Town Hall meeting T wenty-four pe r sons attended the meeting. T h ere was a general consensus that residents oppose large buses and t!!at city-typ e tran s i t is no t appealing to the community. Ins tead, incremental chang e wou ld make more sense. For example, public transit should start with the c urrent available paratransit services, w ith an expansion of t h a t serv ice to accommodate more peop l e. In addition, mor e effort shou ld be m ade to transport children to various activities using school buses. Those who attended the mee t ing commen ted that the trolley Page4 Technical No. 5

PAGE 9

Charlotte County Public Transportation OptWns servi ce is not working well and that it is aimed e.t the tourist market, not the transit dependent population. One p e rson suggest ed that the best way to provide public trangportation would be to subs idize taxicabs to take persons to grocery stores or doctors' offices. Concern, however, also was expressed that taxicabs are not all perceived as safe and that regulation s might be needed to ensure passenger safety. There also was a concern about personal safety, with gpecific reference to a lack of sidewalks that would make bus stops along major roads unsafe. Suggested routes for fixed-route buses inc luded serving destinations along U.S. 41, from Punta Gorda to Town Center Mall or other dest in ations in the Murdock area. Other suggestions included providing service at night as was develo p ing a feeder bus service to provide access to a main bus r oute, such as along U.S. 41. A big concern of the residents attending the meeting was fmancing a public transit system. Curre n t transportation disadvantaged (TD) service is used by a few, but paid for by all. Also, for the n ext three years the penny sales tax collecte d locally is obligated to pay for constructio n of the new County Courthouse. During the presentation CUTR and MPO staff explained that there are federal and state pu b lic lrll;llSPOrtation funds ear marked for Charlotte County, although the County does not use them now. The audience generally agreed that if federal and state ftmds were available, the County should consider taking advantage of those funds oi locality would use these funds (which are generated by Char lotte County taxpayers). Another suggestion was to issue tax-free b onds or to have the private sector involved in supporting the system. Those attending generally agreed that there are unmet transportation needs for people who cannot drive or pay for transportation Also, i t was stated that the Cowtty has not kept the public well informed about what is available within the community (i.e., the Charlotte County Transit Department (CCTD) TD transportation program). To make public b:ansportation work, there should be changes in zoning to create a community layout that is more favorable for fixed-route service. In the short term, the system should expand incrementally and adopt new teclmology that will make public transit feasible and efficient. For exampl.e, a "computer commuter" can rotate scheduling automatically and coordinate service vehicles better. In any case, the County should take one step at a time, starting with a small system. If it works well, then the service could be expanded -Technical Memorandum No. 5 PageS

PAGE 10

Public 1fansportatlon Options Charlotte County Mid-County The Mid-County workshop was held at 10 :00 a.m., Thursday, March 7, 1996, at the Coun t y Administration Center in Murdock. Twelve people attended the meeting This workshop was attended primarily by persons who are trans i t advocates or agency representatives One concern expressed at the Mid-County meeting was that the transportation needs of the tra nsi t dependent seem to be met a lready thro ugh current TD serv ice and an expansion of the TD s y stem would create a duplication of services However many others disagreed stron gly and s tated that the needs of many perso ns who are transit dependent are not being met because t hey do not qualify under the TD program criteria and, further that certain trips do not qualify under the trip prioritie s set by the CTC. For example, some people can use the current sys tem to go t o the doct or, but cannot use it to go to the store or social activities because of the trip priority system that is used (i.e p riority is given to medical; nutrition and group shopping trips; education and t raining ; and emp loy ment trip purposes). Other social service agency representatives agreed and stated that people call their agencies everyday asking abou t public transportation service because they a re not el i gible for the TD paratransit service. There also were concerns expressed that if the current system were open to the general public that th e demand would overwhelm the system. Survey Results During the wo rkshops the MPO distributed a survey to gather additional information about the perceived need for public transportation (see Appendix A). Twenty-four surveys were retumed at the meetings; however a large number of surveys were taken and distributed to other communi t y groups totaling 126 to date. The survey results from the com mu!lity work sho p s were generally consistent with the telephone survey and interviews conducted during the course of this research (see Tec hnical Memomndum No. 1). The survey asked six questions relating to public transportation. The survey results from those r eceived to date are summarized below (Question No. I asked for individuals zip codes.) Page6 Technical No. 5

