USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An un-cataloged item [C01-00442] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An un-cataloged item C01-00442 from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications USF.
Physical Description:
Book

Subjects

Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.

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 - C01-00442
usfldc handle - c1.442
System ID:
SFS0032463:00001


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 C01-00442
2 USFLDC DOI
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00442] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
500
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.442



PAGE 1

ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF . TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM/PROJECTS

PAGE 2

SUMMARY OF TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECTS . STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................... : ............. 1 PURPOSE ........................... ..... : ................ 3 SURVEY OF LESSONS LEARNED ... ................ .... ......... 4 Project Success/Failure ,Continuation of Project, and Lesson Learned . . . . 5 District 1 ................................................ 5 Lee Tran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 US 41 Co r ridor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) ........... : .... ....... 6 us 4 1 (S. Tamiami T rail) Corridor Project . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Manatee Avenue/S.R. 64 Corridor Project .... ........ ..... . 7 District 2 . ...................... ............ : ........ 7 Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) ............ ...... ... 7 Park N Ride Commuter Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) . . . . . . . . . . 8 SW Gainesville Enhanced Bus Service : . . . . . . . . . . 8 Later Gator Night Bus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tower Road Corridor Service ..... : . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . . 9 District 3 . ................................. ............ 9 Escambia County Area Transit (ECA T) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Davis Highway Corridor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Blue Angel Highway Corridor Project .............. . . . . : 1 0 District 4 ................................................ 10 Broward County Transit (BCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Southwest Broward Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Transi t Corrid o r Pr ogram Review Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 3

District 5 .............. , .................................. 11 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, d.b.a. LYNX ...... 11 Interstate 4 Su!Vey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 District 6 ... .................... ... ....... ............. 12 Miami Dade Transit Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Northwest 27"' Aven ue MAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Flagler MAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 South Dade Busway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 City of Miami Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Miami Beach Electric Shuttle ....... ....... . . . . . .. . . 14 District 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) . . . . . . . 15 Express Bus from Downtown Tampa to Clearwater (200X) . . . 15 Express Bus from Downtown T ampa to Clearwater Mall ( c ontinuation of the 200X) . . . . . . 15 US 41 Corridor Improvement Program ............... .. .. .. 1 5 Express Bus from Net Park Transit Center to O lds mar . . . . . 15 Pinellas Suncoast T ransit Authority (PSTA) ................ ...... 16 Ulmerton Road Corridor (Route 59/Later Route 73) . . . . . . 16 Route 100X ........................................... 17 Alterna te US 19 and SR 686 Corridors (Route 98 Express) . . . 17 U l merton Road (SR 688) Corridor (Route 99 Express) . . . . . 17 US 19 Corridor Service Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Cross-Cou n ty Service CR 296 Corridor (Route 58) . . . . . . 18 Fixed Route Service from Tarpon Mall to Oldsmar (SR ...... 18 Pasco County Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 US 19 Corridor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Adequacy of FOOT Funding Assistance ............. . ......... 20 Agency Suggested Changes to FOOT Transit Corridor Program ...... 20 FOOT Suggested Changes to the Transit Corridor Program . . . . . . . 20 ransit Corridor Program Review i i Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 4

Technical Memprandu m Number Two Summary of Transit Corridor P rojects Strengths and Weaknesses :XECUTIVE SUMMARY Nin e o f the 26 (2 7 tota l projects HART's 200X was cont in ued under a separate contract) transit corridor projects funded from July 1, 1993 through December 31, 1999 have been categor i zed as "Very Successful." They include t he follewing projects: 1. Lee TranUS 41 2. Gainesville RTS SW Gainesvi lle E nhan ced Bus Service 3. Gainesville RTS Later Ga tor 4 Gainesville RTSTower Road 5. Escambia County Area Trans i t Davis Highway ( Route 19 ) 6. Miami-Dade T ransit Agenc y South Dade Busway 7 City of Miami Beach The "Eiec trowave" 8. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Route 59 / Route 73 Service 9. Pasco County T ransportationUS 19 Th i rtee n of the 26 pro jects funded have been cate gorized as "Su ccessful. Two factors that l end to incr easing a projecrs chances of being "successful" include: 1 Marketing, both at the beginning and throughout th e project. It is critical to ensuring the s uccess of a project. 2. Public participation in the design and establishment of the pro ject is extremely important and should not be overlooked The effectiveness and success of express routes, cou p l ed with f requentiy running shutt l es or feeder serv ices, have been demonstrated by the projects summari zed in this technical memorandum F l ex ibil ity i n route design, operating h ours, e t c is critica l i n the initial stages of th e project. You need to take the time to experimen t and tweak the route to ensure the greatest riders hip capture rransl Corridor Program Review 1 Technical Memo
PAGE 5

Both FDOT district offices and agencies wlio responded to the survey, a l ong with subsequent verbal responses, stated that transit corridor projects should have multi year joip t participation agreements with dedicated, COI)tinued funding. FDOT district respondents suggested that the Transit Corridor Program funds be programmed beyond the first year of the FDOT Work Program. Through t h e review process, it became clear that carefully established goals and obJectives are essential to the effective evaluation of a project. I n addition, transit agencies should recognize the flexibility available to ad j ust originally establis h ed goa l s and objectives when warranted. . Through the review of project reports, it was very apparent that consistent reporting requireme n ts are needed. CUTR staff recommends that all agencies report the same information, both quarterly performance (if reports required on a quarterly basis) and annual performance. Each report should contain the WPI or FPN number; name of the project as it appears on the joint participation agreement; brief project summary ; goa l s for the pr oject; performance measures, including, but not limited to: ridership, revenue, and expenses; any changes to the route or schedule during the period; and any significant successes or activities that occurred during the reporting period. (This suggest i on will also appear in Technical Memorandum Three). The Transit Corridor Program is an imporiant program that allows public agencies to establish needed services that may not otherwise be financially feasible for them. Many of the projects identified in this technical memorandum have contributed to reduced congest i on within significant regional transportation corridors including US 1 (in Dade County) US 41 (in Lee and Hillsborough Counties) and US 19 (in Pinellas and Pasco Counties). The Transit Corridor Program should continue as a separate program within the FDOT Transit Office and should not be combined with any other program (as suggested by some respondents). rrans i t Corri dor Program Review 2 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 6

Technical IViefripl'ahCium Numbe r Two Summary of Transit Corridor Projects Strengths and Weaknesses URPOSE he purpose of this project is to review and summarize the performance of transit corridor roj ects fu nded by the FOOT during the time period from July 1, 1993 through December 1, 1999. Throug h surveys and interviews, CUTR will summarize the strengths and eak nesses of the individua l projects. The lessons learned from the implementation of 1ese projects will be shared with other transit systems within the State of Florida. 1 Task 1 of this project, CUTR analyzed and summarized all Joint Participation ,greements (JPAa) for the Transit Corridor Program from July 1, 1993 through December 1, 1999 Trans it corridor projects which are currently under-Way were summarized in detail sing the available progress report data. T hose projects whic.h started in FY 1999, that did ot have p rog ress reports available at the time the data collection activities were onducted, were summarized as to project scope, goals and budget. Where critica l and/or data were lacking, CUTR interviewed FOOT and transit agency personnel ) gather the required information. Technical Memorandum Number 1 presented this 1formation. ask 2 builds on Task 1 with an emphasis on identifying the level of success of the Transit ;orridor projects. This information is summarized in Technical Memorandum Number 2 o elow in a lessons learned" manner to share with the State of Florida trans it indus t ry. It > intended that the results of this analysis may also be presented at FTA annual and nidyear conferences. 'inally, in Task 3 CUTR will interview involved FOOT pe rsonne l at both the Centrai.Office md Distict Offices and agency personnel to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the >Verall Transit Corridor Program, including the results of specific projects, as well as the 'DOT proced ures fo r proje:t qevelopment, monitoring, project prioritization and funding. 'rom these efforts recommendations may be made to aid in improving the Transit Corridor )rogram procedures and monit oring processes. Technical Memorandum Number Three viii document these findings and recommendations. ;ransit Corridor P rogram Review 3 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 7

>URVEY OF LESSONS LEARNED n order to collect information ati ii'ldiVidua l p rojecfs success/failure as we ll as o gain input into suggested changes to the T ransit Corridor program, CU T R surveyed the . ransit agencies and district FDOT personne l who were managing individual projects or =oaT d i strict t r ansit cor r idor programs during the timeframe of July . 1993 throug h )ecember 3 1 1999. The survey was sent to 13 systems who are o r have been T r ans i t Program fund rec i pients covering the active or completed tra n sit corridor projects. rhe following five questions were asked of the project agencies (copy of cover letter and ;urvey in strument provided in Appendix A of this document): I. How would you rate the project's success or fail u re? estab l ished for the project were met? What goals and/or obj ect i ves I s the projec t still active? (A) If yes, do you f oresee continuing to fund the pr oject w i th localfunds after FDOTfunds are exhausted or expire? (B) If no, upon comp l etion ofthe project did you continue to locally fund the project? If no, why not? l. D i d you feel that you received adequate fund i ng assistance from the FDOT to make t h e project a success? 1. Wha t "Lessons Learned from the project can you sha r e with other age ncies who may be interested in i mplementing a similar project? ). Wha t cha n ges to the Transit Corridor Prog r am funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? fhe surveys were sent out in November and December 2000, with follow-up phone to ensure receipt of the survey by the most knowledgeable person Of the 13 agencies sent the surveys nine were completed and returned and two were completed via :elep h one. represent i ng 25 of the 26 t r ansit corr i dor projects referenced in this report rhe surveys were also sent to FOOT district representatives i n December 2000 with follow u p phone calls placed in December 2000 and early January 2001. Of the seven district 3ffices who received the surveys, four completed and returned the surveys, one district Transit Corridor Program Review 4 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 8

epresentative responded via voice mail indicating they had no comments to make, two listricts e mailed their responses with subsequent follow-up phone calls. All responses are lrovided in Appendix B. i he following sections summarize the results of the survey These results are addressed n two sections. The first section summarizes the responses to questions 1, 2, and 4 by lroject. The section numerically summarizes the results of questions 3 and 5, elated to the level of FDOT funding assistance, and suggestions for changes to the Transit ;orridor Program. Note that some systems may not have answered all of the questions : >roject Success/Failure ,Continuation of Prolect, and Lesson Learned f he following section summarizes by District, agency, and specific project, stated ;uccess/failure of the funded project, the current status of the project and the lessons earned, as derived from a survey and interviews of recipient agencies. "No Response" is ;hown for questions where no response to the survey was given, and follow up contact vith the participating agency or FDOT district office was not successfut In some cases the eason for lack of data was the change over of staff with no rema i ning documentation of 1 project s success/failure. )istrict 1. .eeTra n 'JS 41 Transit Corridor Project 3oth LeeTran staff and district FDOT staff noted the continued success of this project. Nhile the service has been and continues to be "very successful," the project has served lS a catalyst for systemwide ridership increases. Ridership goals are consistently (unlinked passenger trips), as are route efficiency (riders per ho u r/mile) and 'are box recovery. One aspect that is noted as critical to the success ofthis project is public nvolvement and marketing. In addit i on, because actual operating expenses were less : han originally anticipated, LeeTran was able to extend the service to an 18 mile route !long US 41 with extended service hours (from 5 :25a.m. to 10: 00 p m., Monday through 3aturday) rransit Corridor Ptogram Review 5 iechnicaJ Memorandum #2

