Charlotte County transit development plan

Charlotte County transit development plan

Material Information

Charlotte County transit development plan
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill. ; 28 cm.


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


Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization.
General Note:
"Adopted: May 13, 1996."
Statement of Responsibility:
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

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:
029924291 ( ALEPH )
42784702 ( OCLC )
C01-00100 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.100 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200277Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029924291
005 20110908180616.0
008 991108s1996 flua 000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00100
b C53 1996
0 245
Charlotte County transit development plan /
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 v. (various pagings) :
ill. ;
28 cm.
Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization.
"Adopted: May 13, 1996."
Also available online.
Bus lines
z Florida
Charlotte County
x Planning.
Bus lines
Charlotte County
Public opinion.
Local transit
Charlotte County
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


CHARLOTTE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Adopted: May 13, 1996 Prepared for: CHARLOTTE COUNTY-PUNTA GORDA METRO PO LIT AN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 28000 Airport Road, Punta Gorda, Florida 33982-2411 Tel: 941-693-4676 Fax: In cooperation with: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ONE Bartow, Florida Prepared by: CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, END 118 Tampa, Florida 33620 With: TINDt.LE-OUVER t.ND t.SSOCIATES, INC. 1000 N. t.shlty Drive, Suite 316 Tampa, Florida 33602


CHARLOTTE COUNTY-PUNTA GORDA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Transit Retiew Committee Arlene Barnes, FDOT Michael Chong, CAC Rocco De Giorgio,CAC Robert Dickinson, Chamber Marl< Gumula, FDOT Michael Haymans, Citizen Bob Johns, PG Rick Keeney. PG Naomi E. Manning, CAC Charles Pagen, CC Louise Raterman, Citizen W. Kevin Russell, Esq., CAC Socrates Shinas, CC Linda Smith, OCEAN Mary Smith, Citizen Richard Weingarten CC Board Members CommiSsioner Kathleen L. Coppola (Chair) Commissioner Max R. Farrell (Vice Chair) Commissioner Michael Youssef Commissioner Adam Cummings Council Member Dawn MacGibbon David A. May, FDOT District One Secretary Lisa B Beever, PhD, AJCP, MPO Director Preston l. Planner II Robert F. Andmon, Land Infonnation Technician Patricia Garner, Planner I Jennifer M. Executive Secretary Jechpjcal Adyjson CommjUee Charles Pagen, CC Public Wori

CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH (CUTR) COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA Gary L. Brosch, Executive Director Proiectieam Rosemary G. Mathias, Program Manager Laura Lachance, Research Associate Daniel Rudge, Research Associate Eric Hill, Research Associate Steven Maas, Research Associate Baichan Chen, Graduate Research Assistant Daniel K. Boyle, Program Manager Fredalyn M Frasier, Research Associat e Joseph Hagge, Research Associate Rtvifwers Joel Volinski, Deputy Director Dennis Hinebaugh, Program Manager We would like to thank the citizens of Charlotte County for their insight and participation throughout this study.


C h arlotte County Transit Dev e lopm en t Pla n TABL E O F C ONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intro-1 PART 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area Setting . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . 1-1 Demographic and Economic Condit ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Land Use and Roadway Characteristics ..... ........ . ... ... .. .. ... .... 1-30 Major Trip Attractors and Generators .... . ..... .............. ... . .... . 1-37 PART2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Interviews with Key Local Officials .............. ...... ...... . . ..... . 2-1 Citiz e n Telephone Swvey ........................... . .............. 2-8 Summary ................................................ ....... 2-30 PART3: POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT Threshold s for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Review of Peer Systems ........................................ ....... . 3-3 Beach Shuttle Service in Florida Communities ............................. 3-16 Transportation Demand Management Options ............ . ............. 3-19 Summary .................................... ....................... 3-28 PART4: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal De v elopment Process ..................... ............ ... .. ..... 4-1 TOP Goals and Objectives ............. ......... . ........... ..... ... 4-2 Transit Related Goals from Other Plans .. ... ......... ...................... 44 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 PARTS : DEMAND ESTIMATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT Demand Est imation . . .... .... .... ..... ....... . ....... . ........ 5-1 Needs A s sessment ................... . . .... ........ . ...... 5-1 3 Summary ... ..... ................................................. 5-20 PART6: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Options .......... . .... ............. . . ...... . . .... . ...... 6-1 S\lll'lll1acy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 T a ble ofCon tenls i M ay 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Developmtnt Plan PART7: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Service Overview ......................... ... ...... .... ...... ...... 7 -I Management Strategy ............... .................... . ......... 7-3 Marketing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Performance Monitoring System ................................. ..... 7-11 Implementation Schedule . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17 Financial Plan .. ......... .......... ................ .... ......... . 7-20 Future Capital improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 -24 Summary ... ... ................ ............... ................ 7 25 APPENDIX A Citizen Survey and Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . A-I APPENDIXB Cross Tabulation T ables ................................. .. B-1 APPENDIXC Charlotte County Existing Public Transportation Services ... ....... C-1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS T a ble or Conteats i i May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Dnel opment Plan TABLES PART 1: EXISTING CONDIT I ONS Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table l-4a Table I-4b Table 1-5 Table 1-6 Table I 7 Table 1-8 Table 1-9 Table 1-10 Table I-II Table 1 -12 Table 1-13 Table 1-14 Table 1-15 Table 1-16 Table 1-17 Table 1-18 Tab l e 1-19 Table J-20a Table l -20b Table 1-2 1 Table 1-22 Tab l e 1 23 Table 1-24 Table 1 25 Table 1-26 Table I-27 Population and Populatio n Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Population Density by TAZs with;, 3,000 P ersons per Square Mile . 1-3 Populat io n Age Characte ristics for Char lotte County and Florida . . 1-6 Populat ion 0 17 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I7 Population 60 Years and Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Mi n ority Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 Housing Density by T AZs with :. 2,500 Houses Per Square M il e . 1-12 Median Ho u sehold Income Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . I I 4 Income Characteri s tic s for Charlotte County . . . . . . . . . . 1 -15 Vehicle Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17 Vehicle Avail a bility per H ousehold . ................ ........ 1 -17 Labor Force Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19 Labo r Force Characteristics b y Census Block Group . . . . . . 1-19 Employment Density by TAZs with Employees per Sq. Mile 1-20 Projected Employme n t Growth 1990 t o 2000 ........... . ..... 1-22 Average Vehicle Occupancy by Trip .......... .... .... ..... 1 -22 PlaceofWork ......... . ........ ......... ......... ..... 1-2 3 Travel Time to Work ............................ . .... 1-23 Travel Time by Cen sus Block Group . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 Mode of Trave l t o Work ........... ....... ............... 1 25 1995 Potential TD Pop u lation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26 1995 TD Popu l ation . . . .... . ............ . . ........ 1 -27 Ho t els/Motels with > 30 Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-28 1994 Roadway Conditions "Report Catd" ............. ..... .. 1-32 Shoppi n g Centers ................................ .... . . 1-39 Hea lth Cate Facil i ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-40 Government Office s and Social Service Agencies . . . . . . 1-41 Schools and Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-42 Area Attractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 3 PART3: POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT Table 3-1 Tab le 3 -2a T able 3-2b T ab le 3-3a Table 3 -3b Tab l e 3-4 Tab le 3-5 Table 3 6 Tabl e of C on t ent s Size Charact e ristics of Development ............ . . ... ....... 3-1 Demographics of Peer CTCs . . . . . .... . ................. 35 De m ographics of Ot h er Selected CTCs ... .... .... ..... ..... 3-6 Perfonnance Measures of P eer CTCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 P e rfonnance of Other Selected CTCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 L ocal Government Revenue for CTC Peers ...... . ........... 3-12 Urbanized Area D emographics o f Peer Trans it Systems ........... 3-13 Pe rfonnance Indicators of Peer Transit Systems ... ....... ..... . 3-15 IIi May 13,1996


Charlotte Counry Transit Development P lan PART 4 : GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Tab l e 4 1 Comparison ofTDP Goals and Objectives with Current Plans ....... 4-6 PARTS: DEMAND ESTIMATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5 5 Estimated TO-Population, Paratransit Demand, & Patatransit Supply 5-2 Com parison ofParatransit Peer Group with Charlotte County ....... 5-5 Compatison of Fixed-Route Transit Peer Group with Charlotte County .......................................... 5-6 ADA Paratransit Population and Trip Estimates ................ 5-12 Summary of Demand Estimation & Needs Assessment Techniques 5-21 PART6: OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Table 6-1 Charlotte County TDP Summary of Public Transportation Options ... 6-2 PART7: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Table 7-1 Scenario I: Dial-a-Ride Service Operated & Maintained by Charlotte County Transit Department I Capital & Operating Budget ......... 7-21 Table 7 2 Scenario I: Dial-a-Ride Service Operated & Maintained by Charlotte County Transit Department I Local Revenue Sununary ........ . 7-23 Tab l e of Cooteots i v May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan MAPS PART 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Map 1 Map 1-2 Map 1-3 Map 1-4 Map 1-5 Map 1-6 Map 1-7 Map 1-8 Map 1-9 Map 1 10 Map 1 -11 Map 1 Map 1-13 Map 1-14 Map 1-1 5 Map 1 -1 6 Map 1-17 Map 1-18 Map 1-19 Charlotte County Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1990 Population Density Map by T AZ .... ....... ........ ... 1-5 Population Unaer Age 18 by Census Block Group . . . . . . . 1-8 Population Over Age 60 by Census Block Group . . . . . . . . 1 Minority Population by Census Block Group . . . . . . . . . 1-11 1990 Housing Density Map by T AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13 1990 Percent Househo l ds with Annual Incomes Under $10, 000 by Census Block Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16 1 990 Percent Households with No Vehicles Available by Census Block Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18 1990 Employment Density Map by TAZ ...... .... .... . .... 1-21 I 990 Percent Workers with Travel Time to Work Over 30 Minutes by Census Block Group .... ... .. ........... . ..... . 1-24 Current Hotels/Motels with> 30 Rooms by T AZ . . . . . . . 1-29 1994 Level of Service on Major Road Network .... .......... 1 -34 Bicycle Facilit ies on Major Road Network . . . . . . . . . . 1-35 Pedestrian Facilities on Major Road Network .... .... ........ 1 -3 6 Current Shopping Centers by T AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-44 Current Health Care Facilities by T AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-45 Current Government Offices & Social Service Agencies by T AZ . 1-46 Current Public Schools and Colleges by T AZ . . . . . . . . . 1-47 Current Area Attractions by T AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-48 PARTS: DEMAND ESTIMATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT Map 5-1 Map 5-2 Map 5 3 Table of Contents Transit Depe n dent Tract s by Census Block Group ......... .... 5-9 Subscription Trips October 23-27, 1995 ............... ...... 5-16 Demand-Responsive Trips October 23-27, 1995 ............ . . 5-17 v May 13,19%


Charlotte Counry Transit Dcve:lop m ent Plan FIGURES PART2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Figure 2-1 Figure2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure2-4 Figure2-5 Figure2-6 Figure 2-7 F igure2-8 Figure 2-9 Figure 2-. 10 Figure 2-1 I Figure 2-12 Figure2-13 Figure 2-14 Figure 2-15 Figure 2-16 Interview Guide ............................. ..... ........ 2 3 Q4. How do you usually travelloeally? ......... .......... 2 -11 Q8. Have y "ou ever used a taxi i n Charlotte County? ........... 2-I 2 Q9. On average, how many taxi trips do you take per month? ... 2-13 Q6. When you did use public transportation services in another community was it a service that you would like to see here in Charlotte County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 QlO. I n thinking about local bus serv ice in Charlotte County, how important do yo u feel this service would be to you or your family? ... ........................... ...... 2I 6 Q11. If loeal bus service were available in Charlotte County, would you or any member of your household use it? . . ... 2-17 Ql2. For what type of trips would you use the bus? ............ 2-19 Ql8. What is the longest distance you would walk to a bus stop? .. 2-20 Ql9. How frequent should buses visit each stop? .............. 2-21 Q20. What is the highest one-way fare you would be willing to pay for loeal bus service? ........................... 2-22 Q16. Which improvement is most important to you? . . ........ 2-24 Ql7. The fo ll owing improvements were identified as importan t for Charlotte County. With lim i ts in pub lic funds which of these eight do you think are the most important to fund on a s cale of I to 5? ............ .................... 2-25 Q21. Should tax dollars be used to establish bus service in Char l otte County? .... ............................. 2-27 Q22 Would you vote for an increase in l oeal taxes to fund future public transportation improvements? ....... ......... . 2-28 Q23. Which of the following loeal funding methods would you favor to fund public transportation? ..................... 2-29 PART3: POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Figure 3-8 Figute 3-9 Table of Co n tenls Pop u lation Potential TO Population TO Population .............. 3-4 Passe n ger Trips ..................... ......... ..... ...... 3 8 Vehicle Miles per TO Capita ................ ...... . . ..... 3-8 Operation Expenses Per Passenger Trip ..................... 3-9 Operation Expenses Per Vehicle Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Vehicle Miles Per Passenger Trip ............................ 3-10 Total Revenue . .... . ........ .... . ......... ......... 3-10 Farebox Ratio ............. .. ...................... . . . 3-11 County Share of Total Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 v i May 13, 1996


Charlotte County Tran$11 Development Plan INTRODUCTION The Charlotte County -Pwtta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) contracted with the Center for Urban T ran sportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida to prepare a FiveYear Transit Development Plan (TOP) for the Pwtta Gorda Port Charlotte urbanized area. This plan also satisfies the requirement for preparation of a Coordinat e d Transportation Development Plan CTDP), as mandated by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. CUTR, with the assistance of MPO staff and the local community, wtdertook a thorough analysis of the local community to determine options for prov i ding public transportation services locally. The study began in earnest during the sununer of 1995. The first task was to create a detailed Public Involvement Plan (PIP), to ensure adequate and meaningful participation by members of the community. Public involvement included a citizen telephone survey, interviews with key local officials and community representatives, on-going public service annowtcements regarding meeting times creation of a Transit Review Committee (TRC) to review and comment on progress throughout the study, as well as a series of community workshops held toward the end of the project to describe potential options for new public transportation service in Charlotte County. The public invo lvement process is described in more detail in Technical Memoranda No. I and No. 5, and in Parts 2 and 6 of this document. In addition, CUTR analyzed the demographic and land use features of the County, and generated a series of maps showing these characteristics. Trip attractors and generators also were identified and plotted on a series of maps to determine where the potential demand for transit service might be. These materials are presented in Technical Memorandum No. I and Part I of this document. Next, CUTR reviewed the potential for transit service in Charlotte County by conducting a review of both paratransit and transit peers. These peers were selected from throughout Florida and the country in an effort to identify areas with similar characteristics to Charlotte County. This task was complicated by the fact that it is difficult to identify "transit peers" when there i s no traditional transit service provided in the local community. Nonetheless several systems were identified in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, which offered insight into the potential success of public transit locally. Included in this portion of the research was a review of issues relating to serving the beach areas, as well as the potential use of transportation demand management strategies (e.g. vanpooling, carpooling, and telecommuting). Detailed information on the potential for transit is presented in Technical Memorandum No. 2 and Part 3 of this document. Introdu ction Jotro-1 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Midway through the TOP process, draft goals and objectives were developed. The goals covered five areas deemed important to guide the development of public transportation options (meeting mobility needs, providing low cost service, connecting transportation modes, incorporating land use considerations and ensuring on-going public information and involvement). A careful analysis of goals included in other local plans was conducted, including a compliance review to ensure that the TOP goals would complement and support the local comprehensive plan relevant sections of Rule 9J-S, and other planning initiatives. These goals also correlate with goals created for the transportation disadvantaged (TO) program, which is important because the TOP may serve as the Coordinated Transporta tion Development Plan (CTDP), which must be completed for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged A revised set of draft goals and objectives was submitted to the MPO Board for discussion at its February 12 1996, meeting. The draft goals were then presented at a series of community workshops and advisory committee meetings held during February and March I 996. In March 1996, the TRC, Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (T AC), and the local Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board (TDCB) unanimously endorsed the goals and objectives. The MPO Board adopted the draft goals and objectives, with minor wording changes, at its April 8, 1996, meeting. A complete description of the goals development process is contained in Technical Memorandum No. 3 and Part 4 of this document. At the same time the goals were being developed an estimation was made of the potential demand for transit service, as weU as the perceived need for service locally. These tasks were completed through a series of paratransit and fixed-route demand estimation techniques, as well as an analysis of potential complementary paratransit ridership under the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). During this phase of the study CUTR also reviewed existing TO transportation service managed by the Charlotte Cowtty Transit Department (CCTO) which serves as the local community transportation coordinator (CTC). The analysis included an origin/destination study of current TO service, a review of policies relating to trip priorities and eligibility as well as a review of other transportation services provided by the private sector. A description of this analysis is included in Technical Memorandum No. 4 and Part 5 of this document. Based on this information, MPO staff and CUTR developed a set of four basic options for consideration by the TRC and MPO Board. The options ranged from no expansion of current paratransit service (Option I) to creation of a full traditional transit system, much like the one proposed in a 1981 transit study (Option 4). The other two options were expansion of current paratransit service into a general public dial-a-ride (Option 2) and creation of minimal fixed route service (Option 3). At its April 8, 1996, meeting, the MPO Board voted unanimously to latroductioa latro-l May 13 1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan pursue consideration of Option 2. The options are described in Technical Memorandwn No. 5 and Part 6 of this docwnent. The TOP implementation strategy, described in Part 7 of this docwnent, provides additional details for the recommended option As pan of the implementation strategy, CUTR worked with MPO and County staffs to develop several scenarios for implementing new service including a scenario using the existing Charlotte County Transit Department. The implementation strategy includes a management strategy, a marketing program, a monitoring system, and TOP implementation schedule. Part 7 also includes financial and funding plans, and identifies other measures to be taken if additional financial resources are identified. Introduction. lntr<>-3 May 13,1996


PART 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS To assess the potential for transit system development, it is necessary to gain an understanding of the environment within which the system would operate. T oward this end, Part I includes an analysis of: (I) the study area setting, (2) demographic and economic conditions (3) land use and roadway characteristics, and ( 4) major trip attractors and generators. The information included in Part I is the same as in Technical Memorandum No I. The information was compiled using 1990 Census data, traffic analysis zone (T AZ) level data, and other relevant data provided by the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organ i zation (MPO), and other County departments. Maps and the discussion of roadway characteristics were developed by Tindale Oliver and Associates, the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan consultant for the MPO.


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Study Area Setting Charlotte County is a coastal county located in southwest Florida, bounded by the Gulf of .. Mexico to the west, Sarasota and DeSoto counties to the north, Glades County to the east, and Lee County to the south. The county encompasses approximately 819 square miles, of which 693 are land miles. In the 1990 Census, the population was estimated at II 0,975. Most of the population is concentrated in three distinct areas within the western coastal area of the county. These three major population centers are in Punta Gorda, the only incotporated area within Charlotte County; Port Charlotte/ Murdock; and Englewood. The vast majority of the county's population-100,228 or 93 percent-reside in unincotporated areas Outside the City of Punta Gorda, the urbanized populations reside in low density, suburban style platted developments. The major distinguishing characteristics of the county are its rapid growth in the last decade and its large concentrations of retired persons From I 980 to I 990 Charlotte County experienced an 89.8 percent growth in population from 58,460 to I I 0,975, respectively. During the 1990s, growth slowed considerably with an average population increase of3.0 percent per year. Many of new residents are older and retired, as indicated in the I 990 Census in which the median age was reported as 53.6 years. The following sectio n highlights population characteristics of the county as a means of analyzing the transportation conditions and needs within the county. Demographic and Economic Conditions This section summarizes demographic and economic data for Charlotte County. Specific demographic characteristics related to potential transit use are presented inc luding: Population and population density Age characteristics Minority population Housing density Income characteristics Vehicle availability Labor force and employment characteristics Existiag Coaditioas 1-1 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Trans it Deve-lopment Plan Transportation disadvantaged (1D) population Tourists and seasonal residents For the most part, Charlotte County mirrors the state demographics and journey to work data The average household size in the county is somewhat smaller compared to the state, and the age distribution is skewed toward the older population These characteristics are discussed in further detail in the following sections. Population and Population Density The population of Charlotte County increased 89 8 percent from 58,460 in 1980 to 110,975 in 1990, an increase of 52,515 people. Compared to Florida, Charlotte County has a very low overall population density. According to the Census, the 1990 population density in the county was 160 persons per square mile, much lower than the state average population density of 240 person per square mile. As noted previously the county experienced tremendous gfOwth from 1980 to 1990, at a rate almost three times greater than the state. Table 1-1 shows population, population growth, and population density for Florida and Charlotte County. Table 1-2 shows population density by traffic analysis zone (T AZ) for the 15 T AZs with population densities greater than 3,000 persons per square mile. Table 1 1 Population and Population Density . ; : : l!opulatiOa .. . : Deasity _, I ; .. / ; l;#;(perioas per .. ,. .. : 1 Growth .. F_ : (19SO to -1990) ;; square mile). -, .. : $; Florida 12,937,926 32.8% 240 Charlotte County 110,975 89 .8% 160 Most of the county has a low population density with fewer than 3 ,000 persons per square mile. The population is concentrated in the mid and western parts of the county, with an average density of 350 persons/square mile, which is higher than the state average of240 persons per square mile. The highes t concentration of population is in TAZ 302 (Punta Gorda), with 7,375 persons per square mile. The eastern half of the county, which has much lower population densities is predominately agricultural land and the 101 square-mile Cecil Webb Wildlife Existing Conditions 1-l May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Devtlopment Plan Management Area. Map 1 shows the regional county designation s referred to in the TAZ tables. The population densities of all the TAZs in the county are shown in Map 1-2 Table 1-2 Population Density by T AZs with :.: 3,000 Persons per Square Mile 'h '-''1. k : 'tDeos1ty :'" Y r . ,. '. .., .. . . .: . .J'AZ c:{ '" per square niil.e) 302 Punta Gorda 7;375 204 Mid-County 5,883 306 Punta Gorda 5,000 3 79 South County 4 ,745 234 Mid-County 4,577 225 Mid-County 4,545 308 Punta Gorda 4,327 226 Mid-County 4,085 313 Punta Gorda 3 ,941 309 Pu nta Gorda 3,841 314 Barrier Is land 3,820 218 Mid-County 3,720 232 Mid-County 3,514 222 Mid-County 3,347 376 South Countv 3 315 According to projections made by the Bureau of Economic aod Business Research (BEBR) at the U niversity of Florida, the population of Charlotte County is projected to increase by 117 percent from 110 347 in 1990 to 239,800 by 2020. Likewise population density is expected to increase from 160 persons per square mile in 1990 to 347 persons per square mile by 2020. Populatio n is expected to be conce ntrated in Mid-County, accounting for about half of that growth; West aod South County are each expected to account for about a quarter of the growth. Eslsllug Conditions 1 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Existing Conditions Mid Map 1-1 Charlotte County Regions Transit Development Plan May 13, 1996


Legend II 25 People per dol c; . 9.-. -"' /-..... ("> 0 N t \ 012345 Sarasota Co untr r ---r:;---:,rTTT. c-,...,,.------ I .r,-l<:< -;r-r I \., t '" -.> .,. 0 . l o o 0 :,.C I"''. .. "! 0o o -'( . .. % .... .. .. .. .. .. Downt own Punta Gord a In set . . .. .t ..:.-.,_!.J; ... . .. : . . . . . r e e COIIII(Y . . I : .. flt. tCPOP _8'W s.-AJ,IIO(illll ... Wl 1990 Population Density Map ByTAZ 1RANSITDEVELOPMENT P LAN I CHARLO'ITCOUNTY M p 0 liAP 1-2 04/18/96 P UNTA GORDA


Charlotte Coun ty Traaslt Development Plan Age Characteristics Table 1-3 compares age group percentages for Florida and Charlotte County. As shown in the table, nearly half of the county's population ( 42.7 percent) i s 60 years of age or older Compared to the state, Charlotte County has a higher percentage of persons age 55-59 and 60 years and older. In fact, the median age in Charlotte County is 53.6, the highest of any county in the U nited States. .... t. . ,; lt

Charlotte County Existing Conditions Table I-4a Population 0-17 Years C ebSU$' Block Group Percentage . 204.04 Mid-County 41.7% 202.01 Mid-County 30.4% Table 1-4b Population 60 Yea n and Older 11 : ce,uu.s .;4[ 105.03 South County 96.2% 306.02 West County 87.8"/o 207.01 Mid-County 73.4% 303.01 West County 69.2% 104.02 Punta Gorda 64. 0% 104.01 Punta Gorda 62.8% 1 04.o3 Punta Gorda 61.4% 17 Transit Development Plan May 13, 1996


Legend o to 100/o I 0 .1% to 200/o 20 1% to 300/o 30.1% t o 41.7% C '.> . ( ,..., '=' N t 0 1 2 3 4 5 . G L et: ( o u; ;;,-\ _, : : . .. ; . ; ; ,} '' . .s;:e, u: l}li 1 \ .r "i:0 _.:.,, '+ '.'f ',l:: ,;1''.'1' :,;.;y;l""'-"1 1:'' ,.. -'. t . ., .. ':.; .. . r .. ........ i . ''\ ,.._, c-e I .. ',. Population Under Age 18 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Pl.AN CHARLOTI'E COUNTY M P O - Census Block Group MAP 1-3 0017196 PUNTA GORDA


c Legend 0 to 17% 17.1% to24% 24.1% to44% 44.1% to 54% 54.1%to 59% above 59"A> .-: .... ........ 0 .. _. .. ' -;..,. ,. ... N .t \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 ..1 Population Over Age 60 Census Block '.-;. ( ' ountr TRANSIT DEVELOPENT PLAN I CHARL01TE COUNTY. M p 0 MAP 1 4 ""'""' PUNTA GORDA


Charloue County Tnnsit DeveJopmeot Plan Minority Population Minorities represent 6.8 percent of Charlotte County's population, which is considerably lower than Florida's average of26.8 percent. As shown in Table 1-5, there are only two census block groups within the county with a minority population greater than 20 percent. These areas include census block group 101.01 in East County with a minority population of27.0 percent, and census block group 103.01 in Punta Gorda with 22 6 percent. It should be noted that census block group 101.01 encompasses a large land area, with a total population of 3,467, which includes a minority population of937 In addition, Charlotte Correctional Institution is located within that census block group. The combination of these two factors may be affecting the statistics. Map 1-5 shows the seven census block groups with minority population greater than 10 percent. Existing Coadilioas Table 1-5 Minority Cbaraeteristics .,,;_-c:: . -'>;' ' "'<'. -"' "' . ,., "' -<>_-,. -.;-.-. :0 '>Ce'1!'!fJi1ock L; J!opulatiOD "; ,10% . ) ? 101.01 East County 27.0% 103.01 Punta Gorda 22.6% 103.03 Punta Gorda 19.6% 203.02 Mid-County 18.2% 204.06 Mid-County 12.3% 209.03 Mid-County 11.7% 202,04 Mid-County 10.7% 1 May 13, 1996


Legend 0 00/o t o 1 0"/o 0 10. 1% to 20% Ill 20. 1% t o 30"/o C -:. ::::.. 0 _,... .,,-J' -> .;, ..... r o N I 0 1 2 3 4 5 I ,..,. lJ ...__. G .., Mino rity Populat ion By Census Block Group '\. :JOt .oe l .ee Co uilf y ,. .. :MNOA _ $

Charlotte County Tra nsit Developmeot Plan Housing Density In 1990, Charlotte County had a total of 64,653 single and multiple dwelling units, about half of which are located in Mid-County. According to the Census, the 1990 housing density in the county was 93 dwelling units per square mile. Table 1-6 shows the nine T AZs with housing densiti es greater than 2,500 units per square mile. The housing densities for all TAZs in Charlotte County are shown in Map 1-6. I t is not surprising that the distribution of dwelling units is consistent with population density as shown in Table 1-2 and Map 1-2. Table 1-6 Housing Density b y T AZs with :.: 2,500 Houses per Square Mile l .i .. .. .. : ., ___ !'P"' .... ens "'' D .:. )' :; y .. ,J .,-f. TAZ 7 Ct {': > -." "' h .A< t 302 Punta Gorda 4,500 234 Mid-County 4,481 314 Barrier Island 3,718 379 South County 3,622 226 Mid-County 3,346 203 Mid-County 2,988 306 Punta Gorda 2 ,750 308 Punta Gorda 2,745 204 Mid-Countv 2 592 According to projections made by BEBR, the dwelling units are projected to increase to 138,939 by 2020, a growth of 115 percent from 1990. Likewise, during that time period the housing densities are projected to increase from an average of93 to 200 dwelling units per square mile. This projected increase is very similar to that of population density; however, there are some differences in regional growth. Population increase is expected to be concentrated in Mid County, whereas South County is projected to be the fastest growing area in terms of housing. This factor may be because of new construction in South County. E1istiog Conditions 1-ll May 13,1996


Legend I 0 Houses per dot c' '"> 0 'OJ N t \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 .. . . . . Do\\nlown Punta Gorda 1990 Housing Density Map ByTAZ .. .. . .. ... . .. : .. . ... .. .. . \: -. .. .. ---( auufF TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP 1-6 04/18196 t(liA.MW ..... -.. .... CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUNTAGORDA M.P.O.


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Income Characteristics The median household income for Charlotte County is $25,746. Table 1 -7 shows the distribution of household income in the county and in Florida. Compared to the state, Charlotte County has a lower percentage of households with income under $10,000. The county also has a lower percentage of households with income greater than $40,000 compared to the state. Table 1-7 Median Household Income Distribution ,;: >cH' ,, . '-$'30 ooo;>. .. v'>\0, ..... . ,, ':.& "'. . %'!Sz9,999: i ;;\\ t ,, .,. ... i : .::_, 1 ,.,.. ... Florida 15.1% 20.1% 18.8% 14.8% 10.4% 20.8% Charlotte County 12.1% 23.0% 23.5% 16.4% 9.8% 15.2% Table 1-8 provides information about the six census block groups with concentrations of20 percent or more for households with income l ess than $10,000. Income is an important fac tor in determining potential usage of conventional public transit systems. Low-income persons often rely on public transit for access to work, education, shopping, medical appointments and social activities. As shown in Table 1-8, Charlotte County has only two census block groups where 30 percent of the households have an annual income below $10,000. The areas with significant concentrations oflow-income households include block gro u ps 208.02 (Mid-County) and 103.03 (Punta Gorda), with 33.4 percent and 31.9 percent, respectively. Map 1-7 shows the percentage of households with income less than $10,000. Existing Conditions 1 -1 4 May 13, 1996


Cbarloe County Transit Development P l an Table 1-8 Income Characteristics for Charlotte County Percentage with Census Block Group Ioeomes < $10,000 208 02 Mid-County 33.4% 103.03 Punta Gorda 31.9% 103.01 Punta Gorda 29.7% 207.01 Mid-County 25.7% I 03.04 Punta Gorda 23.1% 207 02 Mid-County 22.5% Existing Conditions 1-15 May 13 1996


Legend 0% to 10% 10 1 % to 20% 20. 1 "/oto 30% Over 300/o -:> r N 0 1 2 3 4 5 .... 0 1990 Percent Households with Annual Income Under $10 000 bv Cenaus Block TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN &1' 1-7 IM.OI ..... Lee Coum y CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUNTA GOIU>A ._-M.P.O.


