Winter Haven Area Transit system evaluation

Winter Haven Area Transit system evaluation

Material Information

Winter Haven Area Transit system evaluation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Polk County (Fla.) -- Board of County Commissioners
Winter Haven Area Transit Policy Board (Fla.)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (i, 23, [22] leaves) : map. ;


Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Evaluation -- Florida -- Winter Haven ( lcsh )
technical report ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


General Note:
"October 2001."
General Note:
Performed for Polk County Board of County Commissioners and the Winter Haven Area Transit Policy Board.
General Note:
Final report.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, 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:
029197882 ( ALEPH )
754964772 ( OCLC )
C01-00131 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.131 ( 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 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029197882
005 20111003152038.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110928s2001 fluab t 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00131
HE5633.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Winter Haven Area Transit system evaluation
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (i, 23, [22] leaves) :
Final report.
"October 2001."
Performed for Polk County Board of County Commissioners and the Winter Haven Area Transit Policy Board.
Description based on print version record.
Local transit
z Florida
Winter Haven
x Evaluation.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Polk County (Fla.).
Board of County Commissioners.
Winter Haven Area Transit Policy Board (Fla.)
i Print version:
t Winter Haven area transit system evaluation.
d Tampa, Fla. : Center for Urban Transportation Research, [2001]
w (OCoLC)48749784
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Winter Haven Area Transit System Evaluation Final Report Prepared for: Polk County Board of County Com missioners and Winter Haven Area Transit Policy Board Prepared by: Center for Urban Tra n sportation Research University of South Florida Tampa, Florida October 2001


T A BLE O F CONTENTS I N T RODUCT I O N .... .... .... .... ... . ....... .... ............ 1 PASSENGERS .......................... ....... .... 2 COMMUN IT Y ........ ... ....... .... ...... ...... ..... .. 2 DR I VERS ...... ...... .. ............ . ........... .............. 3 MAR K ETING ... ................ .... ......... .......... ... 3 A l tern a t i v e s .. .............. ......... . ............ 3 P LANS AND POLICIES ......... ..... . . .............. ...... 5 Transit Development P l an ....... ... . ... ..... ........... 5 P oli cies ...... .......................... ... ..... ... ... 5 Alt ernatives ...... ...... ....................... .. .... 5 CONTRACTS ....... .............. ............. ........ 7 B lock Grants ....................... .... .... ........ 7 Transit Operator Agreement ... ..... ......... .... ...... 7 Alternatives .................... ......... .......... ... 8 FUNDI N G ......................................... ...... ... 8 A l ternat i ves ............ .... ...... ...... ...... ...... 9 OPERAT I ONS .. ..... ... .... . ... ............... ........ 9 Alt ernatives .................... .......... .... ..... 1 0 DEMAND E STI M ATES ............... ............ ....... .... . 11 Ridership Using Demographic Data ............ .......... ........ 1 1 Fare an d Serv i ce Elasticities .............. ............ . 13 C o verage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 COSTS ............. .... ... .... ........... .. .. ...... 18 SERVICE DELIVERY ...................... ........... . ...... 20 R oles and Respon s i bi li ties ... ...... ...... .... .... ... ... 20 Alt ernatives ................... ....... .. .......... .... 20 SUMMARY ......... ... .... ........ ................. .... 22


WHAT SUMMATIVE EVALUATION INTRODUCTION The Winter H aven Area Transit (WHAT) Policy Board requested assistance f rom the Center for Urban T ransportat i on Research (CUTRJ to evaluate the operations of WHAT in order to identify any iss ues that woul d (or coul d } prevent the transit system from delivering the best services possible. The WHAT is currently funded for a three-year p ilot program, which began in March 1999. It will be necessary to determine how and where to seek f undin g for pub li c transit to continue after February 2002. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide an ind ependent analys i s that inclu d es alternatives concerning service modifications and funding options. Over the past 15 months, CUTR has conducted two ridership studies (one in June 2000 and another i n March 2001 ), two on-board user surveys, inte rviewed loca l officials and business lea de rs held discussion groups with potential users, surveyed bus drivers, and surveyed Winter H aven res idents. This infor mation is usefu l for determi n ing levels of operation, commun ity attitudes, areas for improv ement and outstanding needs. CUTR has performed trend analyses and peer group comparisons, base d on informat ion r eported to the Nat i onal Tr ansit Database (NTD} whi ch measures and compares performance, effectiveness, and efficiency. The previous two reports have l aid the foundation for identify ing and evaluating alternatives for this final summative report. !For detailed information on the data colle cted, please refer to the Phase I and Phase II Formative Evaluation reports.} Alternatives are options to current operating p r ocedures and will be d iscussed in each section, where appropr iate. It is important to note that one option !!9.! stated in each section i s to do nothing. This may be a viable and / or preferred alternative, and should be considered accord i ngly. Add i tionally, the details necessary for imp lement ation of alternatives would be de cided by the Policy Board. Th is summat i ve evaluation is broken into separate sections addressing areas outlined in the origina l Scope of Services: Passengers, Community, Drivers Marketing, Plans and Policies, Contracts, Funding, Operations, Dem and Estimates, Costs, and Service Delivery. 1