PAGE 9

.es sons Learned 'DOT district staff suggested that grant recipie nts and FOOT district project managers watch" the way in which the relat ive success of a p roject i;> measured. For example, with h is proj ect, i t initially appeared that leeTran's unlinked passenger trips decreased. the actual decrease was the result of the elimination of many transfers. After the irst seven to eight months of the project, the sheer growth in r ider sh ip overcame th i s issue: n addition it was also noted that success on a major corridor, such as US 41, should nvariably l ead to improved performance on all interconnecting routes and eventually ;ystemwide (when looking at performance measures) . )!her comments established the importance of pub li c Invo lvem ent, "if done right, it's worth t." Also, FOOT suggested that multi-year JPAs are the best, eliminating the need for the mnual budgeting process ee t ran a lso inc l uded the im portance of continued pub lic participation and marketing of he service in their comments In addition, it was noted that using the Metropolitan 'lannin_ g Organ i zation's (MPO's) Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC)and the Technical . \dvisory Committee (TAC) as the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was helpful in ensuring :ontinued publ i c involvement. 3arasota County Area Transit (SCAT) 'JS 41 (South Tamiami Trail) rhis project began in FY 2000. Performance cannot be determined at this time. Learned rhere were no reported "lessons learned." rranslt Corridor Program Review 6 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 10

Vlanatee County Area Transit (MCAT); VIanatee Avenue/SR 64 Corridor Project This project began on March 3 2000 (execution date of JPA) MCAT and FOOT agree that :he project has been successful, exceeding the established "Phase I" ridership goals. The "hase I ridership goal for the first year of the project (through March31 2001) was a 15 lercent increase over the benchmark established for a total of 196,394 passengers. )uring this period, ridership actually increased 22 percent. In addition, noted successes ncl uded better on-time performance. MCAT also stated that due to changes on the rout e : adding an additional bus), which allowed changes on other connecting routes, other 111CAT routes are experiencing i nc reased ridership with better connections . L essons Learned o\IICAT staff noted the importance of providing sufficient lead time for staff, particularly jrivers, to fami l iarize themselves with the project; the need for sufficient marketing/public activities; and the importance of hav ing schedules and other i n formation read il y . available and eas i ly accessible. District 2 Jacksonville Transportation Authority {JTA} Park-N-Ride Commuter Express Route The pr imary expenses that were paid by FOOT were for marketing and promotional activities for the route and the purchase and insta llation of 13 automated passenger cou n ters (APCs). In the survey respo nse, JTAstated that preliminary goals and objectives ..vere esta blished for the project tha t have been met. Those established included increasing service express services and ridership by 1.5 percent per quarter. Lessons Learned Reducing headways definately increases ridership Transit Corridor Program Review 7 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 11

ainesvill e Regional Transit System (RTS) W Gainesville Enhanced Bus Service TS staff indicated that the project has done very well. Ridership on the rbutes included ithin the project area all experienced significant ridership increases . FOOT staff ategorized this project as very successful. essons Learned :TS staff noted that this project did so well because it provides service to areas densely opulated with University of Florida students It provides direct routes to campus with . lduced headways which served to increase ridersh ip. Lessons learned : serving densely opulated a r eas with reduced headways and d ir ect routes will i ncrease your riders h ip right Bus Service (Later Gator) :TS indicated that the projectis doing well, noting continuing increases in both ridership nd passengers/hour. Some flu ctuation in ridersh ip and in passengers/hour is experienced uring periods. of low student population (i.e., spring break, summer schedule, winter reak, etc.). FOOT dist ri ct staff stated that this project has been very successful. >ne lesso n learned by RTS staff was that i t is important to have those you are serving (in lis case University of Florida students) involved in route creation and planning. essons Learned ( .s stated in the summary of this project, involve the people you are serving (in this case lniversity of Florida students) in the design of the route. RTS added that including the tudents from the University in the creation of these late night routes added to the success f this project. ransit Corridor P rogram Review 8 Te<:lmical Memorandum #2

PAGE 12

ower Road Corridor Service 'he Tower Road project provided funding assistance forfourseparate RTS routes, Routes and 75 running between the University _of Flor ida and t_he Oaks Mall; Route 4 running om downtown to Shands; and portions of Route 5 running from the Cedar Ridge area to 1e Oaks Mall. lverall the project was successfu l in increasing ridership within and along the corridors Stablishe d. Actual riders per hour on Route 1 increased from 24.1 to 28.4 riders. Service 1Vailability was also increased from 3,414.3 hours in the spring of 1998 to 5,728 hours in 1e spring of 1999 \dditional statistical data supporting the overall success of this project was unavailable. luarterly reports did not contain consistent measures from one to the next. In addition, his project only supported a particular segment of Route 5, while data was gathered on he productivity, ridership and operating costs on the entire route ra ther than the specific ; egment covered by t he enhanced service. Howeve r the district FOOT staff categor'ized his project as very successful. .essons Learned \gain, it was noted that reducing head ways on routes helps to increase ridership not on l y >n the enhanced route(s) but on other routes within the system. )istrict 3 ::scambia County Area Transit (ECAT) CJavis Highway Transit Corridor Project (Route 19) fhis project has been very successful in meeting and exceed the annual goals established 'or passengers per mile and revenue per mile. Ridership and route revenue continue to ncrease at a healthy rate. From the FY 1997 base year to FY 2000, ridership increased 35 percent, from 109,099 passengers to 180,352 passengers, and reven ue increased 71.9 :>ercent, from $66,044 to $113,536 per year. ECAT attributed the success of the pro ject rransit CorTidor P rogram Review 9 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 13

J the environment of the area within wl;lich it operates The Davis Highway Corridor is xtreniely congested. In addition, over the past two years, the highway has been under :onstruction for widening, with lane closures adding to the congestion in the area . essons Learned ldvertising and is criticaland marketing to the right group. ECAT staff stated hat you need to make sure schedules are maintained and you keep the project running Jng enough to build confidence In the service provided. 3/ue Angel Highway Corridor Project (Route 18) rhis project has not been as successful as the Davis Highway project; however, it has >een meeting the annual ridership and revenue goals established From FY 1998 to FY !000, ridership increased 56.9 perceritfrom 35,985 passengers to 56,474 passengers, and evenue inc reased 38.1 percent from $29,637 to $40,932. ECAT staff attributes the noderate increases in ridership and reven ue to the closure of the airbase. However, they Jid indicate that thrpugh an increased marketing effort, they are rebuild ing their ridership . >as e. Learned :\.gain, ECAT staff noted that advertising and mark eti ng is critical -and marketing to the ight group. ECAT staff stated that you need to make sure schedules are maintained and rou keep the project running long enough to build confidence in the service provided. District 4 Broward County Transit (Ben The Broward Urban Shuttle (BUS) and Western Express FOOT District 4 staff stated that this project is a success. The main four goals of the project are to: 1) i ncrease mass transit accessibility; 2) i nc rease rid ersh ip/productivity in designated residential communities contiguous .to th e corridor; 3) divert paratransit trips Transit Corridor P rogram Review 10 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 14

)nto the fixed rou te or alternative neigl'\borhood circu lator service; and 4) encourage the Jse of all mass trans it's family of services through effective media advertising. Ridership h as been "good and steady." Broward County Transit staff indicated that the project has been successfu l in meeting the goals established lessons learned To ensure the success of the project and the buy in" of local patrons, a series of meetings were held with local homeowner g roups to iden tify routes and accommodate local needs. In addition, the service was designed to connect to regula r BCT routes, a major transit terminal at a mall, a major flea market and to Tri-Rail. BCT has conducted on-board surveys and specia l promotions to afford maximum opportunity fo r ihput by patrons and attract new riders to the service. BCT staff stated that you should never underestimate the importance of effective marketing. In addition, traffic congestion motivates people to seek alternative means of transportation. District 5 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (d.b.a. LYNX) 1-4 Express Survey This project was awarded to develop and conduct origin and destination studies at three Inte rstate 4 interchanges in Volusia County. Survey results were to be used to determine the relative feasibility of establishing express bus service along Interstate 4 between Volusia, Seminole and Orange Counties. The surveys were completed in May 1995 LYNX and VOTRAN has since implemented express bus service between Volusia and Orange/Sem i nole Counties. Lessons Learned None to rep ort. Transit Corridor Program Review 1.1 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 15

istrict 6 liami-Dade Transit Agency (MOTA) 1.W. 21h Avenue MAX his project was considered a success by MDT A. Ridership along this corridor increased ince its inception in December 1991. The objective of the project, to connect passengers ho used to ride a local route or drove their own vehicle to the fixed route rail system with . much quicker express route, was met. he FDOT d istrict office does not considerttie project to have beert a success In addition, istric t staff stated that they could not support any additional operating assistance or improvements in the corridor, with the exception of local circulators. he T ransit Corridor funds for the p ro ject have been exhausted and the contract expired 1 1997. Loca l funds are now being used to fund the project. essons Learned 1DTA reported that this route is run on a mixed road corridor main ly as a quicker onnection to the fixed route ra i l system or to major transfer points along this alignment. I early 50 percent of the northbound trips go to a major college al ong the route alignment ccording to MDT A's most recent market research project. Trips to the MetroRail station ccounted fo r nearly 50 percent of the southbound trips. DOT stated that local circulators within this corridor may p rovide the residents with transit ervices more suited to their transportation needs. 'laglerMAX his project i s the oldest Tra nsit Corridor project in the d istric t that is still receiving funding. he Flagler MAX continues to exceed the target goals established for ridership For a eriod of time, ridership was nea rly double the goals established: The Flagler MAX a lso ontinues to increase the carrying capacity along the second busiest transit corridor within ranslt Corridor Program 12 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 16

1iami-Dade County. Another measur!I\Jie success for this project Is that the net cost per assenger is very near the established levels of the comparable routes identified for the roject. essons Learned "DOT district staff stated that th e requirement for an annual report for this project, rather 1an quarterly, came as a result of the lon gevity of this project. :outh Dade Busway he South Dade Busway is one of the most successful Trans it Corridor projects discussed tithin this report. The average busway corridor ridership continues on an upward trend :>r both weekdays and weekends. Average weekday ridership for the first quarter of the :000 calenda r year was 12,765, an eight percent increase from the average for the first 1uarter of 1999, and a 76 percent increase in ridership within the corridor from the first (Uarter of 1996 (prior to the opening of the busway). Average weekend ridership for the ame was 14,193 (combined ridership for Saturday and Sunday) compared with 2,982 for th e first quarter ofthe 1999 calendar year, with a 138 percent increase between h e first quarte r of 2000 and the first quarter of 1996 . essons Learned '\forking closely with the community prior to the introduction of new service lays the ground vork for a successful venture. In the case of the Busway, extensive pre-opening Jromotional work took place in c l ud ing group presentations and direct mail. In addition, he opening day event became a mile-long block party with all the local media and a large umber of area residents in attendance. Within days of the Busway's implementation, it 1ad a loya l following among Dade County residents. n addition, a dedicated right-of-way for the busway, allowing for reduced headways md trave l times, was critical to its success. Also, the estab l ishment of two local and hree express bus routes have created a unified, cOordinated network of service within he corridor feeding into and complimenting the busway. :ransit Corridor Program Review 1 3 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 17