Charlotte County T ra osil Develop ment Plan Vehicle Availability Table 1-9 shows the distribution of vehicle availability among households in Charlotte County and Florida In Charlotte County only 5 percent of households do not have an automobile available, much lower than the Florida average (9 percent). Table 1-10 lists the eight census block groups where more than I 0 percent of househol ds do no t have a vehicle available. Map 1-8 shows concentrations of households with no vehicles available by census block groups The two census block groups with more than 20 percent of households with no vehicle available are census block groups 207.oi (Mid-County and 103.oi (Punta Gorda), the same areas with concentrations oflow-income households. i\rea-< .. ,, Florida Table 1-9 Vehicle Availability O ':Vetii

r Legend Oto 10% 10.1% to 20% 20. I% to 300/o *-"'. ,... :.:" ..... . ,; ( ,_, . ... ( .: ... N t 0 1 2 3 4 5 G Ll 1990 Percent Households with No Vehicles Available Bv Census Block Grou ;t(' r ... , ,,, , ..ttlt.J f..,,J ,:) Jt,t f .. ee (',,ilf1U 1 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP 1-8 04/171% Fil-\1211 o.tW T'lf'dak,.()liwr A CHARLOTIE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Labor Force and Employment Characteristics This section describes various factors related to labor force and employment characteristics including a description of the labor force, employment densities, and work travel behavior. Labor Force Labor force statistics include data relating to the number or percentage of person in the labor force. The percentage of Charlotte County residents in the labor force ( 42.2 percent) is lower than for the state (60.4 percent). Table 1-11 displays the percentage of the population 16 years and older in the labor force and the percentage of the labor force who are employed (non military). The percentage of labor force employed is 95.5 percent, slighUy higher than the state average of94.2 percent. Table 1 -12 shows the two census block groups (204.01 in Mid-County and 101.01 in East County) where the percentage of the labor force in the total population is greater than 7 5 percent, indicating a larger number of employed residents. These labor force characteristics are not surprising given the large number of retirees residing in Charlotte County. Table 1-11 Labor Force Characteristics .... < .or. (: P e rceutage in Area 'Labor.oForce Labor Force Employed . ... ' Florida 60.4% 94.2% Charlotte County 42.2% 95.5% Table 1-12 Labor Force Characteristics by Census Block Group P'ercentage cif: .. h . f LaborFo.U ia ; _,,., ". .. Ceasois BlockGroup > " Total 204.01 Mid-County 80 .9% 101.01 East County 75.8% E1isting Cooditioos 1 -19 May 13,1996


Charlotte County T r ansi t Development Plan Employ ment D ensity Empl oyment density is a measure of the concentration of jobs. It shows where the jobs are loca t e d, rathe r than where the emp l oyees live. T able 1-13 shows the concentration of employment in Charlotte County by TAZ. As can be seen from the table and Map 1-9, most of the employment centers are located along the U.S. 41 corridor Table 1 -13 Employ m ent Density by T AZs with :. 5,000 Employee s per S quar e Mile oc:c ,. : .: '), <. '$ Density ... "> ..... {..,. . f" '_--,;... ., '' :; ', ( employees; pe r ' _.; ' t .... . d 284 Punta Gorda 15,685 230 Mid-Cou nty 9,545 1 9 8 Mid-Cou nty 8,978 293 Punta Gorda 8 333 189 Port Charlotte 7,951 177 Mid-County 7,856 299 Punta Gorda 7,457 296 Punta Gorda 6,842 292 Punta Gorda 5,933 301 Punta Gorda 5,611 From 1990 to 2020 emp loyment figures for Charlotte County are pro j ected to increase by 117.3 percent from 26,340 to 57,241, respectively. The employment dens ity is expected to increase from 38.1 employees per square mile in 1990 to 8 2.7 employees per square mi l e by 2020. South County is the fastest growing emp l oyment area, with an expected increase of 134 1 percent from 1990 to 2020. The employment growth rates for West and Mid-County are projected to be 12J.l percent and 49.5 percent, respectively (see Table 1-14). E x ist ing Con d iti o n s 1 2 0 May 13, 1 996


Legend 5 Employees per dot C' -r' . ,._. n v N \ 012345 1990 Employment Density Map ByTAZ .. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP 1-9 .. Lee C:ouutv CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


Charlott e County Transill>f:ve lopment Plan Tabl e 11 4 Projeded Employmen t Growth 1 99 0 t o 20 20 . West .. Mid -Co.i oty : S o u tb C ounty .. . .. .. c< : % .. .. .... > : %"& ,. ; % '; " 1990 . .-,. . 199 0 '2020 C baoge ,, <9 ""' Indus tri al 213 2,620 1 1 3 .0"/o 3,496 3,950 13.0"/o 2,289 6 ,596 1 8 8 .2% Emp loyment C ommercial 8 28 1 ,839 122.1% 5 ,157 11,636 125.4 % 5,343 11,711 119 .2% Employment S e rvice 977 2,097 114.6% 6,954 7,742 11.3% 1,083 2 097 93.6% Employment Total 2,018 4,461 121.1% 15,607 23,328 4 9. 5% 8,71 5 20,404 134.1 S ource: Based on da ta pr ovided by C harlotte C o unty-P unta Gorda MPO. The fas test growth in employment is expected to be in eornmercial areas (122.3 p ercent), followe d by industrial (109.6 percen t), and service employme n t (109 6 per cent). V e hicle Occupancy In the absence of any county vehicle occ u pancy data the F lo rida average occupancy rate from the 1990 Nat ionwide Personal Transportation Study (NPTS) is re f erence d The s e figures are generally used for local transportation modeling when loc a l data are not a v a ilab l e. The average veh icle occupancy for all trips in Flo rida i s 1.63 The average vehicle occ u pancy for trips to/from work i s 1 1 0 T able 1-15 shows the average vehicle occupancy b y trip for F l orida and the U nit e d States. T able 1 1 5 Average Vehicle O cc upan cy by Trip '> .. ''> : ', i 'soci.iiF\'+ I ' :F. "it 1 ., . I :. N ' "',, . . a m y .. '. .. '. : J' 1 1\H . 1;:' .l'oia L ;J ir.. ', < f'!h _.,,,,, _., Flori da 1.10 1.43 2 .85 1.61 1.63 United States 1.16 1.53 2.16 1.59 1.64 E xisti a g C o nd it i o n s 1-2 2 May 13,1 996


C h arlotte Cou nty Tra n sit Development Plan P lace of Work Table 11 6 shows work locations and the ext ent of inter-county commuting for Char l otte County residents as reported in C UTR's 993 Florida Demographics and Journey t o Wor k report. Eighty percent of the l abor force works in the county and 20 perce n t works outside the county. ' ,c.: ' ., .... Area. ,; ,. .. Char lotte County Tabl e 1 1 6 P lace of Work 'f"W k ' . the' t> orm County 80% 19"/o Source: CUTR. Florida Demographics and Journeylo Work (1993) Travel T i me to Work ';' 'Work O u ts i de Florid a 1% T able 1 17 presents the distribution o f traveltime to wor k for Charlotte County and Florida. The majority of Charlotte County res i dents have work trip commutes of less than 20 minutes. Only 22 percent of Charlotte residents have work trips of 30 minutes or more compared to 30 percent of Florida residents T able 1 18 shows the four census b lock groups with traveltime greater than 30 minutes. Map 1 -10 shows the concentrations of workers traveling more than 30 minutes T able 1-19 s h ows the mode of transportation used mos t often for work trips Area ,(1.9, m l n Florida 16% C harlotte County 18% Tabl e 1 17 T rav el Time t o Work . 10l 9 m ili T l0-19 m in 33% 21% 42% 18% Source: CUTR Florida Demographics and Journey ro Wor k (1993) Ellstln g Condition s 1 -23 '30-39 min 40+ min : ' 17% 13% 12% 10% May 13 1 996


Legend O%to 10% I 0.1% to 200/o 20. I% to 300/o 30.1% to 400/o 40. I% to 500/o over 50% 9 0 --.. '? <:' 0 N I """ :x.alia: 012345 .,.,, ...... .... 0 ..6 1990 Percent Workers with Travel Time to Work Over 30 Minutes bv Census Block TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP 1-10 ""' ...... IA:e Co untv : : : CHA.RLOTIE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Table 1-18 Travel Time by Census Block Group ;k ., '. .. .: Percentage witb . . :rravel1fime > 30iMin)ites 205.01 Mid-County 58.5% 205.02 Mid-County 52.7% 102.01 South-County 48.8% 205.03 Mid-County 42.4% Table 1-19 Mode of Travel to Work it.J\ '. 1'-' 'l'ubli F \ :r: Walkor W.Ork { f. Carpool! ,. >ol I W .. .-.t . l l tOtbef ;, ... al;Bo .oie' .: .,Ana,; 'tramp. -,_ Florida 77.1% 14. 1 % 2.00/o 2.0% 4.8% Charlotte County 80.5% 1 4.00/o 0.0% 1.2% 3.6% Transportation Disadvantaged Population Chapter 427 of the Florida Statues defines transportation disadvantaged persons as: ... those persons who because of physical or mental disability income status, or age are unable to transpon themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at risk as defmed in s. 411. 202. The Florida Coordinated Transportat i on System serves two population groups. The first group, potential transportation disadvantaged (also referred to as "TD Category 1 "), inc lud es persons who are disabled, elderly, low income, and children who are "high-risk" or "atrisk." These persons are el i gible for trips that are sponsored by social service or other governmental agencies. The second population group, transportation disadvantaged (also referred to as "TD Category II"), is a subse t of the TD Category I population. TD Category II includes those persons who are Eais11ng Conditions 1-25 May 13, 1996


Cborlotte County Tran..\it Development Plan transportation disadvantaged according to the deftnition in Chapter 427 F.S. (i.e., they are unable to transport themselves or to purc h as e transportation) These persons are eligible to receive the same subsidies as those in Category I, plus they are eligible to receive trips subsidized by the TD Trust Fund monies allocated to local community transportation coordinators (CTCs) by the F lorida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, as funding permits. Table l-20a shows CUTR's estimate of the number of persons in Charlotte County in the potential transportation disadvantaged population. This figure, 67,488, represents approximately 51.8 percent of the county's 1995 total population. Table l -20b shows CUTR's estimate of the number of persons who are transportation disadvantaged. CUTR estimates that 12,966 persons (9.9 percent of the county's 1995 total population) are transportation disadvantaged and therefore, would meet the eligibility criteria for receiving trips subsidized by the TO Trust F und. Persons in either of these TD categories may be heavily dependent on some form of public transportation Table 1-20a 1995 Poteotial TD Population (I'D Category I) ;; : >" .. ;:; ;. < 1 Disabled, Non-Elderly Low Income 414 Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income 4,087 Disabled, Elderly, Low Income 752 Disabled, Elderly Non-Low Income 13,175 Non-Disabled Elderly, Low Income 2,305 Non-Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income 40,381 Non-Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income 6,374 Total Potential Transportation Disadvantaged 67,488 1 1 0.6% 6 .1% 1.1% 19.5% 3.4% 59.8% 9.4% 100% Source: Estimates prepared using Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transportation Demand at the County Level (CUTR 1993). Existing Conditions 1-:16 May 13, 1996


Cbarlotte County Table 1-20b 1995 TD Popula ti on (TD Category II) "'" Popwaticin sigaieoai lo d u ded ' ' ' Transponation Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income 265 Transponation Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income 2 6 I 3 Transponacion Disabled, Elderly, Low Income 480 Transponation Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income 8 ,408 Non-Transponation Disabled, Low Income, No Auto, 1,200 No Fixed-Route Transit Total Transponation Disadvantaged 12,966 Transit Development Plan Percent 2,0% 20,2% 3,7% 64.8% 9..3% 100% Source: Estimates prepared using Methodology GuideUnes for Forecasting TD Transportation Demand ott he County Level (CUTR 1993). Tourists and Seasonal Residents Tourists visit Charlotte County during the winter (January-March) and summer (June-August). According to the Chamber of Commerce during the winter the average stay is 23.5 days and the median age (of the head of household) is 55. During the summer the average stay is 13.9 days and the median age (of the head of household) is 46. Forty-three percent of tourists stay with relatives or friends. Table 1 -21 and Map 1-1 I show the locations of hotel s and motels with more than 30 rooms. According to the Chamber of Commerce, about two-thirds of the tourists and seasonal residents rely on automobiles for transportation; about one-third rely on recreational vehicles. Although predominant l y populated by year-round residents, Charlotte County attracts many seasonal residents as well According to the Chamber of Commerce, seasonal residents add 7 percent to the population and typically stay in the area from one to four months. During some winter peak visitation periods the county population may increase by as much as 30 percent. Eslsllog Coodilloos 1-27 May 13,1996


Cbarlollt County Transit Development Plan Table 1-21 Hotels/Motels with > 30 Rooms .. ... . '' .', 7 ;,.it Loc:a : .. '. .. . o), -; -. ' Days Inn of Englewood State Road 776 East I Englewood Days Inn Port Charlotte 1941 Tamiami Trail/ Port Charlotte Days Inn Punta Gorda 26560 Jones Loop Road I Punta Gorda EconoLodge 4100 Tamiami Trail/ Punta Gorda Harbour Inn 5000 Tarniami Trail/ Charlotte Harbour Holiday Inn Punta Gorda 300 W. Retta Esplanade I Punta Gorda Howard Johnson's 33 Tamiarni Trail/ Punta Gorda Motel6 9300 Knights Drive I Punta Gorda Peace River Inn 1520 Tarniami Trail/ Port Charlotte Port Charlotte Motel 3491 Tarniami Trail/ Port Charlotte Quality Inn Downtown 3400 Tarniarni Trail/ Port Charlotte Sandpiper Motel 3291 Tarniami Trail/ Port Charlotte Sea Cave Motel 25000 E. Marion Avenue I Punta Gorda Veranda Inn of Englewood 2073 S. McCall Road I Englewood I Rooms .TAZ, 84 278 126 207 84 350 61 253 50 258 183 299 102 292 124 371 34 325 53 249 105 232 38 247 31 270 38 312 Source: Community Directory of Punta Gorda/Port Char/oue (September 1994-1995). Summary When compared to the average Florida resident, Charlotte County residents are more likely to be older, with almost half the county's population ( 48.8 percent) composed of persons age 55 or older. Household income and vehicle availability data suggest that the population is middle class, with lower percentages in the county than in the state at the opposite ends of the income and vehicle availability scales. Although the majority of workers in the county drive alone, when compared to statewide figures Charlotte County workers closely match CBipool!vanpool use profile. Existing Conditions 1-l8 May 13,1996


Legend C\ ,-> '? c .. \;._ ,..., 0 N t Downtown Punta Gorda Inset 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current Hotels/Motels With > 30 Rooms Bv TAZ lfAP 1-11 I.e

Cb rlotte County Tnnsit Developmtat Plan Land Use and Roadw ay C h aracte risti c s This section presents the general land use, parking supply and roadway charact eristics in Charlo tte County. Additional information regarding land use and transportation conditions was prepared by Tmdale-Oii v er and Associates, Inc. and presented as part of the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, adopted in December 1995. Land Us e In 1990 of the 451,000 acres com prising Charlotte County approximately 14,400 acres or 3 percent were developed for residential use. For the most part, Charlo tte County consists of Land areas designated as vacant plotted single family residential and agricultwal. The Future Land Use Elem en t for Charlotte County projects the number of acres in residential development will increase by 60 pe rcent to 23,000 acres by the year 20 I 0. The projected growth pattern represents continued population increases in the three concentrated areas of the county-Port Charlotte/Charlotte Harbor, Punta Gorda, and Englewood This future land use pattern with significant vacant and/or agricul tura l acreage is very similar t o the future land use profile for the state. In the future land use map developed for the state rural land use is the most commo n category followed (in order) by preserve, single-family estate multi family, military, commercial/o ffice industrial, and mining. Parking S u pply The supp l y of parking within the county bas not been a c ritical issue. Major service an d employ ment centers which include the Port Charlotte Town Cen ter the three major hospitals, and gove rnment f acilities, have adequa te parking However the parking supply is somewhat limited at the two county beach facilities. At Englewood Beach 255 parking spaces are available at a cost of$1.00 per day and at the Port C harlotte Beach Complex 277 parking spaces are available at a cost of25,t per hour. According t o the Charlotte County Recreation and Parks Department the demand for parking at these facilities exceeds the parking supply on most weekends during the winter tourist season EsistiD& Conditions 1-30 M1y 13,1996


Charlotte County Transi1 Development Plan Another area within the county where the supply of parking bas recently emerged as an issue is along the U.S. 41 access roads (Tam iami Trail) through Port Charlotte. Parking in the City of Punta Gorda is free and in general has not been a critical issue. In 1994, the City of Punta Gorda established an ordinance to increase the availability of short term parking by limiting on-street parking within the downtown area to two hours. Roadway Characteristics An inventory of the major road facilities in Charlotte County was compiled as a part of developing the 2020 Long Range Transportalion Plan. The inventory contains data regarding the existing and proposed configuration of the major roads in Charlotte County, including infonnation such as the existing number of lanes jurisdictional responsibility, current and projected traffic volume data, level of s ervice, and other information. Summary data of the coverage and condition of the major road network in 1994 is provided in Table 1-22. This table is a "report card" on the transportation system, summarizing pertinent information by jurisdictional responsibility. The me8SU(es summarized in this report card are based on the goals and objectives adopted by the MPO to guide the development of the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. In 1994, the major road network consisted of 418 centerline miles and 970 lane-miles of road. The database contains traffic volume data for approximately 93 percent of the system. In 1994, roadway operating conditions can be characterized as very good. Peak-hour travel on the road system was accommodated at an average level of saruration of 59 percent, where I 00 percent of saruration represents operation at the perfo rmance standard established for each road in the current adopted Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element. Only 12 percent of the peak hour vehicular travel occurs on roads that operate below the adopted performance standard. The majority of trave l, 57 percent, is accommodated on the State Road System. This is because much of the existing development patterns focus on U.S. 41 and S.R. 776, which form an "X" in the central portion of the County Widening U.S. 4I between S.R. 776 and the Peace River to six lanes has recently been completed, and S.R. 776 from the Sarasota County line to U.S. 41 is scheduled to be four-laned within the next four years. Existi11g Conditions 1-31 May 13, 1996


Charlotte County Transll Deve-lopment Plan Table 1-22 1994 Roadway Conditions "Report Card" . TotalSystem Slate System County Syste m City System Inventory 417.44 miles 97.58 miles 301.88 miles 17.98 miles Peak Hour Vehicle-Miles 266,053 150 ,594 109,546 5,913 of Tra vel (VMT) vehicle miles vehicle miles vehicle miles vehicle miles With LOS Data 387.41 miles 97.58 miles 274.22 miles 15.61 miles Percent Coverage 92.8% 100.0% 90.8% 86.8% Weighted Saturation ofVMT 0.580 0.663 0.477 0 369 Percent Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Served by Tran sit Sidewalks on Class i fied 34.79 miles 6.87 miles 19.8 miles 8.12 miles Roads Bicycle Facilities on 21.45 miles 0.27 miles 21.18 mil e s 0.0 miles Classified Roads Source : Tinda l e-Oiiver and Associates Inc., May 1995. N/ A 2 not available. Charlotte County also has several major road improvements scheduled within its capital program. In Mid-County the extension ofEI Jobean Road and the four-laning of Harbor Boulevard are scheduled; in West County the four-laning of Pine Street and portions of County Road 775, and development of the Wimbledon/Winchester corridor also are scheduled. In 1 994, bicycle facilities were provided on 5 percent of the major road system, and sidewalks were provided on approximately 10 percent. Both of these facilities are lacking in Charlotte County. As part of developing the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, an evaluation of2005 land uses on the planned 2005 road network was undertaken This evaluation indicated that no significant congestion i s expected through 2005, either. Growth and fmancing trends indicated that travel demands will grow at a faster rate than capacity will be added to the system. Thus, congestion will increase; however, the road system is relatively uncongested now and the growth can be accommodated. Existing Conditions 1-32 May 13 1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Map 1-12 shows the level of service on major roads in 1994, Map 1-13 shows bicycle facilities, and Map 1-14 shows pedestrian facilities on major roads Summary Current and projected land use in Charlotte County reflects the continuing influence of low density populat ion, housing, and employment areas as well as the large amount of agricultural land. Future development and growth along U.S. 41 and in Englewood is predicted. Although there are a few problem areas for the most pan parking is not a critical issue for Charlotte County. There are limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Roadway conditions in Charlotte County are characterized as being "very good with few problem areas. Furure growth is not expected to create a great deal of added congestion. Esistiog Conditions 1-33 May 13,1996


Legend LOSA,B,C LOSD LOSE = LOSF 0 -::. &.. '? "" ,> .... r. N 1 012345 1994 Level of Service on Major Road Network C oum y flii MOS ... lr'lt. lRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I CHARLOTTE COUNTY-MAP 1-12 04118196 PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


, ( '01""' I -'"-;--.., .>. '. ( I 'Lt . L -L. Legend -No B icycle Lanes B icycle Lane I nrr---:::::::r=:=rr= _ --C> .,:. _.. ---:. .. '-"' ..;:.. .... 0 \: -'-..., /7;; 0 --..... ] f--.r ' t \ -_.,. ---' ,,.,.../'\: .... -Y.:'X:;-. I \ \ I .... .,.. .... \ ' ''"l \ ''"\ \ U N t Downtown Punta Gorda Inset 0 1 2 3 4 5 \ I / / Lee ( 'cJ/11111 . \ ... -Bicy c le Facilities on Major R oad Network TRANSITDEVELOPMENTPLAN I CHARWJTECOUNTYM p 0 IW' 1-13 04 / 1 7196 PUNTA GORD A


_ I L:.f> Legend No Pedestrian Facilities ---\J .. -P edestrian Facitilities l -_ .... .. :., -,.,..--,/ -:> z .... '=). ; 0 \ \ N ,, \ ', ..._ .... .... ....... ... -... \ '', .. / / }, "'-. \ '\ Downtown Punta Gorda Inset \ ', 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lee C ounty """' Pedestrian Fa c ilities on Major Road Network TRANSIT DEVEWPMENT PLAN C HARLOTTE COUNTYM p 0 MAP 1 -14 04117/96 PUNTA GORDA


Charlotlt County Transit Development Plan Major Trip Attractors and Generators When analyzing the potential for developing a public transit system, it is important to look at the spatial distribution of major trip and generators. These areas usually attract a large number of people, resulting in a concentration of trips, which is more conducive to public transit use Five categories of trip attractors and generators were identified for Charlotte County: Shopping centers Medical facilities Government offices and social service agencies Public schools and colleges Area attractions The locations of these activities centers have been plotted on T AZ maps for ease in identifying concentration of origins and destinations that might suggest corridors conducive for public transit. The tables and maps are grouped at the end of the text descriptions. Shopping Centers As shown in Table l-23 and Map l-15, there are 18 retail shopping areas in Charlotte County. In addition to attracting shoppers, retail centers also attract employees. Hence, these types of facilities generate considerable transportation needs. Most are located along Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41). Health Care Facilities Health care facilities, including hospitals and clinics, also serve as significant trip generators for employees as well as clients. As shown in Table l-24 and Map 1 -16, in Charlotte County there are seven major hospitals and clinics, including three hospitals three clinics run by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and one mental health clinic. In addition to the facilities listed, there is a concentration of health care centers located along Harbor Boulevard and Olean Boulevard, in the Promenades area, and along Tamiami TraiVU .S. 41 i n Port Charlotte, and along U.S. 17 in the City of Punta Gorda. Existing Conditions 1-37 May 13,19%


Charlotte County Tran s it Developmen t Plan Government Offices and Social Service Agencies A variety of government office s and social services agencies are located in Charlotte County. Although many base offices are located in Punta Gorda, as shown in Table 1-25 and Map 1-17, many offices also are scattered throughout the county. Schools and Colleges Schools and colleges also can be significant traffic generators both for the students who attend them as well as for the teachers and staff who work there. Table 1 26 and Map 1-18 show the locations of schools and colleges in the county. A new campus for Edison Community College is being built at 26000 Airport Road in TAZ 333, and is scheduled to open in Falll996. By the nature of their pupil cachement areas, most p u blic schools are scattered throughout the county. Area Attractions In addition to the many beaches and parks located throughout the area, Charl otte County offers more than a dozen recreational destinations that appeal both to young and old. Table 1-27 and Map 1-19 show the locations of the major attractions located in Charlotte County. Summary The d e v e lopment pattern of Charlotte County generally follows along U.S. 41 corridor. The Port Charlotte/Murdock and Punta Gorda areas serve as commercial anchors with a high concentration of generators and attractors. Also, these areas have the highest population densities in the county. In some areas the commercial development along U S 41 is located along the access roads. Areas where this condition is present would require further analysis as it r e lates to accessibility for public transportation. Medical, government, and social service agencies are concentrated in the same areas. Educational facilities and area attractions are more dispersed throughout the county. Given the population, public transportation t o these facilities may be a lower priority as compared to those mentioned above The demographics and trip attractors in the two concentrated areas (Port Charlotte/Murdock and Punta Gorda) may provide an opportunity for some form of public transportation (e g. community bus/circulator or shuttle service). Existing Condition' 1-38 May 13,1996


Charlotte Coun ty Fatlli_IY . Burnt Store Plaza Charlotte Square Shopping Center '. Fisherman's Village Hamor Square shopping Center Merchant s Crossing of Englewo od Murdock's Carrousel Shopping Center Peachland Promenades Pott Charlotte Recail Center Pon Charlotte Town Center Promenades Mall Punta Gorda Mall Rotonda Plaza S c hool House Square Cross Trail Shopping Center Super Wal-Man Center Village Market P1a. ce Shopping Cent er Wal-Man Winn-Dixie Marketplace & Food Pavilion Transit Development Plan Table 1 -23 S h opping Cen ters Location 3941 Tamiami Trail/ Punto Gorda 2200 Tarniami Trail/ Pon Charlotte 1200 W. Rena Road/Punto Gorda 4200 Tamiami Trail/ Charlotte Hamor I 500 Placida Road I Englewood 2000 Tarniami Trail/ Pon Charlotte 24123 Peachland Boulevard I Pon Charlotte 1400 Tamiarni Trail/ Pott Charlotte 1441 Tamiarni Trail/ Pon Charlotte 3280 Tamiarni Trail/ Pon Charlotte 133 Tarniarni Trail /Punta Gorda Placida Road & Rotonda Boulevard West I Rotonda West 4300 Kings Highway I Charlotte Harbor Cross Stree t I Punca Gorda U .S. 41 & Murdock Center I Pon Charlotte 1825 Tarniami Trail/ Pon Charlotte 2931 S. McCall Road (S.R. 776) I Englewo od S .R.766 & Sunnybrook Boulevard I Englewood TAZ 377 203 317 253 295 203 181 184 189 230 292 346 258 3 1 5 190 198 303 283 Source: Community Directory of Punta Gorda/Port Charlotte (September 1994 -1995). Existi n g Couditioos 1 -39 May 13 1996


Charlotte Coun ty TTansit Development Plan Tabl e 1-24 Healtb Care Facilities ; ) 'acilitr. < ,, .. I { , cE J:.Oeadon i' ,, ,., ... Bon Sccoun -SL Joseph Hospila l 2SOO Harbor Boulevard I Port Char l otte Charlotte Regional Medical Center Hospital 809 E Marion A venue I Punra Gorda Englewood Health Care Center II II D avry Lane/ Englewood Fawcett Memorial Hospital 21298 Olean Boulevard I Port Charlotte Florida Dept of H ealth & Rehabilirative Services I 514 E. Grace Stree t /Punta Gorda Clinic Florida Dept. of H ealth & Rehabi l ita tiv e Services I 6868 San Casa Boulevard I Englewood En gl ewood C linie Florida DepL of Health & Rehabilita t ive Services I 2380 Harbor Boulevard I Port Charlotte Primary Care Clinic Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative 1105 Taylor Road I Punta Gorda Program Administration Inter-Medic 288S Tamiarni Trai l / Port Charlotte Ind ependen t Home Health Services 4300 Kings Highway I Port Charlotte Life Care Center of Punta Gorda 450 Shreve Street I Punta Gorda Menial Health Services, Inc. of Char lone County I 700 Education A venue I Punta Gord a Palmview Health Care Center 25325 Rampart Boulevard I Port Charlotte Port Charlotte Care Ccncer 4033 Beaver Lane I Pon Charlone Senior Health Cen t e r of Punta Gorda 1401 Tamiarni Trail /Punta Gorda South Port Square 2 3033 Westehester Boulevard I Port Charlotte Source: Community Directory of Punta Gorda/Port Char/one (September 1994-1995). Existing CoaditloD5 1-40 TAZ 249 284 278 226 316 329 226 325 233 250 324 326 219 253 321 253 May 13,19%


Charlotte County Tra n sit De\elopment Plan Table 1 25 Government Offices and Social Sen-icc Agencies '. "" b : FadUty ' Location t" TAZ . . . . Charlotte County Administralion Center 18400 Murdock Circle/ Port Charlotte 193 Charlotte County Cooperative Extension Servic e 6900 Florida Street/ Punta Gorda 300 Charlotte County Council on Aging & 22 1 19 Elmira Boulevard/ Port Charlotte 253 Retired Senior Volunteer Program Charlotte County Courthouse 118 W Olympia Avenue I Punta Gorda 296 CharlOtte County Englewood Annex 6868 San Casa Boulevard I Englewood 329 Charlotte County Public Wori

Char l otte County 'Ficilily .. Adult & Community Education Charlotte Vocationa l T echnical Center Edison Community College Charlotte Senior High School Lemon Bay High School Port Char lotte Senior High School L A Ainger Middle School Murdock Middle Schoo l Port Charlotte Middle Schoo l Punta Gorda Middle School 1 Baker Elementary School Charlotte Harbor School Deep Creek Elementary School East Elementary School Liberty Elem entary School Meadow Park Elementary School Myakka River Elementary School Neil A Armstrong Elementary School New Cha llenge School of Charlotte County Pea ce River Eleme ntary Scho ol Salli e Jones Elementary School Vineland Elementary School Trtl n sit Development Plan Table 1-26 School$ a n d Colleges .: Location 2280 Aaron Street I Port Charlotte 18300 Toledo Blade B oulevard I Port Charlotte 2511 Vasco Street/ Punta Gorda 1250 Cooper Stree t I Punta Gorda 220 I Placida Road I Englewood 18200 Toledo Blade Boulevard NW I Port Charlotte 245 Concord Road I Ro t onda West 17325 Mariner Way I Port Ch arlotte 23000 Midway Boulevard I Port Charlo tt e 825 Carmalita Street I Punta Gorda 311 E. Charlotte Avenue / Punta Gord a 22450 Hancock Avenue I Port Charlotte 26900 Harborview Road I Port Charlotte 27050 N Fairway Drive/ Punta Gorda 370 Atwat er Street I Port Charlotte 3131 Lakeview Boulevard I Port Charlotte 12650 Wilmington Boulevard I Englewood 22100 Breezcswept A venue/ Port Charlotte 16529 Juppa Avenue/ Port Charlotte 22400 Hancock A venue NW I Charlott e Harbor 1221 CooperStreet/PuntaGorda 467 B o undary Boule vard / R o tonda W e st TAZ 226 193 343 326 312 197 346 213 191 326 309 253 219 288 166 242 282 202 212 253 316 346 Source: Community Directory o f Punta Gorda/Port Charlotte (September 1994-1995). Existi n g Con d i tio n s 1-42 May 1 3 ,1996


Charlotte County .... ' FaeiUty Babcock Wilderness Adventure Boca Grande State Park Charlone County Airport Ch.arlotte County Speedway CharlOtte County Stadium Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center Cinema 8 Theaters Cobb Englewood Beach Englewood Charlotte Public library Englewood Youth Sports Complex Gilchrist Park Harbour Heights Park laishley Park Memorial Auditorium Civ i c Center Murdock Public library Museum of Charlotte County Pon Charlotte Beach/Beach Complex Port Charlotte Public library Port Charlotte Cultural Center Punta Gorda Publ i c Library Tringali Community Center Tran.slt Development Plan Table 1-27 Area Attractions LocatiOn 8000 S.R. 31 I Punta Gorda Gasparilla Island /lee County 28000 Airport Road I Punta Gorda 8655 Piper Road I Punta Gorda 2300 El Jobean I Port Charlotte I 0941 S Burnt Stone Road I Punta Gorda 19190 Toledo Blade Boulevard I Pon Charlotte Beach Road I Englewood 3450 McCall Road I Englewood San Casa Boulevard I Englewood W. Retia Esplanade I Punta Gorda N San Marino Drive I Charlotte Harbour E. Marion A venue I Punta Gorda 15 Taylor Street I Punta Gorda 18400 Murdock Circle I Pon Charlotte 260 W. Rena Esplanade I Punta Gorda 4500 Harbor Boulevard I Pon Charlotte 2280 Aaron Street I Port Charlotte 2280 Aaron Street I Port Charlotte 424 W. Henry Street I Punta Gorda 6900 Pennell Street I Englewood TAZ 359 401 337 354 214 397 195 314 279 334 308 221 290 292 193 299 259 226 226 321 279 Source: Community Directory of Puma Gorda/Port Charlotte (Sep t embet 1994-1995). E1istlng Coaditioas 1 -43 May 13, 1996


Legend .6 PoU>IS ( -:;., N t 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current Shopping Centers TAZ TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAP 1-15 l .ee ( ou/111' CHARLOTTE COUNTYPUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


C> <::.---9-. r. .,_ r. -=., N D o wnl o wn Punla Gorda Jnsel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current Health Care Facilit ies ByTAZ TRANSIT OEVELOPME!rr PLAN MAP 1-1 6 Cmmtr CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


Legend t... ,.,.., .............. _... C< 0 r . ,.. <' 0 N t 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current G o vernment Offices And Social Service Aaencles Bv T AZ Punta Inset TRAN SIT DEVEWPMENT PLAN )lAP 1-17 I .e<: C o unt v CHARLOTIE COUNTY PUNTAGORDA M.P.O.


I Legend 1!l Mtic Schools ...t Colkp \? C\ -<;o.. -.-. <:> -,.., -:; N t Iff D o wntown Punta Gorda Inset 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current Public School s And Colleges By TAZ TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN !lAP 1-1 8 .... i" \ \ Coumy .._n ..,. oe-C HARLOITE COUNTY PUNTA GORD A M P .O.