PAGE 11

Cllarlotte Counry -. P11blic Transporlatlou Optious No. 2. Currently Charlotte County has a public transportation system which is only available to individuals that do not have access to a vehicle and are low -income, elderly or disabled Charlotte County should: 4 9 percent said the County should create a new public transportation system 40 percent said the County should expand the existing transportation service to all citize n s 6 percent said do nothing 5 percent did no t answer No. 3. To help pay for bus service, what do you feel would be a fair charge for a one-w ay bus trip? 40 percent said the fare should be SO cents 3 7 percen t of the respondents said the fare should be $1.00 13 percent said the fare should be other than the choices offered 6 percent said the fare should be 25 cents 4 percent did not answer No.4. What type of buses do you see on our streets? 60 percent sai d small buses should be used 17 percen t said trolley style buses should be used 9 percent .said big buses should be used 6 percent said other 4 percent said small and big buses should be used 2 percent said no buses should be used 2 percent d i d not answer No. 5. As a revenue source, should advertising be placed on the outside ofbuses? 81 perce n t said yes 7 percent said it depends 6 percent said no 6 percent said other or did not answer No. 6. To meet the needs of the community, bus service should: 4 4 percent said service should be a combination of fixed schedule & dial-a-ride 41 percent said service should be on a fix ed schedule (passing or stopp ing at a certain location regularly) 9 percent said service shou l d be l ike a d ial-a-ride program (call to sc h edule a pick up time) 6 percent said bus service is not needed Based on the survey results, most respondents (89 percent) support development of additional public transportation service whether it is in addition to the existing door-to-doo r paratransit service Technical Memorandum No. 5 Page7

PAGE 12

Public Trnusportotion Op#ons Charlotte County offered by the CCTD or a new system. Most respondents (77 percent) said the fare should be 50 cents or $1.00. More than half (60 percent) think that small buses should be used to provide service and a large majority (81 percent) said that advertising should be painted on the outside of the buses t o generate additional revenue. Most respondents think the service should be a combination of fixed route and dial-a-ride service ( 44 percent) or operated on a fixed schedule ( 41 percent). This information and the information documented in the previous four Technical Memoranda have b een used to refine the options for public transportation which are described in the next section. PageS 1"eclmical Memorandum NQ. 5

PAGE 13

Charlotte County Public Transportation Opt/OilS Public Transportation Options This section describes the p u blic transportation options CUT R developed for consideration by the MPO. In addition to the community workshops described in the previous section, a series of meetings was conducted during February and March 1996 to acquaint various MPO advisory committees with the goals and objectives outlined in Technical Memorandum No.3, to describe the results of the demand forecast and needs study documented in Technical Memorandum No. 4, and to seek input on the ge neral options developed and presented at the community workshops described in the previous section. The mee tings are listed below: February 1, 1996 TDP Transit Review Committee (TRC) TRC March 7, 1996 March 13, 1996 TD Coordinating Board March 27, 1996 Te chnical Advisory Committee (T A C) March 27, 1996 Citizens Advisory Committee ( C AC)IrR.C (joint meeting) In addition, CUTR staff updated the MPO at i ts February 12, 1 996, meeting. During February, the TRC had a major role in developme n t of the draft goals and objectives, which were refi ned and presented in March . All four committees have unanimously endorsed the draft goals and objectives. Further, all of the committees end9rsed either Option 2 or Option 3, or a combination of Option 2 and Option 3. The four basic options are: Option 1 Option2 Option 3 Option4 No expansion of existing paratransit service. Expansion of paratransit service to genera l public Dial-a-Ride. Provision of minimal fixed -rout e service and ADA complementary paratransit. Provision of traditiona l fixed-route service and ADA compleme n tary paratransit. Based on input received from the various advisory committees, Option 3 has been further refined into two Options (3A and 3B), with different implementation schedules. Table 1 summarizes the options, which are described after the table. Technical Memorandum No. 5 Page9