:ity of Miami Beach lliami Beach Electric Shuttle "Eiectrowave1 Project "he Electric Shuttle, "Eiectrowave," has been a very succcessful project and ublic/private partnership for the City of Miami Beac h Since the service was Tlplemented on January 28, 1998, the "Eiect r owave has transported over 3.2 million asse ngers (one-way trips) along the seven m ile two way circular route. As a resu lt of he project, the Miami Beach Transportation Management Association (TMA) feports hat there have been reductions in traffic congestion and air pollution w it hin the corridor. -he y add that the project has served to support the goals established of the park and ide system within the corridor. 'Vhile the project continues with assistance from the Transit Corridor Progr am, the loc al JOVernment has committed to continued funding. The City of Miami Beach has :ommitted to $ 1.3 million in operating funds for the shuttle for their 2000/2001 budget 'ear, utilizi ng pa rking revenue generated from the project. In addition, the City recently ;o!llpleted an evaluation of parking meter rates in the South Beach area which resulted n a parking rate increase. Revenues generated through this additional rate will be Jsed to continue operational sup port and the enhancement of the system. In addition, he funds will be available as a match for future grant activities. _essons Learned nfrastructure, including a well located maintenance facility, trained mec hanics fleet ;torage, etc. needs t o be in place prior to implementing an alternative f ue l service such the Electrowave In addition, ongoing "nurturing" of the community and establishing i rm political support was, and continues to be, critical for the life of the project. fhe utilization of large full size buses In an already heavily congested area, such as in 3outh Beach, was found to not be the key to traffic reduction in the area Instead, th i s )foject afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that small shutt le buses providing 'riendly frequent service with an ability to coordinate stops and local parking facili tie s Nas much more effective In addition, the psycho log ica l element of a small bus packed Nith passengers sent a message to tourists, visitors, and area residents that "if franslt Corridor P rogram Review 14 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 18

veryone else was riding, I should g ive it a try." The has become an attraction > r the area as well as a transportat io n alternative listric! 7 lillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) OOX/Cont inuation of the 200X IART staff reported that the Route 200X is succeeding in the customers like i t and use Whil e the 200X has not met the annual performance goal established of a 10 ercent i ncrease in ridership for FY 1998 and FY 1999, FOOT district staff provided that does have stable ridership and will be continued . essons Learned iART stated that more and continuous marketing and public outreach is needed for 1is project. They stated that their marketing budget has been too low . IS 41 Corridor Improvement Project lART and FOOT staff agree that while th is project has not consistently met the. idership goals established, it has been and cont in ues to be very successf u l with arebox recovery averaging 27 percent. Because the services offered within the :orridor maintain consistently high ridership, this may suggest that the ridership goals hat were established were too aggressive. In a District 7 budget request (1 0/99) for 1dditi on project funding, FOOT staff stated that ... This project has contributed to ncreasing and stabilizing transit ridership on all routes participating in this project." .essons Learned \gain, HART that more and continuous marke ting and public outreach is needed or this project. They stated that the ir marketing budget has been too low FOOT staff !!tributes some of the success of this project to major, ongoing road construction within he 1-75/US 41 corridor fransit Corridor Program Review 15 T eehnieal Memorandum #2

PAGE 19

>Jdsmar!Tampa Express Service IART staff indicated that this project has been somewhat successful. In part, this is ue to the relative age of the project (JPA signed on November 22, 1999}. Ridership is . till building and route are being made to ensure the success of the reject. essons Learned :oordination with local agencies and employers is "h ugely impqrtant and should be udgeted throughout the project. 'inellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) .. loute 59/Route 73 Service 'STA staff stated that was probably one of the most successful transit corridor projects tatewide in terms of consistently productive transit service that continues to grow in . of r iders h ip and productivity. 'his project is no longer supported by Transit Corridor funds. However, it has been :ontinued with local funding. The transit agency suggested that the continuat ion of the 1rojec t with loca l funds but not corridor funds allowed state funds to be available for 1ew projects . essons Learned he l esson learned for this Trans it Corridor project is to realize the lag time req u ire d for 1 new service corridor to reach minimum performance standards. The provision of r ansit service along this major corridor has played an Integral role in the growth of the >Verall PSTA system. ransit Corridor Program Review 16 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 20

oute 100X STA staff indicated that this project has also been successful in terms of ridership and t rebox recovery, as well as providing an transportation alternative for residents of inellas and Hillsborough County residents who make intercounty commutes. T his is a Jnt inu in g FOOT Corridor project. essons Learned STA noted the imp ortance of local feeder service for cross-cour.tty commuter bus ervice In add i tion, the ava i lability of premium employers along the route add to uc cesses in transit ridership. fternate US 19 and SR 686 Corridors-Route 98 his proj ect was successful in terms of ridersh ip productivity and service to the merg ing Ca r illon Business Center in mid-county his project i s no lo nger supported by Transit Corr idor funds .. However, it has been ontinued wi th loc al funding. Again this is a case where u til iz in g locally funds in lieu of tate funds enabled the transit agency to use state funds for new projects. essons Learned 'STA prov ide d that commuter bus service is important to augment local bus service in 1etropolitan areas. In addition, it is imp ortant to note the influence that industrial land ses and employment have on transit ridership. //merton Road (SR 688) Corridor-Route 99X 'STA staff stated that this project has been successful in terms of providing additional ommuter bus service for the mid county industrial areas Ridership growth is evident, Ut additional time will be needed for full development. This is a continuing FOOT :orridor project. ransft Corridor P rogram Review 17 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 21

.essons Learned t is important to provide transit service along major urban corridors, linking residential md i nd ustr ia l areas. JS 19 Corridor Service Marketing fhis project has been successful in marketing new bus service along US 19 connecting 'inellas and Pasco counties. A multi-media marketing plan was developed and then ully implemen ted within the prescribed budget and timeframe established for the Jroject. This project has been completed. Learned !1. detailed multi-media marketing plan is critical when introducing new. bus service along najor urban corridors. "?ou.te 58 fhis is a new route and ridership is still under development. PSTA note d that a very ninimal amount of Transi t Corridor funds are being used for this p roject . Learned fhis project exemplifies the importance of serving urban corridors where industrial land u ses are prevalent. Tarpon Mall to Oldsmar (SR 584) PSTA notes that this is a new route with ridership still building. PSTA also noted that a very minimal amount of Transit Corridor funds are being used for this project. Transit Corridor P rogram Review 18 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 22

essons Leamed .s noted with Route 58 above, serving urban corridors with industrial land uses is nportant. asco County Public Transportation IS 19 Corridor Project asco County reported that th is p roject has been very successful. In ttie first three j Uarters of this the service exceeded the annualized ride rship goal by 1 26 ercent. The annual ridership goal of 47,384 was met as of the September 30 2000 third quarter) progress report. .essons Leamed 'asco County stated that co ntin ual advertising is needed to sustain continued growth of i dership within the corridor. iummary of Project Success )fthe 27 (HART's 200X was continued under a separate JPA, therefore only 26 >rojects appear in the summary section above) projects surveyed, 27 projects were epresented i n the r esponses (either from the agency, district staff or both) to 1uestions 1 2, and 4, allowing for a summary of the projects' activity status success md lessons learned ." The projects' (26 projects d u e to continuation of HART's 200 X) tctivity status and successes have been categorized into six results. Eight of the Jrojects have been deemed veJY successful and are still active, rece i virtg FOOT unding. One of th e projects has been deemed veJY successfu l and is being continued vith loca l funding (allowing the use of transit corridor funds for new projects for the lgency) Nine of the projects have been deemed successful and are still active, eceiv i ng FOOT funding. Th ree of the projects have been deemed successful and have Jeen completed, JTA marketing for the Park and Ride Express; the LYNX 1-4 Express 3urvey; and PST A s U.S. 19 marketing. One project, PST A s Route 98 was considered ;uccessful and i s being continued with local funds. rranslt Corrido r Program Review 19 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 23

.dequacy of FOOT Funding Assistance 1 response to the surveys regarding the 26 (see notes HART's 200X above) ransit Corridor projects funded during the period estab l ished for this analysis, eleven gencies, representing 23 projects, stated that they received adequate funding from 1e FOOT in order to make their projects successful. One agency, rep resenting two rejects, note d that funding was not sufficient for those projects. One agency :presenti ng one project, did not respond. \gency Suggested Changes to FOOT Transjt Corridor. Program )f the agencies responding to the survey, representing 25 of the 26 projects studied, all . asponded to the "Sugges ted changes to th e FOOT Transit Corridor Program' question. 'he following are the categorized responses to the survey question. Note that the 1 umber attributed to a categorized response is based on each individual project, and :ould for example be the same response from one transit system for its' fou r projectS. No changes. (1 respo nse ) Longer-term funding and more availability. (2 responses) Need quicker turnaround of funds from t ime of application to award of JPA. T h is will help in loca l budgeting. (1 response) More funding. (3 re sponses ) Expand the funding program to i nc lude demand responsive bus service within the corridor, targeting the transit dependent population. (1 response) =DOT District Suggested Changes to FOOT Transit Corridor Program Jf the FOOT district staff who responded to the survey, the following responses were ece ived re lated to suggested changes to the program. rransit Corridor P rogram Review 20 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 24

A minimum of three (3) years of f.unding in the tentative work program each year. (2 responses) The possibility of some minimum success standards to be used as a starting point for establishing project goals. A requirement to include public involvement in any/all project proposals. Make all new projects, and those that are successfu l and being continued with state funding, multi-year! Although there is no t ime limi t on this program, maybe we should have a maximum of ten (1 0) years even if the project is meeting its goals. Particularly with a decrease in funds the last few years of the program. I would l ike to see the Transit Corridor Program be less labor i ntensive and more u ser frie ndly. Eliminate all the t ransit corridor const r aint !TAG requirements ; etc. It could be used for a sub-area or county. I feel several programs could be m'ixed with this one so you could blend funding to a better use Commuter Assistance, carpoollvanpool assistance, park & ride faci lit ies and Service Development activities are all inc luded in the eligible costs and could eliminate the need for separate funding sources and procedural requirements. State funding only pays for a small po rtion of the actua l cost of providing the service. Suggest more funding. Only annual reports should be required for Transit Corridor p rojects that are long-term, ongoing projects. Dedicated district allocations Combine this program with the Service Development Program. We don't have enough funds to provide the additional services that are needed. We need additional capital and operating funds. ransi t Corridor Progr am RQview 21 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 25

"I am always interested in redu<;iJ?g. reporting requirements. echnical Memorandum Number Three will summarize interviews with FOOT District taff regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the Corridor prog ram, as well s suggested changes to procedure for project development, monitoring, prioritization nd funding. rra.nsit Corridor Program Review 22 Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 26