Legend ---'\"--l\,...--.._.,... .......... C) .,.. - :;(. r-. ;. ':> N f-. F l Downtown Punta Gorda 0123451/ l .e l! Counfv ......... Current Area Attra ctions ByTAZ nANSIT DEVELOPMEI'IT PLAN I CHAJU.OTTE COUNTI. M p 0 MAP 1-19 04117/96 PUNTA GORD A


PART2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Meaningful public involvement i s an important aspect of data collection and interpretation As part of the Transit Development Plan (TOP), CUTR developed a Public Involvement Plan to ensure that the public was included in the process from the very beginning. In Part 2, the results of two major components of the Public Involvement Plan are described: (I) interviews with key local officials and (2) the citizen telephone surve y Additional community workshops were held during February and March 1996, which are described in Part 6 and Techni cal Memorandwn No. 5


Charlotte Count)' Transit IUvelopmeot Plan Interviews with Key Local Officials An essential element of preparing a Transit Development Plan is the examination of community . perception and opinion regarding the potential for public transportation. The community's view of transit can provide insight into identifying local mobility needs, policy priorities, and potential funding sources. Such perceptions will be used to fonn the basis of agency goals and objectives. Interviews with key local officials and community leaders are an important part of this public involvement process. The manner in which community leaders view the system can strongly influence policy formulation that i s related to tran. sit and other transportation issues. The Public Involvement Plan, prepared by CUTR, identified key local officials and community leaders to interview. In September 1995, CUTR conducted a total of 10 interviews with ind ividuals representing a cross section oflocal interests, which included social services, local government, the business community, and elected officials This section summarizes the results of those interviews. Their perceptions of current conditions, interest in public transportation, potential funding sources, suggestions and alternatives, and other transportation-related issues are discussed in the following synopsis. The discussion guide that was used in interviewing the key local officials is included in Figure 2. Perceptions of Current Conditions The comment most consistently expressed by those interviewed was that there are local mobility needs that require assessment and improvement Some people, especially the elderly, cannot afford to drive or cannot drive because of health or age. Besides taxis, there are no other forms of public transportation service available in Charlotte County. Some elderly who cannot drive at night are also dependent upon taxis or other people for transportation In !992, a survey of senior priorities conducted by Our Charlotte Elder Affairs Network (OCEAN), 72 percent of the elderly reported that (medical) transportation was their first need, topping all other priorities. At present, the only choice for those who cannot drive is taking taxieabs or depending on others to drive them. At the same time, respondents expressed Public Involvement :Z..I May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Deve lopmtDt Plan concerns about safety and taxi fares. Further, there is limited taxi availability for persons who are disabled. For the most part, development in Charlotte County is scattered, resulting in low density There are no central business areas, no suburban areas, no downtowns, and it is an automobile-driven community. Charlotte County has developed in a circular pattern, with few sidewalks and no bypasses. The only areas that have sidewalks are the center of Punta Gorda and the mid-town area of Port Charlotte. According to those interviewed, everything has to do with driving. During the 1980s, Charlotte County grew by 80 to 90 percent. The growth has slowed considerably in the 1990s; now about 3 percent annual growth, with I ,000 new houses added each year. Mid-County receives the bulk of population growth. South County is the slowest growing area. The County was over-platted in the past with a large number of vacant lots-250,000 to 300 000--scattered over 215 square miles. Residential development is primarily along major roads such as U.S. 41, S.R. 776, and South Gulf Coast, as well as along waterways. Commercial development and shopping centers have been concentrated in Murdock and also scattered in Englewood. Charlotte County represents the ultimate service economy, of which only I percent is industrial and most is retail. The healthiest business area noted is in Venice (which is in Sarasota County). According to pu])lic officials West County continues to open some industrial areas, Mid-County is the most residential area, and South County will have wide industrial development. According to those interviewed, future development will be in South County rather than downtown Punta Gorda. Respondents generally agreed that traffic congestion is not a prob lem in Charlotte County compared with other communities. However, some traffic can be found on U.S. 41 S.R. 776, in downtown Punta Gorda, and on the roads to the beaches Seasonal visitors have some impact on the congestion. Another factor causing traffic is that the elderly are more likely to drive slowly. In five years, there will be a four-lane road from Englewood to Murdock. U.S. 41 recently had two lanes added, for a total of six lanes. These efforts will help reduce traffic congestion. Parking is somewh a t problematic, depending on how convenient it is expected to be. Some interviewees stated there is no parking problem. Others pointed out that parking is difficult at the court house in Punta Gorda, along U.S. 41 at strip malls, the Port Charlotte Cultural Center, and some areas at the beaches Public Involvement May 13, 1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan A. Where We Are Figure2-1 Interview Guide I How much interest in and support for transit is there in the community? Have the l evels of interest and suppOrt changed in the last two years? 2. What is your perception of transit's potential role in the community? 3. Are there community needs that could be met by transit? Are those needs being communicated? How? 4. Is traffic congestion a problem in_ Charlotte County? If so, what role might transit play in alleviating this problem? 5. Is there a parking problem in Punta Gorda or elsewhere in the county? B. Wbere We Want to Be 6. What goals have the community and elected officials voiced for transportation i n the county ? What do you see as appropriate goals for a transit system? 7. How could a transit system best meet community needs? 8. If a transit system were to be established, what fare would you suggest? 9. What is happening in Charlotte County in terms of residential and commercial development? How much? Where? Does this development suggest a need for transit that did not previously exist? I 0. What groups would be most likely to use transit service? I I. Is there a willingness in the community to consider additional local funding sources to support a transit system? If so, what type of funding methods? 12. Are there policies that should be changed to help support a transit system? C. Summary 13. In your opinion, is there a need for public transportation in Charlotte County? 14. If a transit system were to be started, what areas of the county should it serve first? Public Involvement 2-3 May 13,1996


Charloe County Transit Development Plan Interest in Public Transportation Most of those interviewed maintained that interest in a transit system is widespread and the community has become more interested in the past two years. The biggest concern is for the elderly who are dependent upon transportation service because of age and health problems. Public transit could take the elderly shopping, to medical appointments, and to social activities. Concern for the mobility needs of young people also was expressed by some interviewees. The students of Charlotte High School did a survey in July 1995 and presented the results to the County. This survey of high school students found that teenagers would use public transportation to go to youth recreation areas, beaches, etc. Most of the social service officials pointed out that there is a problem communicating the public transportation needs. One respondent from a social service agency, stated how difficult it is to communicate when nobody listens to them. Those who do not have transportation cannot speak up about their needs because they do not have a car to get to forums in which they could be addressed. In spite of the interest in public transportation expressed by those interviewed, many issues were identified that would need to be addressed in more detail. Some interviewees contended that the layout of the county makes transit a difficult issue There is a large rural area. Both residential and commercial areas are scattered. It would be difficult to determine public transit routes because multiple origins and destinations are hard to serve. Most people are independent; as long as they have their own vehicles, they are not willing to use transit. Some public officials said only certain groups of people would use buses In Charlotte County those specific groups include the elderly, persons who are disabled, the low-income workers, and teenagers who are too young or do not have access to a vehicle. They said the community needs could not be met by transit completely. It is almost impossible for some elderly to walk two to three blocks in the summer sun. Some of those interviewed contended that public transportation is only a supplement for persons with low incomes, persons who are disabled, and the elderly-not the complete answer. Finally, for some people, the lack of transportation is considered to be "(an)other's problem. Public Involv ement May 13,1996


Charlotte County Traosit Development Plan Potential Funding Sources A key issue that needs to be considered to establish a successful transit system is that it should be financially feasible. The problem is that there is a need in the community to be addressed, without spending a lot of money. Funding is a major factor inhibiting the establishment of a transit system in Charlotte County. Most of the public officials interviewed said there would be no local means to subs idize public transportation. Fares cover only about 20 percent of the total cost; the remaining 80 percent of the cost would be subsidized from taxes, and it would be impossible to afford that level of support. Some interviewees stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) should subsidize transit because local funding would be problematic. Others suggested that if the community recognized the need, they would support transit. People would vote for a plan if they saw the benefits. Recently the voters passed a four-year, one cent sales tax to build a jail and a court house. One social service representative commented, "Local funding is possible if people can be shown what they are getting for their money. For example, if voters were to pass a one penny sales tax, the fare would drop from $1.00 to 50 cents. They see the difference, and they would be willing to fund it." It is interesting to note that most of the elected officials were more concerned with fmancial feasibility and affordability, while soc ial service officials maintained there is a local willingness to fund a public transit system if the community is shown what they are getting for their money. Suggestions and Alternatives Those interviewed proposed a number of public transportation alternatives. A transit system should be flexible, responsive, and provide sufficient coverage. For instance, a large van or a minibus could combine trips more efficiently. Because a large percentage of people who need public transportation are elderly, their specific expectation should be considered. The goal is to provide affordable transit, clearly addressing the needs of the elderly. Most elderly want door-to door paratransit service. An ideal transit system would go to people's homes. One public official suggested that Charlotte County can learn from other successful transit systems. For example, the "commuter computer" in Oregon is a rider response system that Public Involvement 2-5 May 13,1996


Charlotte County T ransit Development Plan provides better commun i cation and coordination. Some respondents said Charlotte County could consider combining with Sarasota and Fort Myers as an extension of their public transit systems, which would be more cost-efficient. Others stated that we need to learn from the failure of the trolley. There are no houses near U.S. 41, and people needed to be transported to the trolley. To be successful, the transit system needs to be accessible. Finally, one person suggested that the County could consider using mini-buses instead of 40-foot transit buses and also should consider using school buses. Several interviewees stated that policies need to coordinate available resources, with consideration of cost for transportation miles One respondent said that there could be better use made of the TOTE (Transportation of the Elderly) program, provided by the Cultural Center. Public transit could be combined with taXicabs and TOTE together to promote utilization of those services. Some interviewees suggested that transit could be sold as a future benefit that could attract more people to the county. In addition, the goal should be to promote zoning and neighborhood accessibility to transportation. A public transit system should be focused, combined with taxi service, serving main bus lines. It also should get the private sector involved. Policies should be changed to be easily accessed and understood. One concern was that some roadways are not suitable for big buses, but maybe for smaller buses. In addition, bike paths and sidewalks should be considered together with public transportation planning Another problem is how to decide the routes. The general consensus was that people would use transit in housing areas with a concentration of seniors The bus could go from Punta Gorda to Port Charlotte and Murdock, and possibly Englewood. Suggested bus routes include Tarniami Trail, Harborview, and Kings Highway. The Venice business district, county court house, and the Port Charlotte Cultural Center could be bus stops There are a lot of people working in Murdock, but not many who would use transit. It was also suggested that particu lar routes would not need to be provided every day. Perhaps vehicles could be alternated between two routes. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday for one route, and Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday for another. In this way, neighbors could get together to go shopping, see doctors, etc. Also, fares should not be too high. Often, raising fares results in losing customers. Respondents suggested a fare ranging from 25 to $2.00. A lower rate for senior citizens also was proposed PubUt Involvement May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit De\elopment Plan Other Traosportatioo-Related Issues Most of the elected offic i als interviewed felt that the transportation disadvantaged program works well in Chat:lotte County. The riders seem happy with the system, although the new $!.00 co-pay required by Medicaid is some:what of a problem and is complained about lD transportation is not a very visible issue before the Board of County Commissioners. The only time it was really an issue was when there were threats of cutting the budget and/or service. Most of the social service officials said that not many of their clients know about the TD program and few of them use it. Hurricane evacuation routes are a big concern for some of those interv i ewed and perceived as a serious problem especially in West County where the land is very low There are also no hurricane shelters in the County. The big problem is the elderly and people living in nursing homes. There should be p l ans that care givers could follow to deal with people on medication during hurricane evacuations. Other suggested goals include improving intermodal access to industrial areas in South County, having road perspectives to expect potential growth, and building bike paths and sidewalks around school areas. Summary The general consensus of those interviewed was that there is a widespread community need for some type of public transportation in Chat:lotte County. A large proportion of potential transit users would be the elderly persons who are disabled, low-income workers, and teenagers. Most of the interviewees thought funding would be a major problem in establishing a public transit system. To be successful the IDP should coordinare available resources to clearly address the needs of the community. Factors of the most concern include development patterns travel behaviors, and income characteristics. More information on local funding and cost/benefit analysis is needed There were many suggestions provided by those respondents as alternatives of the traditional fixed-route transit system. Foremost were the suggestions to make public transit an accessible, efficient, and financially feasible means of transportation for the county. Public Involvement l-7 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Citizen Telephone Survey The Charlotte County citizen telephone survey was designed to coll ect information on current travel habits of citizens interest in pub li c transportation, preferred system characteristics for a public transportation system, priorities for transportation in the community, and willingness to fund public transportation A summary of the survey results is provided in Appendix A. Survey Methodology The survey was administered by the Marketing Department at the University of South Florida, in conjunction with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) A random list of registered voters was developed by the Supervisor of Elections of Charlotte County; of this list 714 individuals were contacted by phone in June 1995. Of the 714 persons contacted, 272 persons declined to answer the survey, 3 7 were not available, and 405 completed the telephone survey For the 405 interviews that were completed, the data was entered directly into a spreadsheet by the interviewers. The verified data were then reviewed and analyzed using a microcomputer version of a statistical package known as Stat i stical A p plication Software (SAS). A completed survey was not a requirement to be included in the survey results. All completed questions were included in the analysis, regardless of whether the entire survey was completed. However, most surveys were completed. The sample represents 0.5 percent of the target population, Charlotte County registered voters. The accuracy level for results in this survey is plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. Survey Analysis The analysis of selected questions is included in the following section. A copy of the survey instrument and response results from all questions are included in Appendix A, with attachments listing all responses to open-ended questions. In addition, selected cross tabulations for seven questions are contained in Appendix B Public Javolvement 2-8 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Develop ment Plan The following analysis is separated into five different sections re l ated to (1) curre nt travel habits (2) interest in public transportation, (3) preferred system characteristics for a p u blic transportation system, (4) priorities for all transportation in the community and (5) willingness to fund public transportation ReSPonses were weighted for age gender, and region of the County in order to adjust for differences in these characteristics from the total population of registered voters to the sample that was taken for this survey For example, the voter-registration roles indicated that 53.2 percent of registered voters live in Mid-County, 23 6 percent in South County, and 23.2 percent in the West County. However, the sample distribution (of the 405 individuals who answered the telephone survey) is 58.8 percent in Mid County, 35. 6 percent in South County, and 5 7 percent in West County. Because West County was under repr esented in the sample and South County was over represented, the sample was adjusted for this analysis by weighting more heavily the responses of individuals from West County. Where possible results from this telephone survey were compared to resu lts of similar questions asked in a Charlotte County transit survey that was conducted in 1981 by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan Inc. Public Involvement l 9 May 13,1996


ChJorlotte County T ransit Development Plan Public Involv ement 2-10 May 13,1996


Cborlotte Coaoty Tnnsit Deve.lopment P lan Figure2-2 Q4. How do you u sually travel l ocally? Drive Alone CarpooWanpool Taxi 0% 20% 60% 80% 100% N=404 To determine the use of different transportation modes in Charlotte County, respondents were asked to report the mode of trav e l that they have used locall y more than 50 percent of the time during the past six months Figure 2-2 shows that the large majority of the respondents 92 6 percent, usually drive alone when traveling locally This result is somewhat higher than the 80.5 percent of persons who drive to work alone as reported by U.S. Cehsus. Publle: l_avolvemeat l-11 Ma y 1 3, 1996


Charlotte County Tran.slt Development Plan Figure2-3 Q8. Have you ever used a taxi in Charlotte County? Yes. In PastS Mon th s Yes, In Past Year Yes, In Past3 Years No 0% 20% 60% 80% 100% N=404 Figure 2-3 represents the response to whether respondents have ever used a taxi in Charlotte County. A large majority, 81.5 percent, have not used a taxi in Charlotte County in the past three years. The swvey question asked about travel within Charlotte County so as to exclude travel to and from an airport outside of the county that provides scheduled airline service. Public Iavolvemeot 2-12 May 13,1996


Charlotte: County Tra nsit Plan FigureZ-4 Q9. On average, bow many taxi trips do you take per month? 0 1. 4 5-9 10+ 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% N=75 Those who responded positively to taking a taxi in Charlotte County in the past three years (75 out of 405 respondents) were also asked how many taxi trips they took per month. Figure 2-4 shows that 42.0 percent of respondents to Question No. 9 did not use a taxi in the past month. An additional45.8 percent reported that they use taxis one to four times per month. Only 3.2 percent reported using a taxi fairly frequently (I 0 or more times in the past month). Public Involvement 2-13 May 13, 1996


Charlotte CouDty Transi t D evelopmen t Plan Public Involvement 2-14 May 13,1996


Charlotte County TraD$11 Development Plan Figure 2-S Q6. When you did use public transportation services in anotber community was it a service that you would like to see here in Charlotte County? Yes No Not Sure/No Opinion 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N =202 Figure 2-5 shows the responses to Question No. 6 of the survey. This question is a follow-up question to Question No. 5, which asked whether respondents bad ever used a bu s system in another community All persons who answered yes to Question No. 5 (50.1 percent or 202 out of 405) were asked to answer Question No .6. The figure shows that 74.5 percent of these respondents answered that they would like to see a service like what they had used in another community. PubUe Invol v ement l-15 May 13, 1996


Cbarlo e County Transit Development Plan Figure2-6 QlO. In thinking about local bus service in Charlotte County, bow important do you feel this service would be to you or your family? Vry lmportln t Important Unlmponant Vry UnlmpotUn.l o.o% 20.0% 40.0" eo.K ao.O% 100.0% N"'404 Question No. I 0 asked respondents how important they thought local bus service would be to them or their families Figure 2-6 shows that 45.8 percent of respondents thought that bus service was either important or very important. More than half (54.2 percent) thought local bus service was unimportant of very unimportant. Public (Dvolvement l-16 May 13 1996


Cbarlotte County Transit Developme n t Plan Figure 2-7 Qll. If local bus service were available in Charlotte County, would you or any member of your household use it? Yes Maybe No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N>=404 In addition to asking if transit would be important to their families, respondents were asked whether they would use bus service if i t were available in Charlotte County. Figure 2-7 shows that 59.7 percent of all respondents indicated that they or members of their house hold would or maybe would use bus service if it were available. A similar question was asked in the 1981 Charlotte County transit survey. That question asked, "If bus service were available, would you or any member of your household use it?" Possible responses to this question were "yes" and 'no," with results of 62 9 percent an d 37 .I percent respectively This proportional result is similar to the 1995 survey if the responses to "maybe" were combined with the responses to Public I nvo lve me nt 2-17 May 13,1996


CbarloHe County Public Involvement Transit Development Plan >/;i<..-"1; .,_ .. <_.,.. .. ql--. _-,.";t.: ,L "'--:" ;, 1 , :: -,t" *'-. - __ ---,.,. "' ... -;,.., ';:--.: ;.,:', questio!IS.reJl!!edto .., ,;<: !llus :or-: '"' :::;;;. >' _,._,;!(;.;, it .-,_ . .-._ ?tiee;:and:fares.t!n ta1ldition; those:respondents(-WbtF '.f,; ..., ; .. -l>:: :,. ':' .. >-_ ;--,._ stateq "'1'- ' ' '> <1:)$ serViceJ fit weie: availilile were asked to predic:t for .-. -. >_ l . .. :-..)' ; __, _;.-: -: 2-18 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Figure2-8 Qll. For what type of trips would you use the bu.s? (Check aU that apply.) Shopping Medical AppiS. Recreation Work School 0.0% 20.0% 40. 0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% N=241 Figure 2-8 represents the respondents' responses to Question No. 12, which asked what type of trips they would use the bus for if it were available in Charlotte County. This question was only asked of respondents wbo stated they would or maybe would use local bus service if it were available (59.7 percent of the respondents). Respondents were allowed to give more than one answer. Using the bus for shopping trips was the most common response with 75.4 percent, followed by trips for medical appointments at 53.5 percent, and recreation at 43.7 percent. Perhaps one important finding to note is that only 27.8 percent responded that they would use the bus for work trips This response may indicate that the type of service required may not have to include vehicles tha t travel on the same routes every day or five days per week. Involveme nt l-19 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Traasit Development Plan Figure 2-9 Q18. What is the longest distance you would walk to a bus stop? More Thn 112 Mile 114 Mlle-t/2 Mile More Than 112 Mile 1 8loek1 le .. Than 1 Block 114 Mlft112 Mile Leu Thn t 81oc.k ... .... .... 100" N=404 In Question No. 18 interviewees were asked the longest distance they would walk to a bus stop if service was available in Charlotte County. Figure 2-9 illustrates the cumulative responses to this question For example, the bar in Figure 2-9 that indicates all those would walk "Less Than I Block" includes 100 percent of respondents because it includes those that responded "1-2 Blocks," "Y. M il e V. Mile," and "More Than V. Mile"; the individual that is willing to walk more than I block will also walk less than I block. Over 50 percent responded that they would walk Y. mile to V. mile to a bus stop Only 6.8 percent stated they would walk no more than one block to a bus stop. PubUe: Involvement 2 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-10 Ql9. Ho'l\ frequent should buses visit each stop? Evety HOUI Every 3.0 Minute& Every 15 Minute-& 0% 20% 40% Note: 24.4% answered "depends". N=404 Every 2 Hour1: 0 Evry 30 Min. 60% Every Hour 8 EvelY 15 Min. 80% Figure 2-10 contains the responses to Question No. 19 of the survey. In this question interviewees were asked how frequently buses should visit each stop. Similar to Figure 2-9, the responses in F igure 2-10 are displayed cumulatively. The result was that 67.8 percent of res pondents stated that it was acceptable that a bus visit each stop every 30 minutes. Only 7.8 percent thought that buses should arrive every IS minutes. Clearly, it would be desirable to provide service at least every half hour Public I uvo lvemeut l -l1 May 13,1996


Chartoue County Transit De\elopment Plan Figure 2-11 Q20. W ha t is the highest one-way fare you would be williDg to pay for local bus so .so EJ so u 0% 20% 40-% 60% 80% 100% N =405 Respondents were asked in Question No. 20 to state the hi ghest one-way fare they would be willing to pay for local bus servic e. As in Figure 2-9 and Figure 2 10 Figure 2-11 contains the cumulative responses to Question No. 20. The figure shows tha t 62.5 percent would be willing to pay up to $1.00 for a one-way fare. Further, 97 percent of respondents would be willing to pay up to 50 for a one-way fare In comparison, 75.8 percent of respondents in the 1981 Charlotte County transit survey answered that they would be willing to pay up to 50 for a one-way fare. Public Involvement l-ll May 13,1996


Charl otte County Transit Developmen t Plan Public Involvement May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Figure 2 12 Q16. Wbicb improvement is most important to you? Reducing Accidents Relieving Congestion Other Transport Mode s 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=404 In tbis question respondents were asked to indicate which improvement is the most important to them; reducing accidents in high accident location relieving traffic congestion, or providing for other modes of transportation other than automobiles. As shown in Figure 2 12, the results indicate that relieving congestion was slightly more important to respondents than the other two improvements. Prov i ding other transportation modes received 24.8 percent of responses, which could indicate that establishing public transportation is not a high priority of citizens of the community. Public Javolveaaeat ZZ4 May 13,1996


Cbarloue Couaty Transit DeveJopmeat Plan Figure213 Ql7. The following improvements were identified as important for Charlotte County. With limits in public funds which of these eight do you think are the most important to fllnd on a stale of 1 to 5? 1 is tbe least important and 5 is the most important. Hurrit1ne Evac:ultio n Rou .. Meintenance of Streetll & Highway Sidewalk a & Bike Facllltlea Street L ightlng Eatabliah Public TranaH-New & Expanded Road Expand Paratrantlt Service 0.0 1.0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 N=404 Question No. 17 compares a more comprehensive list of possible transportation improvements for Charlotte County. Respondents were asked to rank each improvement individ ually not rank the improvements against each other. The average response for each possible transportation improvement is shown in Figure 2 -13. "Hwricane evacuation routes" received the highest average score at 4.2. "Establish public transit" ranked fifth in average score, and "expand paratransit service" ranked eighth. It should be noted that the eight improvements in this question were selected for inclusion based on the "Charlotte County Transportation Fair Survey," conducted by the MPO in April I 995. In that survey these eight improvements were identified as the most needed out of a larger list of 12. Further it may be that respondents were not clear as to the definition of" paratransit ," which may (or may not) account for its relatively low average score. Also, it is interesting to note that "new and expanded roads" ranked behind "establish public transit" in Question No. 17, whereas in Question No. 16 "relieving congestion was more important to respondents than other transportation modes." Public loolvemenl l-25 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Public Involvement Z-%6 May 13 1996


Charlotce County Transit Development Plan Figure2-14 Q21. Should tax dollars be wed to establish bus service in Charlotte County? Yes No Depends Don't Know 0% 20% 60% 80% 100% N=405 As sbown in Figure 2-14 almost half of respondents indicated that tax dollars should be used to establish bus service in Charlone County. An additional12 7 percent responded that it "depends." In a similar question asked in the 1981 transit survey, 47.2 percent of respondents responded "yes" when asked whether they would approve of city and county money being used to subsidize a transit system. In that question respondents were only given a choice of answering "yes" or "no." Public Involvement l-l7 May 13,1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plao Flgure2-15 Q22. Would you vote for an increase in local taxes to fund future public transportation improvements? Yes No Depends 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% All respondents, except those who answered "no" to Question No. 21, were asked in Question No. 22 whether they would vote for an increase in local taxes to fund future public transportation improvements. Figure 2-15 shows that 57 percent of respondents answered that they would vote for an increase and another 19.1 percent stated that it "depends." When all 405 respondents were included in this question the result is that more than 50 percent of respondents would vote or conditionally vote for a tax increase to fund future public transportation improvements. Public Involve meat 2-18 May 13,1996


Cbarlotte County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-16 Q23. Wbicb of I be following local funding methods would you favor to fund public transportation? Gas Tax Special Taxing Dlst. Property Tax 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question No. 23 was included in the survey in order to determine which type of local fuodiog method would be most favorable to fuod public transportation. All interviewees who responded "yes" or "depends" to Question No. 22 (205 of the total405 respondents) were asked this question. The responses to this question are represented in Figure 2-16. The results show a sales tax was the most favored by respondents at 47.8 percent The least favored was a property tax to fuod public transportation (9.6 percent). Public Javolvement l-29 May 13, 1996


Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Summary In summary, the results of the 1995 survey were: 92.6 percent of respondents usually drive alone when traveling locally. 45.8 percent of respondents felt bus service would be important to their fanrilies. If bus serv i ce were available 46.3 percent of respondents said they would use bus service and 13.4 percent said they would maybe use it. 75.4 percent of respondents answered that they would use the bus for shopping trips. 27 6 percent of respondents stated that they would take work on the bus. More than 50 percent responded that they would walk Y. mile to Y, mile to a bus stop. 67.8 percent of respondents stated that it was acceptable that a bus visit each stop every 30 minutes. 62.5 percent of respondents would be willing to pay up to $1.00 for a one-way fare. The most important improvement identified by respondents was "hurricane evacuation routes with an average score of 4.2 out of 5. The average score for "establishing public transit" was 3.4, ranking fifth out of nine improvements as important improvements for Charlotte County. 47.9 percent of respondents stated that tax dollars should be used to establish bus service in Charlotte County. An additionall2.7 percent responded that it "depends." 57 percent of respondents who thought tax dollars should be used would vote for an increase in local taxes (38.1 percent of total respondents). The most favored local funding option was "sales tax" at47 .8 percent. When compared with the 1995 survey, the 1981 survey yielded similar results for comparable questions: In 1981, a similar percentage of respondents said they would or might use bus service. Public Involvement Z.JO Moy 13,1996


Charlotte County Tra nsit Plao Shopping trips were the most commonly cited trip purpose in both surveys. Interest in using bus service for work trips increased by 14 percent from 1981 to 1995 Respondents in both surveys said bus service should be provided every 30 minutes (how often a bus passes a designated stop) The preferred fare rose from 50 to $1.00 between 1981 and 1995 (an increase comparable with average fare increases for bus service) A similar percentage of respondents in each survey favored using local tax dollars to establish bus service. The survey results, information from interviews with key lo cal officials and the descript ion of existing conditions were used as background data for development of goals and objectives for public transportation and the analysis of public transportation options. Public IavoJvemeat l-31 May 13,1996


PART 3: POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT Part 3 includes infonnation used to evaluate the potential for various types of public transportation service in Charlotte County. The flfSt section reviews the thresholds at which certain types of transit systems become viable. The second section compares Charlotte County to various peer groups including community transportation coordinator peers (paratransit) and potential fixed-route transit system peers. The third section describes beach shuttle services in other Florida communities. The fourth section describes transportation demand management strategies and their potential applicability to Charlotte County. This is the same information that was included in Technical Memorandum No.2.