PASSENGERS Two on-board passenge r surveys were cond ucte d (in July 2000 and May 2001) with similar r esults. The typi cal WHAT passenger is a white female, full -t ime resident of Winter Haven, having an annua l household income under $ 1 0 ,000, no vehicles available, and no or one lice nsed driver in the househo ld The typical ride r takes the bus because they do n't drive or because they have no car avai lable and they walk one block or less to and from the bus stop. The most common trip purposes are home, shopping, and work. Passengers are h i ghly satisfied with the WHAT serv i ce, and are able to get where they want to go. F rom numerical scoring, the highest l eve ls of satisfaction in dicated were courteous drivers and perceived safety (while riding on the bus and waiting at the stops}. This is critical to maintaining ridership and reaching new r iders. The scores receiving the lowest nume r ical values were demonstrated in how late the buses run and the number of times a trans fer is necessary to get to a desired des t ina t ion. Of course, everyone indi cated a desire for more more frequency, Sunday service, l onger hours, and service expansion. T his i s typical of most transit systems and ca n indicate a hig h level of satisfaction. Service should be focused on providing the best serv i ce poss i ble with the money available. This will create a positive image which w i ll generate emotional and financial support for increased se rvice levels COMMUNITY Interviews, discussion groups, and random surveys were conducted in order to gain an understanding of political, business, and general community support for transit. The commun ity is overwhelmingly in favor of trans i t and fee l s that WHAT is respons ive to community needs They ind icate a desire to see t ran sit continue and are willing to support it financially. They feel that i t i ncreases mobil ity and i ntermodalism (in l i ne with local plans), employment opportunities, and aids the loca l economy. However, most people feel it is a necessary social service, and only used by certain population group s. Some people also feel that transit encourages loitering and crime. (See Appendix A for a summary of interview s conducted by the Transportation Planning Organization and not i ncluded in the Phase I and II Eva luation Reports.) 2


DRIVERS A survey of WHAT drivers revealed that they hav e no difficulty in scheduled run times of the r outes. Th is concurs w ith the ridership studies, finding that the routes are running at precisely the scheduled running t imes. Drivers were asked about the most commo n complaints they hear f rom passengers. They ind i cated that the two most common comp l aints heard were that the bus doesn't g o where they want, and that the buses are not clean. Additionally, drivers were asked t o rank possible imp r ovements They indicated that more bus shelte r s were needed and the buses needed to be maintained more frequently. {See Appendix B for a more detailed s ummary.) It must be kept in mind that there are onl y six dr i vers in the WHAT system. Any res p onse or lack t here o f by one driver can resu l t in a di fferent outcome. MARKETING As part of the WHAT system evaluation, CUTR was asked to rev ie w marketing efforts. I n 2000, the Winter Haven Policy Board a pp oi nted a marke t ing comm i ttee t o assist in deve l op i ng materia l s and strategies for distributi o n. This i s the onl y such committee of this type which transit professionals and colleagues are aware, and cou ld serve as a p rototype for other sma ll systems Realizing t he need for transforming t r ansi t s i mage to inclu de everyone in the community {a r i de when an automobile needs repair a way to relie ve congestion and the stress of d rivi ng, no need to find a parking spot, n o getti n g into a hot car at the end of the day, etc.) many agencies have hired full time marketing/sales representat ives Based on a rev iew of the orig ina l b r ochures with the most recent materials this volunte e r committee has been very successful a t developing a positive and updated im a ge with a clea r prese ntatio n. Perhaps the best part is that it i s w i thout cost to the WHAT. H i r in g a full-time marketing person i s currently und er conside r ation by LAMTD If this happens, it would be prudent for the WHAT ma r ket ing committee to cooperate with the LAMTD marketing person to prov i de add i tiona l resources and input. Alternatives 1. Continue to Utilize and Update t he City's website to distribute transit information There is a continued need for marketing, public outrea ch and ove rall education of the public and local elected officia ls. A website can distribute general and route -3