PAGE 14

Public Transportation OptWns Option I Option 2 Option 3A Option 38 Option 4 Table 1 Charlotte County TDP Summary of Public Transportation Options 0 4 Paratransit 4 Paratransit 3 Fixed-Route 4 Paratransit 3 Fixed-Route 8 Paratransit 9 Fixed-Route 0 $0 3 $98, 161 5 $544,416 5 $385,666 15 $2,873 ,911 $0 $2, 322,540 (64%used) $2,322,540 (72%used) $2,322,540 (75% used) $2,322,540 ( 79% used) Charlotte County Years .lc5 'l'otal Ne.li' Capital:&; : 9perating Expenses; .. < $0 $1,578,960 $2, 202,369 $2,139,025 $ 4 ,705,382 Note: The p rojected costs are for o .ne scenario under each option. Further study of the selected option will yield varying costs. Option 1: No Expansion of Existing Paratransit Service Under this option, existing paratransit service would not be expanded; therefore, there would be no additional costs to the existing system This option would not take advantage of capital and operating assistance available through Federal Section 9 and S t ate Block Grant Funds, which have been earmarked tor the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. Tilis optio n would result in no increase in service or cost for the TD transportation system currently operated by CCTD (see Technical Memorandum No.4 for a description of that service). The locus of this option would be t o improve on the cWTent system of providing transportation for the senior citizens persons with disabilities, children-at-risk, and others who qualify to use transportation under spec ific social service programs or the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged criteria, with no additional resources PgeJO TechnicaltJiemorandum No. 5

PAGE 15

C/lnrlone Cou1tty Pub& Transportation Opt ions Expenses and Rev enues This option would require no additional funding. It also does not take advantage of $464,508 in federaVstate operating and capital funds earmarked for Charlotte County to provide public transportation in the urbanized area of the county. Issues Based on the analysis presented in Technical M emorandum No. 4 the current TO paratransit service is not meeting the needs of persons who are transportation disadvantaged in Charlotte County. The syst.em serves approximately 5,000 individuals and provided approximately 103,000 trips in FY 1995. Trips are prioritized to serve medical appointments, nutrition sites, education and training, and grocery shopping. The system limits trips to other dcsrinations such as to social and recreational sites. Clearly, the do-nothing approach does not address the pressing need for public transportation for those who are trans it dependent. This option is contrarY to the perceived need for additional public transportation resources expressed by the vast of persons contacted during th e course of this study Given that current service meets less than hal f of the projected demand for paratran s it service for persons who are transportatio n disadvantaged (see Technical Memorandum No. 4 ) For example in FY 1996, 149,019 trips (including trips coordinated/provided by CCTD and those provided by other agencies that have coordination agreements with CCTD) are p!'Ojectcd to be provided as part of the coordinate transportation system, yet the projected demand for paratransit service is estimated to be 314,236, more than twice the number provided. Optio n 2: Expansio n ofPa r atra n sit Serv i ce to General Public D ial-a -Ride Under this option, existing door t o-door paratransit service would be expanded to accepl requests for service from the general pu blic (this type of system is sometimes called "dial -aride''). Four new vehicles would be a dded to the existing fleet (including one spare). Thi s op t ion takes advantage of federal and sta te publi c tr
PAGE 16

Public Tnmsportation Options Cllarlotte County to attach a value to the service. This amount also matches the $!.00 co-pay required for Medicaid trips. This option would build upon existing paratransit service and expand this service to the general public, particularly to those who are "trans i t dependent." The definition of transit dependent is more inclusive than the definition of transportation disadvantaged, which is currently used as the criteria for service with CCTD. In addition, the serv i ce currently prov i ded by CCTD maintains trip priorities for its clients; those that use the service, for example, those who use the TO service for doctors' appointments may not be able to use it for shopping or social activities. Under an expanded paratransit system these trip priorities would be expanded to include more trips Expenses and Revenues Capital expenses cover the cost of purchasing vehicles and related equipment, such as fare boxes and radios, as well as computer scheduling software aod hardware Table 2a shows the projected cost of Option 2 for a five-year period. The first part of the tab l e shows the projected capital expenditures ($252,000 in Year One). In Year One, four new lift-equipped small paratransit buses would be . purchased for $50,500 each ($202,000) Each v ehicle would be equipped with a fare box and radio ; computer scheduling software and hardware also would be purchased in Year One (for a projected cost of $50,000). Replacement vehicles shown in Years Two through Five would rep l ace existing paratransit fleet vehicles, which are aging Table 2a also shows projected operating costs for this option, incl u ding three additional drivers, a clerk accountant and dispatcher. A line item also is included to indicate t he cost of other operating expenses such insurance, parts, fuel, lubricants etc. In Year One, the estimated operating expense for the new service is $162,365. Projections for Years Two through Five are included. Table 2b shows projected capital and operating revenues for the same period. Federal and state revenues will pay for 90 percent of the capital expense, up to $273,065. As can be seen in Table 2b, the projected capital revenue required in Year One is $252,000; the 90 percent federal and state share is $226,800; the I 0 percent local share is $25,200. The projected revenues for Years Two through Five are shown in Table 2b. Page/2 Technical JWemornndum No. 5