Charlott e County Transit D e\'e l opmeot Piau Thresholds for Transit Transit is a tran s portatio n mode that requires a relatively high density of trips for it to be successful. Typically this has meant fairly long routes serving a corridor radiating out from a region's central business district (CBD). Work trips are most readily served because of their spatial concentration (CBD) and time (peak hours). Suburban environments less frequ ently provide a sufficient concentration of jobs per square mile, and usually tend to draw workers from a more widely scattered area than the traditional transit corridor Table 3-1 provides guidelines on the size and concentration of workplace and residential development needed to justify various forms of transit service. Mlnimum Local Bus Intermediate Local Bus Frequent Local Bus Express Bus! Walk Access Express Bus! Drive Access Light Rail Rapid Rail Commuter Rail Table 3-1 Size Characteristics of Development (Residential and Workplace) 60 4 30 7 10 IS 30 15 (avg. over 2 sq. mi. area) 20 3 (avg over 20 sq mi. area) 5 9 (avg. over25-100 sq mi. area) 5 12 (avg over 100-150 sq mi. area) 45 1.5 Headway" is the time be.tween transit vehicle arrivals at a given stop. 3.5 7 17 50 20 30 50 15 Downtown" is defmed as a eonliguous cluster of non-residential use-and is larger than the more narrowly defmed CBD. Source: Regional Plan Association, Wlu!re Transit Works (1976) Potential for Traosit 3-1 May 13,1996


Couary Traasir Dtvelopmear Plan The transit services identified in Table 3-1 are defmed as follows: Minimum Local Bus: Bus service with headways of approximately 60 minutes at peak use. Intermediate Local Bus: Bus service with headways of approximately 30 minutes at peak use. Frequent Local Bus: Bus service with head ways of approximately I 0 minutes at peak use. Express Bus/Walk Access: A bus that operates a portion of the route without stops or with a limited number of stops which people access by walking. Express Bus/Drive Access: A bus that operates a portion of the route without stops or with a limited number of stops which people access by driving and parking. Light Rail: An electric railway with a "light volume" traffic capacity compared to "heavy rail." Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading, and multior single car trains. Heavy or Rapid Rail: An electric railway with the capacity for a "heavy volume" of traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, m ult i-car trains, high speed and rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading. Commuter Rail: Local and regional passenger train operations between a central city, its suburbs, and/or another central city. Applying these guidelines to Charlotte County, only nine TAZs meet the residential density threshold for minimum local bus service (see T able I -6 and Map 1-6 in this document). The non-residential minimum downtown concentration needed to support minimum bus service is 3.5 million square feet of non-residential floor space. According to County and MPO staff, there are 550 ,000 square feet of non-residential floor space in downtown Punta Gorda, and an additional 2 million square feet of non-residential floor space i n the Port Charlotte/Murdock area, falling short of the 3.5 million square-foot threshold and spread over a larger area than a traditional downtown. It should be noted that these guidelines were created in the 1970s, when most transit systems operated only larger transit vehicles, rather than more flexible min-buses and smaller buses. These guidelines have not been revised since the mid-1970s. Poteallal for Transit 3-l May 13,1996


Cbarlotl t County Transit De"Ve1opmeot Plan Review of Peer Systems In this section, CUTR compared demographic characteristics of Charlotte County to similar communities with various types of public transportation systems. The first part contains a demographic review of peer community transportation coordinators (CTCs) in Florida. In addition to a comparison of demographic characteristics this review compares performance measures for these transportation disadvantaged (TD) systems The second part contains a review of transit system peers. Because Charlotte County does not operate a fixed-route system this review includes areas that have similar geographic characteristics, population size and density, and level of affluence. Community Transportation Coordinator Peer Review Analysis Charlotte County Transit Department (CCTD) is the local CTC. CUTR compared CCTD to its CTC peers, which were selected because of their similarities, based on the following five criteria: Demographic characteristics. System size (measured in terms of annual TO ridership). Operating environment (urban or rural service area designation). Organization type (transit agency government private non-profit, or private for-profit). Network type (sole provider partial brokerage, or complete brokerage). According to the Evaluation Workbook for Community Transportation Coordinators and Providers in Florida, prepared by CUTR, the Charlotte County CTC is categorized as a "size 4" system (with 100,000199,999 annual one-way passenger trips), operates in an urban service area (contains an urbanized area, with a population of more than 50,000), is organized as a governmental entity and coordinates trips as a partial brokerage. The five counties that were selected for the CTC peer review inc l ude : Bay (Panama City), Hernando (Spring Hill), Indian River (Vero Beach), Okaloosa (Fort Walton Beach), and St. Lucie (Fort Pierce). Not all of these CTCs are identical to CCTD; however, they generally share similar demographic and systematic characteristics (see Table 3-2a and Figure 3-1 ) In addition. Brevard, Manatee, Pasco, and Sarasota counties were included in a separate analysis of PoteotiaJ for Traasit 3-3 May 13, 1996


Cbarlotte County Traosit Development Plan Figure 3-1. Populaliou, Polenlial TD Population, TD Population 500 .000.---------------------------, 300,000 200,000 0 I?! Totl Population TO Popu.letion Pot ntlal TO Popul;ation CTCs that have noteworthy similarities to Charlotte County's CTC but are not true peers (see Table 3b and Figure 3-1). (Brevard, Manatee, and Sarasota counties already have public transit and can be used as references for a potential transit system in Charlotte County.) Comparati ve D em ographi cs Figure 3-1, and Tables 3-2a and 3 -2b contain information for each of the. I 0 peer counties on total population, median age, estimates of transportation disadvantaged persons, population density, employment density, percentage of families below the poverty level, median household income, and percentage of households with no access to a vehicle. Compared to the counties contained in Table 3-2a, Charlotte County is below the average in total population, population density and employment density, but is above the average in median age, potential TD population (TD Category 1), and TD population (TD Category II). (Information on populatio n is also presented in Figure 3-1.) In addition, Charlotte County, in comparison to the peer counties, has the lowest percentage of families below the poverty level, but is below the average in median household income. Charlotte County also has the lowest percentage of households with no access to a vehicle Potent ial ror TriMII May 13,1996


i :::;: i i J-0 Table3-2a Demographics of Peer CTCs "' ,-.,_ ,_ .. "'--' .--;; <'.'5.-. >_\ --\'< ... '' <10'1r.'-." .. 4 j>_.,-,, ".:: -x .... '-'i "' --..,4"1\ %or -L / "' __ -" ::->-. .--_.,. .. Ho'u shol -' ,._ ; ,,_...,. .. .-... ---_,, __ .. .. .. .. ''!I:'P \Fa--' .-" ... ,.,.,.. m es 111, -l:< ... .. rt. !I> : '*'''ocomt"' ;:f''f'"' '( J990 .. < J30,397l SJ.91 67,4881 12,9661 1881 SS 5 2'/e $25,746 A OOL Bay 138,400 120,601 River 100,199 159,896 St. Lucie 173,098 .... 137,099 34.5 48.7 -43.6 33.2 38,4 41.7 48,092 63,911 43,697 42,793 74,974 56,826 TD P opulation is also referred to as "TO Category 1." 13,793 11,572 7,593 10,579 16,074 12,096 181 252 199 171 302 216 70 66 70 63 107 72 11.2 % I $24,684 7.9'/o $22,74 1 .. (01., S.9% $28,961 ...:; 00.6. 7.8 % I $27,941 (' AOL 8 .5% I $27,710 7 8% I $26,297 < SlOJ.. ITO Population is also referred to as "TT Category ll ." Sources: U .S. Bure au of the Census (1990) Commission for the TnlJ1sportation Disadvantaged: 1995 Annual Perfonnance Report, FY 1994 1995. I !;) .. :!. 0 -; c .:( -! i! g -" B a 0

PAGE 100

i -.. t l l:i ;;I Table3-2b Demographics of Other Seleded CTCs ,, - :<.;6 ,. ,_ "' . . ' .; -' <-- ; .. , '. i< '-- o'3'>; > . ,----_. '' . ,.-. .. )' ' . : l!mj>loyment -" _._ .. ,. ,. ,.o->' ' "' . .. Density .,, Tolal Mecll ao Poleiltlol TD TD ; !)enslfY . ;-./ / ,, P opu lation Age Population Jp<>Pf$ ( emp ./sq.m l .) CoIY (FY. 994-95) (1!190) (FY 1 994-9 5) (FY (l'Y 1 994-95) (1!190) 446, 70 3 38.2 152,S41 28,142 438 1 80 Manatee 232 ,702 43. 7 105 ,357 21,235 314 118 PISCO 306.401 47. 6 158,071 33,56 1 411 131 smsota 301,302 49 7 139, 473 23,177 S27 200 Average 321,717 44 8 138,864 26,529 423 157 Polen lial TO Popullllion is also ref..,..d 10 as "TO Calegory 1." "TO Population is also referred lo as "TO Calegory II." Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census ( 1 990) ---Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Annual Performance RtJX)rl, FY 1 994 -1995. 0 ,.. 8 g Q i : -.' _, . < %of . "' .<.; ..,_,_ t <' > ,, %br Households !<.' .,. -;( ...... ,,. -\ '' . ltiuiii!Jtf wllh No

(1990) 6.3% $ 30,534 5 .5% 6.8% $25,951 6 7. 7 .9% $21 ,480 4.6% $29,919 6 .2% 6 4% $26 ,971 6 .3% -------------" ' ---I A 0 .. a A g -

PAGE 101

Charlotte County Tra1ait Develop m ent P lan Comparative Performance FY 1995 performance measures for cern and each of its peer CTCs are shown in Ta ble 3-3a (with other selected CTCs shown in Table 3-3b) as well as in Figures 3-2 through 3-9 In general, Charlotte County Transit Department provides lower than average trips per rn capita, has a lower than average cost per trip, and has shorter trips than its peers. CC'ID ranks fourth and fifth (out of six) in tetmS of passenger trips and vehicle miles per TO capita (defmed as potential rn population) respectively (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3). With respect to operating expenses per passenger trip (paratrans i t), cern compares favorably with its peers, ranking second lowest among the six CTCs (see Figure 3-4). Operating expense per vehicle mile is slightly below the average of its CTC peers; however Charlotte County was only performing better than Hernando and St. Lucie counties in this category (see Figure 3 -5 ). Table3-3a Pe rform a n ce Measures of Pee r CTCs :'" . q { ' '..<"" 1 : ;_ .. ' . .Ope'ra ti og .... ")< ><" '"'-;. .. _, .. ._ "'"' _.. .. .. : J ' > W ebk:ki'i I :_ Mtlesl "'' "'A l_Coouti. "' > .f _., l 1 ... $" ... -.-.. .. c box ;Ji.eve D!! ? Couoty c. ua < ,:I'rip ::.R ,; ,Ratio ,, :rnps. ,; .P. <:;Rollo.: . . .. -.. Charlotte 103,676 5.13 $ 6 .76 $2.02 3.34 $700,750 0.0% 22.3% Bay 170,230 1 8 22 $6 6 1 $1.28 5.15 $1,125,124 2 .2% 0.5% Hernando 59,105 2.78 $13.68 $4.55 3.01 $984,66 8 5,7% 5.8% Indian Rive r 137, 334 15.51 $8.45 $ 1.60 4 94 $1,087,713 0.4% 1 6.3% Okaloosa 127, 700 18.86 $7.76 $1.23 6.32 $1,083,033 0.00/o 0 .00/o St Luc ie 8 1,921 5 .17 SIO.ol $2.12 4 .73 $852,4 1 8 0.00/o 4 .Jo/o Average 113,328 10.95 $8.88 $2.13 4.58 $972,284 1.4% 8.2% Source : Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Annual Perfor mance Report, FY /994 /995. Overall given the relatively large service area and small amount of revenue Char l otte County CTC compares well with its CTC peers These comparisons provide he l pful insight into how well Charlotte County appears to be performing statistically, but should not be used as the sole m easure s to make inferences about the quality of service. Potent ial for Tra11$i t 3-7 May 13,1996

PAGE 102

Ch arlott e C ouDty Brevard 7 1 9,875 Manatee 195,445 Pasco 255,080 Sarasota 161,722 Average 333,031 Tnnslt Development Plan Table3-3b P erfor man ce Measures of Other Selected CTCs 28.02 $7.52 $1.16 5 94 6.07 $9.04 $2 .42 3 .27 8 42 $8.72 $1.47 5.92 6 56 $8.54 $1.51 5 66 12 .27 $8 .46 $1.64 5.20 $4,938,246 $1,371,404 $1,962,340 $1,380,331 $2,413,080 FaieCounty boJ ltev.enue Rallo' 4.1% 19.1% 3.0"/o 19.6% 2.0% 11.7% 2 .0% 41.2% 2.8% 22.9% Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Annual Performa nce R.eport, FY 1994-199$. 800,000 700,000 800,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 +r--r-+-+--t-r'\:1 ..... I Charlotte --------"'7 ... Figure 3-l. Passenger Trips -------------------t------------' . :;: r-;;{f --------1-:'r ---------------. .., ;,r-l:F -r.;;:q it ... ; .' .... ..; ... lndlel'l RNer I St. Lucie I 81'9VIrd I Hern a ndo Okeloo Figaro 3 -3 Vehicle Milos Por TD Capilli Mea n ------------!["" } >;<. --,_ > .... : I .... MUI'I '' -------------Bay lft dlen RM
PAGE 103

Cbarlottt County Transit Deve.lopmeot Plan Figure 3. Operatlon Per Trip ... Mean ... --010 -.. .. .. S2 $0 Chott Hmando Figure 3-5. Operatioa E:rpeases Per Vehicle Mile I M-.. r------., ---.;":'e---------------------f" Manatee s ....... The difference between operating expenses per passenger trip and operating expenses per v ehicle mile may be attributable to the relatively short TD trips in Charlotte County (see Figure 3-6). Because most of the vehicle operating expenses are fixed, the shorter trips would cost more per vehicle mile, while costing less per passenger trip. To illustrate, Charlotte County has shorter average trips (3 .34 miles) in comparison to the peers, a higher operating expense per vehicle mile ($2. 02) than most of its peers and a lower operating expense per passenger trip ($6.76) relative to most ofits peers. Conversely, Okaloosa County has longer average trips (6.32 vehicle miles), a lower operating expense per vehicle mile ($1. 23 ), and a higher operating expense per passenger trip ($7.76), relative to its peers. Poteotialfor Trnslt 3-9 May 13,1996

PAGE 104

Cbarloe County Transit Development Plan Figure 3 6. Vehicle Miles Per Puseager Trip 7,--------------------------------------------------.------------, Uaan s 2 1 0 ........ With respect to the revenue measures, the Charlotte County CTC has the smallest total revenue among all the peers (see Figure 3 7) Such a small amount of funds may constrain the nwnber of TD trips provided and vehicle miles per TD capita Zero percent of the revenue was gathered from farebox, as shown in Figure 3-8; however, a total of$3 870 in donations was collected in FY 1995 Among all the CTCs, Hernando County has the highest farebox ratio, which is 5.7 percent of total revenue. Nearly one quarter of the CCTD revenue came from the county government, ranking it the highest in county government's share of total revenue (see Figure 39). Figure 3 7. Total Revenae $5,000,000 ..,..-------------------------------.= Mean $4,000,000 $3.000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 ... .... PotcatiaJ for Trausit J.IO May 13,1996

PAGE 105

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Figure 3. Farebox Ratio ... M n. ... '" .,. ... '" "" Chrton. Figare 3-9. Coa11ty Sbare of Total Reveaae .... MNn 4K ----------------------------------------------------... Say lndiaf\ RW.r St. Brwatd Paeoo Cl'laltolte Hemando OUiooaa Mantee s ... w Comparatively, the Okaloosa eounty government eontributed nothing to the CTC' s total revenue. In addition, Table 3-4 presents a more detailed breakdown of the local eontributions to CCTD and its peers. Pot ential for Transit 3-11 May 13,1996

PAGE 106

Char l otte County Transi t DevelopmeDt Plan T ab l e 3-4 L ou! G o ve rnm e n t R ev enu e for C T C Pee rs r t' ; ; ,, H ., . , 1 ,(;Ovemmon t r . ; .. >., Charlotte $700,750 . $331,636 S 99,623 $56,710 $175,303 Bay $1,125,124 $ 1 52,302 S5 ,310 so $ 146,992 Hernando $984,668 $57,100 $57,100 so so l .ndian River $ 1,087,713 $192,611 $177,611 so $ 15,000 Okaloosa SI,083,033 $1,982 so $0 $ 1,982 St. Lucie $852, 418 $34,600 so so $34, 60 0 Brevard $4,938,246 SI.036,312 $945,020 so $91,292 Manatee $1,371,404 $277,003 $268,498 $0 $8,505 Pasco $1,962 3 4 0 $ 229 ,701 $ 229,637 so $64 Sarasota $1,380,33 1 $569,354 $ 569,354 $0 so Included in Local Government Revenue. Trans it P ee r Re v iew For the transit peer review, CUTR compared Charlotte County against other similar Sunbelt cities that have fixedroute transit systems These peers were chosen bas e d on similar populat i on, g eographic, and/or level of affluence characteristics. The p urpose of the review i s to identify potential types of public transp o rtat i on f or Char l otte County The sel ected peers inc lude : Manat e e County, Florida; Amarillo, Texas ; Beaumont, Texas; Albany, Georgia; and San Angelo, Texas. (Sarasota County and Brevard County were not included in this analysis because of the relatively large sizes of their transit systems. A d i scussion of d isco ntinued fixed route transit services offered in Pasco an d Okalo osa count ies is included The other CTC peers wer e not included b e cause they d o not have fix ed-route transit.) Comp arative D e mographics Tabl e 3-5 contains selected demographics by urbanized area for the peer communities including : urbanized area population, population d ensity, employment density, the perce n t of families P ot ential for Transit J.ll M a y 13,1996

PAGE 107

Charlotte Couaty Transit Development Pla n below the poverty level, and the percent of households with no access to a vehicle. The peer group averages for each characteristic, including Char lotte County are shown in the last colwnn of the table Table3-S U r banized Are a Demographics o f Pe e r Transit Sys t e m s "') ,, ....... >' ;W' )/N >';,A i ""o F "' -:'
PAGE 108

Charlotte Counl)' Transit Developmeot Plan congestion was not a major issue in any of the peer communities, with the exception of isolated corridors during peak travel periods. Comparative Performance Performance indicators and service cliaracteristics for the selected transit systems are contained in Table 3-6. For comparison, characteristics of Charlotte County's CTC system were included in Table 3-6, but were not included in the averages. The average number of unlinked passenger trips was 917,893 for the peer transit systems with a range of254,470 trips for San Angelo to 1,457,126 trips for Beaumont (these figures include fixed route service only). For comparison, Charlotte County's coordinated transportation system provided I 03,676 trips in 1995. The peer averages for annual revenue miles and annual service hours were 478,932 miles and 33,306 hours, respectively. The average annual operating expense for the peer transit systems was $1 ,229,825. By comparison, Charlotte County CTC' s operating expense for FY 1995 was $700,750, which i s difficult to compare to the peer average because of the different services being offered. All of the peer transit systems reported charging a fare ranging from $0.60 to $1.00 ($0 .74 on average). The number of routes operated by the transit systems ranged from 5 to 10 with an average of 8. Headways ranged from 30 to 60 minutes, with an average of 50 minutes. The average fleet size of the peer systems ranged from 8 to 18 vehicles, with an average of 14 ; most vehicles were lift equipped. Vehicle sizes ranged from trolley-type buses, to 30or 35-foot buses (slightly smaller than traditional40-foot transit buses). Each of the peer systems is described in more detail in Technical Memorandum No.2. Poteatlal for Traasit 3-14 May 13, 1996

PAGE 109

:; g i: 0' i ;; 'I' "' i ,;;; Table3-6 Performance Indicators of P ee r Tran s i t Systems ( -< _.. ..,. . < .. .. -., ,, ... ;.; ''""' ::>:"' '"'t" -' . <( > '. or ., .. . """''s-. -<$ .'i-- l',.;<.;>c -1_$ . ,.;,-w: >:.;;, .. > ;,(.;* sef\. i < ...... :Aii.i.lal". : hn"uii:, -4 ;i. : .. -., ':;f>.}.,. Vehkies U n linked A1idliil; '"-'!'>-'t't. . ,;.--<;: . . -, ;.; (! )> ., V "Ag;'' ,;.,;;;_:<,.$; ... ,._ .... <.. ... .... . .. Vj' d'< -,;"P.-. > -, $-,.<:t.-' ..... ,.. ,., 't"' Service Area Area, PaSHrijef < si'i"Yite No t of. H .. 'dway. . ,l>oiilitatton (sq: milt!) tripS ,, ;Mflts) .. 8"" . RouJis: ..;"(rJ;iti'' eQUip)" r _ours: ,Ex nse. ;'>F1're. <>; \\ . ,_, County 130,397 693 103,676 346,744 24,960 $700,750 NA NA NA 16 (UZA 75,434) (UZA 48) (4) !Manatee County 181,684 747 625,897 533,693 34,178 $1,556,944 $1.00 10 60 18 (18) Albany, Georgia 50,200 17 1,359,537 40M26 28,894 $853,130 $0 .60 8 60 9 (5) Amarillo, Texas 95,869 26 892,436 680,708 44,277 $1,508,283 $0.60 8 30 17 (17) Texas 82,731 41 1,457,126 536,364 4 1,601 $1,694 ,500 $ 0 75 9 30-45 16 (5) San Angelo, Texas 84,470 50 254, 4 70 240,870 17,580 $536,270 $0.75 5 60 8 (8) Average 98,991 176 917,893 478 ,932 33,306 $1,229,825 $0.74 8 50 13.6 (1Q.6) Char lotte C ounty data based on 1995 infonnation for the paratransit system. Urbanized area infonnation includes Punta Gorda/Port Charlotte 0"1991 infonnation; 1993 infonnation was unavailable. A vemges do not include Charlotte County UZA urbanized area Sources: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. 19.95 Annual Performance Report. FY 1994-199$. USDOT. /993 Transit Profiles: Agencies in Urbanized Areas with a Populati on of Less Than 200,1){}(). USDOT. /993 Transit Profiles: Agencies In Urbanized Areas Exceeding 200,0{}() Populaiion. Phone interviews with locaJ transit offici als. . / Size of .Vehitles Variou 30ft (29 seats) 35ft (36 seats 30ft (22 scots 35ft (36 seats Trolle (28 seats NA Q .. Q c .:; i -r .g a .. ... ..

PAGE 110

Cbarlone County Trans it Development Plan Beach Shuttle Service in Florida Communities Technical Memorandum No.2 describes the results of a statewide survey ofFiorida beach commwrities that operate beach shuttie services to accommodate significant beach population and visitors. The survey was conducted in 1995 by CUlR. A sununary of results and the potential for beach shuttle service in Charlotte County are included in this section. Transportation Characteristics of Beach Communities In general, the beach commwrities surveyed reported traffic circulation problems resulting from residents and visitors traveling to the beach. Many cities surveyed are on a harrier island, which is typical of most beach commwrities i n Florida Several of Florida's barrier islands are between I and 5 miles long, and from I to 2 miles wide. This limited land space hinders opportwrities for improving traffic circulation by increasing capacity on local roads. Many of these barrier islands have limited access to/from the mainland; most of these commwrities are served by a state or county road. Several commwrities reported that traffic congestion occurs on these roads, especially on the segments which connect the island and mainland. In addition, most of the access roads to these cities cross drawbridges that span Intracoastal Waterways between the barrier island and the mainland. Congestion in these commwrities frequently occurs because of drawbridges opening. Few commwrities reported that tolls are applied to access roads to the island. In addition to having access to/from the mainland by one road, which for many cities serves as the major east-west road, most of the commwrities have one or two major road(s) that provide north-south traffic movement. The county or state is responsible for maintenance and improvements to these roads. This limits the amount of control that these cities have to make improvements to mitigate congestion or to make changes to increase capacity. The major north south road in many of these cities provides the only continuous transportation linkage between access point(s) from the mainland and the local street network For most commwrities surveyed, traffic volumes and congestion are highest from November to March( or Easter). During this period, traffic congestion occurs on the weekends and during Pot atia l for Traosit 3-16 May 13,1996

PAGE 111

Chrlotte County Transit Developmc: : nt Plan special events Many cities reported that congestion on the weekends oceur.; from appro x i matel y 10 :00 a.m. to I :00 p.m., and from 4:00p.m. to 6:00p. m In the case of Charlott e County, beach traffic is generated in the Englewood Beach area, located on S.R. 776. Although beach traffic is reported to be somewhat of a problem, particularly during weekends, compared to other beach areas access to the beaches is a relatively small issue for Charlotte County. Transit Service iD Beac:h Co mmunities Transit services in many cities surveyed are provided by a county transit system. For most beach c it ies the operator provides fixed-route service, using one or two routes, to connect the i s land community with services and activities on the mainland Service is usually on a 60-minute headway, along one principal road on the island, and typicall y us ing 40-foot buses Generally, service is operated Monday through Saturday from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 7:00p.m. One way fares range from 75 to $1.25; discounted fares are usually provided for senior citizens persons with disabilities, and children. Additionally, the routes typically connect with other fixed routes in the system. Currently, no public transportation service is operated in the Englewood Beach area. Government-Funded Service The survey revealed that many cities have made efforts to operate beach shuttle service (or to contrac t for its operation) as a means to al le viate traffi c congestion, rather than to rely solely on previously established tran sit service in their areas. Technical Memorandum No.2 includes information about service provided fo r Clearwater Beach, Fort Myers Beach City of Hollywood, City of Lake Worth City of Sanibel, City of St. Peters burg Beach and City of Treasure Island Privately Operated and Funded Service In addition to cities that contract or operate transit service to the beach, some cities reported having this service provid ed by private operators. These services are provided by a local business and are not funded by publi c resources Two examples of this type of transit Poltatlat for Trauit 3-1 7 Ml.y 1 3 1996

PAGE 112

Charlotte County Transit DevelopmtDt Plao service-Royal Palm Shuttle and the Wave Line-are described in Technical Memorandum No. 2. Potential Service in Charlotte County . Beach access by residents and visitors in Charlotte County does not seem to be a major problem in comparison to other beach communities in Florida. The geography of Charlotte County lends itself to better traffic circulation with the absence of extensive barrier island development. The barrier island development in Charlotte County is minimal with the larger transportation problem being getting people to Englewood from South and Mid-County. How other communities with elongated barrier islands have addressed public transportation could apply to the U.S. 41 corridor in Charlotte County in the future. Portollal ror Tnuult 3-18 May 13,1996

PAGE 113

Charlotte County Trall$lt Development Piau Transportation Demand Management Options Charlotte County is served by the newest commuter assistance program office, the Suncoast MetrOpolitan and Rwal Transportation Commuter Assistance Program (SMARTCAP). A local and rural program, SMARTCAP serves Sarasota, Manatee, Charlotte, and DeSoto counties and bas developed a series of transportation demand management (TDM) programs for employers and commuters. Unlike most commuter assistant program (CAP) offices io Florida, SMARTCAP bas developed a geographic ioformation system based ridematcbiog program that can be used to graphically display useful ioformation when working with local employers. Agencies, both public and private, that are ioterested in developing TDM strategies can call on SMARTCAP for technical assistance in establisbiog programs. The followiog section discusses a variety of TDM strategies that could be implemented in Char l otte County. Although the list is not exhaustive of all TOM programs io the country these strategies represent the basic elements from which specific programs can be tailored to meet local needs Rideshariog Ridesharing involves the shared use of a vehicle by two or more people for the pwpose of getting to or from work, school, or other locations. Ridesharing applications range from private automobiles and privately-owned and operated vans to publicly-owned and operated vans and buses. The points of origin and final destinations of riders vary. Carpools The most common form of rideshariog is the use of a private vehicle by two or more passengers generally for transportation to and from work. The passengers may use one vehicle and share expenses, or may rotate vehicles with no additional costs to passengers. From 1990 Census data, the average travel time to work in Charlotte County was slightly more than 18 mioutes. Commute times io this range are conducive to carpool mode choice by those considering a commute alternative. Thus carpool programs in Charlotte County would be a Poteatial for Transit 3-19 May 13,1996

PAGE 114

Charlotte County Transit Developmeot Plan viable option. For a Charlotte County transit agency, the role would be one of marketing and promotion, because matching services are currently offered by SMARTCAP. This marketing could be complementary to a strong transit marketing program, with an emphasis on a mobility management theme. Van pools Six.or more passengers who share a ride in a pre-arranged group are considered a vanpool. In most cases, one or more of the pool members are regular drivers who pick up others at specific points, drop them off at common sites, and return them to pickup points at the end of the day. Van pools are sometimes used to provide reverse commute transportation from inner-city residential areas to suburban job sites. The costs of the vaopool, including all operating, maintenance, and insurance costs, are generally divided equally by the riders According to the 1990 Census, about 22 percent of Charlotte County commuters have travel times conducive to vaopool formation (usually 30 minutes or longer). This is related to delays caused by multiple stops to pick up passengers. Commuters who normally face 30-minute commutes are less affected by 5 minutes in delay to pick up other passengers than commuters whose normal commute is only 5 minutes. Given the number of commuters falling into this category, a modest vanpool program has potential applicability in Charlotte County. With federal operating assistance being reduced, more and more transit agencies are examining vanpools Any Charlotte County transit agency should strongly consider vanpools as well. Brevard County, for example, provides capital assistance for vanpool purchase, and passes that cost savings on to vanpool participants. Not only do vanpoolers receive reduced fares, the transit agency can then include the vanpool passenger mileage in its reporting requirements. This translates to increased funds for operating purposes. Because most vanpools are self-funding (all operating costs paid for by participants), the additional funds can be used to subs idize other transit services. Guaranteed Ride Home Programs A guaranteed ride home program reduces the anxiety of ridesharing by guaranteeing employees, in case of an emergency, a convenient and reliable mode of transportation to their home or to the Potential for Transit 3-lO May 13,1996

PAGE 115

Charlotte County Trao.sit Development PJan site of the emergency. The most common transportation options for guaranteed ride home pr ograms are wei service, short-term auto rental, fleet vehicle, shuttle services, and public transil Recent studies have shown that as many as 80 percent of new carpool participants agreed to participate because of the existence of a guaranteed ride home program. Given that only about 10 percent of registered users ever need to use the program (and for most of those, the program is rarely used more than twice in any given year) a guaranteed ride home program is a low cost complementary program that should be considered if Charlotte County elects to i mplement a rideshare program. A Charlotte County transit agency could be the local sponsor of a guaranteed ride home program. H illsborough Area Regional Transit (HARTline) in Tampa sponsors a guaranteed ride home program for commuters who use transit, carpools, or vanpools at least two days a week to get to work. Any program should include transit commuters as well as carpool and vanpool commuters. According to the citizen telephone survey conducted in Charlotte County 5 percent of respondents carpool or vanpool while traveling locally. However, travel for work trips is a lower percentage of total trips in comparison to other counties. Therefore, ridesharing could have a moderate but not a major impact in Charlotte County. Alternative Work Hours Alternative work hours refers to any variation in the typicalS-to-5, Monday-throughFriday, work schedule. Flexible work hours allow employees to adjust work schedules to accommodate transit and ridesharing arrangements. The three most common types of alternative work schedules are staggered work hours, flextime, and the compressed work weeks. Most employers interest ed in alternative work hour programs have access to technical assistance for start -up from SMARTCAP. A transit agency should be able to refer interested employers to SMARTCAP, and may consider promoting such programs if it helps commuters increase their commute options. Polential for Transit 3-21 May 13,1996

PAGE 116

Charlotte County Transit Developm ent Plan Staggered Work Houn In this alternative work schedule, the employer staggers the arrival and departure time of groups of employees to disperse the overall impact of their travel. These schedules usually are designed so groups of employees arrive and depart from work at anywhere from IS minute to two-hour intervals. The three most common tyjies of work hour adjustments are: Departmemal: Employers assign different starting times for individual departments or units. Individual: Employers assign starting times to individual employees Modal: Starting and ending times are determined according to transportation arrangements. This is generally used in conjunction with other TOM measures, such as ridesharing, transit and so on. Flextime In this arrangement, employees select their arrival and departure times and the length of their lunch period. They work eight hours each day and have specified hours in which they are in the office. Most flextime schedules include a core period during the work day when all employees are present. Four common flextime schedules are: Gliding Schedule: Employees' start time determines their ending time. The start of the morning period may range from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The work day ends as employees complete their usual number of work hours. Modified Gliding: Under this schedule an employer selects hours during which coverage must be maintained. Flexllour: The employees select a starting time, for example between 6 :00am. and 9:00 a.m. Their starting time remains until the option to change is extended. Maxifiex : Employees earn hours by working any number of hours within a 24-hour period. The hours are "banked" and then used to shorten future work days or work weeks. Pottntiat for Transit 3-22 May 13, 1996

PAGE 117

Cbarlotte County Transit Development Plan Compressed Work Week This approach allows employees to complete the typical 40-hour work week in less than the normal five days. Common variations include a four-day work week, or working 80 hours in nine days and taking the tenth day off. There are three ways in which work schedules are normally compressed: 4/40 Schedule: Employees work a 40-hour week in four 10-hour days. 9180 Schedule: Employees work 80 hours in nine days. 51419 Schedule: Employees work more than eight hours on four days of the week and work a shortened schedule on the fifth day. While this practice may reduce peak-hour traffic, it has little or no impact on energy conservation or air quality improvement efforts. Because most alternative work hour programs are employer-based strategies, it is difficult to predict applicability in Charlotte County with its low volume of work-related trips. Also, because Charlotte County's documented peak-hour traffic is between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00p.m., shifting work trips from traditional commuting patterns into these time periods would likely increase traffic congestion during Charlotte County s peak travel periods. Telecommuting Telecommuting refers to th e option of an employee working at home or at an office close to home on a full-or part-time basis. Although computers and other technology facilitate telecommuting, the telephone is still the most basic tool for working at an alternate location. A variety of telecommuting arrangements may be pursued as an alternative to working within the head office. These include the following: Work at Home: This option is the most common and least expensive form of telecommuting and it is a very popular option among employees. Satellite Center: This option involves the establ i shment of a satellite office within closer proximity to a group of employees than the main office. These telecommuters may then work at the satellite office, thereby substantially reducing their commute time. Satellite work centers differ from branch offices, which are aimed at establishing a presence in a certain area rather than reducing commute times. Potential for Transit 3-13 May 13,1996

PAGE 118

Charlotte County Transit DeveJopmtat Plan Neighborhood Center: In this arrangement, telecommuters with different employers work at a neighborhood work center and share resources, such as clerical help, communications equ i pment, photocopying and office supplies. Although more difficult and costly to set up, neighborhood work centers are easier to sell in concept to management, perhaps because they more closely resemble the traditional office Increases in job portability have led to an increased interest in telecommuting programs Given the rural nature of Charlotte County, employer-sponsored telecommuting programs may become more popular in the county Because of the availability of technical assistance from SMARTCAP, there is little reason for a local transit agency to consider telecommuting assistance programs as part of its service configuration. Parking Management Parking management is a set of strategies used 10 balance the supply and demand for parking. I n any parking management program, it is important to recognize that a commuter's decision 10 drive alone, carpool, vanpool, or use mass transit is strongly influenced by the cost, availability, and convenience of parking. Employers have three common parking management strategies they can use to influence transportation demand: parking pricing, preferential parking, and employee transportation allowances. Parking Pricing : Parking pricing applies cost and subsidies as tools to change the way a commuter chooses to travel to the work site. Employers might increase the parking charges for drive-alone commuters or reduce parking charges for carpoolers and vanpoolers. Fees collected then can be used to offset the cost of the company's TOM program Preferential Parking: Employers and developers can reserve the most desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles as an incentive for participation in a ridesharing program. Transportation Allowances: Employers can provide fliUUlcial assistance to employees for their round trip commute to and from the work site. lbis involves employer distribution of a pre-determined dollar amount to subsidize all or part of the employee's commuting costs. Availability of parking throughout Charlotte County precludes most parking management strategies. The price of parking, which is mostly free or hidden in lease arrangements also limits the applicability. If the transit agency actively supports ridesharing programs, or develops a vanpool program, then preferential parking programs should be marketed and promoted. Transit Poteatial for Transit 3-24 May 13, 1996