APPENDIX A FOOT and Agency Survey Cover Letter and Survey Instrument ' ransit Corridor P rogram Revie w Technical Memorandum #2

PAGE 27

<), FL <
PAGE 28

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? 2. Is the project s till active? No (skip to Part b) Yes _ (continue to P,.art a) a. Do you foresee continuing to fund the project wit!) local funds after FOOT funds are exhausted or expire? b. Upon completion of the project did you continue t o loca lly fund the project? I f no, why not? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FOOT to make the project a success? 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other tran sit agencies that may be interested in implementing a similar project? 5. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? Please return mall to: Darin Allan, Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida, CUT 100, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, Fl 33620-5375: or FAX (813) 974-5168: or email aJan@cutr.eng.usf.edu

PAGE 29

Contact AgencY Addr ess! Address2>> City>>, FL <
PAGE 30

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff 1. How would you rate the project's success or failure? (What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met?) 2. Is t h e project still active? No (If no, skip to Question 3) Yes __ Do you foresee the project continuing with local funds after FOOT funds are exhau.sted or expire? 3. What "lessons learned" from the project could you shar e with other transit agencies and/or FOOT staff who may be interested in implementing a similar project? 4. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FOOT would you lik e to see made? Please return mall to; Darin Allan, Center for Utban Transportation Research, U nlve1sity of South Florida, CUT 100, 4202 E Fowfer Ave, Tampa, FL 33620: or FAX (613) or email a!lan@o..rtt.Eing.usf.edu

PAGE 31

APPENDIX B FOOT and Agency Written Responses To Survey r ransit Corridor P rogram Review Techn ical Memorandum #2

PAGE 32

FOOT DISTRICT #1 FDOT District Ill Ri chard Dreyer POBox 1249 Bartow, F L 33831 FOOT District Ill Fran Theberge POBox 1030 Fort Myers, FL LeeTran Chris Leffert Lee Copnty Transit Division POBox 398 Fort Myers,'FL 33902 -0398 {941) 277-5012 x2232 US 41 Corridor Project Sarasota County Area Transit Phil Lieberman Trans it Planner 5303 Pinkn ey Ave Saras ota, FL 34233-2421 {941)3161 738 plieberman@co.sarasota.fl.us *US 41 (S Tamiami Tr) Corridor Project Manatee County Area Transit Peter Galdjis 1108 26 Ave Br a den ton, FL 34208 {941) 7 4 7 -8621 *Manatee Ave/SR 64 Corridor Project FOOT DISTRICT #2 FDOT District 112 James Driggers POBox 1089 Lake City FL 32056 1089 WPliFPN #1814972 WPJJFPN #4071071 WP!IFPN #4071171

PAGE 33

Jacksonville Transportation AuthorJ!Y. Dawn Charpel PO Drawer "0" 100 N Myrtle Ave Jacksonville, FL 32203 (904) 630-3106 Park & Ride Corrunuter Express Routes Gainesville Regional Transit System Ma ria Sovoia Chief Transit Planner PO Box 490 Sta 5 Gainesvi U e, FL 32601-0490 (352) 334-3682 SW Gainesville Enhanced Bus Service *Night Bus Service *Towe r Road Corridor Service FOOT DISTRICT #3 FDOT District #3 KathyRudd Public Transit Specialist 1074 Hw y 90 Chipley, FL 32428 (850) 638-0250 Kathy.rudd@dot.state.fl.us Escambia County Area Transit Bob B landine Finan cial D irect or 1515 W F a irfield Dr Pensacola, FL 3250 I (850) 595-3228 *Davis Highway Corridor Project Blue Angel Highway Corridor FOOT DISTRICT #4 FDOT #4 Toby Wright 3400 W Commercial Blvd Ft Lauderdale, FL 33309 (954) 777-4490 WPIIFPN #2814311 WPIIFPN #2810791 WPIIFPN #2810S29 WPIIFPN #2810830 WPIIFPN #2258251 WPIIFPN #2258341

PAGE 34

Broward County Transit Sylvia Smith Transit Manager, Serv ice Development 3201 W Copaos Rd Pompano Beach FL 33069 (954) 357-8375 Southwest Broward Express FOOT DISTRICT #5 FDOT District #5 Karen Adamson 5151 Adanson St Orlando, FL 32804 WPIIFPN #4811331 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority Belinda Ball eras Grants Manager Ste 800 445 W Amelia St Orlando, FL 32801-1128 ( 407) 841-2279 bballeras@golynx.com I-4 Express Survey WPIIFPN #5815144 FOOT DISTRICT #6 FDOT District #6 Ed Carson 602 S Miami Ave Miami, FL 33130 (305) 377-5906 Metro-Dade Transit Agency John Garcia Transi t Planner II MDT A -Service Plannfug 3300 l>lW 32nd Ave Miami, FL 33142-5795 (3 0 5) 637-3749 jogarc i@co.miami-dade.fl.us Northwest 27'h Ave MAX F l agler MAX South Dade Busway WPIIFPN #6819003 WPIIFPN #6810184 & #6810237 WPIIFPN #6810309

PAGE 35

City o f M iam i B each Judy I Evans Project Administrato r E lectrowave Miami Beach TMA 301 41" S t Miami Beach FL 33140 (305) 535-9160 Miami Beach E lectri c S h uttle FOOT D I S TRICT #7 FDOT District #7 Ray C lark 11201 N McKinle y Dr Tampa, FL 33612 (813) 9756000 Hillsbo rough Area R egi onal Trans it Au thor i ty L Walker Ste 1600 201 E Kennedy B lvd Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 223-6831 Expres s B u s Servi ce, Down t own Ta m p a to Clearwa t er, R ou t e 200X US 41 Corridor Improv ement Program Express Bus Service Net Park Tr ansit Center t o Oldsmar Pinellas Sunc o as t Transi t Au t h ori ty Bill Steele 14840 49ch St N Clearwat er, FL (727) 530-9911 Ulmt erto n Rd Corridor, Routes 59 & 73 Rou t e 1 00X AltUS 1 9 & SR 686 Route #98 Express Ulmerton Rd (SR 688 ) Corridor Rout e 99 E xpr e s s Servi ce US 19 Corridor Service Marketin g Cros s County S ervi ce CR 296 C orridor R oute 58 Fixed Route Service, Tarp on Mall t o Oldsmar ( SR 584 Corrid o r ) WPIIFPN #68!0341 'vVPIIFPN #7813923 & #781 4 0 2 8 WPIIFPN #781 00 1 0 & #781411 5 WPIIFPN #4064791 WPUFPN #78!6678 WPUFPN # 78!6679 WPUFPN#4039011 WPIIFPN #4039031 WPUFPN #406 47 .61 WPUFPN #4064771 WPUFPN #40 6 4781

PAGE 36

Pasco County Public T rans p ortati9n Thelma Williams 8 620 Galen Wilson Blvd Port Richey, FL 34668 (727) 834 3344 US 41 Corridor Pr o j ect WPIIFPN #4064811

PAGE 37

EVALUATION OF PROJEeTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM G ran t Re c i pie n ts I. How would you rat e th e project's success or f a ilure? What goals a n d/or object i ves established for the project were met? 2. Is t he project still active? No (skip to Part b) Yes __ (continue to Part a) a. Do you foresee continuing to fund th e project with local funds after FOO T funds are exhaus ted or expire? b Upon com p let i on of the p r ojec t di d you continue t o locally fund the project? If !lO, why not? 3. Do you fee l that you received adequate fu ndi ng assistance fro m the FOOT to make the project a success? 4. What "le sso n s learned" from t h e proj ect can you share with. other transit age nc ies that may be interes ted in imp lemen t ing a similar project? 5. What changes to the Transit Corridor Progra m funded by the FOOT would yo u like to see made? Please return mall to: Darin Allan, Center for Urban Research, U niversity o f South Florida, ClJT 1 0 0 4202 E Fowler Ave. Tampa. FL 33620-5375; or FAX (813) 974-5168; o r email

PAGE 38

.EVALUATIO.N OF PROJECTS IN THE TRANSIT CORRIDOR P:ROGRAM Grant Recipients l. How would you rate the project's success or }'/hat and/or objectives esta)llished for the eel were met? 2: 1s the proJect still acuve No (skip to Part b) Yes __ (continue to a ) a Do you foresee continuing t o fund the project o/ilh loc a l funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? b. Upon completion oflhe project did you continuo to locally fund the project? lf no, why not? 3 Do you feellhat you adequate fun.4ing from the FDOT to make the project a success? 4 Wha t lessons learned" from the project em you share :with other .ttan$it that may be ntereste. d i n implementing a similar project? S What changes to the Tri!lsit Corridor Program ful)ded by the FDOT would you like to see made? retwn ma.ll1o: Oal'ln Alttl'l, Contor Cor Urban of South F O!'Ide, CUT 100 4202 E F .,.te r Ave, :rampo, Fl 336:Z0.537 6 : 0 1 FAX (813} 974-5168: ore m aJI

PAGE 39

FAX Tra n smission JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Questions? Call: Company: Fax Number. Date: Time: Post Office Drawer "0" 100 North Myrtle Avenue Jacksonville ,' F lorida 32203 Telephone Number: (904) Fax Number. (904) ----------------------Pages: (including this one)

PAGE 40

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? he project has not been We have implemented some of the goals and bjectives and the ones implemented were :ime. :ime. 2. Is the project still active? No (skip to Part b) Yes x (continuetoParta) a. Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with loeal funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? That has not been determined at this b. Upon completion of the project did you continue to locally fund the project? If no, why not? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FDOT to make the project a success? That determination has not been made at this 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other transit agencies thlit may be interested in implementing a similar project? 5. What changes to the Transit Corrido r Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? Less time from when projects are submitted for funding and implementation takes place. Please return maU to< Darin Allan. Center for Urban TtansportaUon Reseaten, UnivetSily of SO
PAGE 41

Date: To: From: Fax Number: City Of Gainesville Regional Transit System Post Office Uox 490, Stt1. 5 Florida 32601 0490 (352) 334 Fax: (352) 334Hl www.gu -r
PAGE 42

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients 1. How would you rate the projec t s success or failure? What goals and/o r objectives estab lished were mot ? 2. Is tile project still active'? No (skip to Part b) Yes __ (continue to a) a Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with loca l funds after FOOT funds are exhausted JOr expire? li. Upon completion of the project did you continue to locally lttnd the project? If no, why net? 3. Do you feel that you r eceived adequate funding assistance from the FOOT to make the project a success? 4. What "l essons from the project ca n you share with other transi t agencies that may be i nterested in implementing a simila r project? S. What changes to th e Transit Corridor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? Pluu roturn mall to: D arin A llan. C.n t e r (or Transport>Uon Resaarch, Unlverally or Soulh Florida. CUT 100. 4202 E Fowtor Ave, Temps, F L or FAX 1813) 974168;