PAGE 17

Cllarlofte Cou ttty Public Transportation OptiOIIS Tlible 2ll Option 2: Cripital & Operating Expenses Vehicles $202 ,00 0 $106 ,050 $111,353 $116,920 $122,766 (5% inflation) Other Capital Expenses $50 ,000 $4,200 $4,410 $4,631 $4,862 (5% inflation) radios scheduling softw are/ hardware -farebox Total Capital Expenses $252,000 $110,250 $115,763 $121,551 $127,628 Labor & Fringe Benefits $130,309 $133,567 $ 136,906 $140,329 $143,837 (2.5% inflation) Other Operating Expenses $32,056 $32,69 7 $33,351 $34,018 $3 4 ,698 (2% inflation) Total Operating Expenses $162,365 $166,264 $170,257 $174,34 7 $178,535 Year 1: Years 2 -5: Year 1-5 : Replacement vehicles are for current fleet replacement Operating expenses are for new service only and do not include operating ex p enses for existing service. Four new paratransit vehicles (including one spare) at $50,500 each. Radios and fareboxes for each vehicle, and scheduling software and hardware. Two replacement paratransit vehicles Radios and fareboxes for each replacement vehicle. L a bor and Fringe for three additional drivers, one accountant/clerk, and one dis p atcher Other operat ing expenses for vehicle and equipment repair fuels and and for new vehicl es. Federal and stale revenues will pay for 75 percent of the operating expenses, up to $191,443. As can be seen in Table 2b, the projected operating revenue required i n Year One is $212,365; the 75 percent federal and state share is $159,274 The 25 percent local share is composed of two parts: $50,000 in existing local funds, which are available to use as a match for the federal and state funds, and $3,091 in new local funds required to compl ete the $53,091 total local match required. 1Cclmica/ Memorandum No. 5 Page 13

PAGE 18

Public Transportation Options C/larlotte County Table2b Option 2: Capital & Operating Revenues ea.Pital -'H':" '> :Weal\'$* .ea.rt jY """-"' ; ;-.-. .. -;!(t /w.-, < ,; - Section 9 & State Block Grant $226,800 $99,225 $104,187 $109,396 $11 4 865 New Local Match $25 200 $11,025 $11 ,57 6 $12,155 $12,763 Tota l Capital Revenue $252,000 $110,250 $115,763 $121,551 S127,628 Note: Total Federal Section 9 & State Block Grant allocated to Charlotte County for capital expense is $273,065; C h arlotte County must provide a 10% match for capital assistance. The Federal/State share is projected to remain static . .,-""" t >1'4 '> ->N._. .. .... ,_.
PAGE 19

Char/()fte C()unty Public Transpo r tation Options Issues Option 2 was endorsed by the TD Coordinating Board. The Transit Advisory Commi tt ee endorsed this option with the intention oflooking at Option3 i n three years. Th e Citi7..en Advisory Conunittee and the Trans i t Review Committee voted to pursue fw1her study of bo th Optio n 2 and Option 3. Increased paratransit service under Option 2 could provide an additional 15,000 trips per year. The curren t system p rov ides approximately I 03,000 trips per year. Therefore, this would be a 15 percent increase in s erv ice I n addition, trip pri ori ties would be expanded to include more trips such as shopping and social activities; and serv i ce would be expanded to in c lud e the tran s i t dependent, not just those w h o are transportati o n d isadvantaged, according to Chapter 327 F.S. This option, however, could have the potential t o overwhelm the current TD system. Approximate l y 15,000 additional nips could be provided, b ut service would also be opened up to the general pu b li c. Opening eligibility an d trip priorities may overwhelm th e system w ith latent demand Th e overal l cost to Charlotte County over the five-year period, in this option is relatively sma ll As . shown in Table I, over the five-year period new local money required is $98 ,161 out of a total : operating and capital expense of $ 1,578,9 60. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistanc e earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area Option3A: Provision of Minimal Fixed-Rout e Service and ADA Complementary Para transit Under this option, minimal fixed-rou te servi ce using two small buses would be a dded to serve the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area; existing door-to-door paratransit service also would be expanded by three vehicles to m eet the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( ADA) requirem ent for complementary paratransit service F ix ed-ro u te service would target those areas that are most l ikely to generate trips (i.e., areas with contraction of persons who are transi t dependen t and in areas already generating trips through the existing CTC paratransit program). The paratransit service would be open to the genera l public only in areas that did not have fixed -route service. A modes t fare would be charged fo r service, perhaps $0.75 to $1.00 for fixed-route service and $1.50 to $2.00 for demand-response service. Fix ed-route trips could be fw1her d i scounted for seniors, persons with disabilities, and children. Tecllnica/ J tlemorandum No. 5 PagelS