PAGE 119

Charlotte Coun ty T ransit Development Plan agency staff should be able to assist local employers in establishing such programs, by providing guidance on space selection, signage, and other requirements. Nonetheless, the draft Charlotte Count y Comprehensive Plan includes a policy of allowing new development to limit parking if transit, pedestrian, or bicycle infrastructure is pro vided. lbis provision could increase the effectiveness of parking management strategies in Charlotte County. HOVLanes High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are specially dedicated lanes on highways and other commuting corridors that are reserved for vehicles carrying more than one person. Dedicating traffic lanes for vehicles carrying two or more people expands roadway ca pacity and reduces travel time There are four basic types of HOV lanes currently in operation: Separated Lanes: These lanes are physically separated from other travel lanes, usually by concrete barriers, median strips or guard rails, and can be developed within existing roadway rights-of-way. Generally, these lanes are inbound lanes in the morning and outbound lanes in the afternoon, with accompanying signs and barriers identifying the direction of flow. Concurrent Flow Lanes: These are lanes adjacent to existing travel lanes and are not separated from the general traffic lanes by a physical barrier. HOV lanes are closest to the median and are separated from the general purpose travel lanes by a solid white line. Contrajlow Lanes: Traffic on these lanes travels opposite the directional flow of the highway. These lanes are separated from other lanes by cones or other easily-removable barriers Generally, these lanes are closest to the median and operate only during peak periods. Exclusive Roadways: Only HOV vehicles can use exclusive HOV roadways, which require their own rights-of-way. Because of the high costs inv olved, exclusive HOV roadways are usually d eveloped by local transit authorities for the exclusive use of buses. Given tbe relatively low levels of traffic congestio n on the majority of county roadways, HOV lanes have only limited applicability in Charlotte County. Although U.S. 41 travelers can face traffic delays the congestion is not significant enough to warrant the large capital expenditures to construct HOV lanes The 20201-75 Multi-Modal Master Plan i ndicates that HOV lanes will be required on 1-75 from U S 17 to Kings Highway. Potootlal for Transit 3-l5 May 13,19%

PAGE 120

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Alternatives Non-motorized transportation, such as walking and bicycling, has the added advantage of replacing some automobile trips altogether. Walking and bicycling are especially effective travel modes for trips of less than five miles. The success of bicycle and pedestrian transportation .. depends upon coordination ofland development with transportation planning. Bicycle and pedestrian amenities may include near-side pedestrian or bicycle access to frequented stores and services such as banks or convenience stores, sidewalks secure bicycle parking, showers and lockers at the work place, and convenient access. Most communities in Florida suffer from inadequate bicycle and pedestrian linkages between residential and non-residential areas. Improved bicycle and pedestrian access and programs are needed in all communities including Charlotte County. In fact, bicycle and pedestrian facilities were ranked as more important improvements than building or expanding roads in the Charlotte County citizen telephone survey. A transit agency could play a in developing bicycle and pedestrian programs since many of these programs also improve transit access. In addition, a transit agency should consider a bikes-on-bus program to improve intermodal connectivity within Charlotte County. Finally, a transit agency representative should be involved in the land planning review process to ensure that transit, bicycle and pedestrian access is accommodated in new development. Given the high ranking of bicycles and pedestrians in the citizen survey, these facilities have citizen interest and applicability in Charlotte County. Transportation Management Organizations Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs), also known as Transportation Management Associations (TMAs ) have emerged as a new approach to addressing transportation needs. TMOs are grass-roots organizations formed to address mobility needs in major activity centers. They provide a forum through which building owners merchants, developers, policy makers, and public sector agencies can act collectively to establish programs, policies, and services that resolve local and regional transportation problems. However, given the dispersed employment patterns, and lack of well-defined, large employment activity centers, there is little need for a TMO in Charlotte County. Potential for Tnosit 3-26 May 13, 1996

PAGE 121

Charlotte County Tra ns it Dnrlopment Plan Trip Reduction Ordinances A trip reduction ordinance (TRO) i s a regulatory tool for mandating participation in TDM. Generally, a TRO requires certain organizations, such as major employers or developers, to plan and carry out measures aimed at reducing the number of single occupant vehicle trips generated . to and from a given location Given the relative l ack of traffic congestion, and the existence of development regulations already in place, there is little need for a trip reduction ordinan ce in Charlotte County. Poteatialfor Transit 3-27 May 13,1996

PAGE 122

Charlotte County Tran$it Developmeot Plan Summary The major findings of Part 3 include the following: Based on the information presented in this section, the threshold for transit analysis suggests that Charlotte County might be able to sustain some type of minimal fixed-route bus service. 1bis issue is addressed in more detail as part ofPart 5 and Technical Memorandum No. 4. The peer analysis of CTCs and fixed-route services suggests that some type of enhanced parattansit (door-to-door service) available to the general public or minimal fixed-route service targeting areas that are most conducive to transit might be options for Charlotte County. The beach shuttle study indicates that beach traffic is not a major problem for Charlotte County and there is little evidence to suggest that there is a need for public transportation to relieve congestion. Finally the description of transportation demand management strategies suggests that improvements in pedestrian and bicycle facilities may have the potential for positive impact in Charlotte County during the next five years. Improvements in pedestrian and bicycle access will make it easier and safer to travel throughout the County. However because of low employment densities it is unlikely that other TDM strategies will offer much assistance to the residents of Charlotte County in the near future. Potoatlal for Transit 3-28 May 13,19%

PAGE 123

PART4: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Part 4 presents the results of the goal-setting process undertaken as part of the Charlotte County Transit Development Plan (TOP). The detenninatioo of goals for a public transportation system is a key step in the development of a TDP. The first section includes a brief description of the process used to develop the goals adopted by the MPO (see Technical Memorandum No.3 for additional details and infonnation). The second part lists the fmal goals adopted by the MPO at its April 8, 1996, meeting. (Minor wording changes were made by the MPO that did not change the spirit or intent of the originally proposed goals and objectives.) More detailed and measurable operating goals and objectives will be developed by the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board to reflect the actual service implementation desired by the local community. The last section of Part 4 briefly summarizes other goals used to develop the TOP Goals and Objectives (see Technical Memorandum No. 3).

PAGE 124

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Goal Development Process The process of identifying goals for the Charlotte County TDP began with a draft set of goals . developed by CUTR staff. This draft set of goals was developed after reviewing transit-related goals, objectives, and policies of local plans and documents; 9J-5 planning requirements; and previous transit studies conducted for Charlotte County. Results from Task II of the Charlotte County TOP, particularly the citizen telephone survey and interviews with local officials (see Part 2 and Teclmical Memorandum No. I) were used to formulate the draft goals. Finally, CUTR reviewed relevant goals and objectives adopted by some of Charlotte County's peers. The draft set of goals was presented to the Charlotte County Transit Review Conunjttee (TRC) at its February I, 1996 meeting. The goals were discussed in detail and suggested changes and additions were made. The revised draft goals were presented to the Charlotte County-Punta G orda Metropolitan Planning Organization at its February 12, 1996, meeting. The draft goals also were presented at a series of Community Workshops held in February and March 1996. At its March 7, 1996, the TRC made a few minor modifications to the revised goals and unanimously voted to endorse the proposed goals. Likewise, the Charlotte County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board unanimously voted to endorse the proposed goals at its March 13 1996, meeting. The goals were presented at meetings of the MPO's Transit Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee on March 27, 1996, and both conunjttees adopted the revised goals The goals were then presented to the MPO for approval, and were adopted (with minor wording changes) at the MPO's AprilS, 1996, meeting. Additional information is included in Teclmical Memorandum No. 3 Goals and Objectives 4-1 Mlly 13, I 996

PAGE 125

Charlotte County Tnnsit Development Plan TDP Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives were adopted by the MPO at its April 8, 1996, meeting . Goal I: Meet Need Address public transportation need through the most effective mix of fu:ed-route, expanded paratnnsit, and transportation demand management strategies with a priority on persons who are transit dependent. Public transportation needs to be simple and dependable. Using smaller vehic les develop flexible community bus routes to maximize ridership. Comply with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Preserve route integrity. (Allow sufficient time for the system to operate prior to e valuating any service changes.) Goal 2: Low Cost Service Maintain low capital and operating costs to support public transportation in tbe long term by choosing low cost options, using federal and state funds, and adopting new technologies that improve cost-effectiveness. Maintain state and federal funding sources. Identify and evaluate alternative funds available through state and federal sources. Identify private sponsorship options (e.g. public/private partnerships, trading bus stop space for parking, Adopt-a-Stop). Implement a fare and/o r pass system. Evaluate advertising as a revenue source. Eva luate the potential for incorporating computer -ass isted scheduling automatic vehicle location, electronic fare medium, and other appropriate technologies. Goal 3: Connected Transportation Modes Coordinate the expansion of the public transportation system with improvements in related facilities, sucb as sidewalks and taxi stands. Provide comfortable and useful facilities at major destinations including benches, shelters, trees, and bicycle facilities Continue to expand availability of sidewalks and bike paths associated with fixed bus routes. Goals and Obje
PAGE 126

Charlotte County Transll Dtvel opmtot Plan Bike racks on buses and at bus stops Taxi stands at bus stops. Goal 4: Land Use Encourage land uses and urban patterns that support public transportation and promote ridership. Encourage higher land use densities near arterial and urban collector public transportation corridors and within in-fill and transition zones. Connect adjacent residential areas with other land uses by removing barriers that restrict bus, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation, according to community preference. Amend parking lot requirements to allow property owners to provide accommodation for other traosportation modes in-lieu of a proportion of required spaces. Accommodation may include fee-in-lieu-of payment into a public traosportation or bicycle/pedestrian facility improvement fund, as appropriate, to provide bus shelters, benches, or bicycle racks. Require developers through the established permit process, to include public transportation compatible designs in their projects, as appropriate Promote a mixture ofland uses at public transportation facilities and private employment centers to encourage use of bus and ridesharing services. Goal 5: Public Ioformationllovolvemeot Establish a proactive public information/involvement process for all states of developing and maintaining public transportation. Continue proactive public involvement process (e.g town meetings surveys and periodic interviews with passengers and drivers) Initiate on-going public information programs to increas e citizen knowledg e about the system. Expand community knowledge of the public transportation system by promoting community events to raise money for local subsidy. Goa ls aod Objectives May 13, 1996

PAGE 127

Charlotte County Tran5it Dtnl opme n t Plan Transit-Related Goals from Other Plans CUTR reviewed transit-related goals, objectives, and policies identified in other local plans and documents., when developing proposed goals for the TOP. The review also included an analysis of the 9J-5 requirements from the Florida Department of Conununity Affairs. The goals that were reviewed included the following. Charlolle County-Punta Gorda 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, December 1995. Charlolle County Coordinated Transportation Development Plan, 1994 Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda 1988 Comprehensive Plan Mass Transit Element Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determinations of Compliance: Chapter 9J 5. 1981 Public Transportation Plan. Copies of these documents are included in Technical Memorandum No.3. For comparative purposes, CUTR also reviewed goals and objectives for three peer counties in Florida: Brevard, Manatee and Okaloosa counties (see Technical Memorandum No.3). The goals covered such issues as the availability of service, quality of service, efficiency, cost effectiveness, innovation, public involvement, coordination, accountability and funding. Because Brevard and Manatee counties already have existing public transit systems, their goals tend to reflect more operational issues, as well as policy issues. The goals for Okaloosa County were adopted prior to publication of A Manual for the Preparation of Transit Development Plans (CUTR, 1993), and are more sim p listic Okaloosa County is in the process of updating its TDP. G
PAGE 128

Cbarlone Coun!}' Trattsil Development Plan Summary Table 4-1 shows how the adopted goals and objectives of the Charlotte County TOP support the long-range plan, the CTDP, and the mass transit element of the comprehensive plan. As can be seen in Table 4-1, the TOP goals coordinate fully with the goals adopted during the 2020 long-range planning process. Each of the long-range goals relevant to public transportation is reflected in the shorter term goals. Likewise, the TOP goals coordinate with the CTDP goals, although the CTDP goals, objectives, and policies are necessarily more operational in nature. The CTDP goals will need to be updated to reflect service changes made as a result of this TOP. Further, the proposed TOP goals are in concert with the comprehensive plan and with the general provisions of Chapter 91 planning requirements. Section 3(c), The Requirements for Mass Transit Goals, Objectives and Policies, of9J-5 requires the establishment oflocally desired level of service standards for mass transit, and requires measures for the acquisition and preservation of existing and future mass transit rights of way. These issues are not specifically addressed within a TOP; however, these issues should be addressed as part of an implementation plan. With respect to the selected peer goals and objectives, the proposed TOP goals for Charlotte County are similar, but somewhat more policy oriented because of the limited amount of public transportation available in the County. The goals for Brevard and Manatee counties reflect more maturity in their systems and specifically addres s issues of expansion and attracting new choice riders. Charlotte County's goals are more modest, reflecting a specific focus on providing service for those who are transit dependent. Goals and Objectives 4-5 May 13,1996

PAGE 129

Charlotte County Transit Dnelopment Plan Table 4-l Comparison of TDP Goals and Objectives with Current Plans Proposed 'fDP'Goals L MeetNeed 2, LowCost Service 3 Connected Transportation Modes 4 Land Use 5 Public lnfonnation/ Involvement Goals and Objectives Goal !/Objective U Policy LLI4 Goai3/0bjective 35 Policy 35J Goal 9/0bjective 9, I Policy 9JJ Goai9/0bjective 93 Policy 9.3. I Policy 9.3,2 Goal 1/0bjective Ll Policy LLI5 Goal 3/0bjective 3,5 Policy 35.2 Policy353 Goal 9/0bjective 9J' Policy 9, L4 Goai9/0bjective 93 Policy 933 Goal I in general Goal 3/0bjective 35 Policy 3 5.3 Goal 9/0bjective 9.2 Policy 9 .2.1 Policy 9.2,2 Goal I in general Goal 9/0bjective 9.1 Policy 9. L3 Goal 9/0bjective 9 .I Policy 9.L2 Goal15 in general Goal 1/0bj ective I Policy L2 L5 Goal 1/0bjective 2 Policy 2J 23 Goall/Objective 4 Policy 4. I 4A Goal 1/0bjective 2 Policy 2A Goal 1/0bjective 3 Policy 3J 3.9 Goal 1/0bjective I Policy U Goal 1/0bjective 2 Policy 2.5 Plan Mus :transit Element Objective I Policy L1 L2 Objective 2 Policy 2.2 Objective I Policy L3 Objective 2 Policy 2.2 Objective 2 Policy 2.2 Objective 2 Policy 2.2 Objective 2 Policy 2. I May 13, 1996

PAGE 130

PARTS: DEMAND ESTIMATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT The objec tive of Part 5 is to describe demand estimates and to quantify mobility needs for the study a.r:ea. The assessment of transit demand and mobility needs are used to help determine whether service options outlined in Part 6 will be responsive to the needs of the community. The tasks of estima ting demand for transit and the mobility needs of the community are more difficult in the case of Charlotte County because there currently is no fixed-route service; how ever, there is existing parattansit servic e, which can serve as a starting point. This information in this d ocument is the same as the information presented in Technical Memorandum No.4.

PAGE 131

Cbarlotte County Transit Development Plan Demand Estimation There are several methods of estimating demand for transit service. The following sections contain methods to estimate demand in Charlotte County for paratransit and fixed-route service lbis section also includes an estimation of the demand for complementary paratransit service under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which must be provided if the MPO opts to offer fixed-route transit service. Para transit Demand Estimates As described in Parts I and 2, Charlotte County coordinates and operates paratransit service for persons who are elderly, disabled and/or low income, and for children who are risk" or risk" of a developmental disability In Florida, these people are referred to as "transportation disadvantaged" (TD) Although not the same as general public paratransit demand, projecting TD paratransit demand and supply will give a good idea of the potential demand related to those who most need public transportation. F l orida's coordinated TD system serves two population groups. The frrst group includes all those who are elderly disabled, and/or low-income persons. lbis group, the potential TD population (also referred to as "TD Category I"), is eligible for trips purchased by social service agencies. The Potential TD Population is roughly analogous to the transit dependent market, described later in this secti o n. The second population group (a subset of the fli'St) includes people who are transportation disadvantaged, according to the eligibility guidelines in Chapter 427 F .S. (i.e., those persons from the Potential TD Population who are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and children who are "high-risk" or "at-risk"). These persons, referred to as the TD Population (also referred to as "TD Category II"), are eligible for trips purchased through the state TD Trust Fund, as well as for trips purchased by social service agencies. Dema11d Estimatioo and Needs Asse:ssme.Dt s-J Mlly 13, 1996

PAGE 132

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Forec L .. :. ., :: . _.' ., "" '" > <.-'(;<.--. ,, Es "-$. i'.>.-' . : :..:-. timates : .. '<' _,.,. <:-,. . 't ____ , .. _, '-' ;,,, 1 999 < ,_ . h. ., .. '. d ' ... .. PotentiaiiD Population (Category I) 69,846 72,286 74,813 77,426 80,132 1D Population (Category II) 13,412 13,873 14,350 14,844 15,355 Demand for Paratransit Service J 13,246 324,088 335,308 346,925 358,945 Supply ofParatransit Service 149,019 154,219 159,601 165,170 170,934 Unmet Demand for Paratransit Service 164,227 169,869 175,707 181,755 188,011 Figures include trips provided through the community transportation coordinator (CTC) and estimates of the trips provided outside of the coordinated system (e.g., by social service agencies that do not have coordination agreements with the CTC). Source: Based on Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transportation Demand ott he County Level (CUTR 1993). Also shown in T able 5-1 are estimates for the demand, supply, and unmet demand for paratransit servi ce (trips) in Charlotte County. Two types of trips are provided in Florida's TD program: program trips and general trips. Program trips are trips made by clients of social service agencies for the purpose of participating in agency programs. Exam ples of program trips are trips to congregate dining facilities, Head Start, job training facilities, and Medicaid services. Generally, these trips are purchased by the agencies for their clients Members of the Potential TD Population (whic h includes the TD Population) are eligible for program trips. General trips are trips made by the TD Population t o destinations of their choice, not to agency-sponsored programs. Examples of general trips are trips to work, grocery stores, or non-Medicaid medical Demaad Estimatioa and Needs Assessmtat S-Z May 13,19%

PAGE 133

Charlotte Counry Traaslt Development Plan trips. General trips are typically purchased through the TD Trust Fund or local sources. Only persons in the TD Population are eligible for general trips purchased through the TD Trust Fund (unless the trip is paid for by a social service agency). The approach used to forecast demand for general trips involves the use of trip rates derived in a study of paratransit demand, based on actual experiences of paratransit systems that are meeting most or all of the demand in their service areas. In that study, trip rates were developed from an evaluation of seven paratransit systems that provided high levels of service. These trip rates, 1 0 trips per month in areas with fixed-route service and 1.2 trips per month in areas without fixed route service, represent the demand for general trips. Annual demand for general trips in Charlotte County is simply the TD Population (13,412) multiplied by 14.4 trips per year for a total of 193,133 trips in FY 1996. The demand for program trips is forecasted differently from the demand for general trips. As previously discussed, program trips are sponsored by social service agencies for the purpose of transporting clients to and from programs of those agencies. The demand for program trips is a "derived demand"; that is, the demand for these trips is dependent upon the existence of the program to which transportation disadvantaged persons are transported. For example, demand for trips to senior centers exists only because there are senior center programs and facilities Thus, the demand for program trips is equal to the number of trips required to take advantage of the service offered by the programs. Therefore, demand for program trips will depend on the level of funding for the various social service programs The approach used to forecast demand for program trips assumes that the funding for these programs will grow at a rate sufficient to keep up with increases in the number of persons in the TD population. The demand for program trips is estimated to be 120,113 for FY I 996. The total demand for trips in FY I 996 is estimated to be 313,246 by adding general trips (I 93,133) and program trips ( 120, I 13) (see Table 5-1). Paratransit trips will be supplied both by operators who are part of the coordinated TD system and by operators who are not part of the coordinated system. Within the coordinated TD system, it is assumed that the supply of program trips and those general trips purchased with agency funds will increase at the same rate as the Potential TD Population. It is assumed that the supply of general trips purchased through the TD Trust Fund will increase at the same rate as the TD Population. The supply of trips provided by operators who are not part of the coordinated system is predicted to grow at the same rate as the Potential TD Population. The difference between the number of trips demanded and the number supplied is the unmet demand for TD trips. Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment 5-3 May 13,19%

PAGE 134

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Based on this analysis, paratransit providers in Charlotte County are only providing 48 percent of the total estimated demand, suggesting a current unmet demand of more than 164, 000 paratransit trips annually. The demand for, supply of and unmet demand for paratransit trips is projected to increase by 3 percent per year, based on data from BEBR . Comparison with Paratransit Peer Group Another approach for estimating demand for paratransit service is to compare per capita ridership, vehicle miles, fare, and operating expenses of the Charlotte County Transit Department (CCTD) with those of similar paratransit systems in Florida. Table 5-2 contains averages and per capita measures for Charlotte County's CTC peers (Bay, Hernando, indian River, Okaloosa, and St. Luc i e counties). These per capita measures were then applied to Charlotte County's population to estimate passenger trips, vehicle miles, fare, and operating expenses. This analysis is used to calculate the level of paratransit service Charlotte County could be expected to provide based on its peers (see Table 5-2). As shown in Table S-2, Charlotte County Transit Department provided or coordinated I 03,676 passenger trips in FY 1995. To match the peer group average, CCTD would have provided 108,563 one-way passenger trips during that year. CCTD also provides less service, as measured by vehicle miles per capita, than the peer group average. In FY 1995, CCTD logged 346,744 vehicle miles. Using the peer group average, CCTD would have logged 551,579 vehicle miles. CCTD's operating expenses per capita also were less than the peer group average in FY 1995. Using the peer average, operating expenses for the extra service would have been $908 867, instead of $700,750 actual expenses. Based on this comparison with its peers, had Charlotte County provided the expected number of trips in FY 1995, it would have provided 5 percent more trips (I 03,676 vs. I 08,563), but had I 0 percent less cost to provide those trips. It should be noted that the other peers also are constrained by limited budgets and do not meet the demand in their service areas either. Demaod Estimation aod Needs Assessmeot MJ.y 13, 1996

PAGE 135

Charlott e County Tran.sit Dev elopment Plan Table 5-2 Comparison of Para transit Peer Group ,..ith Charlotte County .. ... ...... Population Pas senger Trips Vehicle Miles Operating Expenses Operating Expense per Trip Operating Expense per Capita Passenger Trips per Capita Vehicle Miles per Capita Farebox Recovery Ratio 138,439 130,397 115,258 103,676 585,327 346,744 $965,519 $700,750 $838 $6.76 $6.97 $5.37 0.83 0.80 4.23 2.66 1.4% 0.0% The peer group includes Bay. Hernando, Indian River, Okaloosa, and St. Lucie counties. The averages do not include Charlotte County. Nl A = not applicable NfA 108,563 551,579 $908,867 $8.38 $6.97 0.83 4.23 1.4% Source: Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged: Annual Performance Report, FY 1994 /995. Fixed-Route Transit Demand Estimates CUTR has estimated potential fixed-route demand using the following three methods: (I) transit peer group comparisons, (2) a census block group analysis, and (3) citizen input and interview results. A threshold analysis also was completed (see Part 3 and Technical Memorandum No.4). Because Charlotte County does not currently provide fixed-route service, demand estimation techniques for fixed-route are limited. Also, some of the demand for fixed-route service may already be met by the paratransit program coordinated by CCTD, and, conversely, some of the paratransit service provided by CCTD might be able to be shifted to a fixed-route system. Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment s-s May 13,1996

PAGE 136

Cbarlo tte Coun ty Transit D evelopment P i a a Compariso n wit b T rans i t P eer Group Although Charlotte County does not have a fixed route transit system, fixed route demand can be estimated by examining the ridership rates from peer counties with varying levels of transit service and per capita transit spending, and applying these rates to the Charlotte County service .. area (Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area only) (see T able 5-3). T able 5 3 C om parison o f Fixed Rou t e Transit Pee r Group witb Ch a rlo tte Cou n ty ;. .,,,....,_, 1 . ( ,,_, ,: t:' ., ; :1 : f.... '., 't ; .. :'xi FN'< '"' : .; -'"> . y:4-..... ,,.' '!>-.}'$" . ' *'!':t" . .!?.,:h."-' F r. .. ;a;;;; ., t Peet}.,.. Service Area Population 102,621 67,033* Passenger Trips 1,083,749 707,868 Revenue Miles 538 448 351,923 Operating Expenses $1,403,214 $916,341 Passenger Trips per Capita 10.56 10.56 Revenue Miles per Capita 5.25 5.25 Operating Expense per Capita $13.67 $ 1 3.67 Note: Figures are for fixed-route servic e only, unless otherwise noted. B ased on transit peers identified in Part 2 of the TDP: Manatee County, Florida; A lbany, Georgia; and Amarillo and Beaumont, Texas. San Angelo, Texas, was omitted from this p eer group as data were not available from 1993 Transit Profile s Service area population is for Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area; remai n ing figures are projections based on peer group per capita rates applied to Charlotte County. Sources: USDOT. 1993 Transit Profiles: Agencies in Urbanized Areas with Population of Less than 200,000 USDOT. 1993 Transit Profiles: Agencies in Urbanized Areas Exceeding 200 000 Population. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990. Transit peers were selected based on their general similarity to Charlotte County in t erms of population, populatio n densities, and the size of the fix ed route transit system. The peers include Manatee County Florida; Albany, Georgia; and Amari ll o and Beaumont, Texas. San Angelo, Texas, also was in the original peer group in Part 2; however, because of data reporting problems in FY 1993, San Angelo was dropped from this peer comparison Using these averages, per capita indices were developed, which wer e then applied to Charlotte County's urbanized area populatio n The results are FY 1993 estimates of passenge r nips, revenue miles, and operating Deman d Est i matio n a n d Needs Assessment Mll y 13, 1996

PAGE 137

Charlotte County Transit Plao expenses for transit service in Charlotte County, if there had been fixed-route transit service during that time. As can be seen in Table 5-3, multiplying the peer group's average passenger trips per capita (10.56) by Charlotte County's SeJVice area population yields a projected 707,868 passenger trips, had Charlotte County provided seJVice during FY 1993. (The number of passenger trips per capita for the four peers ranged from 3.4 (625,897 trips) for Manatee County to 27.1 (1,359,537 trips) for Albany.) By way of comparison, Charlotte County's CTC coordinated I 08,861 paratransit trips during FY 1993. Similarly, multiplying the peer group's average revenue miles per capita (5.25) by Charlotte County's population yields a projected 351,923 revenue miles, had Charlotte County provided fixed-route SeJVice in FY 1993. (The revenue miles per capita for the four peers ranged from 2.9 (533,693 revenue miles) for Manatee County to 8.0 (403,026 revenue miles) for Albany.) Finally, multiplying the peer group's average operating expenses per capita ($13.67) by Charlotte County's population yields a projected operating expense of$916,341, had Charlotte County provided fixed-route seJVice in FY 1993. (The operating expense per capita ranged from $8.57 ($1, 556,944 operating expense) for Manatee County to $20.48 ($1,694,500 operating expense) for Beaumont. Census Block Group Analysis CUTR used the census block group (CBG) data from the 1990 Census for this demand estimation method. Data on characteristics that are highly correlated with a person's or a household's transit dependence was analyzed for each census block group within Charlotte County. The demographic characteristics that were chosen to indicate transit dependence include the percentage in each census block group of persons 60 years or older, households with an annual income below $10,000, and households without access to a vehicle. (CBGs with persons younger than 18 also may be used, but were not included in this analysis because of the small number of persons represented in this group.) The ftrst step in identifYing the census block groups that have persons or households with the greatest propensity for transit use is to calculate the percent distributions of the three demographic characteristics for each census block group This process resulted in a table of Demand Estimat i on and Nttds ASSfSSmeot s-7 May 13,1996

PAGE 138

Charlotte County Transit Development P lan values indicating the percentage of eld e rly persons low-income households and zero-vehicle households for each ofCharlolle County s 71 census block groups. The CBGs were then sorted for each characteristic in descending order of percent distribution so that the CBGs with higher percentages for each characterist i c would appear at the top of their respective ranges Prom the percentage ranges, an average percent value and a standard deviation value were calculated for each characteristic Statistical l y, the standard deviation is considered a measure of distance from the average value Each census block group under each of the thiee characteristics was then assigned a weight dependent on its deviation from the average for that charac t eristic. After weights were assigned to each census block group for each of the three characteristics, a score for each census block group was calculated by summing the three weights for each census block group. An average and standard deviation was then calculated for all of the scores U s ing this information, the census block groups were stratified into primary, secondary, and tertiary dependence on transit, based on how each score deviated from the average. The remaining CBGs show a lower dependence on transit, with individuals who may be dependent on others for th e ir transportation Map 5-1 presents the results of this analy sis. Two census block groups in Mid-County and Punta Gorda indicate a primary dependence on transit; another I I CBGs in Punta Gorda, Mid-County, and South County indicate secondary dependence on transit. Another 24 census block groups have the potential for a tertiary dependence on transit. Although this method does not yield a quantitative estimate of demand it is a useful exercise for predicting areas that are most li k ely to be depende n t on and supportive of fixed-route transit service, and aids in identifying potential routes for ftxed-route service, if deemed appropriate. Citize n I nput and I nterview Results Another means of predicting public transportation use is from citizen input gathered during surveys and public meetings. Results of the citizen telephone survey and interviews with key local officials, which CUT R conducted in the summer of 1995, provided valuable information for determining the demand for public transportation in Charlotte County (Results from the survey and interviews are discussed in more detail in Teclurical Memorandum No. 1.) In the survey in which 405 registered voters of Charlotte County were randomly selected to answer questions about public transportation, 46 percent of respondents stated that they or members of their household would use local bus service i f it were available in Charlotte County. An Demaod Est i mation and Netds Assessment S-8 May 13 1996

PAGE 139

Legend Primary Secondary [J Tertiary ,_...,.., ?-. :/ ""'" .,_ ,:.. _, N "'" 0 1 2 3 4 5 204.0) G -'! Transit Dependent Tracts by Census Block Group ...... ,, .. "'" TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAP S-1 10501 ;, .. ,. fo$0t'' '> :::',.. j; '._:_/ . . .. /.,..f. ... : ..... Lee ( 'mmfF CHARLOTIECOUNTI'PUNTAGORDA M.P.O.