PAGE 43

EVALUATION O F PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR Grant Recipients 1 How would you rotc th e project's success or failure? Whut goals nnd/or objectives O!S!ablishcd for the project were rqel"/ 2. Is the project still active? Nu ____ (skip t o l'art b) Yes _ (continue to P.arta) n. Do you foresee continu ing to fund the with local FOOT funds nrc exhausted or expire'/ b. Upon completion of the project did you continue to locally fund the project? If no, why not? 3. Do yuLI feel thet you received adequate funding !rom the FL>Ol' tn mal
PAGE 44

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Gran t Recipients I. How would you r ate the project's success or failure'? Wh'at goals and/or objectives es tablished for the project were met? 2. Is the project still active? NQ __ .,(skip to Par t b) Yes _ _: (continue to a) a Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with local funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or b. Upon completion ofthe project di'd you continue to locally fund the project? Tfno, why not? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FOOT to make the project a success? 4. What "lessons teamed" from the project can you share with other transit al(encies that may be interested in implementin g a similar project? 5. What changes to the Tnmsit Corridor Program tilnded by the FOOT would you like to see made? PIOQat rotum mall to: Oorln AlllJ>, Canllr fo< Urbsn Tranop<>rtlll!on Flo,..r
PAGE 45

EVAL,LiATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients l How would you rate the project's success or failure? 'What goals and/or objectives for the project were 2. Is tne proJect still acuvet No __ (skip to Part b) Yes __ (continue to Part a) .. a. Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with local funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? b. Upon completion of the project did you continue to locally fund the pro ject? If no, why not? 3. Do you feel that you received adequa t e funding assistance from the FDOT to make the project a success? 4. What "lesso ns le arned" from the project can you share with other transit agencies that may be interested in implementing a similar p r oject? Z What changes to the Tra nsit Cohidor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to Pl!ise return rnan to: Dari n Allan, Center for Urban Transportation Reseatch, University of South Florida, CUT 100, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL 33620; or FAX (813) 974; or email allan@cutr.eng.usf.edu

PAGE 46

!;173 Cormwnlty SeNk:es Deportment Mass Transit D 1vlsloft -, 3201 w. Copons Rood, Pompano Beoct\ Fl33069 Ac!tr*>lslrolkn ('154) I FAX (954) MOO!enonce ('154) I FAX (954) 357 Mol'7-6792/ FAX (954) 357-8305 ecember 8, 2000 arin Allan, Research A ssocia te enter for U roan Transportation Research Diversity of South Florida !02 Eas t Fowler Avenue, CUT I 00 ampa, Florida 33620 -5375 ear Mr. Allan: ttached please find the questionnaire regarding the Southwest Broward Express (WPIIFPN ,811331) you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me . incerely, ylvia M. Smith, Transit l\i1a."tager ervice Development MS:ees NOWA.IO COUNTY BOARO OF COUKrY COMMWIOHERS M and PrcMder ol s.Mc.M JoMcnM !;; uton. Jc. een Qccler 9..0::Jme KIYn o. .K:ccbl ..,. Ulbemlol I.Oi A:m:i\ ..klhnl. Ro
PAGE 47

EVP;.LUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? Primary goal was to reduce soae traffic congestion by moving downtown workers from cars to Class transit. This goal was accomplished. 2 Is the project s till active? No (skip to Part b) Yes x:.;__ (conti n ue t o Part a) a Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with loca l funds after FDOT funds are exhaus ted or expire? Yes The funding of this projec t was continued with revenue derived from the implemntation of a once-cent local option gas tax. b. Upon completion o f the project did you continue to locally fund the project? If no, why not? 3. Do you feel that you recei ved adequate funding assistance from the F DOT to make the project a success? YES 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you s h are with other transit age nc ies that may b e inter e sted in implementing a similar project? Never underestLcatc importance of effective Darketing Traffic congestion seeking alternatives 5 What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like t o see made? Expand the funding program to include Demand Response Bus service within the corridor, targeting the transit dependent population. P lea-se return maif to: Darin Allan, Center for Urban Transportalion Unt"versity ot South Flori da, CUT 100. 4202 E Fowler Ave Tampa, FL 33620-5375; o r FAX (813) 97468; o r email a llan@cotr.eng. u sf.ed u

PAGE 48

T o : Darin Allan f rom : Belind Blleras S ubject : CUTI'I. SuMy. Corridor Program Date: December 27. 2000 Attached are 1he respooses to the If yoo have questions, let me know. TAANSMITTAI.. by fax 813-974-5168 MEMORAHOUM

PAGE 49

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT'S TRI\l>ISIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM LYNX 1'-4 'F.XPRESS t. How would you rate lht projeet's su'ccos or failure? What goals andlor objectives for the project were mer? Service on LinK J20 wa.s started on November lO, 1997 disconrinued on Autun 14, 19'98. Liok 120 was in service for slightly Jt:s.s tbao one year due to low ridership iltld slow growth. Service objectives btsed on systemwide averages w ere established as tOilows: a) Passengers per revenue hour b) Passengers per revenue trip c)% (ucbo,; tctu:m d) Pa.ssengers per revenue mil e 1!' ysar 75% of systen1 wide osvcragc 1S% of system wid.; 7S% of system wide 50%-ofsystc:m wide avcnagc 2oJ year tOO% of system wide average 10()<1/o of syttem wide averige t 00% of system wide average 6S% ufsys tem wide nvera.s,e While the Link 120 service did not pc:rfonn well bued on cst3bJishcd crite ria, 11 hlck of p-ark &. r ide lol$ presented a prob!em in d.eveloping stops for fhe s eiVice. Based on a survey conducted an of severa1 other factors. contributed such as no express lanes on 14, lack otkDowledge about the benefit o( the service and unwillingness to give up convenience of:. car due 1n Jack ofp3rlc: a.nd ride Jots. lt is the bck ofinfiastruC'tUI:c which is an integ:nal tl>mpOncot of a new c:,.press service lhat contributed prinulrily to lhe project not meetiog the e&tablisbedgo:als. When the goals w e re: cs1ablisbed there was no prior hi!cory lO bast a more reasonable performance <:riteria a$ LYNX not operated oth er comparab l e limited stop express services Wb1-t is valuable from this project s!andpoint arc the le:sson:s learned can be apphcd to tUture services. 2. ts the project still active? 1-:0 b. Up<>n completion of the project did you continue to locally fund the project. I f no, why? Without lhe necessary park and ride, it was not cos t effective to continue the service. Servite developmea.l fuuds were reprogrammed to another express service, the which captufed a significil.nt Dumber of riders on the 120 who Ofi&ino.ted from Volusia. couoty. 3. Do you feel that you rectivcd ad.:quale fW1ding fi.omlhe FOOT co make the projc:.:t a. "Sueeen? Yes. 4. What ,.;l essons lca.rntd" from the project can you share with other tr;ms.il agcades th3l may be intet..:s ccd in imple-menting a proje"? The ncceJsary i.Dful.saucture must bt stcurt;d a-nd together with sctvieeJ tOe be imple)nenled A system of CODt inuing public informati-on and coordina.tilla. with a.rca employers, TMA cod publie asC11cles is a l so necesury. S. What changes to the Tnnsit Corridor Program funded by FOOt would you to $0e madc7 Muhiycar funds prog.ranunjug and avoililbility. All it stand.'i there is very limited NAding under this program. TOTAL P.02

PAGE 50

)ecember 8, 2000 VIr. Darin Allan, Research Associate for Urban Transportat io n Research Jniversity of South Florida 4202 East Fowle r Avenue, CUT 100 rampa, FL 33620-5375 Dear Mr. Allan: Re: Questionnaire Miami Beach Electric Shuttle (WPI/FPN #681 0341 Please find enclosed the eva luat ion questionnaire related to FOOT's Transit Corridor Program and the City of Miami Beach ELECTROWAVE shuttle project. Should you require any additional informat ion please don't hesitate to call me at (305)535-9160. Thank you. Si.1eerely, Ju<;ly I. Evans, Project Administrator C1ty of Miami Beach -ELECTROWAVE Shuttle Project JIE:Ih Enclosure MIAMI 8E.ACH TR.t.USPORUTlON n,UU,GHIE.'t'T J '( C. 301. STRL'U nUnl B[ACH. fL. 3lLII O

PAGE 51

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FDOT''s TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM . Grant Recipients (WPIIFPN#6810341) 1. How would you rate the project's suc:cess or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? The electric shuttle (ELECTROWAVE:) has been an extremely successful project and public/private partnership for the City of Miam i Beach. The service impl emented on January 28, 1998 has transported over 3 2 million passengers (one-way trips) along a seven (?) mile, two-way circulator route. As a result of the project there have been reductions in traffic congestion and arr pollution while also supporting the goals of a park & ride system 2. Is the project still active? No __ (Skip to Part b) Yes XXX (Continue to Part a) a. Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with local funds after FOOT funds are exhausted or expire? The City of Miami Beach has committed $1.3 million dollars toward the operations of the shuttle for Budget Year 2000/2001, utilizing parking revenue funds. In addit i on, the C i ty recently completed an evaluation of parking meter rates in the South Beach area (shuttle service area) result ing in a rate increase. Revenues generated through t his additional rate will be used to continue support of operations and enhancement of the shuttle system. In addition, the funds will provide "hard match funds for any future grant opportunities. b. Upon completion of the project did you continue to locally fund the project? If no, why not? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FOOT to make the project a success? Yes. Wilhout the initial funding commitment by FOOT the project would not have become a reality and the project would not have been able to generate the additional funding support from the City of Miami Beach, Florida Power & Light and other grantees.

PAGE 52

Cont i nued: 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other transit agencies that may be interested In implementing a similar project? An infrastructure (well located maintenance facility, trained mechanics, fleet storage, etc : } needs to be in place Q[iQr to implementing an alternative fuel service such as the electric shuttles. Ongoing nurturing of community and political support will continue to be a crucial element for the future of the pro j ect. The uti l izat ion of large full size buses in an already heaVily congested area of a community such as South Beach was found to not be the key to traffic reduction. Instead, the project afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that small shuttle buses, providing friendly, frequent service with the ability to coordinate stops in conjunction w ith transit stops and local parking facilities was more effective. In addition, the psychological element of seeing a small shutt le bus packed with passengers sent a message to tourists, visitors and area residents that "if everyone else was riding it they should give it a try ." The shuttle has become an attraction as well as a transportation provider ......... 5. What changes to the Transi t Cqrridor Program funded by FOOT would you like . . to see made? None. Other than continuing to be receptive to the development of new shuttle systems in heavily congested areas of a city such as South Beach, that support th e goals of FOOT and the Transit corridor Program. In addition, the advocacy of shutlle projects that directly support the use of parking facilities and existing transit services and have the potential of reduc ing tra ffic congestion has an added benefit of supporting community growth, development and the quality of life for its residents and visitors/tourists