PAGE 20

Public Transportation Options Chari
PAGE 21

Charlotte C()Uilty Public TransportoJ/on Options Table 3a Option 3A: Capital & Operating Expenses Vehicles $42 7 ,000 $106,050 $111,353 $116,920 $122,766 (5% ioflation) Other Capital Exp enses $56,000 $4, 200 $4,4 1 0 $4,63 1 $4, 862 ( 5 % infl ation) -radios scheduling software/ hardwa r e fare box Total Capi t a l E x penses $483,000 $110,250 S115,763 $121,551 $127,628 Labor & Fring e B enefits $181,161 $185,690 $ 1 90,332 $195, 0 90 $199,968 (2.5% inflation) Other Operating Expenses $56 098 $57,220 $58,364 $59,532 $60 722 (2% inflation) Total Operating Expenses $237,259 $242,910 $248,696 $254 622 $260 690 Year!: Year 2-5: Year 1 5 : I ssues Three new fixed-route buses (inc l uding one spare) at $75,000 each and four new paratransit vehicles (including one spare) at $50,500 each. Radios and fareboxes for each vehicle and scheduling software and hardware. Two replacement paratransit vehicles. Radios and fareboxes for each replacement vehicle. Labor and Fri nge for additional five drivers, one accountant cle r k, and o n e dispatcher. Other o perating expenses of vehicle and equipment repair, fue l s and and for new vehicles. The Transit Advisory Committee endorsed reviewing Option 3A in three years, after focusing on Option 2. The Citizen Advisory Committe e and the Transit Review Committee endorsed both Option 2 and Option 3A based o n thes e options receiving more detailed analys is. TeclmiChl Memor01zdum No 5 Page 17

PAGE 22

Public Transportation Options Charlotte County Table3b Option 3A: Capital and Operating Revenues ca ttal.-u;s' ;-... :: 2'' ' :'t -" Year 5 iP. ,, ear i iY C3J:"',3 :" -1--"'"";. ,.,J Section 9 & State Block Grant $273,065 $99,225 $104,187 $109,396 $114,865 New Local Match $209,935 $11, 025 $11,576 $12,155 $12,763 Total Capital Revenues $483,000 Sl10,250 $115,763 $121,55 1 $127,628 Note: Total Federal Section 9 & State Block Grant allocated to Charlotte County for capital expense is $273,065; Charlotte County must provide a I 0% match for cap ital assistance. The Federal/State share is projected to r emain static. :; <;-.. :' l,i,' .. Year 5 y; > -..11 ......... .. "' ... )... "'"'!" $ '""' A .. ' < Section 9 Operating Assistance $191 ,443 $ 19 1,443 $191,443 $191 ,443 $191,443 & State Block Grant Existing Local Match $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50 000 New Local Match $45,816 $5 1,4 6 7 $57,253 $63,179 $69,247 Total Operating Revenues $287,259 $292,910 $298,696 $204,622 $310,690 Notes: Total Federal Section 9 & State B lock Grant allocated to Charlotte County for operating expense is $191,443; Charlotte County must a 25% match for operating assistance The Federal / State share is projected to remain static. Charlotte County has $50,000 oflocal funds available to leve rag e for the addi tiona l funds available from the feder a l and state operating assistance. Therefore, the total operating expens e is shown to be $50,000 greate r than the actual operating expense. For example, Year I, the Total Operating Expense includes $ 237,259 from Table Ja plus the additional $50,000 of e xisting local funds used to match the fede r al and state operating funds. Thus Charlotte County would be required to put up an additional $45,816 in Year J, in addition to the $209,935 in capital funds. Option 3A would focus general public service on the fixed-route system with maintaining the paratransit system for the transportation disadvantaged and persons qualified under the ADA Similar to Option 2, Option 3A could provide approximately 15,000 new trips per year with the additional paratransit vehic les The ne_w fixed-route transit vehicles could provide approximate l y 20,000 additional trips. The comb i ned additional annual trips cou l d total 35,000, the r eby increasing service by 34 percent (The current system provides approximately 103,000 trips per year.) Page 18 Technical JWI!morandum No. 5