PAGE 140

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan additional 13 percent of respondents indicated that they might use local bus service if it were available. There was a general consensus by those interviewed that there is a widespread community need for some type of public transportation in Charlotte County, primarily for the elderly, persons who are disabled, low-income workers, and teenagers. Most of the interviewees thought funding would be a major problem in establishing a public transit system. To be successful, the TOP should coordinate available resources to clearly address the needs of the community. Factors of most concern include development patterns, travel behaviors, and income characteristics More information on local funding and cost/benefit analysis is needed. There were many suggestions provided by those respondents as alternatives to traditional fixed-route transit system. Foremost were the suggestions to make public transit an accessible, efficient, and financially feasible means of transportation for the county. Similar reactions were gained during three public workshops held during February and March 1996 (see Technical Memorandum No. 5). During these workshops citizens expressed concerns about the lack of transportation alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish to drive. There was considerable interest expressed in developing a public transportation system, as long as it was fiscally responsible and cost-effective. ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Estimates The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires al.l transit agencies that provide fixed-route bus service to provide complementarY paratransit service, as well. The paratransit service must "shadow" the fixed-route service area and provide a comparable level of service for persons who cannot use the fixed-route service. ADA-eligible persons fall into three categories: Category I: Persons who are unable to board, ride, or disembark from a vehicle even if they are able to get to the stop and even if the vehicle is accessible. Category 2: Persons who cannot use vehicles without a lift or other accommodations. These persons are eligible for paratransit service if accessible fixed route vehicles are not available on the route on which they need to travel when they need to travel. Demand Estim.ation a ad Needs A$$e$$meot 5-10 May 13,1996

PAGE 141

Charlotte County Transit Developmeat Plan Category 3: Persons with specific impainnent related conditions who cannot travel to a boarding location or from a disembarking location to their final destination Population estimates for these three categories based on the methodology presented in the ADA Paratransit Handbook prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation are presented in Table 5-4. Because Charlotte County does not have a fixed-route transit system, the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area population was used as the service area population The ADA-eligible populations are determined by multiplying the urbanized area population by I.S percent for Category 1 and Category 3 combined, and by I percent for Category 2. (Category 2 is separated because these persons would use the fixed-route system if the vehicles were accessible ) These population estimates were then adjusted for Charlotte County by weighting the populations by the percent of persons in Charlotte County reporting a "public transportation disability" in the 1980 Census for Charlotte County divided by the national percentage. (Information from the 1980 Census was used because this question was not asked in the 1990 Census.) A low estimate and a high estimate for annual trips were then calculated for each population group, based on estimates in the ADA Paratransit Handbook. As shown in Table 5-4, the l ow and high estimates of trips that would be made by the Category I and 3 eligible populations for FY 1996 are 24,694 and 108 655, respectively. For Category 2 the low estimate of trips is 16.463 and the high esti m ate is 72,437. Passengers who would be considered eligible for ADA complementary paratransit service are not analogous to the TD Population; ADA eligibility is more narrowly defined (Category I and 3, as described above) Further, these estimates of ADA eligible complementary paratransit trips are not in addition to the trips that are already being provided or coordinated by the community transportation coo r dinator. I n fact, approximately 37,000 annual trips are already being provided by CCTD for persons with disabilities. Demand EstJma tioa aad Needs Assessment 5-11 May 13, 1 996

PAGE 142

CbarJotte Coun ty Tra n s it D evelopment P la n T able 5-4 ADA Paratran s il Population a nd Trip E sti ma t es ,., .'< ; FY1996 EY;t'9.97 FY:l998; FY' 1 999 FYlOOO "' .. .. ' Estimated Urbanized 80,028 82,429 84,902 87,449 90,072 Area Population . Estimate of ADA-Eligib l e Population-2,058 2,120 2,183 2,249 2 316 Categories I & 3 Estimate of ADA-Eligible Population -1,372 1,413 1,455 1,499 1 ,544 Category2 Estimate Low 24,694 25,435 26,198 26,984 27,794 of ADA Trips Category I & 3 High 108,655 ll1,915 115,272 I 18, 730 122,292 Estimate Low 16,463 16,957 17,465 17, 989 18,529 of ADA Trips Category2 High 72,437 74,610 76,848 79,154 81,528 Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990. USDOT: ADA Paratransit Handbook, 1 991. D emand Es t imation and Needs A>sessmen t 5-12 May 13 1996

PAGE 143

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Needs Assessment The previous section outlined demand estimates for transit and paratransit services in Charlotte County. In this section, mobility needs will be assessed. Mobility needs address the way to meet unmet demand. Titis discussion includes urunet needs, potential new markets, and the extent to which mobility needs are being met by existing public transportation services. Existing Public Transportation Services Existing public transportation services are available through two primary sources: the service coordinated by the Charlotte County Transit Departmen t, and service that is provided outside of the coordinated program Coordinated Service The Charlotte County Trans it Department provides and coordinates shared-ride, door-to-door paratransit service for persons who are transportation disadvantaged in the County. Service is offered on an advanced-reservation basis, generally for subscription (standing order) trips or a demand-response (random) basis. (A description of exist ing services is provided in Appendix C.) In addition to providing service itself, CCTD also coordinates services operated by other transportation operators including Charlotte County Veteran's Council, Charlotte County Community Mental Health, Cooper Street Recreation Center and the Charlotte County School Board (Head Start Program). In FY 1995, these services totaled I 03,676 one-way passenger trips, with a majority of the trips being for medical, nutrition, and education/training purposes. These trips were provided for clients of the above-mentioned programs and for persons who qualify under the state prescribed guidelines for TO-eligibility (as described in Part I and in the previous section). Estimation and Needs Assessment 5-13 May 13,1996

PAGE 144

Cbarlotu County Tra11sit Development Plan Non-coordinated Service Other transportation services are provided by public and private agencies, as well as v olunteer organizations who are not part of the CTC's coordinated system (non-coordinated operators). As part of this study CUTR contacted 28 organizations identified by the MPO, to determine what types of services they offered; however, only eight non-coordinated agencies responded (see Appendix C). There also are more than a dozen taxicab and limousine services, as well as the Jolly Trolley that provide service. Information for those providers also is included in Appendix C. Only limited information was available related to the actual numbers of trips provided by these services. It should be kept in mind that most agencies only provide trips for their own clients. UnmetNeed There still is a large unmet need for public transportation service in Charlotte County. As indicated in the section on demand estimation for paratransit service, in FY 1996, there are an estimated 13,412 persons in the TD Population and 69,846 persons in the Potential TD Population. CCTD currently provides and coordinates service for less than 5,000 of those persons. Further, an estimated 149,019 trips (coordinated and non-coordinated) will be provided to the transportation disadvantaged in FY !996leaving an estimated 164,227 unmet trips To meet these needs requires assessing many aspects of service including service area, frequency and hours of service intermodal connections, and coordination of service with other operators. The proposed goals and objectives presented in Part 3, the citizen telephone survey, interviews with local officials and demographic characteristics all are used to assess the characteristics of need Service Area A part of assessing the need for improved transit service is determining where this improved service should operate in the county. The first step in establishing a service area is determining where potential riders live. An estimation of this population was done in the census block group analysis in the demand estimation section Using Census data, census block groups that have a large percentage of persons that could potentially have a dependence on transit were identified. 1bree characteristics were identified as factors that could influence a person's dependence on Demaad Estimation and Needs Assessment 5-14 MJiy 13, 1996

PAGE 145

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan transit: persons age 60 or older, households with an annual income less than $10,000 and households with no access to a vehicle The results of this analysis are shown in Map 5-l. As shown in this map, many of the census block groups that have a primary or secondary dependence on transit are located on or near the U.S. 41 corridor, from Punta Gorda to Port Charlotte. The next step is to determine where publ.ic transportation serv i ce is currently being provided. One week of trips provided and coordinated by the community t ransportation coordinator of Charlotte County (CCTD) was mapped according to the origin and destination of each t rip T h e lines do not indicate multip l e trips; rather, they show a compilation of origins and destination s for the period. A one-week period October 23 -27, 1995, was chosen as a typical week of paratransit service in Charlotte County The trips were separated into subscription trips and demand responsive trips. Subscription trips, which recur on a regular basis, are shown in Map 5-2. Most of these trips were for training programs, nutrition sites, and shopping trips, with many trips focused on the Charlotte County Special Training and Rehabilitation (STAR ) program in the northern part of the map Demand-response trips are shown i n Map 5-3 Most of these trips were for medical appointments I n comparing the transit dependent census block groups in Map 5-1 with the current supply of services identified in Maps 5-2 and 5-3, CCTD is currently providing a major part of its service to the highly transit-dependent U.S. 41 corridor, v.ith additional service to and within Englewood and other outlying areas. In addition to eva l uating the service area according to demographic characteris t ics and current supply of paratransit trips, interviews with l ocal officials provided information on establishing a service area (see Part 2) The gen e ral consensus was that people would use trans i t i n housing areas with a concentration of seniors. For examp l e, a bus could go from Punta Gorda to Port Charlotte and Murdock, and possibly Englewood. Suggested bus routes include Tamiami Trail, Harborview, and Kings Highway. The Venice business district County Court House, and the Port Charlotte Cultura l Ce n ter were suggested as potential bus s t ops. Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment 5-15 May 13, 1996

PAGE 146

Legend Nutrition Education & Txaining Employment Medical Shopping + Other 8-..z:. ("'> 0 N I 012345 Subscription Trips October 23 1996 Sarasota County Lee County --................ TRANSITDEVELOPMENTPLAN I CHARLOTIECOUNTYM p 0 MAP S-2 C)4/23/96 PUN!' A GORDA

PAGE 147

Legend Nutrition Education & Training Employment M edical Shoppi ng + O ther 0 ..;:... .-.. 8--. >, <,;... N I 0 1 2 3 4 5 Demand Responsive Trips October 23 27, 1995 Sarasota Lee County F.lotOEs:roe. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I CHARLOTIE COUNTYM p 0 HAl' 5 3 04123(96 PUNT A GORDA

PAGE 148

Charfocte County Transit Development Plan Frequency and Hours of Sen-ice Another imponant aspect of public transponation service is the frequency of the service (time between buses) and the hours and days of service. The cunent paratransit service by CCTD is operated from 7:30a.m. to 6:00p.m., weekdays, except on national holidays when there is no service. After-hours, weekend, and holiday service (for limited trip purposes) can be bought from Ambitrans Inc., at a higher cost per mile. The service is operated as a door-to-door service with some scheduled routes on a daily and/or weekly basis. Interviews with local officials indicated a perceived need both for daytime and evening service. The main service needs are in the daytime for medical appointments, shopping, and social activities. There also was an indicated need for elderly who cannot drive at night and are dependent upon taxis or other people for transportation. Further; there also was concern for the mobility needs of children who could use public transportation to go to locations such as youth recreation areas or beaches The telephone survey of Charlotte County residents (described in Part 2) indicated that if fixed route public transportation were available the buses should pass each stop every 30 to 60 minutes; however, it was suggested in the interviews with local officials that particular routes would not need to be provided every day. Perhaps vehicles could be alternated between routes. For example, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, one route could operate in one area; on T uesday, Thursday and Saturday another route serving a different area could be offered. In this way, neighbors could get together to go shopping, see doctors, etc. It should be remembered that Goal 1 of the Proposed Goals and Objectives stated that public transponation needs to be simple and dependable Inrermodal Connections An imponant part of the provfsion of public transportation service is the connections with other transportation modes such as bicycle' ahd pedestrian facilities, the airport, the rail depot, and intercity bus stops. Goal Tof Goals "and Objecti ves presented in Part 4 indicates a need to connect transponation modes. Specifically, coordinating expansion of the public transportation system should be linked with improvementS in related facilities. This can be done by providing comfortable and useful facilities at major destinations including benches, shelters, trees and bicycle facilities ; continuing to expand the availability of sidewalk and bike paths associated De-mand Estimation and Needs Assessment S-18 May t3, 1996

PAGE 149

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan with fixed bus routes; providing bike racks on buses and at stops; and providing taxi stands at bus stops. Coordioatioo of Service with Other Operators Several interviewees stated that policies need to coordinate available resources, with consideration of cost for transportation miles. One respondent said that there could be better use made of the TOTE (Transportation of the Elderly) program, provided by the Cultural Center. Public transit could be coordinated with taxicabs and TOTE to promote utilization of those services. In addition, considerable interest has been expressed with respect to involving the private sector in the provision of service-whether it be paratransit or fixed-route transit. Using the private sector is viewed by many in the community as a prudent use of resources and may result in more cost-effective service Demaad Estimation and Nteds Assessmeut 5-19 May 13,1996

PAGE 150

CharloHe County Trauslc Devt-lopmtnt Pla.n Summary The purpose of Part 5 was threefold: I. To provide estimations of the demand for public transportation (paratransit as well as fixed-route). 2. To estimate the mobility needs of the community. 3. To describe the current public transportation service provided by the CTC, the Charlotte County Transit Department. The demand for public transportation service was calculated both for paratransit and fixed-route services as well as for ADA complementary paratransit. To the extent possible, those estimates were quantified. The methods used and the results of this effort are summarized in Table 5-5. The mobility needs of the community also were identified, by examining the existing public transportation services provided by the community transportation coordinator (Charlotte County Transit Department), as well as the services offered by other providers who are not part of the coordinated TD transportation system. An origin-destination analysis of subscription and demand-response trips provided by the CTC was conducted to determine whether the current supply of trips coincides with the potential transit dependent markets identified in the needs portion of this document. No matter what technique was used, there appears to be a demand and need for some type of additional public transportation in Charlotte County. Df .mand Estimation and Needs Assessment 5-lO May 13, 1996

PAGE 151

CbarloUe County Transit Deve-lopment Plan Table 5-S Summary of Demand Estimations and Needs Assessment Techniques F' d- ID-!Dt: \ . Forecast oflD Paratransit Trip Only 48 percent of the estima t ed demand for 1D Demand paratransit trips will be met in FY 1996: FY 1996 Est. Demand 313,246 FY 1996 Es t Supply ]42 .!!12 FY 1996 Est Unmet Demand = 164,277 Comparison with Paratransit Peer The Charlotte County CTC is providing 5% le s s Group service than its peer CTCs. FY 1995 Peer Group A verage 115,258 FY 1995 Charlotte Co. Trips 103,676 FY 1995 Expected Charlotte County Trips (based on peers) 108,563 Threshold Analy s i s (see Part 3) According to the threshold analysis, Charlotte County does not yet have sufficiently concentr ated no n residential floor space (i.e., employment fa ci lities) to support minimum fixed route b u s service. R eside ntia l density meets the. threshold requiremen t in only nine TAZs. Non-residential density does not meet the minimum threshold re q uirement of3.5 million square feet in the downtown area. Comparison with Transit Peer Group Based on an analysis of transit peers, if Charlotte County had provided fixed route s ervice in FY 1993, the projected number of passenger trips would have been 707,868, almost seven times the number of paratransit trips provided at that t i me (108,861). Census Block Group Analysis About half of Charlotte County's 71 census bloc k grcups (CBGs) indicate a primary, secondary or t ertiary potential dependence on transit (mostly along u.s. 41). 2 CBGs indicate a p rimary potential d ependence on transit 1 1 CBGs indicate a secondary potential dependence on transit 24 CBGs indicate a tert iary potential dependence on transit Citizen Input & Interview Results G eneral consensus there is widespread community need for public transportation service must be cost-effective should serve the transit dependent See Proposed Goals and Objectives in Technical Memorandum No. 3 and Part 4 of this document. Demand Estimation and Needs Asse$$ment 5-21 May 13,1996

PAGE 152

Cbar l otte County Transit Devt lopmtnt Plan De m a nd Esti m atio n Tec h nique F i n di ngs . ADA Complementary Parat r ansit Require d if Charlott e County implements fixed-route Demand Estimates s ervice (i.e., both fixed-route and paratransil woul d be required) o estimated ADA paratransit trips in FY 1 996 would have been from 24,694 to 109,655 (Categories I & 3) est i mated ADA paratrans i t trips in FY 1996 would have b een from 16,463 to 72 ,437 (Category 2) ADA trips are not an alogous to ID trips __ ,_ -.. ><' ... : Find iogs ... -. .-_, < . Existing P ub l ic Transportation Charlott e County T ransit Department coordinated Services I 03,676 m paratransi t trips in FY 1995. UnmetNeed Co n s i derable unmet n ee d has been i den t ified (see page 18). Service Area Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area shoul d be targeted Frequency and Hours of S ervice s e rvice sho uld be operated Monday S a turday; Sunday, if possi b le fix ed-route should operate on 30to 60minute frequencies -Int ennodal CoMections new/enhanced serv i ce should connect with pedestrian, bicycle r a i l taxi, and other transit-related facilities Coor d ination of Service with Other New service shoul d be coordinated with (or p rovided Operators by) exis t ing service providers (e.g. local taxicab companies providing public transportation service under contract to the County). Dema o d E stimation a ad Needs Assessment S-l l M a y 13 1996

PAGE 153

PART6: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Part 6 describes the options for public transportation. These options were developed from four basic models discussed during the public invo l vement process. On April 8 1996 the MPO Board voted to pursue a more detailed evaluation of Option 2, expansion of paratransit service to general public Dial-a-Ride. Prior to the April MPO meeting, the options had been presented in a series of community workshops which are described in Technical Memorandum No. S. The results of the additional analysis of Option 2 are included in Part 7 of this document.

PAGE 154

Charlotte County Transi1 Developmenl Plea Options This section describes the public transportation options CUTR developed for consideration by theMPO. As part of the Public Involvement Plan, a series of meetings was conducted during February and March 1996 with various :MPO advisory committees. The purpose of the meetings was to acquaint them with the goals and objectives outlined in Technical Memorandum No. 3 and Part 4 of this document; to describe the results of the demand forecast and needs study documented in Technical Memorandum No.4 and Part 5; and to seek input on the general options developed and presented at the community workshops described in Technical Memorandum No 5. The meeting dates are listed below: February I, 1 996 TDP Transit Review Committee (TRC) TRC March 7, !996 March 13, 1996 TD Coordinating Board March 27, 1996 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) March 27, 1996 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)ffRC Goint meeting) During February, the TRC had a major role in development of the draft goals and objectives, which were refmed and presented in March. In addition, CUTR staff updated the MPO at its February 12, 1996, meeting. All four committees wumimously endorsed the draft goals and objectives. Further, all of the committees endorsed either Option 2 or a combination of Option 2 and Option 3 The four basic options are: Option I Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 No expansion of existing paratransit service. Expansion of paratransit service to general public Dial-a Ride. Provision of minimal fixed-route service and ADA complementary paratransit. (This option later became Options 3A and 3B.) Provision of traditional fixed-route servi c e and ADA complementary paratransit. As a result of the input, before presenting the options to the MPO, Option 3 was been further refined into two Options (3A and 3B), with different implementation schedules. Tab le 6-1 PubUc Tnruportatioo Optloos 6-1 May 13,1996

PAGE 155

Cborlotle Couoty Transit Development Plan summarizes the options, which are described after the table. (A detailed description of the options is included in Technical Memorandum No.5.) Table6-1 Charlotte County TDP Summary of Public Transportation Options Option I 0 Option2 Option3A Option 3B Option 4 4 Paratransil 4 Paratransit 3 Fixed-Route 4 Paratransit 3 FixedRoute 8 Paratransit 9 Fixed-Route 3 $98,161 5 $544,416 5 $385,666 IS $2,873,911 $2,322,540 (64% used} $2,322,540 (72% used} $2,322,540 (75% used} $2,322 540 (79"/o used} $1,578,960 $2,202,369 $2,139,025 $4,705,382 Note: The projected costs are for one scenario under each option. Further study of the selected option will yield costs. Option 1: No Expansion of Existing Paratransit Service Under this option, existing paratransit service would not be expanded; therefore, there would be no additional costs to the existing system. This option would not take advantage of capital and operating assistance available through Federal Section 9 and State Block Grant Funds which have been earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. This option would result in no increase in service or cost for the 1D transportation system currently operated by CCID (see Technical Memorandum No.4 for a description of that service) The focus of this option would be to improve on the current system of providing transportation for the senior citizens, persons with disabilities, children-at-risk, and others who Public Trausporulioo OptioDS 6-2 Moy 13,1996

PAGE 156

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan qualify to use transportation under specific social service programs or the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged criteria, with no additional resources. Issues lbis option would require no additional funding. It also does not take advantage of $464,508 in federal/state operating and capital funds earmarked for Charlotte County to provide public transportation in the urbanized area of the county. Based on the analysis presented in Technical Memorandum No.4, the current TD paratransit service is not meeting the needs o f persons who are transportation disadvantaged in Charlotte County. The system serves approximately 5,000 individuals and provided approximately I 03,000 trips in FY 1995. Trips are prioritized to serve medical appoinbnents, nutrition sites, education and training, and grocery shopping. The system limits trips to other destinations such as to social and recreational sites. Clearly, this option does not address the pressing need for public transportation for those who are transit dependent. This option is contrary to the perceived need for additional public transportation resources expressed by the vast majority of persons contacted during the course of this study. Given that current service meets less than half of the projected demand for paratransit service for persons who are transportation disadvantaged (see Part 5 and Technical Memorandum No. 4). For example, in FY 1996, 149,019 trips (including trips coordinated/provided by CCTD and those provided by other agencies that have coordination agreements with CCTD) are projected to be provided as part of the coordinate transportation system, yet the projected demand for paratransit service is estimated to be 314,236, more than twice the number provided. Option 2: Expansion of Paratransit Service to General Public Dial-a-Ride Under this option, existing paratransit service would be expanded to accept requests for service from the general public (this type of system is sometimes called "dial-a-ride") Four new vehicles would be added to the existing fleet (including one spare). lbis option takes advantage offederal and state public transportation funding. A fare would be charged for the Dial a-Ride service. The service could be administered by CCTD, with vehicles operated by the County or by private contractors. A modest fare could be charged (perhaps $1.00) to help offset Public Transportation Options May 13,1996

PAGE 157

Charlotte County Traasit Development Plaa the cost for service and to attach a value to the service. This amount also matches the $1.00 co pay required for Medicaid trips. This option would build upon existing paratransit service and expand this service to the general public, particularly to those who are "transit dependent." The definition of transit dependent is more inclusive than the definition of transportation disadvantaged, which is currently used as the criteria for service with CCID. In addition, the service currently provided by CCID maintains trip priorities for its clients; those that use the service, for example, those who use the 1D service for doctors' appointments may not be able to use it for shopping or social activities. Under an expanded paratransit system these trip priorities would be expanded to include more trips. Issues This is the option that was endorsed by the MPO at its April 8, 1996 meeting. Option 2 also was endorsed by the TD Coordinating Board. The Transit Advisory Committee endorsed this option with the intention of looking at Option 3 in three years. The Citizen Advisory Committee and the Transit Review Committee voted to pursue further study of both Option 2 and Option 3. Increased paratransit service under Option 2 could provide an additiona!IS,OOO trips per year. The current system provides approximately 103,000 trips per year. Therefore, this would be a IS percent increase in service. In addition, trip priorities would be expanded to include more trips such as shopping and social activities; and service would be expanded to include the transit dependent not just those who are transportation disadvantaged, according to Chapter 327 F.S. This option, however could have the potential to overwhelm the current 1D system. Approximately 15,000 additional trips could be provided, but service would also be opened up to the general public. Opening eligibility and trip priorities may overwhelm the system with latent demand. The estimated overall cost to Charlotte County over the five-year period, in this option, is relatively small As shown in Table 6-1, over the five-year period, the projected amount of new local money required is $98,161, out of a total operating and capital expense of$1,578,960. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta Gorda Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. Public Trnsponalioo Opcioos May 13,!9%

PAGE 158

Charlotte County Option 3A: Transit Development Plan Provision of Minimal Fixed-Route Service and ADA Complementary Paratransit Under this option, minimal fixed-route service using two small buses would be added to serve the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area; existing door-to-door paratransit service also would be expanded by tluee vehicles to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirement for complementazy paratransit service. Fixed-route service would target those areas that are most likely to generate trips (i.e., areas with contraction of persons who are transit dependent and in areas already generating trips tluough the existing CTC paratransit program). The paratransit service would be open to the general public only in areas that did not have fixed route service. A modest fare would be charged for service, perhaps 75 to $1.00 for fixed-route service and $1.50 to $2.00 for demand-response service. Fixed-route trips could be further discounted for seniors, persons with disabilities, and children. Issues The Transit Advisory Committee endorsed reviewing Option 3A in tluee years, after focusing on Option 2 The Citizen Advisory Committee and the Transit Review Committee endorsed both Option 2 and Option 3A based on these options receiving more detailed analysis. Option 3A would focus general public service on the fixed-route system with maintaining the paratransit system for the transportation disadvantaged and persons qualified under the ADA. Similar to Option 2, Option 3A could provide approximately 15,000 new trips per year with the additional paratransit vehicles. The new fixed-route transit vehicles could provide approximately 20,000 additional trips. The combined additional annual trips could total 35,000, thereby increasing service by 34 percent (The current system provides approximately I 03,000 trips per year.) As shown in Table 6-1, over the five-year period new local money required, under this option is $544,416 out of a total operating and capital expense of$2,202,369. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta GordaPort Charlotte Urbanized Area. However, this scenario under this option does not utilize the maximum available federal and state assistance for Charlotte County. Under this scenario all new vehicles for fixed route and paratransit services would be purchased in Year One. This alternate scenario, presented as Public Transport.otion Options 6-5 May 13,1996

PAGE 159

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Option 3B, phases in the purchase of new vehicles in order to better utilize the available federal and state assistance. This option is explained in the next se ction Option 3B: Phase-in of Minimal Fixed-Route Service and ADA Complementary Paratransit Option 3B is a phased implementation of Option 3A. Instead of providing both fixed-route and paratransit service during the initial year of service, Option 3B is a phased implementation beginning with expanded paratransit service in Year One with establishment of fixed-route service in the second year of operation. Paratransit would be offered to the general public in all areas of Charlotte County in Year One, but would be restricted to people in areas not served by fixed-route service from Year Two forward. A major advantage of phasing service implementation as suggested in Option 3B is that it allows the County to take advantage of additional federal and state funds, and reduces the local match required for capital by $160,480 during the first two years. Issues Option 3B evolved out of the input and suggestion of the TRC, CAC, and TAC. The CAC and TRC endorsed Options 2 and 3A with consideration of the two options in more detail with specific emphasis on revenue options. Option 3B could be considered a combination of Option 2 and Option 3A. Option 3B would focus general public service on the fixed-route system, while maintaining the paratransit system for the transpiration disadvantaged and persons qualified under ADA. Similar to Option 2, Option 3B could provide 15,000 new trips per year with the additional paratransit vehicles. The new transit or fixed-route vehicles could provide approximately 20,000 additional trips. The combined additional annual trips could total 35,000, thereby increasing service by 34 percent. (The current system provides approximately 103,000 trips per year.) As shown in Table 6-1, over the five-year period new local money required, under this option, is $385,666, out of a total operating and capital expense of$2, 139,025. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized PubUo Tnosportallon Options May 13,1996

PAGE 160

Chtrlone County Tra11Sil Dtvelopmtal Piau Area Option 3B uses available federal and state assistance for Charlotte County more effectively than Option 3A by phasing the purchase of new vehicles. Option 4: Provision of Traditional Fixed-Route Service and ADA Complementary Paratransit Under this option, over a two-year period, fixed-route service using eight medium-duty buses would be added to serve the urbanized area; existing door-to-door paratransit service also would be expanded by seven vehicles to meet the ADA requirement for complementary paratransit service. Routes would be laid out along primary travel corridors (e.g., U.S. 41, S.R. 776, and U.S. 17) to serve major trip generators within Charlotte County. A modest fare would be charged for service, perhaps 75 to $1.00 for fixed-route service and $1.50 to $2.00 for demand response service. This option is similar to the recommendation made in 1981 for Charlotte County after a public transportation study. Issues Option 4 was not endorsed by the advisoty committees. As shown in Table 6-1, over a five-year period new local money required under this option is $2,873,609, out of a total operating and capital expense of$4,705,402. The balance of expenses is covered by federal and states assistance earmarked for the Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte Urbanized Area. Public Transportation Options May 13,1996

PAGE 161

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Summary The purpose of Part 6 is to present an overview of the set of options considered for providing public transportation service in Charlotte County. Basic financial projects are included for each. Community workshops were held to elicit public comments regarding the mobility needs of the local community and potential options for meeting those needs. Comments from these workshops were incorporated into the potential options. The five options presented in this document are: Option I Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option4 No expansion of existing paratransit service. Expansion ofparatransit service to general public (Dial-a-Ride). Provision of minimal fixed-route service and ADA complementary para transit. Phase-in of minimal fixed-route service and ADA complementary paratransit. Provision of traditional fixed-route service and ADA complementary paratransit. Options I, 2, 3A, and 4 were presented to the Transit Review Committee (TRC), the Charlotte County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board (CCTDCB), the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Option 2 was endorsed by the CC TDCB. The TRC and the CAC endorsed both Option 2 and Option 3A, based on these options receiving more detailed analysis. The T AC endorsed Option 2, with a review of Option 3A in three years. I n response to the suggestions of the advi sory committees, Option 3B was developed in order to synthesize charact eristics of Option 2 and Option 3A, and to take better advantage of available federal and state assistance earmarked for Charlotte County. The MPO voted to endorse Option 2, and directed CUTR and MPO staff to refine Option 2 to reflect more detailed cost and operating assumptions. The results of this analysis are included in Part 7 of this document. Public TrollSportation Options May 13,1996

PAGE 162

Charlotte County Tran sit Development Plan Adoption of the fmal TOP by the MPO Board does not commit Charlotte County to establishing an expanded transit system. Instead, it allows the County to be eligible for federal Section 9 and state transit block grant funds. Adoption of the IDP provides Charlotte County with more options, not fewer. Public Transportation Options 6-9 May 13,1996

PAGE 163

PART 7: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY In May 1996, the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with the assistance of the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, completed its first Five-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP). Completion of the TDP makes the jurisdiction eligible to apply for capital and operating assistance through the Florida Department of T ransportation (FDOT) Public Transit Block Grant program. Adoption of the TDP does not commit the MPO or Charlotte County to implementing new service. This section of the TDP describes the impl eme ntation strategy for the selected option expansion of the existing TD paratransit service to general public Dial-a-Ride. This section includes a service overview, management strategy, implementation schedule, and financial and funding plans. Additional information regarding the background research for this TDP will b e found in Technical Memoranda Nos. 1-5 and in Parts 1-6 of this document.

PAGE 164

Charlotte County Transit Develop ment Plan Service Overview Although a Transit Development Plan (TDP) does not substitu te for an operations or service plan, it does provide an overall service description of the recommended option and basic implementation strategy. Preparation of a detailed operations plan is required prior to implementation of the new service. The basic service scenario for this TDP calls for development of an expanded paratransit service, which will be open to the general public in Charlotte Cowtty. This type of serv ice, sometimes called "Dial-a-Ri de," provides flexible service which allows a person to call and be picked up at his or her home and then transported to the desired destination. Several key components must be clearly stated to avoid confusion and m iSwtderstandings about what service will or will not be provided. The following describes the basic service operation scenario proposed in this TDP. The service overview applies only to the new Dial-a -Ride service; existing service provided for persons who are transportation disadvantaged (TD) will continue to be provided for those who are eligible to use it. Provide service in add ilion to the existing TD para transit service. Initially, service may be provided separately from the TD service already offered. Periodic reviews would be made to determin e whether it would be more appropriate to combine services. Allow people within the service area to use Dial-a-Ride. Although the goal is to emphasize service for those who are transit dependen t (as described in Technical Memorandum No. 4 and Part 5 of this document), all people would be eligible to use the new Dial-a-Ride service. Yowtg children may be required to be accompanied by an adult. Furthermore, service would be provided in accordance with the p rovision of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Provide service within Charlotte County. The service would operate in Charlotte Cowtty, with a focus on the Pwtta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area. Service may not be provided to destinations outside of Charlotte County. Provide service using lift -equipped vans or small buses. Five new vehicles (including one spare) may be purchased during Year One for the Dial-a-Ride service. The vehicles would be equipped with wheelchair lifts and other amenities to assist pass engers with disabilities and to ensure compliance with the ADA. To ensure passenger safety and comfort, all vehicles would have air conditioning and would be equipped with two-way lmplementatioo Strategy 7-1 Moy 13,1996

PAGE 165

Charlottt County Transit Development Plan radios for communicating directly with the dispatcher. Fareboxes would be installed to ensure proper cash handling Operate servie weekdays from 7:00 a.m. 8:00 p.m. These operating hours are approximate. If additional demand is identified, consideration may be given to changing service times, as budget permits Provide demand-responsive serviee. For Dial-a-Ride service, the passenger calls in advance to request a trip. In this case, service is proposed to be offered on a same-day basis. (Some advance reservations may be accepted.) Usually service is provided during an established "pickup window," within an hour (or less) of the request for service. Educational materials may be developed to assist patrons on a variety of topics. One example is that "Dial-a-Ride" service is not the same as service, which is expected to arrive within a few minutes of a request for service. Offer service oo a shared-ride basis. A key aspect of Dial-a-Ride service is that, to the maximum extent possible, passengers are grouped to enhance system productivity. Passengers would be advised that they may be sharing their ride with others and a direct trip to/from their destination cannot be guaranteed. At the same time, the system would establish guidelines for how long a passenger may be on board a vehicle. Provide serviee oo a curb-to-curb basis. The new Dial-a-Ride service would be offered on a curb-to-curb basis. By providing curb-to-<:urb service (at trip origins and destinations) drivers would be able to provide service more quickly and efficiently. Passengers would be assisted in and out of the vehicle, as needed; however they would not be escorted to the door or inside their destinations. For those needing this additional level of service, and who are eligible, the TD paratransit service still will be provided on a door-to-door basis. Charge a fare. A fare would be charged for the Dial-a-Ride service The exact amount has yet to be determined. The fare may be less than an average taxi fare (approximately $3. 50), and somewhat higher than an average bus fare (approximately 75 or $1.00). A zone system may be used to differentiate fares based on distance traveled. Discount passes may be offered. Provide computerassisted scbeduliog. The implementation plan includes the purchase of state-of the-art computer-assisted scheduling and dispatching software and hardware. The addition of this equipment should result in increased efficiency and easier record keeping practices. Although some of these operational components may be modified once the detailed service plan is developed, this list covers many of the major aspects of the proposed Dial-a-Ride service Implementation Strategy 7-2 May 13,1996

PAGE 166

Cbar1otte County Transit Development Plan Management Strategy The management strategy refers to how the Dial-a-Ride service will be managed on a day-to-day basis. This description is strategic in nature, and may need to be modified when the detailed operations plan is developed. This section describes management options and the recommended management strategy. Development of a marketing program and performance monitoring system are described in subsequent sections. Management Options Several options for managing public transportation services in Charlotte County were considered during development of the TDP. For example, depending on the type of service selected, it could be cost-effective to purchase public transit services from neighboring communities, such as SCAT in Sarasota County or L eeTran in Lee County. Likewise, creation of a transit system might suggest the need to develop an independent transit authority, such a s Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HARTline) in Tampa. Finally, consideration was given to the use of existing County resources to manage the public transportation program, including the Charlotte County Transit Department (CCTD) and private operators. Because tbe Dial-a-Ride paratransit option was selected, exploration of options involving the use of fixed-route transit provided by SCAT and LeeTran is no longer appropriate. Further, because the service will be relatively small, creation of an independent transit authority would not be cost-effective. The remainder of this section will review two basic alternatives for providing Dial-a-Ride service usin g the private sector or CCTD. Recommendations for managing the proposed service follow. Private Sector Operators During development of the TOP, many comments were received that indicated interest in having the private sector participate in the provision of public transportation services. Consideration has been given to contracting with the private sector to operate the new Dial a-Ride service. Under this scenario, the vehicles could be purchased through the FOOT Block Grant Program and then Implementation Strategy 7-3 May t3, 1996