PAGE 53

Evaluation of PrQjects in the FDOT's Transit Corridor Program Grant Recipients MDTA NW 27'" Avenue MAX (WPIIFPN # 6819003) ow would you rate the project's success or failure? What'goals and/o r objectives established for the uject were met? We rate this project as a success. Ridership along this corridor ha s increased nee its inception We achieved the objectives of this project to connect passengers who used to ride e local route or drove their personal automobile to the fixed route rail system with a much quicker :press bus route the project still act ive? o XX (sk i p to Part B) Yes __ (skip t o Part A) Do you foresee continuing to fu n d the project with loca l fund s after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? Upo n completio n of the project did you continue to locally fund the project? Yes, local monies have taken over as the funding source for this project. o you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FDOT to m ake the proj ect a Jcce ss? Yes {hat "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other transit agencies thaf roay be 1terested in implementing a simi lar project? This project route is nm OJ! a mixed road corridor tainly as a speedier connection to the fvced route rail system or to major transfer point s along this lignment Nearly 50% of the Jlorthbound trip s are headed to the major college along this route lignment according to the most recent market research project, while the trips connecting 10 the 1etroRail station also accounted for nearly 50% of the reported southbound trips. Vhat changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see mad e? : dditional funding to facilitate greater participation In capital acquisition and increase operational ut/ays in the areas of pla11ning, park-n-ride facilities, marketing, etc

PAGE 54

Evaluation of Projects in the FDOT's Transit Corridor Program Gran t Recipients MDTA-FlaglerMAX (WPIIFPN # 6810184) w wou l d you rate the project's success or fail u re? What goa l s and/or objectives es ta blis hed for th e ject were m et? This project has exceed ed the target goals for ridership. For a period of time, this 1ect 's ridership was nearly double th e goal s established The Flagler MAX also increases the capac ity ng the second busiest tran sit corridor within Miami-Dade County. Anotber measurable goal on this 'feet is that the net cost per pas senger is very near to the established levels of the comparable routes. he project still act i ve? ___ (skip to Part B) Y es XX (skip to Part A) Do you foresee continuing t o fund the project with l oc al funds afte r FDOT fu nds are ex h austed or ? . expue. Yes Upon completion of t he project did you continue to locally f und t h e project? you f eel th at you received adequate fu nding assis tance from tt)e FDOT to m ake the project a success? Yes 1at "lessons learned" from the project can yo u s h a re with other transit age n cieli'tliat mey be inter ested imple m e n t ing a similar project? This project route is another program run on a mixed road corridor; wever, this nearly runs identical to a local bus route This project connects the urban. area in the sf part of the county with the Central Business District and then into the South Beach area across a !}or causeway. ilat changes t o the Transit Corri d o r Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? 'dit ional funding to fa cilitate greater participation in capital acquisition and increase operati o nal tlays i n the areas of planning, park-n -r idefaci/ities, marketing, etc.

PAGE 55

Eval u a t ion o f proj ects in the FDOT's Transit Corridor Progra m Grant MDTA-South Dade Busway (WPIIFPN # 6810309) would you r a t e the project's success or fai lure? What goals and/or objectives established for the !Ct were met? This project is seen as a major success. Weekday and weekend ridership has shown tt iy increase every reporting period since its inception. Ridership growth 011 the combi11ed routes ing alo11g the bt(Sway has experienced nearly double-digit growth since the same reporting period of >revious year. This project also Incorporates differem transit strategies .that merge together to serve if or corridor and then the nearby areas. e project still active? _ (skip to Part B) Yes XX (skip to Part A) )o you foresee continuing to fund the project wi.t h local funds afte r FDOT funds are ex hausted .or Xpire? Jp01i comp l etion of the project did you continue to locally fund the project? 1ou feel that you re c eived adequate funding assistance from the FDOT to make the project a 1t "lessons learned" from t he project can you share with other transit agencies that may be interested mplementing a similar project? This project is unique due to its operation alone a si11gle 1icated) road Also unique to thi s project is the implementation of.two local and three express routes a unified coordination of service that doesn't supplant resources already existing but runs in uniso n rovide a network of service along this corridor. at changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? itional funding to facilitate greater participation in capital acquisition and increase operational ays in the areas of planning, parfv.n-ride marketing, etc:.

PAGE 56

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS I N THE FOOT's TRAN SIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients l. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectivat changes to the Corridor fundtd by the FDOT would you lilcoto see made? funding. Cross-county and cross-FOOT District programs are a state responsibility. They should be encouraged nnd funded. Pfeuo return mall tO: Allan, centec (o t Ulban Ttii'IIC!Q"itlon A;uta:d'l, Unlverslt( of SouU\ F)otida, CUT tOO, <4201 E Fowt:t A'Ve, Tampa, FL at r:AA (813} &7c..st68; oromall attin@cutt.eng.ust.edu

PAGE 57

EVALUATION. OF PROJEbSIN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CdR.RIOOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? Ridership goals are not being met. 2. l s the project still active? No (skip to Pan b) Yes X (continue to Part a) a Do you foresee con tinuing to fund the project with local funds after FOOT funds are exhausted or expire? The service ill be deU! terl "hen fundi ng ends. b. Upon completion of the projec t did you c o ntinue to loca liy fund the project? If no, why not ? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FOOT to make the p:oject a success? Yes 4. What"lessons learned from the project can you share with other transit agencies that may be interested in implementing a similar project? More, and con tlnuous marketing and public outreach is needed. Our marketing : budget hAs been too l ow. 5 What changes to the Transit Conidor Program funded by the FOOT wou l d you like to see made? Cont ,i nued funding. Cross-coun t y and'cross-FDOT District progranL are a state responsibility. They should be encouraged and f unded. Pleas e roturn mai l to: 03/i n Man, Centatlor U r oan l'raMponat!on Researcn, Univo r t i ty or Soutn FIOtida, CUT 100. 4202 E Fo.o.1e1 Ave. Fl 33620 53 7 5: or FAX (813) 974-5168; or (

PAGE 58

N OF P ROJECtS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT -CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients t. H o w would you rate the project's success or fa i lu re? What goals and/or objecti ves established for the project were met ? Ridership goals are not being met. 2. Is the project still active? No (skip to Pan b) Yes X (continue to Part a) a. Do you fo r esee continuing to fund the projeet with local funds after FOOT funds arc exhausted o r expire? . The seiVice ill be deleted when 'funding . b. Upon completion of the project did you continue to locally fund the proje c t? If n o why not? 3 Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FDOT to make t .he project a success? Yes 4. What "lessons teamed" from the project can you share wit h other transit agencies tha t may be interested in impl e menting a similar project? Coordination with local agencies and employers is hugely impo rtant arui should be budgeted throughout the project. 5. What to the T r ansit Conidor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? ontinued funding. Cross-county and cross-FOOT District programs are a state responsibility. They should be encouraged and funded . rctum to: Oarin Allan. CentetlorUI'ban Unfve,si ol Soulh CUT 100, 4202 e Fowle r AV-9, TSt'1"4>8, FL 336205 : or FAX (813) 97<45168; or email all3n@evtr.ong.usf.t<1u >Stll'"' fax Note 7671 on .. ... -. oJOt.'l. eo. Phone "' f6J II

PAGE 59

Bill Stee l e PSTA 14840 49th St N CleaiWater F L 34622 -:2893 Dear Bill Stee l e: 29 November 2000 Center for Urban transportation Re.se:arch University of So uth Aorida 4 202 Ease Fowler Avenue, CI.:JT I 00 T:smpa Aorida (813) 974-312 0 SunCom 574 3120 F ax (813) 974-5168 Web: http://www.QJU.eng.us(.edo The Center for Urban Transportat ion Research (CUTR) is under contract with the Florida Departmen t of Transportation (FOOT) to eva l uate the FDOT's-Transit Corr idor Program Your agency is ide n tified as havi ng receiv ed funding to support a project or projects under this program Ulmerton Rd (WPJIFPN #78166 78).-Rovte 100X (WPI/FPN #7816679) AltUS 19 & SR 686 (WPJIFPN #4039011), Route 99X (WPI!FPN#4039031), U$ 19 Marketing (WPI/FPN #4064761), CR 296 Route 58 (WP!!FPN #4064771), SR 584 Ta r pon Mall to Oldsmar (WPI/FPN #4064781) For each projec t lis ted abov e \ve would appreciate your taking the time to answer th e five q u estions on t he enclosed questionnaire to the best of your ability and r eturning your answers to us via mai l email or FAX Please return your answers uo later than Friday, 24 December. P l ease do not h esitate to call me a t (813) 974-2850 if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Darin Allan, Research Associate Cc: Elizabeth Stutts, FDOT Lisa S ta es, CUTR

PAGE 60

EVAt.:.UATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? 2. Is the p r oject still active? No _L_ ( ski p to Part b) Yes _ (continue to Part a) a. Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with local funds after FDOT funds ar e exhausted or expire? b. Upo.n completion of the project did you con tinue to locall y fund the .project? If ilo, why not ? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FDOT to m ake the project a success? 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other agencies that may be interested in imp lementing a similar project? 5. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? Please return mail to: Darin Allan, Cent.ar for Urban Transportatkln Research, University of South florida, CUT 100 4202 E Fowler Ave. Tampa, FL 33620$37S; or FAX (813} 974 : or email a.Jian@cutt.fl'ng.usf.ecJu

PAGE 61

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN T HE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Reci pients I. How would you rate the success or failure? What goals and/or objectives e stablished for the project were met? 2. Is the project still active? No ( s kip to Part b) Yes _L_ (continue to Part a) .. a. Do you foresee contin ui ng to fu nd the project with local funds after FDOT funds are exh austed or expire? b Upon completio n ofthe project d i d you cont i nue to locally fund the project? If no, why not? 3. D o you feel that you r eceived adequate fi.tnding ass i stance from the F OO T to make the project a success? 4. W h at "less ons learned" fr om the project can you share with othe r transit agencies that may be interested in imp l ementing a similar proj e ct? 5. What c hange s t o the Trans it Conidor Program funded by the FOOT would you lik e to see made? Please return mail to: Darin Allan, Centet f or Urban Transportaijon Rese;:rch, Unive.tsity of South Florida, CUT 100. 4202 E FooMer Ave. Tampa. FL 33620-5375; or FAX (813) 974-5168; or email allan@cutr.er-.g.usf.edu

PAGE 62

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRAN SIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recip ien ts I How would you rate the project's succe ss or failure? What goals and/or objec t ives established for the project were m et? > 2. Is the project still active? No (skip t o Part b) Yes L (continue to.Part a) a. D o you foresee continuing to furid the projec t with local funds afte r FOOT f u nds a re exh austed or expire? : b. Upo n complet i on of the proj ect did you cont inue to l ocally fund the p roject? If no, w h y no t ? 3. Do you feel that you receiv e d adequate fu nding assis t a nc e from the FOOT to make the project a success? 4 What "lessons ieamed" from the project can you share with other transit agencies that may b e intere s te d in imp l eme nting a s imilar project? 5 what changes to th e Trans it Corridor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? Please r e turn mail to: Darin Allan, CGnterfor Urban TransportatiOn Research, University of South FlOticla, CUT 100, 420 2 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, Ft 33820-5375; o r FAX (813) 974; or email