PAGE 23

Charlotte County Public Transpor/Jltion Options As shown in Table I, over the five-year period new local money required, under this option is S544,416 out of a total operating and capitai exi;e..;se of $2,202,369. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. However, this scenario 1mder this option does not utilize the maximum available federal and state assistance for C harlotte County. Under this scenario all new vehicles for fixed-route and paratransit services would b e purchased in Year One. As shown in Table 3b, federal and state assistance for capital expenses reach the ceiling of$273,065 in Year One. This situation along with input from the TAC, CAC and TRC prompted an analysis of another scenario (Option 3B). This alternate scen ario, pres ented as Option 3B, phases in the purchase of new vehicles in order to better utilize the available federal and state assistance. This option is explained in the next section. Option 3B: Phase-in of Minimal Fixed-Route Service and ADA Complementary Para transit Option 3B is a phased imple mentation of Option 3A. Instead of providing both fixed-route and paratransit service during the initial year of service, Option 3B is a phased implementation beginning with expanded paratransit service in Year One with establishment of fixed-rou t e service in the second year of OpCration. Paratransit would be offered to the general public in all areas of Charlotte County in Year One, but would be reStri cted to people in areas not served by fixed-route service from Year Two forward. A major advantage of p has ing service implementation as suggested in Option 3B is that it allows the County to take advantage of additional federal and state funds, and reduces the local match required for capital by $ 160, 480 during the ,first two years. E xpenses and Revenues Capital expenses cover the cost of purchasing vehicles and related equipment, such as fareboxes and radios as well as computer scheduling software and hardware. Table 4 a shows the projected cost of Option 3B for a five-year start-up period. The first part of the table shows the projected capital expenditures ($252,000 in Year One). In Year One, four lift-equipped VailS would be purchased for $50,500 each (total of $202,000). Each vehicle would be equipped with a farebox and radio; computer sched uling software and hardware also would be purchased in Year One (for a projected cost of $56,098 in Year One). Replacement vehicles shown in Years Two through Five would Tec/Jnical M'emorandum No. S Page19

PAGE 24

Public TranspiJrtatl(m Opti()ll$ Cltar/()1/e County replace existing paratransit fleet vehicles, which arc aging. In Year Two three small fixed-route buses would be added for $78,750 each; the total capital expenses for year Two would be $352,800. Table 4a also shows projected operating costs for this option including five additional drivers a clerk accountant and dispatcher. A line item also is included to indicate the cost of other operating expenses such as insurance, parts, fuel, lubricants, etc. In Year One, the estimated operating expense for the new service is $162,365. Projections for Years Two thro u gh Five are included. Ta ble 4b shows projected ca pital and operating revenues for the same period. Federal and state reven u es will pay for 90 percent of the capital expense up to $273 065. As can be seen in Table 4b, the projected capital revenue required in Year One is $252,000; the 90 percent federal and state share is $226 800; the local share is $25,200. The projected revenues for Years Two through Five are shown in Table 4b. Federa l and state revenues will pay for 75 percent o f the operating expenses, up to $191,443. As can be seen in Table 4b, t h e projected operating revenue required in Year One is $212,365; the federal and state share is $159,274. The 25 percent local share is composed of two parts: $50,000 in . existing local funds, which are available to u"se as a ma\ch for the federal and state funds, and $3,091 in new local funds required to complete the $53,091 total local match required. T herefore the total new loca l match for operating and capital revenue in Year One would be $28,291. Issues Option 3B evolved out of the input and suggestion of the TRC, CAC, and TAC. The CAC and TRC endorsed Options 2 and 3A with consideration of the two options in more detail with specific emphasis on revenue options. Option 3B could be considered a combination of Option 2 and Option 3A. Pagc20 Tee/mica/ Memorandum No. S

PAGE 25

Charlotte County P ublic Transportation Options Table 4 a O ption 3B: Capitll l & Operating Expenses Vehicles $202,000 $3 4 2 300 $111,353 $116,920 $122,766 (5% inflation) Oth e r Cap i tal E x pen ses $50,000 $10,500 $4 410 $4,63 1 $4,862 (5% inflation) -radios scheduling software/ hardware farebox Total Capital Expenses $252 000 $352,800 $115 763 $121,551 $127,628 Labor & Fringe Benefits $130 309 $ 1 85,690 $ 1 90,332 $ 1 95,090 $199 968 (2.5% inflation) Other Operating Expenses $32 ,05 6 $57 220 $58,364 $59,532 $60,722 (2% inflation) Total Operating Exp enses $ 1 62,365 $242,910 $254,622 $260,690 Year!: Year 2: Year 3-5 Year l-5: Four new paratransi t vehicles (including one spare) at $50,500 each. Radi os and fareboxes for each vehicle, and scheduling software and hardware. Three new fixedroute buses at $78,750 each. Two replacement paratransit vehicles. Radios and fareboxes for each replacemen t vehicle. Two replacement paratransit vehi cles. Radios and fareboxes for each replacement vehicle. Labor and Fringe for additional d rivers (three in Year I and five i n Years 2-5), one accountant clerk, and one dispatcher. Other operating expenses of vehicle and equipment repair, fuels and and for new vehic les. Technical Me.nwrandum No. S Page21