PAGE 167

Charlotte County Transit Developmeot Plan leased to a private provider to operate and maintain, according to applicab l e County and State regulations (e.g., Chapter 427 F.S. and Rule 14-90). A request for proposal (RFP) would need to be issued to allow qualified private providers an opportunity to propose. Because the service is relatively small (a total of five vehicles), only one private provider would be needed. Under this scenario, CCTD would serve as the contract administrator, to allow for coordination between the TD and Dial-a-Ride systems. Detailsconcerning how trips would be assigned and who would take the requests for reservations would have to be negotiated. Charlotte County Transit Department Under this alternative, service would be managed and operated by the Charlotte County Transit Department CCTD already serves as the local community transportation coordinator (CTC), and manages the provision of door-to-door paratransit service for the TD transportation program. TD service is provided both by CCTD and private operators under contract with the County. County staff has suggested that Dial-a-Ride service should be offered separately from the TD paratransit program. Whether operated separately or jointly, managing both services out of the same location would allow for some economies. For example, the same computer scheduling system can be used for both systems. Also, by having direct control over both systems, the County could better direct passengers to the level of service that is appropriate for them (i.e., the TD paratransi t system or general public Dial-a-Ride), depending on their degree of mobility and eligibility for TD transportation. If CCTD were to manage and operate Dial -a-Ride service i t would still have the flexibility to consider contracting out the service in the future if it appears the service could be provided in a more cost-effective manner by the private sector Recommended Management Strategy The proposed management strategy is to provide Dial-a-Ride service through the Charlotte County Transit Department. Because the Dial-a-Ride service will be new and considerable coordination is needed between the existing TD service and general public Dial-a-Ride from a management perspective it would be appropriate to manage the two systems jointly. Once service has matured-perhaps during the next major TDP update in could be given to contracting with the private sector if it would be more cost-effective. Implementation Strategy 7-4 May 13,1996

PAGE 168

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan The remainder of this section describes the roles and responsibilities of CCTD, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the MPO under the recommended management strategy. Charlotte County Transit Department As described above, CCTD would have overall management and operational respons i bility for the provision of general public Dial-a-Ride service, in addition to the TD paratransit service it already prov i des. The previous section (Service Overview) describes the basic Dial-a-Ride service parameters. In addition to day-to-day operation and maintenance of the Dial-a-Ride system, CCTD would be responsible for gathering data needed for preparation of reports and system performance monitoring The collection of data would be facilitated by the addition of the computer scheduling system. These data requirements would be similar to what is already collected for the Annual Operating Report (AOR), prepared for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Data needed to calculate performance measures also would need to be collected inc l uding on-time perfonnance, service productivity measwes, etc. (see Monitoring System section below). In addition data required for completion of Section 15 reporting requirements for the Federal Transit Administration would be collected. Because Charlotte County does not provide fixed-route service, preparation of an ADA Compl ementary Paratransit Plan is not required. Board of County Commissioners CCTD is a Board of County Commissioners (BCC) department. The BCC has authority for entering into contracts, applying for grants providing local match for purchasing vehicles and providing operating budget for CCTD. The final decision to pwsue the Dial-a-Ride system as outlined in the TOP rests with the BCC. Metropolitan Planning Organization The MPO Board is responsible for ensuring that local transportation plans are prepared and adopted, in accordance with local, state, and federal rules and regulations. One of the MPO duties is to oversee preparation of the TOP. If adopted by the MPO Board, the local jurisdiction would then be eligible to apply for operating and capital assistance through the state Public Implementation Stnteer 7-5 May 13,1996

PAGE 169

Charlott e County Tra nsit Development Plan Transit Block Grant program. The MPO Board also appoints citizen and expert review committees to review plans. In this case, a T ransit Review Committee was appointed to oversee the TDP process and supplement the TAC and CAC reviews. In its role as the official planning agency (OPA), designated by the Florida Commission for the Transportatio n Disadvantaged, the MPO staffs the local Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board. The MPO staff also provides planning assistance to the Charlotte County Transit Department MPO staff is responsible for preparing and submitting grant applications for Section 112, TD planning grant, Section 8, and assisting in the development of the Section 9 grant application. Further, MPO staff will work with County staff in the preparation of performance monitoring reports and will assist with the development of a marketing program. lmpkmtntatloa Strategy 7-6 May 13, 1996

PAGE 170

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Marketing Program Marketing programs are designed to generate public i nterest and awareness. Many studies have shown that such programs are criticai to the success of public transportation. During the community workshops a number of people suggested creative marketing programs such as adopt a-stop (providing benches and she lters at strategically placed locations), selling advertising in the form of painting vehicle exteriors with colorful advertising for local attractions, and finding ways to involve the private sector in supporting the se. rvice. Lynx, in Orlando, has been a model example of creative marketing strategies. Several years ago, Tri-County Transit sponsored a competition to fmd a new name for its bus system The newly named Lynx system received more visibility because of the competition and catchier name. Bus stop signs were replaced with a cat paw print to depict the bus service (Manatee also uses a cat motif for its logo). Graphics on the buses feature brightly colored Lynx cats running across the side of the bus. Other buses have been painted with attractive (revenue-generating) advertising schemes, paid for by local businesses. These and other system changes have led to unprecedented increases in ridership. Charlotte County could also hold a competition to name its new system and generate community interest in the service. The u ltimate success of the proposed Dial-a-Ride program will be measured by whether it is used and how cost-effective and useful service is judged to be by the community. Continued public education and involvement is a goal of the TDP. A marketing program would help to ensure that adequate public information describing the Dial-a-Ride service is provided before, during, and after the new service s tarts. In this case, the product to be marketed is mobility provided through a new general public Dial a-Ride service. A simple description of the service characteristics will help potential passengers understand what the service will provide and how to use it. The materials should include information relating to eligibility, how to request a trip, what to e xp ect during transport (e.g., shared-ride, curb-to-curb), and bow much a ride will cost. Jmp ltmeatation Strategy 7-7 May 13,19%

PAGE 171

Charlotte County Tran.sit Development Plan A marketing program would consist of several key elements: (I) printed materials (2) presentations, and (3) media/advertising. The County could hire a marketing firm to assist staff with the development of these materials, particularly during the start of the new service. Printed Materials A simple brochure describing the service (provided in various formats to be accessible for persons with disabilities) could be developed and distributed through social service agencies, public libraries and at common destinations, such as grocery stores. Informat ion should be simple and easy to read, using larger print (e.g 14 point Times Roman, as shown here). The help oflocal community groups (e.g., Visually Impaired Persons or the Cultural Center) could be enlisted to assist with development of materials. Large print versions, recorded information, and Braille copies may be able to be provided by these agencies. Consideration could be given to developing a periodic information bulletin for riders to keep them updated about service, and to offer tips on passenger rights and responsibilities. These types of simple publications have helped to avoid problems by informing passengers about e)(pectations. Potential topics include rules about eating on board vehicles, what to do if the vehicle is late, what time of day is most available for trips how much assistance drivers will provide, etc. Finally, some communities have included notices to electric bills to promote new transit services. Presentations Presentations could be made at various groups, including town meetings, social service agencies, and civic associations. These presentations would offer an opportunity to describe the proposed service and to educate potential riders about the differences between TD paratransit and tbe Dial a-Ride services. Face-to-face presentation also would allow potential riders to ask questions about the service so that they better understand how it would help them. A list of organizations for potential presentations should be developed. A good starting place would be to meet with those agencies already participating in the TD paratransit program, as well as social service agenc ies such as the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Implementation Strategy 7-8 May 13,1996

PAGE 172

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Local newspaper, radio, and cable television stations also provide opportunities for presentations about the new service. A meeting with media representatives and reporters prior to the service start may also avert future problems that could occur during the new service start. For example it i s common for new drivers to make mistakes, resulting in delays during new service starts. If the media have been informed of the level of effort directed toward driver training they may be more supportive of the new service aiid less reactive in the reporting. During the new service start, presentations could be a shared responsibility of CCTD management and MPO staff. Media/ Advertising The local media also could be used to promote the new Dial-a-Ride service. Two major advertising approaches exist: paid advertising and public service announcements (PSAs). Display advertising could be purchased from local newspapers. The display ads should be artistic and provide basic information about service characteristics (e.g., hours and days of service, service area, cost, reservation process). A telephone number to be used for requesting service information should be included. Public service announcements also should be provided to local media. PSAs allow for the transit agency to provide additional information for the media, with the hope of getting the information into the newspaper. Well-v.'l'itten PSAs, which contain interesting information, could result in stories. Marketing Assistance Prior to the start of new service, the County could contract with a local marketing firm to generate a marketing program for the Dial-a-Ride system. A variety of activities could be included: Managing a contest to name the system. Developing a logo that could be used for brochures, vehicles, stationery, rider bulletins, and other promotional materials. Implementation Strategy 7-9 May 13, 1996

PAGE 173

Cbtrlotte County Transit Oevtlopment Plan Creating a marketing campaign that would identifY media advertising costs and potential uses. Writing a series ofPSAs that could be used to promote service. Assisting with passenger relations for driver and telephone personnel training Developing a campaign to sell advertising on vehicles (exterior paint schemes that promote local businesses). Coordinating a public/private partnership program to encourage local business cooperation and support for the system (e.g. providing secured waiting areas, coordinating with grocers and pharmacies for food and prescription delivers by those facilities). The time invested in a marketing program could generate interest and support for public transportation. Implementatlon Strategy 7-10 May 13, 1996

PAGE 174

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Performance Monitoring System In addition to a Marketing Program, development of a Performance Monitoring System prior to starting a new Dial-a-Ride system is a:lso important. A Performance Monitoring System will provide objective measures relating to system performance (i.e., efficiency, effectiveness), and co. uld include benchmarks or service standards against which to measure system improvement. This section describes two aspects of a Performance Monitoring System: (I) system development and (2) system implementation. lbis section provides guidance for the development of a Performance Monitoring System. The exact system would be developed as part of the overall operations plan. This section concl udes with a discussion of how the information from the Performance Monitoring System could be used to evaluate potential future system changes. System Development Before developing a Performance Monitoring System, a key question must be answered: what is the purpose of the Performance Monitoring S ystem? The obvious answer is to provide information to evaluate how well the system is performing. However, in practice, developing a Performance Monitoring System is more complex. Resources are available from the U.S. Department of Transportation Technology Sharing Program, including three reports: Rural Public Transportation Performance Evaluation Guide (Document No. DOT-1-83-3 I), Developing a Performance Management System for Transit Services (Documen t No. DOTT -89-I 9), and Shared-Ride Paratransil Performance Evaluation Guide (Docum ent No DOT-T-90-10). The ftrst two publications were used to develop the materials for this section. Operational Objectives First, the CCTD and MPO staff would develop the operational objectives for the new Dial-a Ride service. Keeping in mind the TOP goals, operational objectives might be to maximize the number of trips provided, or how long a passenger may ride. The objectives must be quantified so that they may be incorporated into performance standards (described later in this section). Implementation Strategy 7-11 Ma)' 13, 1996

PAGE 175

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan The operational objectives should be reviewed annuaiJy to determine whether adjustments are needed Operational objectives would cover at least the foiJowing five areas (examples are included for illustration only and are not necessarily recommended for inclusion in Charlotte County)' : Financial Recover at least I 0 percent of operating expense from farebox revenue. Contain system local operating expense to a maximum increase of 3 percen t per year. Ridership The system should provide a minimum of2 one-way passenger trips per hour. A minimum of I 0 percent of aU riders should be persons younger than 60 years old. Service Quality All vehicles in daily service should be thoroughly cleaned at l east once a week on the exterior and daily on the interior. There should be no more than three complaints per individual driver per year. Level of Service Demand responsive service should maintain an average speed of 15 miles per hour. The system's vehicle hours per year should not be i ncreased by more than I 0 percent over the amount for the previous year. Percentage of demand response versus advance reservation trips. Safety The system should have no more than one avoidable revenue vehicle accident per two years. The system should have no less than 18,000 vehicle miles per revenue vehicle accident for 12 months. Examples are derived from Rural Public Transportation Performance EvaluaJion Guide, cited in text. Implementation Strategy 7-12 May 13, 1996

PAGE 176

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Again, these are only sample operational objectives and do not necessarily reflect appropriate objectives for Charlotte CoWlty. Once operational objectives are developed, they should be used to establish the exact performance indicators that will be measured on a regu lar (daily, monthly, quarterly, annual, as needed) basis. Performance Indicators Performance indicators are the actual measures used to analyze whether operational objectives have been successfully achieved. As such, they are integral to the process of developing a P erformance Mortitoring System. Although it is tempting to want to measwe every aspect of system performance, care should be taken to develop a set of performance indicators for which data are readily available without extraordinary effort. In other words, performance measures are useful only if based on accurate i nforma tion. Some agencies have developed a multi-tiered system for recording and captwing performance indicators. For example, in the publication cited earlier, Developing a Performance Management System for Transit Services, the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPT A) in Phoertix developed five levels of performance indicators; (I) general, (2) primary, (3) secondary (4) tertiary and (5) special pwpose. Nine years later, RPTA still uses this basic system for reporting on system performance. The defirtitions of each level of indicator are: General Performance Indicators represent basic performance information such as total rides, tota l vehicle miles, etc. They give a general indication of system performance over ti m e or at a given point in time. General performanc e indicators provide the base inform ation for primary performance indicators Primary Performance Indicators captwe fundamental eleme nt s of transit system performance, providing a good overview of system efficiency and effectiveness. Primary performance indicators typically represent a relationship between two general performance indicators (e. g., operating cost per trip, trips per revenue mile). Primary performance indicators provide information both over time and for a given point in time. Secondary Performance Indicators are similar to primary performance indicators; however, they differ in that they capture more detailed sub-elements of system performance. For example, a primary performance indicator of trips per revenue mile could include a secondary performance indica tors such as trips per vehicle mile. Tertiary Performance Indicators are specific performance indicators that support Secondary Performance Indicators. Because of the detailed level of analysis, the Implementation Strategy 7 May 13, 1996

PAGE 177

County Transit Devtlopmtnt Plan identificatio n ofTerti8Jj' Performance Indicators is generally left to the individual functional areas, such as maintenance, which are closest to the performance issue being examined Special Purpose Performance Indicators are selected measures of system performance that are not cost-effective to produce regularly, or are only needed on an occasional basis by management They include information such as mode split, new passengers per marketing expense, percent of passenger trips requiring two or more transfers, etc. What is important to keep in mind, is that only about a dozen General Performance Measures are collected and reported routinely. The indicators are then combined to create the measures described in the prim8Jj' and second8Jj' indicators. For example, by collecting ridership information and operating cost, the cost per trip may be calculated. Another publication, the Evaluation Workbook for Community Transportation Coordinators and Providers in Florida, prepared by CUTR for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged describes evaluation criteria used for the TO transportation program, and would be useful for the development of performance indicators. This document includes a number of useful worksheets for analyzing cost effectiveness and efficiency (Worksheets 7-9), aspects of quality (Worksheet I 0), training (Worksheet I I), and availability of service (Worksheet 12). Performance Standards Performance standards are targets against which performance indicators are measured to determine how well the system is performing. Performance standards would be developed based on historical data (from the TO paratransit program), peer comparisons, and system goals. Performance standards are developed for general and prim8Jj' indicators. Performance standards should be used as guidelines, and not as absolute performance requirements. A variety of circumstances can affect attainment of performance standards. A properly e>tecuted Performance Monitoring System will help management to determine what corrective actions might be needed if performance standards are not met. Further, caution should be exercised when evaluating performance standards as they may not have been set accurately, making them impossible to attain. Implementation SlralfiY 7-14 May 13, 1996

PAGE 178

Charlotte County Trans-it Development Pion A Note on Data Availability A key ingredient for the Performance Monitoring System is information. Before finalizing the Performance Monitoring System, a thorough check of data availability should be made. Not only will this analysis indicate what data are available, but it will help to point out data deficiencies that might be overcome through the new computer program. It also will identifY any proposed performance indicators that are not feasible to report, based on lack of data or excessive expense in collecting the required data. A review of the data collected for submission of the annual operating report (AORs) to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged are a good starting point, although not all of the data required for that report may be applicable for the Dial-a-Ride service. There may be other measures not currently collected that also would be of use (e.g., ride time, on-time performance, dwell time, etc.). System Implementation CCTD would collect and report operating data on an ongoing basis. Coordination of data collection between the TO paratransit program and Dial-a-Ride wou l d allow for sharing of information and direct comparisons. It also would be easier for staff to co lle ct and report on the sam e information for both systems It is important to develop a formal management strategy for collecting, analyzing, and reporting information related to the Performance Monitoring System. This approach will allow for a trend analysis of operating characteristics over time. Reporting Format Along with developing a management strategy for collecting data, a reporting format would be developed and followed. Periodic reports would be provided to the BCC. These reports might consist of a trend analysis for general and primary performance ind i cators. More detailed staff leve l reports could be developed that include secondary performance indicators on a routine basis The trend analysis would allow management to objectively related system performance and accomplishments. Implementation S1rategy 7-15 May 13,19%

PAGE 179

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Improving Performance Performance Monitoring System reports would be used not only for tracking and reporting on system performance but also for troubleshooting potential problems areas. By keeping an ongoing systematic record of service, CCID will be able to i dentify positive and negative trends earlier than a casual analysis of data allows. Th e ongoing trend analysis should be discussed internally to CCTD as a means of continuously improving service efficiency and effectiveness. Evaluation of Future System Changes Another function of the Performance Monitoring System would be to provide mo r e d e tailed and accurat e information about actual use of public transportation in Charlotte County. As part of the TDP process, several options for providing public transportation were developed. Some people involved with the MPO's advisory conunittees expressed concern that the selected option of expanding the paratransit system would not adequately serve the transportation needs of the community because i t did not include a fixed-route component. By collecting information as part of the Performance Monitoring System, County managers would be in a better position to calculate the need for public transportation locally. Further, the County could experimen t with different routing and scheduling practices to determine which approach would offer the most efficien t and cost-effective service locally, whether paratransit, fixedr oute or some type of transportation demand management strategy (e.g deve l op i ng carpools). Prudent use of resources would improve productivity which means more trips provided at a lower per trip cost. These types of more sophisticated analy ses would be facilitated by the development and implementation of a Performance Monitoring System. lmp l emeotatioo Strategy 7-16 May 13,1996

PAGE 180

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Implementation Schedule An important aspect of the TOP is development of the basic implementation schedule that could be followed for the next five-years. Iiecause this option proposes creation of a new Dial-a-Ride service, in addition to paratransit services already provided by the Charlotte County Transit Department (CCTD), it will be relatively easy to implement and much of the local expertise needed to make the program a success already exists. This section includes a list of the major activities to be undertaken in the next five years. These activities are divided into immediate actions, year one actions, year two actions, and subsequent-year activities. Immediate Actions Submit Public Transit Block Grant application. Once the TOP has been approved, the local jurisdiction may apply for funds from the Public Transit Block Grant Program, administered by FDOT. The block grant is the source of the capital and operating assistance described in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. Actions During Year One Specify and order vehicles. The first step would be to work with FOOT to determine which vehicles and related equipment to order Depending on the procurement cycle, delivery of vehicles can take anywhere from six months to one year Procure computer hardware and software. At the same time, an assessment would be made to determine the exact computer software and hardware needs and to select a paratransit scheduling package Implementing new software requires time for employees to be trained. Software and hardware will be purchased early in the process so that employees will be conversant with the new software prior to starting the new Dial-a-Ride service. The software and hardware may be used for both the Diala-Ride and TO programs. Create and implement a marketing program. A detai.led marketing program would be developed early in the process. A suggested marketing program is outlined in the Management Strategy section. Create and implement the monitoring system. As described in the Performance Monitoring System section, the monitoring system would be developed before new service begins so that reasonable expectations for service would be in place and can be measured and documented from the start. lmpltm t ntation Strategy 7-17 May 13,1996

PAGE 181

Charlotte County Tra nsll Plan . Enlist the help of prhate businesses and establish partnerships. Local grocery store managers, health care administrators, and others would be briefed early about the new service so they can contribute to the success of the program. During the public involvement process several people suggested exploring the potential for phannacies and/or grocery stores to deliver their products, rather than requiring a trip via Dial-a-Ride. These types of creative solutions should be pursued during the first year to enhance availability of service for those who have no other options. Develop detailed personnel plan and training program. Drivers and other new personnel would be recruited in time to provide proper training in areas such as passenger assistance, sensitivity, defensive driving and the like. New employees would begin work during the second half of the fiscal year, assuming vehicle delivery prior to the end of the fiscal year. New administrative personnel would be hired earlier to facilitate training and to implement the new scheduling and dispatching system. Review Vehicle System Safety Plan. CCTD already follows the requirements of Rule 14-90 F .A.C. which requires certain safety actions as pan of service operation, as well as regulations described in Chapter 427 F .S and Rule 41-2 F.A.C., promulgated by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Prior to delivery of the new vehicles, staff should review the plan and ensure that safety issues related to vehicles and personnel will be properly addressed. Receive new vehicles. All vehicles would be inspected to ensure compliance with Rule 14-90. Implement new Dial-a-Ride service. Assuming the vehicles arrive in Year One, new service would be able to stan during the first year of the TOP implementation plan. If the vehicles do not arrive until the end of Year One or stan of Year Two, this action item would be undertaken in Year Two Order replacement vehicles. Two replacement vehicles would be ordered for delivery in Year Two. Complete first-year TDP update. Annual TOP updates are required, with a major update scheduled every three years. Actions During Year Two Continue hiring new personnel. Depending on the deliv ery schedule for new vehicles new employees would continue to be hired and trained, as described in the Year One action Jist. Begin capital improvement program. Once the new system is in place, options for providing additional amenities would be explored, including the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, shelters, bus stop signs, and other items aimed at enhancing service. Implementation Strategy 7-18 May 13 1996

PAGE 182

Charlotte County Translll>evelopment Plan Monitor system performance. Once new service begins, the system w o uld be monitored to ensure that high quality, cost-effective se rvice is being provided. The system performance would be evaluated as described in the TOP. Order replacement vehicles. The financial plan calls for acquisition of two replacement vehicles to be provided each year. Initially, these vehicles would be use d to replace aging v ehicles in the TO paratransit program. Later, the replacement vehicles would be used to replace Dial-a-Ride vehicles. Complete second year TDP update. Annual updates are required, with a major update scheduled every three years. Actions During Year Three Continue ongoing activities from Year Two. For example, capita l projects, vehicle replacement sc hedule staff training, marketing, etc. Prepare major TDP update. The TOP must be updated annually, with a major update every three years. The current TOP will need to be readdressed in FY 1999-2000. Given the interest in minimal fixed-route service expressed during many of the community workshops and advisory committee meetirtgs, it would be appropriate to revisit consideration of providing service on community routes or modified fixed-routes, which would allow for a blend of fixed-route reliability and flexible routing that will deviate to p ick up and drop off individuals who are loca ted just off the route and cannot access the bus stop. Actions During Years Four and Five Continue ongoing activities from previous years. For example, capital projects, vehicle replacement schedule staff training, marketing, etc. Amend implementation plan based on input from major TDP update. The major TOP update completed in Year Three may result in service changes, based on new information available at that time. If needed, these adjustments will be reflected in the revised operations plan. Implementation Strategy 7-19 May 13,19%

PAGE 183

Cbarlotte County Tnnsit Devt -lopmenr Plan Financial Plan FiveYear Financial P l an This section presents the expenses, revenues and potential funding sources for the five year T ransit Development Plan. The figures in the following tables are for new Dial-a-Ride service only and do not reflect the expense of providing service under the existing TD paratransit program, with one exception. During Years Two-Five, two replacement vehicles are purchased to replace aging vehicles in the TD program Table 7-1 shows the capital and operating expenses for the five-year planning period under the option of expanding paratransit to the general public For example, in Year One, the capital expenses are $302,500 and the operating expenses are $193,083, for a total expense of$495,583. In addition this table contains capital and operating revenues needed to cover these expenses. The federal/state capital revenue share is 90 percent of expenses (up to $273,065), with a I 0 percent local match Therefore, in Year One, the federaVstate capital revenue share is $272,250 and the local capital share is $30,250. The federal/state share of operating revenue is 75 percent of expenses (up to $19 1 ,443) with a 25 percent local match Because of existing County revenue that is available to be used to leverage the federal/state do ll ars, the actual local cash contribution for operating expenses could be lowered by severa l thousand dollars during the early years of this project. For example, in Year One the federal/ state operating revenue share is $176,687 and the new local cash required is $8,896, with a potential farebox reven ue of $7,500 (The estimated farebox revenue is based on a half year of operation during Year One.) In Year Two, projected fare box revenue is $17,000, with farebox revenue increasing each successive year Other potentia l funding sources could come from private sources not included here. lmplementatioo Strategy 7-20 May 13,1996

PAGE 184

Char l otte County Transit Deve l opment Pla n Tabl e 7-1 Cap ital and Operati n g Budget D i al -a-Ride Service Operated and Maintained by Charlotte Co u nty Transit Department Yea r 1 Year2 Year3 Year4 YearS C umulati v CAPITAL EXPE NS E S Vans wf Radios (@$52,500) $262,500 $110,250 $115 763 $ 1 21,551 $127,628 $737,69 (5.0% ann ual i nfla t ion) Computer SoftwarefHardware 4Q.OOO 0 0 0 0 Capital Expenses $302 500 $110,250 $115,763 $ 1 21,551 $127,628 $777,692 O PERATING EXPENSES Driver Salaries and Fringe $68,428 $14 0 277 $143,784 $147,379 $151,064 $650, 93 (2.5% annual i nflat ion) Admin Salaries and Fringe 108 627 60,093 61,595 63, 135 64,713 3 5 8,163 (2.5% annual inflation) Vehicle Operating Costs (2.0% annual inflation) Subtotal $193,083 $233,067 $238,730 $244,532 $250 475 $1,159,88 TOTAL EXPENSES S49S,S83 4 3.3 1 7 4 .493 ,0 8 3 S378 1 0 3 7 CAPITAL REVENUES FederaVState Funds $272,250 $99,225 $104,187 $109,396 $114,865 $699,923 (@ 90%fmax. of $273 065) Local Match (I 00/o) I IZ. m )2,163 Capital Revenues $302,500 $110,250 Sit 5,763 $121,551 $127 628 $777 69 OPERATING REVENUES Farebox Revenue $7,500 $17,000 $18 000 $19,000 $20,000 FederalfState Funds 176,687 191,443 191,443 191,443 1 91.443 (@ 75%/max of$191,443) New Local Cash* U22 24,624 29 287 34,089 39,032 Operating Revenues $193,083 $233,067 $238,730 $244, 5 32 $250,475 TOTAL REVENUES $343.317 $354,493 SJ66.083 ,103 New Local Cash does not inc l ude $50,000 Existing County Revenue eligible to be used each year to leverage FederalfState Matching Funds, resulting in additional FederaVState dollars l m plemeotatioo Strate2) 7-ll MAy 13, 1996

PAGE 185

Charlotte County Tran.s'it Development Plan Table 7-1 Notes Expenses: Year One Five new paratransit vehicles (including one spare ) with radios and fareboxes at $52,500 each. Scheduling/dispatching software and hardware. Labor and fringe benefits for one accountant/clerk and one dispatcher. Additional administrative expenses for start-up. Labor and fringe benefits for four additional full-time dr ivers and four additional part-time drivers (20 hours per week) for half of the year. Operating expenses for vehicle and equipment repair, fuels and lubricants, and depreciation for new vehicles for half of the year. Expenses: Years Two-Five Two replacement paratransit vehicles with radios and fareboxes each year for replacement of the current fleel Continuing labor and fringe benefits for accountant/clerk, dispatcher, full-time drivers, and part time drivers. Continuing operating expenses for vehicle and equipment repair, fuels and lubricants, and depreciation for new vehicles. Revenues: Years One-Five Federal Section 9 and State Block Grant Program will fund 90 percent of capital expenses (up to $273,065) with a I 0 percent local match. Federal Section 9 and State Block Grant Program will fund 75 percent of operating expenses (up to $191,443) with a 25 percent local match. Farebox revenues are based on an average fare of$1.00 per one-way trip. The estimated annual farebox revenue was deducted from the total operating revenue before applying the federal/state match. Tab le 7-2 illustrates the process of detennining the local share for operating and capital matches For example in Year One the projected local operating match required is $58,896 (25 percent of the estimated operating expense). However, after subtracting the $50,000 existing local revenue used to leverage the federal/state dollars, the local cash match for operating expenses is $8,896 in Year One. When the $30,250 local cash match for capital expenses in Year One is added to the local cash match, the total local revenue required for operating and capital would be $39,146. The total program cost for Year One is $495,583; therefore, the local share of the total program is 8.0 percent during the first year, and is projected to be 14.7 percent over the five-year period 1mplementalion Strategy 7-22 May 13,1996

PAGE 186

County Transit Development Plan Table 7-2 Local Revenue S ummary Dial a Ride S ervice Operated and Maintained by Charlotte County Transit Department LOCAL REVENUE Year 1 Year 2 Year3 Year4 YearS Cumulative Local Operating Match $58,896 $74 ,624 $79,287 $84,089 $89,032 $ 385,928 Les s Existing County l5Q,QQQl (2Q.OQQ) (m.222l Revenue* Local Cash Op e rating 8,896 13,814 13,814 13,814 13,814 64,152 Match Overma tch** 0 10,812 15,473 20,275 25,218 71,778 New Local Capital Match 30,252 II,Ql5 11.576 12,1 99 12,761 77.769 Total Local Cost .. Total Program Cos t $495,583 $343.317 $ 354.493 S366,Q83 5378,103 % ofTotal Program 1 0.41o 11.5/o 12.6/o 13.7/o 11.0% Charlott e Coun ty has identified $50,000 that can be used to match the federal/state opeoating assistance. By using this existing County revenue to leverage additional federaVstate dollars, Charlotte County may receive additiona l federaVstate operating assistance up to the maximum allowable ($191,443) Although the existing County revenue is used to cover TO service operating expenses, the $50,000 will not be used to directly pay for the new Dial-a-Ride service. Overmatch refers to the amount of existing County revenue that was not used to match federaVstate funds because the federaVstate operating match available is75 percent, up to a maximum of$191,443, regardless of the total operating expense. The "total local cost is the sum of the adjusted local operating expense (after deducting the existing County revenue plus the local capital expense. Impleme-ntation StrateC)' 7-23 M ay 13, 1996

PAGE 187

Charlotte County Transit Development Plan Future Capital Improvements There are numerous capital expenditures that would improve the effectiveness and quality of the Dial-a-Ride system, which cannot cuirently be funded under the five-year financial plan. These are listed below: Shelters at common destinations (e.g., Cultural Center, shopping centers); Benches; Pedestrian access to shelters; Bicycle racks and lockers at shelters and common destinations ; Bicycle racks on vehicles; and Automatic vehicle location (A VL) systems and Smart Card technologies. These capital improvemen ts could be programmed into future service enhancements if new revenue resources are identified. Some of these improvements may be able to be funded through private sector assistance. Implementation Strategy 7-24 May 13,1996

PAGE 188

Charlotte Counry Transit Development Plan Summary Part 7 describes the implementation plan for the service proposed under the option of expanding existing TD paratransit service to general public Dial-a-Ride. The Service Overview describes the general characteristics of the proposed service, emphasizing tbat the Dial-a-Ride system will pr0 vide new service beyond what is currently offered by the TD paratransit program. The Management Strategy describe s scenarios for setting up the day-to-day management of the system. The suggested structure is to use the existing Charlotte County Transit Department to manage and operate Dial-a-Ride service, allowing for coordinating with the TD paratransit system and shared resources with respect to facilities and personnel. The Marketing Program could include contracting with a local firm to develop initial marketing materials inclu
PAGE 189

Charlotte Counl)' Transit Devtlopmtnt Plan Finally, the section on Future Capital Improvements lists several options for enhancing service quality in the future. These capital improvements are not included in the projected expenditures shown in the financial plan section. At this point it is up to the Board of County Comm i ssioners whether to accept the recommended actions outlined in Part 7 of the TDP: Adoption of the TDP by the MPO does not commit the local jurisdiction to establishing new service, it allows the County the opportunity to apply for the federal/state capital and operating assistance already earmarked for Charlotte County Implemeototioo 7-26 May 13,1996

PAGE 190


PAGE 191


PAGE 192

this page IS blank A

PAGE 193

1995 Charlotte County Citizen Telephone Survey Summary Survey Conducted in June 1995 Data Compiled on September 26, 1995 Data Entry Code: __ Phone Number: ____ Zip Code: ____ Valid Response=405 Region Mid-Co unty Soutb Cou uty WestCouuty Frequency 238 144 23 Percent 58.8% 35.6% 5.7% Good afternoon/evening. My name is and I'm with the of South Florida. We're working with Charlotte County government to understand your opinioDS about local transportation. I am not going to try to sell you or solicit funds. It'll only take a minutes and your reply is purely confidential We are doing a survey about traveling in tbe Charlotte County area. Are you at least 18 years old and live in Charlotte County? Record Sex; Then, Go to the next nage. S5.3%_Female 44.7%_Male lfno, ask: Is there sorneone in the bousehold w h o fits tb is description? lfno: Tenninate. If yes, ask: Is be or she home right now? If yes: Re-read introduction with selected respondent and go to the next page. If no, ask: What would be a good time for me to call Ibis perso n and wbat is their name? N&ne ______________ __________ __ Day!Time. ____________ A