PAGE 63

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objec t ives established for the P.rojec. t were met? 2 Is th:zject still active? N o (skiptoPartb) Yes __ (continue .Part a) a. Do you foresee continuing to f und the project wit h local f unds after FDOT funds are .exhausted or exp i re? b Upon completio n of the project did you continue to locally fi.md the projec t? If no, w h y not ? 3. Do you feel that you recei,ed adequate funding ass is tance from the FDOT to make the project a success? 4. What "lessons learned" from t h e project can you share with other transit agenc ies that may be interested in imp leme n ting a similar project? 5. What changes to t b e Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? Plean re tum mail to: Darin Allan, ce nter Ttansport8tion Research Univetsity of South Florida, CIJT 100,4202 e FO\viOt Ave. Tampa, FL 33020.5375; or FAX (813) or email a nan@cutr.eng.usf.ech.l

PAGE 64

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS THE FOOT's TRA NSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipi e nts !. How would you ra te the project' s success or failure ? What goals and/or objectiv es established for the project were'met ? 2. I s the project still active? No -L'. (skip to Part b) Y es _ (continue t qPart a) a. Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with local funds afte r FOOT funds are exhausted or expire? b. Upon of the project did you continue to l ocally fund the project? If no, why not? 3 Do you feel that you received adequat e funding assi stance from the FOOT t o make the project a success? 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other transit agencies that may be interested in implement ing a similar project? 5. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you to see made? Please return m.an t 01rln Allan, Centet' for Urban Tre.niportallon Research, Utliveisity of South Fl
PAGE 65

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients l. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or object ives established for the project were met? 2. Is the projec t still active? No (skip to Part b) Yes L (continue a) .. a Do you foresee continuing to fund the project with local funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? b .. Upon completion of. the project did you cont i n u e to locally fund the project? If no, why not? 3. Do you feel that you received adequate funding assistance from the FOOT to make the project a success? 4. What "lesso ns learned" from the project can you share with other trans i t agencies that m a y be interested in implementing a similar project? 5. What changes to the Trans it Corridor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? Please return mail to: D arin Allan, Center for Urban Transportation Re$eatch, University of South Fbida, CUT 100, 4202 E Fov.1er Ave, Tampa. Fl 33620-5375; or FAX (813) o r email allan@cutr.cng.usf.edu

PAGE 66

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met? 2. Is the project still active?' No __ (skip to Part b) Yes L (continue to Part a) .. a . Do you foresee continuing to fund the p r oject wi t h local funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? b. Upon com pl etio n of the p r ojec t did you co n tinue to locally fund t h e project? If no, why not? 3. Do you feel th at you received adequate funding assistanc e from the FDOT to make the project a success? 4. What "lessons learned" from the project can you share with other transit agencies that may be interested in imp leme nting a similar project? 5. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? Please retum mall to: Darin Allan, Center for Urban Transportation Research, UniVer$!ty of South Florida, CUT 100, 4202 E Fowler Ave. iampa, Fl 33620; or FAX (813) 974---5168: or email al!sn@cutr.eng.usf.edu

PAGE 67

Thelma Williams Pasco County' Public Transportation 8620 Galen Wilson Blvd Port Richey, FL 34668 Dear Thelma Williams: 29 November 2000 Center (or Urban Tr.vu:pot"btion Research U n ivtrs:lty ol South iloflcb fowler Avenue, CVT 1 00 Tampa Florlda 33620 (813) SunCom 574-3120 Fax (813) 9H..SI68 Web: hf.l/>:llwww.tu" ""Zutf.dv The Center for Urban Transportution Research (CUTR) is under contract with the F lorida Department ofTranspo1tat ion (FOOT) to eva l uate the f'DOT's Transit Corridor Program. Your agency is identi iicd as having received funding to support u or projects under this progrnm. ( WPIIFPN #4064811) For each project listed above, we would appreciate your taking the time to answer the live quest ions on the enclosed quest i o nnaire to the best of your ability and returning your answers to us via ri1ail email, or I' AX. Please return your unswcrs no. later than Friday, 24 December. Please do not hesitate to call me at (813) 974-2&50 if you have any questions. T hank you for timo. Sincerely. Darin Allan, Research A.vsociale Cc: Elizabeth Stut!s, FOOT Swes, Cln
PAGE 68

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANS I T CORRIDOR PROGRAM Grant Recipients I. How wou l d y ou rate the project's success or failure? Wha t J(oals and/or established the p roject were met? 2. Js t he project still active? No (skip to Part b) ./ (continue to P.art a) u. Do you foresee continuing to fund with local funds after FPOT funds are e>. "Darin Allon. for Urt>;an TIOI\SI)OtlallOn lJIIIVoOiily of Soolll FlaMa, CUT 100 421n e Fow1tt Ave_ Tampa. FL 33$20...$37$.; or fAX ot m-all

PAGE 69

Richard Dreyer FDOT, District I POBox 1249 Bartow, FL 33831 Dear Richard Dreyer: December 2000 Center for Urban Transportation Researc.h University of Souch Florida -1202 East FowterAv enue,CUT 100 Tampa Florida 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120 SunCom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Web: http:llwww.cw.onz. u(.edu The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) is under contract with the Florida Depa rtment ofTransportation (FOOT) to evaluate the FOOT's Transit Corridor Program As a FDOT District staff person overseeing loc al Transit Corridor projects you r insight into the program's strengths and weaknesses is invaluable. US 41 (WPIIFPN #1814972), US 41 (WPIIFPN 114071071), Manate
PAGE 70

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT Distri ct Staff I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? (What goals andior objectives established for the project were met?) 2. Is the project still active? No (If no, skip to Question3) Yes __ Do you foresee the project continuing with local funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? 3. What "lessons learned" from the project could you share with other transit agencies and/or FDOT staff who may be interested in implementing a similar project? 4. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? Pleut return mall to: Oatln. AI!M, Center tot Urban Transponatlon or SOUUl Florida. CUT 100. 4202 Fowlet Ave, Tamp
PAGE 71

this page IS blank

PAGE 72

Fran Theberge FDOT, District I PO Box 1030 Fort Myers, FL 33902-1030 Dear Fran The berge: 05 De cember 2000 Center for Transportation Rese.arch Unlvtnlty of SoW. -&st Fowtor Ave.-.Je. CUT 100 1\mp< florid> (813) 97'1-3120 S:IIWWW.aJtr.tng .,f.edu The Center for Transportatio n Research (CtrfR) is under contract with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to evaluate the FDOT's Transit Corridor Program. As a FDOT Distri ct staff person oversee ing local Transit Corridor projects your insight into the program's strengths and weaknesses is invaluable US 41 {WPVFPN #1814972 } We would appreciate your insight into the strengihs and weaknesses of the Transit Corrido r Program as it relates t o each of the projects listed above. Either Lisa Staes or myself will contact you via phone to solicit you r answers to the four questions on the enclosed questionnaire. If you prefer, you may return your written answers via mail, email, or FAX. Please do not hesitate to call me at (813) 974-2850 if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Darin Allan, Research Associat e Cc: Elizabeth Stutts, FDOT Lisa Staes, CUTR

PAGE 73

EVA'Li.JATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff 1. How wou l d you rate the project's success or failure? (What g o a ls a nd/or objectives e stablis h ed for t he project were met7) 2 I s the project sti ll active ? No __ (If no, skip t o Questio n 3) Yes __ Do you foresee the project co n t inuing wi th local fu nd s a fter FDOT fu n ds are ex haust ed or expire? 3. What "lessons learned" from the project could you share with other transit ag en cies a n d/or FDOT staff who may be intere s ted in i m p l e men t ing a similar project? 4 What ch a nges to the Transi t Corridor Program fu]lded by the FDOT wou ld you lik e t o see made? Please return mail to: Darin Altan, Ce-nter for Ur'bat1 Transportation Resea td'l, U n iversity o f South FlcricJa, CUT 100. 4202 E Fo'llfer Ave. Tampa FL or FAX (813) 974; or email allan@cutr. eng.u$f.eclu

PAGE 74

Jan Par ham FDOT, District 1 POBox 1249 Bartow, FL 33831 Dear Jan Parham: 05 December 2000 Center for Urban Transportation Re-seard University o( South Florid. 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT I Ot Tampa Florida 33620-537.' (81 3) 9743 12< S unCom 574-312< Fox (81 3) 974-5161 Web: http11wwn.wtr.tnr.U$(. The Center for U rban Transportation Research (CUTR) is under cont r act with the F lorida Departme n t ofTransportation (FDOT) to evaluate the FOOT's Transit Corridor Program. As a FDOT District staff p erson overseei n g loca l Transit Corridor projects, your insight into the pwgram's strengths and weaknesses is i nv aluable US 41 (WPI/FPN #4071071} Manatee Ave/SR 64 (WPIIFPN #4071171) We would apprecia te your insight into the strengths and weaknesses o f the TransitCorrido r Pwgram as i t relates to each of the projects l is t ed above. Either Lisa Staes or myself will contact you via phone to solicit your a nswers to the four questions on the enclosed quest ionna ire. If you p refer you may re turn your written answers v i a mail, email, or FAX. Please do not hesitate to call me at (813) 974 2850 if you have any q uest ions Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Darin Allan Research Associate Cc : Elizabeth Stutt s, FDOT Lisa S ta es, CUTR

PAGE 75

James Driggers FOOT, District 2 POBox 1089 Lake City, FL 32056-1089 Dear James Driggers: 05 December 2000 Center for Urban Transportation Research Unlvenily of Soudl -4l02 Eut Fowler A.....,e. CUT 100 Tampa Aon.b 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120 SunCom 571-J 120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Web: hnp:/Jwww.(Utr.enz.us(.edu The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) is under contr act with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT} to evaluate the FOOT's Transit Corridor Program. As a FOOT District staff person overseeing local Transit Corridor projects, your insight into the program's strengths and weaknesses is invaluable. Park & Ride Commuter Express Routes (WPIIFPN #2814311). SW Gaines vine Enhanced Bus SeNice {WPVfPN #2810791}, Night Bus Se rvice (WPIIFPN #2810829), Tower Rd Corridor Service (WPIIFPN #2810830) We would apprecia te your insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the Transit Corrido r Program as it relates to each of the projects lis ted above. Eithe r Lisa Staes or myself will contact you via ph o n e to solicit your answers to the four questions on the enclosed questionnaire. If you prefer, you may return your written answers via mail, email, or FAX. Please do not hesitate to call me at (813) 974-2850 if you hav e any questions. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Darin Allan, Research Associate Cc: Elizabeth Stutts, FOOT Lisa Staes, CtTrR

PAGE 76

_is a . : James DRIGGERS Uames.driggers@dot.s l a t e.fl.us) Monday, February 1 9, 2001'11:20 AM staes FW: Tran sit CT229JD PT943ES ----------------------------------------------------------U o .k.?? Sorry this is so impersonal. Please see my e-mail you, 1