PAGE 26

Public Trtm.fportation Options Charlot t e Couury Table 4b Option 3 B : Capi t a l and Operating Revenues "' _, eal' 4 ):'e a r S .. ,..,. ..... ":t .. v>: "* >.'
PAGE 27

Charlotte County Public Transportation OpLions As shown in Table l, over the five-year period new loeal money required, un der this option, is $385,666, out of a total operating and of $2-,139,025. The balance o f expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. Option 3B u ses available federal and state assistance for Charlotte Cotmty more effectively than Option 3A by phasing the purchase of new vehicles. Option 4: Provision of Traditional Fixed-Route Service and ADA Complementary Para transit U nder this option over a two-year period, fixed-route service using eight medium-duty buses would be added to serve the urbanized area; existing door-to-door para transit servic e also would be expanded by seven vehicles to meet the ADA requirement for complementary paratransit service. Routes would be lai d out a long primary trave l corridors (e.g., U.S. 41, S.R. 776, and U.S. 17) to serve major trip generators within Charlotte County. A modest fare would be charged for service, perhaps $0.75 to $1.00 for fixed-route service and $1.50 to $2.00 for demand response service. This option is similar to the recommendation made in 1 ?81 for Charlotte County after a public transportat ion study. Expenses and Revenues Capital expenses cover the cost of purchasing vehicles and related equipment, such as fareboxes and radios, as well as computer s c heduling software and hardware. Table Sa shows the projected cps! of Option Four for a five-year start-up period. The first part of the table shows the projected capital expenditures ($620,000 in Year One). In Year One, four new lift-equipped small buses would be purchased for $90,000 eac h and four lift-equipped vans would be purchased for $50,500 each (total of $562,000). Each vehicle would be equipped with a farebox and radio; computer scheduling software and hardware also would be purchased in Year O n e (for a projected cost of $58,000). Replacement vehi cles shown in Years Two thro ug h Five would replace existing paratransit vehicles, which are aging. Table Sa also shows projected operating costs for this option, including additional drivers, a clerk accountant, and dispatcher. A 'line item also is included to indicate the cost of other operating expenses such as insurance, parts, fuel, lubricants, etc. In Year One, the estimated operating expense for the new serv i ce is $294,309. Projections for Years Two through Five arc included Technical Memorandum No. S Page :Z3

PAGE 28

Public Transportation Options C/JarltWe County Table Sa Option 4: Capital & Operating Expenses t:; 3. Years Vehicles $562,000 $790,650 $116,920 $116,920 $122,766 (5% inflation) Other Capi ta l Expenses (5% inflation) -radios schedul ing software/ hardware farebox Total Capital Expenses $58,000 $620,000 $23,100 $4,410 $4,631 $ 4,862 $813,750 $115,763 $121,551 $127,628 '< ,.. : 'Ye.ar.
PAGE 29

Charlotte County Publ/e Transporflltio11 Options S ection 9 & S tat e Block Grant New Local M atch T o tal Capital Revenues Table5b Option 4: Optrating Expenses and Revenue $273,065 $273,065 $104,187 $346,935 $540,681 $11,576 $620,000 $813,750 $115,763 $109,396 $114,865 $12 155 $12,763 $121,551 $127,628 Note: Total Federal Section 9 & State Block Grant allocated to Charlotte County for capital expense is $273 065; Ch arlotte County must provide a J 0% match for capital assistan ce The FederaVState share is projected to remain static. Section 9 Operating Assistance & State Block Grant New Lo cal Match Total Operating Revenues $191 ,443 $191,443 $102,866 $439,524 $294,309 $630,967 $191,443 $191,443 $191,443 $451,542 $469,912 $485,651 S642 ,985 $661,355 $677,094 Notes: Total Federal Section 9 & State Block Grant allocated to Charlotte County for operating expense is $191,443 ; Charlotte County must provide a 25% match for assistance The FederaVState share is to remain static. Federal and state revenues will pay for 75 percent of the operating expenses, up to $191,443. As can be seen in T able 4b, the projected operating revenue required in Year One is $294,309; the federal and state share is $191,443. T he local share is $102 ,866 in Year One. T herefore, the total l oca l share for capital and operating revenue is $ 449,801 in Year 1. Issues Option 4 was not endorsed by the advisory committees. As shown in Table 1, over the five-year period new local money required under this option is $2,873,609, out of a total operating and capital expense of $4,705,402. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. Teclmicol i'Jtlemorandum No. S Pagt2S