PAGE 194

1. How many people live at your residence? 2.3 2. How mauy people at your residence are licensed to drive? 1.3 3. How many vehicles are owned by your household? 1.5 4. How do you usually travel loeally? (The mode of travel used over 500/o of the time during the past six months) [Check one. only.] 91.6%_ Drive alone 5 0% Carpool/vanpool 0.7%_Walk 0.2% Bicycle 2.2% Taxi 0.2%_ Other (Please specifY. ____________ _J [if no response to any of the first 4 question, terminate the interview] 5. Have you ever used 8 bus system in another community? (excluding interstate carriers; airport shuttle; club; church or school bus or similar) 9.9%_Yes, within the past five years 42.6% Yes, but over five years ago 47.5%_No [lfno, go to 118] 6. When you did use public transportation services in another community was it 8 service that you would like to see here in Charlotte County? 74 .5%_Yes 15.1%_No 10.4%_Not sure/No opinion N=212 7. What was the community? (Name only the community where the respondent had the greatest amount of experience.) City See Auachment A State See AUQchment A 8. Have you ever used a taxi in Charlotte County? 11.4%_Yes, within the past six months 4.5%_Yes, within the past year 6 .2%_ Yes within the past three ye ars 78. 0% No [lfno skip 119 and go to 1110] A-4

PAGE 195

9. On average, how many taxi trips do you make per month? 2.3 trips N=89 10. In thinking about local bus service in Charlotte County, bow important do you feel this service would be to you or your family? 27.2% Very Important 2 !.5%_1mportant 32.2% Unimportant 19.1% Very Unimportant 11. If local bus service were available io Charlotte County, would you or any member of your household use it? 47.0% Yes {If yes go to# 12) 39 .6%_No {If no, skip# 12 and go to #15] 13. 4%_Maybe [If maybe, go to# 12] 12. {If yes or maybe] For what type of trips would you use the bus? {Check all that apply.] 27.5% Work 78.7%_Shoppiog 14.8%_School 54.5% Medical appointments 41.4% Recreation 0.0% Other _________ N = 244 13. How many in your household would use the bus service? 1.8 N=241 14. Do you ever feel that a sidewalk or bicycle facility is needed where one is not provided? 72.1% _Yes 27.9"/o_No N = 244 15. If retail stores were within walking distance of your home, would you walk to them? 82.7% Yes 17.3%_ No 16. Which improvement is most important to you: [check one] 34 2% Reducing accidents in high accident locations 38.9% Relieving traffic congestion 27.0% Providing for other modes of transportation other than automobiles AS

PAGE 196

17. In recent surveys, the following improvements were identified as important for Charlotte County. With limits in public funds wbieb of these eight do you think are the most important to fund, on a seale of 1 to 5? 1 is the least important and five is the most important: (Another possible response includes: No opinion ; 9) (A=average score) A=3.0 I 2 3 4 5 9 Expand paratransitldoor-to-door service A=3.1 I 2 3 4 5 9 Bridges to complete roads A=3.5 I 2 3 4 5 9 Street lighting A=3.1 I 2 3 4 5 9 New and expanded roads I 2 3 4 5 Hurricane evacuation routes A-3.4 I 2 3 4 5 9 Establish public transit A=3.8 I 2 3 4 5 9 Maintenance ofstreets and highways A=3.5 I 2 3 4 5 9 Sidewalks and bicycle facilities 18. Wbat is the longest distance you would walk to a bus stop? 18.1%_Less than I block 40.3%_1 2 blocks 35.!%_Y.mile-Y:zmile (3-6 blocks) 6.4%:_More than Y2111ile 19. How frequent should buses visit eaeb stop? 8.7%_every IS minutes 39.1%_every 30 minutes 25.2%_every hour 4.5%_every 2 hours 22.5%_Depends 20. Wbat is the bigbest one-way fare you would be willing to pay for local bus service? 17.8% 25 44.4% 50 34.6%_$1.00 3.2%_More than $1.00 21. Should tax doUars be used to establish bus service in Charlotte County? 46.4%_Yes 34.6%_No 12.3%_Depends 6.7%_Don't Know {If no, go to #24.] 22. Would you vote for an increase In local taxes to fund future public transportation improvements? 58. 7% Yes 20.8%_No {If no, go to #24.) 20.5%_Depends N=264 A-6

PAGE 197

23. Which of the following local funding methods would you favor to fund public transportation? 34.4%_Gas tax [Check all that apply.} 10.5%_Property tax 17.2%_Special taxing districts 52.6% Sales tax N = 209 Now tell us a little about yourself. 24. Areyou? 33 1%_employed 3.5% un-employed 58.8%_retired 0 7% student 4 0% Work at home 25. What is your age? 2 .2%_18. 24 6.4% _25. 34 11.6%_35. 44 9.9% _45-54 17.0%_55. 64 34.3% _65. 74 18.5% 75 and over 26. What is your household's annual income before tnes in 1994 I will be reading from a list of categories please stop me when I get to the correct category for your household. 27. 5.7%_Less than $10,000 12.3% $10,000 under $20 ,000 21.2%_$20,000 under $40,000 11.6%_$40,000 under $80,000 4.9"/o_$60 000 under $70,000 3.2%_$80,000 or More 41.0% _Do not wish to share that infonnation Are you a registered voter? 90.8%_Yes 9.2%_No (.if no. skip #30] 28. Have you voted in Charlotte County the last three (3) years? 94.0% Yes 6 0% _No N-367 A-7

PAGE 198

29. Would you like to receive the results of this survey which will he included in a project newsletter? 68.9%_Yes [lfyes. get name] 31.1% No [lfyes] Your name is: -------------------------30. Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Do you have any other thoughts about transportation that you would like to share? See Attachment B THANK YOU A

PAGE 199

Attachment A 7. Communities Where Respondents Have Used A Bus System Communities Albany, NY Anderson, SC Andover,MA Annapolis, MD Arlington, VA Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD Bethlehem, PA Binghamton, NY Bloomfield. NJ Bloomington, IN Boston,MA Brockton, MA Bronx, NY Buffalo, NY Butler, PA Canton, OH Charleston, WV Chicago, IL Cincinnati, OH Clarksburg, WV Cleveland, OH Clinton Township, MI Columbus, OH Dayton, OH Davenport, lA Des Moines, lA Detroit, MI Eau Claire, WI Edison, NJ Englewood, NJ Fairfield, CT Flint, MI Fort Myers, FL Gainesville, FL Hartford, CT Houston, TX Indianapolis, IN Kalamazoo, MI Kansas City, KS Kansas City, MO Key West, FL Las Vegas, NV Lexington, KY Lee County, FL Lima, OH Long Island, NY . Lorain, OH Los Angeles, CA Manchester, NH Miami,FL Michigan City, IN Middletown, CT Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis, MN Mobile, AL Montpelier, VT Muncie, IN New Orleans, LA Newport, RI Newton/Boston, MA New York City Newark,NJ Norfolk, VA Parkersburg, WV Patterson, NJ Philadelphia, PA Pinellas County, FL Pittsburgh, PA Port Charlotte, FL Providence, RI Punta Gorda, FL Redford, MI Rochester, NY Rockville, MD San Antonio, TX San Francisco, CA Sarasota, FL Seabrook, MD St. Louis, MO St. Petersburg, FL Tampa,FL Toronto (Canada) Towson, MD Traverse City, MI Trenton, NJ A Tri Cities, NY Telluride, CO Warwick, RI Washington, DC West Haven, CT Williamsport, P A States California Canada Connecticut Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island

PAGE 200

Attachment B 30. Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Do you have any other thoughts about transportation that you would like to share? Needed Should have public transportation Would like to see an elevated rail on 41 Hope they get one going Would be very nice to have buses Will be convenient for DJanY Would be nice for airport transportation Wish they had public transportation Good idea for 41 and the main streets I think it's important to establish public transportation Would be a good idea lbis is critical to establishing a good tax base It is something that will have to be dealt with 1binks it is an important need I think it's a necessity I wish to God they had it Very important for Charlotte County It is something we need Need transportation something like Sarasota Charlotte County does need some mode Need to help people get to doctors, etc. Public transportation is very important Do need transportation for older & disabled In favor of senior buses Need help toward the elderly Areas/retired people /services provided A service that is geared to the elderly Elderly should have as much access as possible It is necessary for the elderly in charlotte county Would be important for the elderly Some kind of service is needed for elderly It is very important the old folks need it Very concerned about elderly transportation We need public transportation for the elderly It is really important for elderly who can't drive Should be some kind of shuttle service for elderly Important to elderly people We do need something for senior citizens More services provided for the elderly It would be a good ide a to keep seniors off roads A-10

PAGE 201

Get the people off the highway who can't drive Get handicapped\disabled elderly off the roads Defmitely too many old people on the road People wanted it last time and then didn' t use it It is difficult for the way things are spread out Don't think Charlotte County should have buses Think they don't need a transit line. Not that much need at this point. Must be a need for bus and people should use it In his opinion would become big parking lot Should have more sidewalks More people would get out if bicycle paths were available Need to have better construction Red lights are on a little too long in some areas Should have good taxi service with low fares Need to reduce number of accidents Landscaping on 41 is a waste Need additional roads Need to crack down more on DUis, speeders, etc ... Hurricane evacuation no. I Door to door service would be great Roads too narrow. N eed bike paths Can't stand drivers that blow horns and not brakes You should have sheltered bus areas and benches Don't put so much tax burden on elderly. If tax money is used, transportation could be increased Be sure to use sales tax for public transit Should be run by a private company, not public People who need medical service should be provided for Public should be able to be involved definitely Don't use tax $ for trans.,find funding elsewhere Should be run by a private company Limited income-most people need help. Don't raise taxes Losing significant public transit funds Wish there were more volunteers to drive for elderly The questions do not all apply to me A II

PAGE 202


PAGE 203

Q uation No. 4 How do yo u u s u a lly travelloclly?* Rr:c,iM of Couty"' c-'t) Tota l Mid Sodo West IS.lA 15.)4 )5-44 45-S. sue 75> F M % 0 .0!< Bleyd t 0.3.{1 0.4% 0.0% 0.0!< o .ov. 0 0 % 0.0'.4 0.0% 0.0% I.J!< o .s,. 0 .0% 0.0% 2.0' .. 0.1)0/. 0.0% (),()% 0.0% 0 .0" !ru l 2.2% ),8,... 0 .0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 1.9% 2 .9% 4 .0% ) .I% 1 .1% 1 7 % 4,0% 1.1% 0.0% S O % 0 .0% 1 1 % Otlltr 0.4% 0 .0% 0.0!< 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 .S% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .6% 0.0% 0.0 % 1.2% 0 .0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% No. ot 404 237 ... 2J 9 26 4 6 40 69 1)9 75 2ll Ill 21 50 85 47 20 ll 1 66 R V..W.1c)IA
PAGE 204

Q uestion N o. 8 Have you e v e r u s ed a taxi in C h arlo tte Co u nty? Rqjon ofCo11n ty Age G radtf' hi('() InC Total Mid ...... 1814 15-34 3544 45-!A 65-74 75> F M <$10 SUI-10 5 1o-40 !A0-60 -5110+ No Rnpoasc: Yn: Put ll.4Y. 11,3o/o 12. $% II.W. 1 .1% 8 .7% 12.So/. s .aY. 1 0.1% 21.3% 9 .9% I).JY. 30.4% 8.2% 10 ,,.,. 3 0.8% S.4% Vtt: pst 6 .3% l .l'Yt O .Ol'o O.Oo/. 0.()'1. 2 2% 2 .W. s.s,... $.8% $ .3% J .l% 6.JY. 0 .0% Ul'% 2 4% 2.1% S .O'A 0 .0% 6.0" v...-Y et: PU 6.2% 5 .9% 7 .0l'o 21.2 % 0.0'.4 Jl.O'A 7.5% 8 7% 2 .9'A 5.3% 7.7% 4.4o/o 4.4% 10.0% 3 .5% 4 .3% 5 .()1'.4 7 7% 3 VrltS No 18% 76. 0% 78 .5% 95.7% 66.,./t 92.3o/t 76.1% 11.So/. 79.7% 81.3% 68.0'A 79. 4. 76.2% 6S.l% 62.0'A 85.9% 83.0'. JO.Ol'o 61. 5 % 8JJ!.i No. o f 404 237 144 23 9 26 46 40 69 139 7S 223 181 2 3 so IS 47 2 0 13 166 a .. ,. .... Unwe ighted Responses B-4

PAGE 205

Question No. 1 0 In thinkin g a bo ut local bus service in Charlotte County, h ow imp orta nt do yo u feel this service w o uld be t o you o r your fami ly?* R 30 9% 43 5 % 34.0'A 27. 1% 11.0% 30.0 % IS .A% 26.5% lmpom lmportnl li.S% 23.6% 20 .8% 4.4% 33.3% 23.1% 17. 4% 15. 0% 18. 9'.4 19.4% 32.0% 25. 1 % " )0.4% 28.00/t 23.S'A 25.5% IO.O'A 30. 8 % 21.5% u 31,2% 29.5% 38.2. 21.1% 3).3% 3 8 % $4 4 % 37 .5% 24.6% 31.?-A 26.9% 21.1% ]0.0'4 3 2.9% 36.2o/t 30.0% IS.4% 32 .2% Important Vtr1 Un 19.
PAGE 206

Ques tion No. 11 If local bus service were available in C harlotte County, w ould you or any memb e r of your household use it?* Rqion of .... Gtn6cr beomt TOftl Mi d South Wm 18 15.J4 35-44 45-54 55-'4 65-14 75+ F M 510-:18 -560-80 S80+ No RnpoDst -Vn 523% J8.9o/. 43.51< 11. 1 % 53.9% 47.8% 50.0% 36.2o/o 48.2 % 54.7!'< S3.4% 39.21< 65.2% 60.0% 49.4% 40.4% 45.0% 38.S% 42.2% No 39.6!'< 35.4% 46.5% 39. 1% 17 .8% 46.2% 41.3% 37.S% 53.6% 38.1% 2!.7% 32.7% 48.1!'< 26.1% 28.0% 38.8% 46.8% 45. 0% 38.S% 4 2 .8% rthybc 13.4!'< 12,.2% 14.6% 17.4% 11.1% O .Oo/o 10.9'/o 1 2.So 10.1% 13,,..;. 22.7% 13.9% 12.?% 8.7 % 12. 0% 12.S % IO.Oo/o 23.1% IS.I. No. of 404 237 144 23 9 26 46 40 69 139 75 223 181 23 so as 41 20 13 166 Retpoo,.. Unwcigntc Responses 8-6

PAGE 207

Question No. 16 Whi c h i mpro n m eut is m ost im. porta u t to yo u ? Rte.101 A& Crader lilt T ot l >lid Soth Wm lllA 15-]4 3$-44 4 5-<4 5U4 65-74 7$> "' <310 SI0-20 540-60 S614e SIO N RtUIOIII U Rtdut 34.2% 32. 9 36.1% )4. 8'-' )),)% l4. 6 % 21.3% 37.5% 39.1% 34.5% 30 7 % )1,1% 2 9 1 % 21.7% 30,0% 24.1% SS.l% 1$.0% 30. 8 % JU% ..\cddtts RtMen 31. 6% )9. 6% 47.1 % 66 .1% 5 7.7% 39.1% 45.0% 36.2% J5J% 34.7% 32.7% 46. 4 % 39.1% 36.0% 41.2% 3 1 9% 45.0% 15.5% Coacnt Otllt< 2'1.'"' 29.5% l 4.J% 11.4% 0.0% 7 7% 31.6% 11.5% 24 .6% JO.l% 34.1% 29.6% 23.1% 39 .1% 34.0% 27.1% 11.1% <0.0% 23.1% !IINo. or 404 217 ... 13 9 26 4 6 <0 69 1)9 7S m Ill 23 so 1.1 47 20 13 166 R_.., UriWtll,htcd Responses B-7

PAGE 208

Question No 1 7 With limits I n publi c fund s whic h o f the s e e ight do you think are t b e mo s t important to fund o n a sca l e of 1 to 5? (1 is t h e l e a s t important and 5 i s t be m os t important.) Rql on of Couftty Ace Cr11du I fiCO Total Mid S.. Wtst 111-24 )$. 45 SS-'4 75+ M $ UI 20 $2840 -$60.SO No Hurr lran t 4.23 4.20 4.27 4 3 0 3 .56 4 .58 4 01 4 .41 4 .40 4 .16 4.2 0 4 73 4 .0 3 3 .96 4 .24 4 ,48 4 61 3.65 3 .82 4.13 Evnu 1ti011 (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) Rout e (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) ( I ) (3) (2) (I) rt11 1111UIIlct 3 79 3.82 3.74 3 .83 3 44 4 27 3 .89 4 .08 3 68 3.79 3 .55 3.81 3 76 3 6 5 3.98 3 .81 3 79 3.80 3 46 3 .77 r s ....... ,. (2 (2) ( 2 ) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ( 2 ) (2 ) (3) (2) (2) (2) ( I ) (3) ( 2) HI"""" S h k w atUA 3.51 3.53 ).52 3 .)9 3 44 4 .00 3 8 7 3.83 3.28 3.5 5 3.13 3 67 3 .33 3.04 3 .52 3 .39 Ml 3.75 3 .33 3 62 81kt facU i dts (3) ( 5 ) (3) ( 3 ) (4) (3) (3) (3) (4) (4) (S) ( 5 ) (3 (5) ( S ) (4) (3) (2) (4) (3 ) Sh'ftt 3.51 3.12 3 .23 3 17 3 .67 3 65 l.6J 3.58 3 .49 3.59 3 2 2 3 74 3.23 3 .83 3.68 3.SS MO 3 .3 5 2.85 3 5 LlgMio s (4) (3 ) (4) (5) (l) (6) (4) (5) ( 3 ) (3) (4 ) (3) ( S (2) (3) (3 ) ( S ) (6) (8) (4 E ttablb:h 3.39 ) .54 3.18 3 18 2 78 3 .18 3.34 3 70 3.18 3 .36 3.41 3 .69 3 .02 3.39 3.61 3.35 ) ) 4 J .SS 3 .17 3 3 Publ k Tnn t l t (S) (4) (5) ( 4 ) (7) (4) (5) (4) (5 ) (S) m (4) (6) ( 4) (4) (S ) (7) (4 ) (S) ( 5 3 1 0 ).lS 2.85 3.13 3.11 3 60 3.23 3 10 3 22 2 .96 2 .95 3.21 295 2.76 3 .30 3 27 3.AI 3 .39 3 .00 2 8 6 llrpl t t t (6) (6) (8) (6) (S) (n ( 7) (8) (6) (8) (7 ) (6) (8) (7) (7) (7) (4) ( S ) ( 6 ) (1) R oadt :Nnr &; 3 08 3.1 0 3 05 3 .09 2 .89 3 71 3.15 3.53 ).IS 3 00 2.62 2 .92 3 2 7 3.00 2 .92 3.34 3 .39 3.30 4 08 2.83 1 Espuded (7) (7) (6) (7 (6) (S) (8) ( 6) (7) (6) (8) ( 8) ( 4) (6) (8) (6) (6) (7) (I) (8 ) R oads E1:p111d 3. 0 1 3.06 2 93 1.18 3 .35 3.17 3 .16 2 .77 2 .9S ) .1 3 3 .15 2 .83 2.74 ) .51 3.02 3.81 2.89 2 .92 2.891 .. a ltl (8) ( 8 ) (7) (8 (8) ( 8 ) (6) (7) ( 8 ) (7) (6) (7) (7) (8) (6) (8) ( 8 ) (8) (7) (6) 1 Doo, Sertke Note: () rantiftg. Unwc.igbt td Responses B

PAGE 209

Quettlon No. 2 1 S h oul d tax dollan be u sed to ntabliJb bus serv i ce in Cbarlotte Cou nty? RcpoofC...Iy .4'' Cc:ad:tr IIH:Oat Total Mid Soo tll w ... 11-:U 15-J4 JS-44 <5-54 55-64 45-74 15+ F M
PAGE 210


PAGE 211

this page IS blank C-2

PAGE 212

Existing Public Transportation Services Introduction Appendix F describes existing public and private transportation services operating in Charlotte County. An inventory of existing transit services was developed to serve as the basis for the later demand estimate and needs assessment The review consists of three categories of transportation services in Charlotte County: (I) coordinated transportation providers; (2) non-coordinated transportation providers; and (3) taxicab, limousine, and trolley companies. Coordinated transportation providers are those providers who operate as part of the transportation program coordinated by the Charlotte County Transit Department (the local community transportation coordinator (CTC)), as part of the Florida Coordinated Transportation System. Non-coordinated providers are those service providers and agencies who do not have a coordination agreement with the CTC. The taxicab, limousine, and trolley companies also were inventoried to see what other public transportation resources are available locally. CUTR collected the following information for each provider. Name of operator Type of service Service area Users of the service Fare structure/other financial data Service agreement/contracts with other agencies Vehicle inventory Informatio n for coordinated providers was based on data provided by the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and interviews with the CTC. The primary data sources include CTC's Annual Operating ReportS (FY 1994 & FY 1995) and the Charlotte County Coordinated Transportation Development Plan: 1994-1999 (CTDP). Information about non-coordinated operators was gathered from mail questionnaires, supplemented by telephone in terviews conducted by CUTR. Data on taxi and limousine companies were collected through a c-3

PAGE 213

telepho n e survey conducted by CUTR. Information about the trolley service came from literature printed by the operator. C oord i n a t ed Tran s porta ti o n Se rvi ces During FY 1 995, ridership on the coordinated transportation service was I 03,676, a sl i ght increase from 103,151 trips during FY 1994. When trips are analyzed by trip purpose medical, nutritional, and employment trips have increased whereas education/training, shoppmg, and other trips have decreased. Unduplicated passengers have increased by 17 percent, from 4,250 in FY 1994 to 4,971 in FY 1995. Detailed operational data for both fiscal years are presented in Table C-1. As the local CTC, the Charlotte County Transit Department p rovides several types of service for persons who are transportation disadvantaged, includmg subscription trips and demand response trips. Subscription trips include daily congregate meal (nutrition) routes, as well as daily shopping trips within the service area. Subscription service also is provided to Charlotte County Community Mental Health (CCMH), the Visually Impaired Persons of Charlotte and Charlotte County Special Traini n g and Rehabilitatio n (STAR). Demand-response trips are provided primarily for medical appointments including Medicaid-sponsored trip s Trip priorities have been imposed that give preference for essential trips (such as medical appointments, shopping, and training and educati o nal programs). There are 16 vehicles ill the CCTD fleet including three, 3-passenger station wagons; three 15-to 16-passenger vans ; and ten, 10-to 26-passenger buses (four have wheelchair lifts). Some of the vehicles are aging and are sch ed u led for replacement (se e Table C-2) Other transportation services are operated as part of the coordinated transportat i on system including the Charlotte County Veteran's Council, Charlotte County Community Mental Health (CCMH), Cooper Street Recreation Center, and the Charlotte County School Board (Head Start program). Purchase of service contracts are annually negot iated and signed with Charlotte County Social/Senior Service, Community Care for Disabled Adul ts (CCDA), and the Agency for Health Care Adminis tration Additional con tractual agreements were signed with four taxi and limousine companies-AAA All Service Transportation Inc Ambitrans/Grant Medical Transportation, Astor Cab & Limousine, and Mary's Taxi-who provide service for the CTC. C-4

PAGE 214

Table C-1 Charlo tt e County C T C A nnu al Operating Data o/o Iacrease Measures F FY 1995 (Decrease) Total Passenger T rips 103,151 1 03,676 0 .. 5% Employment 0 680 n/a .. Medical 23,725 27,233 14.8% Nutritional 30,945 33,102 7.0% Edueation!fraining 25,788 24,460 (5 .2%) Shopping 7,221 6,440 (10 .8%) Other 15,472 11,761 (24 0%) Unduplieated Passengers 4,250 4,971 17.0% Vehicle Miles 346 ,299 346,744 0 1 % T otal Revenue $630, 15 1 $700,750 11.2% TD Commission $ 101, 714 $101,714 0 .0% USDO T & FDOT (Tota l ) $38,000 $73,347 93.0% Medicaid $46,980 $65,30 1 39.0% Local Government $327 422 $331,636 1.3% Other $116 035 $128,752 11.0% Vehicle Mil es/TO Capita 5.13 4.92 (4 1%) Passenger TripsNehicle Mile 0 .30 0.30 0 .0% Operating ExpenseNehic l e Mile nlc $2.02 N / A Operating Expense/Passenger Trip nlc $6.76 NIA Note: n/c=not complete, nla=not applicable, N/A=not available. Source : TD Annual Operations Report, FY 1994 & FY 1995 Non-Coordinated Operators Additional transportation services are provided by public and private agencies, as well as volunteer organizations who are not part of the CTC's coordinated system (non-coordinated operators). In December 1995, CUTR conducted a survey of those non -coo rdinated operators. The questionnaires were mailed to 28 agencies and organizations identified by the Charlotte C-5

PAGE 215

County-Punta Gorda MPO. Fourteen agen cies and organizations rerumed the survey. Using the same survey CUTR contacted the other 14 agencies by telephone and was able to get five more responses. Among the 19 valid responses five of them were from coordinated operators, and have been discussed above. Six of the respondents are medical service providers or nmsing homes that do not provide any transportation, even for their own clients; however all six state that there are some "unmet transportation needs" of their clients. The non-coordinated operators' data are presented in Table C-3. VolWlteer organizations provide medical and some other trips for the elderly, economically disadvantaged, and persons with disabilities. A nmnber of these agencies do not own their own vehicles; however, they have volunteer drivers who use their own vehicles In practice, however, most agencies only provide trips for their own clients. Taxicab, Limousine, and Trolley Companies CUTR conducted a telephone survey of taxicab and limousine companies in Charlotte County in August 1995, based on a list of taxi and limousine operators with business licenses, provided by the Charlotte CoWlty Zoning Department. Of the 27 taxi and limousine companies, seven were out of business when the survey was conducted. CUTR was able to verify I 0 responses from the 20 taxi and limousine providers that were still in business. The remaining companies would not respond to CUTR' s calls. Information was collected on service area, vehicle inventory, rates contractual agreements, and wheelchair accessibility Two of the taxi and limousine companies, Astor Cab & Limousine and Mary's Taxi also provide contract service through the CTC. Both subscribe to the CCTD Vehicle System Safety Plan. A matrix of the survey results is presented in Table C-4. In addition, Jolly Trolley System also provides public transportation in the Port Charlotte and P.unta Gorda area. The trolley runs from Punta Gorda to Murdock, on two-hom headways, Monday tbrougb SatUiday. The fare is $2.00 for adults; up to three children (less than 6) ride free with an adult. The trolley systems also provide large group services like parties, congregate dining and shopping, and church and school trips at discount rates. Most of the service is oriented toward tourists

PAGE 216

s ;.I. ,,_,, ... to >>'$:,., ,,. ,.,ve ce <,;') "'"'',_,>.< .. >. '< ... ' "''< *-A i ,-, 3,219 115 26,543 5,610 6,514 52,687 38,932 69,990 71,759 100,295 89,952 116,744 142,663 177, 426 154,295 227,457 r ,. $ *.X..E!:t.:."'"'io :i?vr .. 1 1 ,,,&Vi.( .Ot:b'''.'hl 2003 NONE 2003 NONE 2002 NONE 1999 NONE 1999 NONE 2004 LIFT 1998 NON 2002 LIFT 2002 LIFT 2001 NONE 2001 NONE 199l LIFT 1992 NONE 1992 NONE 1991 NONE 1994 NONE 8CC=Board of County Commissioners, AAA=Arca A.gency on Aging, OOT=Department of Transportation. SW=station wagon. Sourte: Based on data by Charlone CounlyPunta Gorda MPO. 1995. Filndlnc s-" l&"' l'C Ourc.,. l BCC,OOT BCC,OOT BCC,DOT BCC,DOT BCC,DOT BCC,DOT BCC,DOT BCC,DOT BCC,OOT BCC,OOT BCC,OOT BCC,DOT BCC,MA BCC,MA BCC,AAA BCC,AAA

PAGE 217

_ _ .. ,-*;; ; ; $ I"' .. -t ,. 1 i h .;;;, < t cdri . ,t5ervlee Arts ... !tt:. :' -* ,,.;:;J { -i? '-'' -.,' < -'' "' No. or CiltiiiS ', .-1,;< -'l>c;.' '> American Cancer Society Charlotte Glades I 9,000 & H endry Columbia Fawcett Memorial Hospital counties Charlotte, Sarasou, DeSoto counties 25 per day Health Plus I Murdock to I 2,989 Burnt Store Road Pabnview Health Care I Charlotte County, I 107 Fort Myers. Salvation Anny South Port Square Visually Impaired Persons of Charlone Sarasota Charlotte County I I ,SOO Charlotte County I 800 Charlotte County I 60 Note: N/A=notavailable. Table C-3 Non-coordinated Operaton (: _I;;, ( . < , t:rsen--: J;-f:.:-1< .,. '' '>'it . .. #, I . .. I .. .,. < Vehicle:t ::>/< : > "-X -'(.'t.<..,. _,-.. -,.. h{,-'>' (::--;f. '',z;; .. ?:if .,v>;_, '"W Elderly, low income, children 135 volunteer I N/A unemployed, disabled autos Elderly, disabled, with no means oftranspomtion Elderly Elderly 6 buses& vans 13,358 Volunteer I N/A private auto I van I NIA Low income I 2 vans I NIA Elderly, disabled, low income I 2 buses, 3 I NIA vans, I auto Elderly I I van I Nl A Training, recreational Medical for their clients only Medical, shopping, personal business Medical, nutrition, social service Medical, social, shopping Medical, shopping, persona l business. recreation Training. recreational This is not an ex _haustive list; however, it represents responses to the survey. Source: CUTR: telephone and mail surveys, December 1995. Funding 'Source : < Private Private Private Federal, state, and HMO Private N/A State & local, United Way

PAGE 218

Tabl e C-4 Taxi and Limousine Services in Charl otte County Tasl Total Vellide w e CoD tract Compaay Service Area Vebkla l)'pe Lift Rates Work A Cab Or A P unta Gorda 2 Aut o Yes $! / mile None Limousine Astor Cab& Punta Gorda & 10 Town car Yes $1-$3 / CC'JD Limousine Port Charlotte mile C WTaxis Charlotte Co unty I Van No $1/mile Non e Casino Punta Gorda & 2 Van N o $16-$30 / None Caravans Charlotte County trip Easy Cab Co. Charlotte County 5 nla No S l/mile None Fr iendl y Ride Charlotte County 6 Van No $40 /tri p None Transport Inc. Florida Transit Airport s 7 n!a No $25-$35/ None Service Inc. trip Mary's Taxi Englewood & 6 4 Autos, Yes $Jimile Medicaid Inc. Charlotte County 2SWs CC1D Mauri ce J. Englewood& I Auto No $65/trip None Ferri t er AirportS R&R Charlotte County 2 Van No $35/trip None T ran s portation & A irports N otes: CCTD contract operators; rates provided are for th e general public. SW=stat ion wagon WC=wheelcbair, nla "llot available This is not an exhaustive list; however it represents responses to tbe telephone survey Source: ClJTR: Telephone survey, August 1995; updated March 1996 c-9

PAGE 219

ADA AOR BEBR CAC CAP CBG CCTD CCTDCB CompPlan CTC CTDP CUTR F A .C. FDOT F.S. FTA FY HOV LRP MPO NPTS OPA SMART CAP TAC TAZ TD TDM TDP TIP TMA TMO TRC TRO UPWP US DOT UZA LIST O F ABBREVIAT I ONS Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Annual Operating Report Bureau of Economic and Business Research (University of Florida) Citizens Advisory Committee Commuter Assistance Program Census Block Group Charlotte County T ransit Department Charlotte County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board 1988 Comprehensive Plan Community T ransportation Coordinator Coordinated Transportation Development Plan Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) F l orida Administrative Code Florida Department of Transportation Florida StaMes Federal Transit Administration Fiscal Year High Occupancy Vehicle (lane) 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Metropolitan Planning Organization 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study Official Planning Agency Suncoast Metropolitan and Rural Transportation Commuter Assistance Program Technical Advisory Committee Traffic Analysis Zone Transportation Disadvantaged T ransportation Demand Management Transit Development Plan Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Management Association (also TMO) Transportation Management Organization (also TMA) Transit Review Committee Trip Reduction Ordinance Unified Planning Work Program United States Department of Transportation Urbanized Area


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.