PAGE 77

:CUTR KathyRudd FDOT, District 3 POBox607 Chipley, FL 32428 Dear Kat hy Rudd: 05 December 2000 Center for Urban Transportation Research Universicy of South Aorida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa Florida (813) 974-3120 SunCom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Web: The Center for Urban T ran sporta t ion Researc h (CUTR) is under contract with the Flo rida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) t o evaluate the FOOT's Transit Corridor Program. As a FDOT District staff perSon overseeing local Transit Corridor projects, your insight i n to the program's strengths and weaknesses is invaluable. Davis Hwy (WPIIFPN #2258251) Blue Angel Hwy (WPIIFPN #2258341) We would appreciate your insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the Transit Corri dor Program as it relates to each of the projects lis ted above. Either Lisa Staes or myself will coritact you via phone to solicit your a nswers to the four ques tions o n the enclosed questionna ire If you prefer, you may return yotlr written answers via mai l email, or FAX. Plea se do not hes i tate to call me at (813) 974-2850 if you have any questions. T h ank you for your time Sincerely, Darin Allan, Research Associate Cc: Elizabeth Stutts, FDOT Lisa Staes, CUTR

PAGE 78

T oby Wright FDOT, District 4 3400 W Conunercial Bl vd F t L a uderdale, FL 33309 Dear Toby W rig h t: 05 December 2000 Center for Urban Transpo rtatio n Researc U n iversity of South Flori< 4202 East Fowler Avenue CUT 1 ( Tampa Florida .l36iO.S3i (813) 974 3 1 ) S u nCom 574-312 f>x (813) 974-5 1 1 Web: The Center for Urba n Transportation Research (CUTR) is under contract with the F lori da Departme n t of Transportation (FOOT) t o eva luat e the FOOT's Trans it Corridor P rogr a m As a FOOT Distric t sta ff person overseein g l oca l Trans it Corridor projects, you r insi ght into th e program's s tren gths and weaknesses i s inv aluable. Southwest Broward Express (WPIIFPN #4811331) We would a p preciate your i nsight into th e s t r engths and weaknesses of the Trans it Corridor P rogram a s it relat es to each of the pro ject s listed above. Ei t her Lisa S1aes or myself w ill contact you via pho n e to solic it your answers to the four que st i ons on the enclosed questionnaire If yo u p r efer, you may r e turn your writte n answers via m ail, email, or FAX. P l ease do n o t h esitate to call m e a t (813} 974,2850 if you ha ve any q uesti on s. Thank you for your time. S in cer ely, Dari n Allan, Research A ss ociale Cc: E lizabeth Stutts, FO O T Lisa Stae.s, CU TR

PAGE 79

Ia r in Toby WR I GHT [Toby.WRIGHT@dot.state.fi.us] Thursday, January 04 2001 11:14 AM allan Trans i t Cor r i dor Program erence: Qocument 'MEMO 0 1 /03/01 11:391 received from you ---------------------------------7 ----------------------------------for Broward B lvd. Corridor Project ou l d say that the the project was a success. The 4 main ere to: Increase mas$ transit accessibility. Incroase productivity/ridership i n designated residential contiguous to the Divert paratransi t trip s on t o fixed-route service or a lternative neighborhood circulator service. Encourage the use of a l l mass transit's famil y of service& through effective media. advertising. :ounty selected a sma l l minority business to provide the shu t tle for t his project and the western express raverse commut e . Heetings were held. with local homeowners groups to select routes try and local needs. The service connects to re9ular 1tes, a major transit terminal a t a mall, a major flea market and rail Ridersh i p has been good and steady. There have been on;urveys, special promotions, e tc. project is still active, although_ local participation has i w e h ave advised BCt that we will not extend thisprojec t without inteiest, new goals and objectives, and possible expansion the service areA. : e the project was establishe d it became hard to keep up the :husiasm with ALL parties. Attendance at TAG ended up lng only FOOT and County staff revi ewing ridership and status. project concept was good and could easily be implemented in 1er areas. I think that now that have an addi tiona! staff cson who can spend more t i me on this project, that it could be irked up and conti nued. ch ough there is no time limit on this program maybe we s houl d ve a maximum of 10 years even if they are meeting goals .. With jecrease in funds the last few years of the project. These are ly my thoughts on this and I support funding transit systems as as we can, especially the smaller/newer system s that are ruggling to survive. this is t .Jhat you needed from me. If not, give me a call. Toby I

PAGE 80

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff I. How would you rate the project's success or failure? (What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met?) 2. Is the project still active? No (If no skip to Ques t ion 3) Yes __ Do you foresee the project continuing with loca l funds after FDOT fu nds are exhausted or expire? 3. What "lessons learned" from the project could you sha r e with other trans it agencies and/or FDOT staff who may be interested in imp l ementing a similar project? 4. What changes to the Transit Conidor Program funded by the FDOT would you lik e to see made? Ple.aso retum mail to: Darin Allan, Center for Urban Transportalion Research, Unlvecslty of Sovth Aorida, CUT 100, 4202 E Fowler Tampa, FL or FAX ( 813) 974-5168: or email a Dan@out r .eng.usf.edu

PAGE 81

Ed Carson FDOT, District 6 620 S Miami Ave Miami, FL 33130 Dear Ed Carson: 05 December 2000 Center for Urban Transportadon Res earth University of South Flor ida East Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Florida 33620-5375 (813) 974 SunCom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Wtb: http11www.cuv.eng.us(.edu The Center for U rban Transportation Research (CUTR) is under contract with the Flori da Department ofTransportation (FDOT) to evaluate t he FOOT's T ransit Corridor Program. As a FOOT District staff person overseeing local Transit Corridor projects, your insi ght into the program's strengths and weaknesses is invaluable. Norlhwest 27th Ave MAX (WPIIFPN #$819003), Flagler MAX (WPIIFPN #6810184 & #6810237), South Oade Busway (WPIIFPN #6810309), Miami Beach Electric ShuWe (WPI/FPN #6810341) We would appreciate your i nsi g h t into the strengths and weaknesses of the Transit Corridor Program as it r e la tes to each of the projects listed above. Ei ther Lisa Staes or myself will contact you via phone to solicit your answers t o the four questions on the e nclos ed questionnaire. If you prefer, you may return your written answers via ma i l e mail, or FAX. P l eas e do not hesitate to call me at (813) 974-2850 if you have an y questions Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Darin Allan, Research Associate Cc: Eliza bet h Stutts, FDOT Lisa Staes CUTR

PAGE 82

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE F OOT's TRANSI T CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff 1. How would you rate the project's success or failure? (What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met?) 2. Is the project s!ill active? No (If no, skip to Ques1ion 3) Yes . . . . .... Po you foresee the project ccintinuirig'With l9Cai funds after FOOT funds are exhausted or expire? 3. What ''lessons learned" from the project could you share with other tJansit agQDcies and/o r FDOT staff who may be inlerested in implementing a similar project? -. ,, I ' 4. What changes to the Transit Conidor ProlU8111 funded by the FDOT would you like to I. ec made?

PAGE 83

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff 1. How would: you rate the project's success or failure? (What goals and/or objectives established for the Prctiect were mei?) 2. Is the active? No (Ifoo, skip to Question 3) Yes Po you foresee the iqJd funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or exni re? 1 3. What "lessons !eamed" from the project could you share with other transit agencies and/or FDOT staff who may be iJlterested in implementing a similar project? 4. What changes to tho Transit Corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to cc made? Pleuo fOtum mail ta. Darln AJlan, Center(ot Urban Ttan.sportation Reacarch. of Scuth Florida, CUT 100, 420Z E Fowler Ave, TamP't, Fl 33820--5375; orFAX{813) 974-5168; or email

PAGE 84

EVAlUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff 1. How would you rate th e project's success or failure? (What goals aM/or objectives established for the Proiect were met?) 2. Is the project S!ill active? No (lfno, skip to Question3) Yes.,__ )., ... ;i i; i ... Do you foresee tb.e project contiriui:n'i with funds after FDOT funds are exhausted or expire? ' ' 3. What "l es sons .. from the could you share with other transit agencies and/or FDOT staff who may be interested in implementing a similar project? 4 What changes io tho TiSnsit corridor Program funded by the FDOT would you like to see made? ... . Please rettan mall to: Darin Allan, Cenlerlor Uol>an Tlllnspotta11Gn Ro..,ill
PAGE 85

EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff . 1. How would you rate the project's success or failure? (What goals and/or objectives established for the project were mei?) 2. Is the project 5\ill active? No (Ifoo,skip to i I Do you foresee project co'ntirlU\rig.th after FDOT f\mds are exhausted or expire? t, 3. What "lessons from the could you share wi th other transit age;ncies and/or FDOT staff who may be interested in implementing a similar project? . 4. What the funded by the FDOT would you like to l . secmade? . Pleaae return ma11 to: Darin AJbl'l, Center for Urb311 Tr.anapottation Rex:at. UniV9tSity Qf South Florida. ctrr 100, 4202 E FO\'Ae:r AWJ, FL 3362o-537Si or FAX (813) 974-5t88; oromaU

PAGE 86

George Boyle FDOT, District 7 11201 NMcKinleyDr Tampa, FL 33612 Dear George Boyle: 05 December 2000 Center" rot' Ut"ban Transpot"tation. Researct University of South F loriij: 4202 East Fowler" Avenue. CUT 1 0< Tampa Florida 33620.537! (813) 974-312< SunCom Fax (813) 161 Web: The Center for Urba n Transporta tion Research (CUTR) is u nder contract with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to evaluate the FDOT's Transit Corridor Program. As a FDOT District staff person overseeing local Transit Corridor projects, your insig ht into the program's strengths and weaknesses is invaluable. Route 200X (WPIIFPN#7813923 & #7814028), US 41 (WPIIFPN #7810010 & #7814115) Express Service Net Park to Oldsmar (WPIIFPN #4064791), Ulmerton Rd (WPIIFPN #7816678), Route 100X (WPI/FPN #7816679), All US 19 & SR 686 (WPI/FPN #4039011), Route 99X {WPIIFPN #4039031), US 19 Marketing (WPI/FPN #4064761), CR 296 Route 58 {WPIIFPN #4064771}, SR 584 Tarpon Mall to Oldsmar (WPI/FPN #4064781), US 41 (WPIIFPN #4064811) We would appreciate your insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the Trans i t Corridor Program as it relates to each of the projects listed above. Either Lisa Staes or myself will contact you via phone to solicit your answers to the four questions on th e enclosed q uest ioMaire If you prefer, you may return your written answers via mail, email, or FAX Please do not hesitate to call me at (813) 974-2850 if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, uann Allan, Research Associate Cc: Elizabeth Stutts, FDOT Lisa Staes, CUTR

PAGE 87

EVAlUATION OF PROJECTS IN THE FOOT's TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROGRAM FOOT District Staff I Hgw would you ra te the project's success or failure? (What goals and/or objectives established for the project were met?) 2. Is the project still active? No ./ (If n o, skip to Question 3) Yes _ Do you foresee the project continuing with local funds after FOOT funds are exhausted or expire? 3. What "lessons learned" from the projec t could you share with other transit agencies and/o r FOOT sta f f who may be interes ted in impleme nt ing a similar projec t? 4. What changes to the Transit Corridor Program funded by the FOOT would you like to see made? Please return mail to: D arin ADan. Center for Urban Transportation Rosoarch, U n iversity of Sout h FIOOda. CUT 1 00, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL 33620..5375; or FAX (813) 974-5168; or email allan@cutr.etlg.usf.edu