PAGE 30

Public Transportatitm Options Clta rloll e County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Technical No. S

PAGE 31

Charlotte County Public Transportation Options Summary The purpose of this technical memorandum was to p r esent a set of options for providing public transportation service in Charlo tte County based on all information presented in the previous technical memoranda and the results of three community workshops. Community workshops were hel d to elicit public comments regarding the mobility needs of the local community and potential options for meeting those needs. Comments from these workshops were incorporated into the potential options. The five options presented in thi s document are: Option 1 Option2 Option3A Option 3B Option4 No expansion of existing paratransit service ("do nothing"). Expansion of paratransit servi ce to general pubLic Dial-a Ride Provision of min i mal fixed-route service and ADA complementary paratransit. Phase-in of minimal fixed-ro ute service and ADA complementary paratransit Provision of traditional fixed-route service and ADA comp l ementary paratransit. Options I, 2 3A and 4 were presented to the TD Coordinating Board, the Citizens Advisocy Committee, the Transportation Advisocy Commi t tee, and the TOP Transit Review Commi t tee. Opt i o n 2 was endorsed by the TD Coordinating Board. The T ransi t Advisory Committee endorsed looking at Option 3A in three years, after focusing on Option 2. The Citizens Advisocy Committee a n d the Transit Review Committee endorsed both Option 2 and Option 3A, based on these options receiving more detailed analysis In response to the suggestions of the advisocy committees Option 3B was deve lope d in order to synthesize characteristics of Option 2 and Option 3A, and to take better advantage of available federa l and state assistance earmarked for Charlotte County The Transit Development Plan Document, including a five -y ear plan, will be completed following the forwarding of a public transportation option (or options) by the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO. Teclmlcal Me11wrandum No. 5 Page27

PAGE 32

Public T r a nsportation Opti ons Cllarlo ll County Adoption of the fmal TOP by the MPO does not commit Charlotte County to establishing an expanded transit system. lnslead, it allows the County to be eligible for federal Section 9 and s tate transit block grant funds Adoption of the TOP provides Charlotte County with more options, not fewer. Poge11 Tech nkltl Mem orandum No. S

PAGE 33

Appendix A Charlotte County Five -Year TDP Community Workshop Survey Al

PAGE 34

this page lS blank

PAGE 35

CHARLOTTE COUNTY FrvEYEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMUNITY WORKSHOP The Charlotte County Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is developing the first Transit Development Plan for Charlotte County A transit development plan is a 5 year plan that describes the vision for public transportation along with an assessment of transit needs and a staged implementation program. We need your help in determining how to meet our growing transportation demands. Please help us by completing this survey. 1. What is your Zip Code? __ __ 2. Currently, Charlotte County bas a public transportation system which is only available to individuals that do not have access to a vehicle and are low-income, elderly or disabled. Charlotte County Should: (L Only one) expand the existing tran sportation service to all citizens _create a new public transportation system. __ do nothing. 3. To help pay for bus service, what do you feel would be a fair charge for a one-way bus trip? (L Only one) 25 50 _$1.00 Other:. _________ 4 What type of buses do you see on our streets? (L Only one) _Small Buses (Larger then a van but smaller than 25 feet) Big Buses (40 foot vehicles like in Tampa and Orlando) Buses Other: ______ ______ _______ 5. As a revenue source, should advertising be placed on the outside of buses? (L Only one) _Yes No _Depends Oiher: ___________ 6. To meet the needs of the community, bus service should: (L Only one) be on a f'txed schedule. (Passing or stopping at a certain location regularly) _be like a dial-a-ride program. (Call to schedule a pick-up time) be a co m bination of fixed schedule & dial a ride. __ not exist. (Bus service is not needed) 7. How can we make sure a public transportation system will work best in Charlotte County? CHARLOTTE COUNTY -PUNTA GORDA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 28000 Airport R.aad A 6,. Punta GrNdo, Florida JJ982-24/J PH: {94/J 619-4616 FAX: (94/ ) 639-8/SJ

PAGE 36

PAGE LEFT BLANK JNTENTIONAl,LY A-2