speci fic information about the transit system, and it is important to pay attention to posting updates, as necessary. 2. Improve availabili t y of schedule information. During the P hase I and II data collect i on effor ts, it was noted that obtaining schedule information was difficult, except on the buses and from the bus drivers. Only two p l aces were i dent i fied as having any WHAT informati on: the l i b r ary and Chamber of Commerce The library had a map o f the routes, but no schedu l es; the Chamber had no route map, and had outdated schedules (from 1999, prior to routing changes). City Hall, the Northeast Recreationa l Center, and the Orange Dome are additional locations for transit information to be made available. 3. Improve signage at bus stops. Each bus stop in the system shou l d be identified by a sign that contains applicable route number(sl and destinati ons and an identifiable system logo. 4. Develop and d i s t ribute a User's Guide. Availability of a user's gu i de to trans i t i s a lways he l pful. I t may attract new users, and can assist i nexperienced and regu l ar users, particularly with regard to transferring between systems Soc i al ser vice agenc i es can use the guide as a supplement to transit training. 5. Target employe rs a nd educat i onal institutions. Prior to the l aunching of the WHAT, La rry Murphy (a citizen advocate who was instrumenta l in support in g t r ansit in W inter Havenl petitioned businesses to purchase monthly passes for their employees. Not only can this be v i ewed as an employee benefit, but it benefits the emp l oyer as well by helping to ensure timel i ness, reduce absentee i sm, and aid in the local economy Some schoo l s purchase bus passes or offer reduced -cost passes as part of stude n t matriculation fees. Additionally WHAT cou l d ma i nta i n partnerships with local businesses to coordinate events and p r omotions that e n courage trans i t usage. 6 Place pos t ers and information I n public places. As stated ear l ier, scheduling information was difficult to obtain. P l acing information in public places, such as the post offi ce, orange dome, recreational facilities etc., makes it easier for potential r i ders to get information, and promotes transit as a viable transportat ion alternative. 4


PLANS AND POLICIES Transit Development Plan The Transit Development Plan (TOP). while requi red by the FOOT, but should be viewed as an action plan, outlining how to achieve stated goals The Polk Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is respons ible for drafting this document, and in its most recent revis ion, has consolidated the plans for Lakeland, Winter Haven, and I n terCity. Policies Local policies for day-to-day operations are kep t in house, and should be ava i lable to the public. This would inc lude procedures for scheduling paratransit trips, a nd the grievance process, among others. Polic ies are the basis for reali z in g goals and objectives. Alternatives 1. Determine priorities The TOP includes objectives for in c r eas in g frequency and expanding the service area. When a policy board decides a priority, it assists in shaping future operational decisions. Expa n ding the service area will potentially reach more individual passengers; however. increasin g freque ncy may generate more trips per passenger. A. Focus Improvements on Existing Service This alternative addresse s the needs of the current system by instituting improvements that enhance the quality, hours, and fre q uency of service within the existing service area. Transit is most effective in places where density is highest, so there may be a greater p rop ensity for success with increased riders h ip. Improving pas senger amen ities is part of im proving existin g service. Passenger amenities include shelte r s, signage, intermodal characteristics (bicycle racks and lockers), and transfer centers. The benefit of his alternative is that it improves service to WHAT's existing base of r iders hip, further strengthening the relat ionship with those r iders. A higher quality of service will imp rove the overa ll ima ge of public transit and 5


increase the chances of success when WHAT is able to expand its service area. B. Expand Service to Unserved Areas. Th is applies to the geographic coverage of WHAT, and emphasizes expanding the service area. The Transit Development Plan states that service expansion should be to those areas with a medium to high transit potential (Objective 2.6). The benefit of this alternative is increased access for more riders. Greater geographic coverage imp roves mobility There is also the potential to enlarge the constituency supporting public transportation. The r e are two significant is sues related to this alternative. The first involves cost. T ransit works best in high density areas, and it becomes very difficult to provide quality service i n a cost-efficient manner as t he service area becomes lar ger and more suburban in character. If the pr imary intent of WHAT is to offer transit serv i ce to more of its residents and visitors through i nc r eased geographic cove rag e, then costs may not be the main concern. The second i ssue concerning geographic expansion of serv i ce is that it may not be the most promising tech n ique to i nc r ease ridership on the trans i t system. This is due to an inverse relat i onsh i p that ex ists between service area coverage and frequency of service, given lim i ted resources. C. Combination of Alternatives A and B. This alternative rep resents a mixture of the first two al t ernatives. It focuses main l y on aspects of the first alternative, but considers the need to respond to areas of new development or attractors. The primary benefit of this alternative is that i t places a greater emphasis on improv i ng the existing service to the core riders, while allowing increme ntal expansion in response to major populat i on growth and / or attractors. 2. Develop and Incorporate a schedule for realizing goals The TOP contains a variety of realistic goals, but without a time line in which t hey can be reas onably achieved, t here is no means for checks and balances. For instance, Object ive 4.2 (ri dership levels ) could specify how long a route shou l d continue to achieve less than 8 passengers per reve n ue hour before changes or 6


reductions in service are made. Another area might be for farebox recovery (Objective 3.1 ), which states that the farebox recovery ratio should be 20 percent. In what year is this r atio reasonably anticipated? (This objective may need to be rev ised. While 20 percent is reasonable for a larger system according to the FY 2000 informa t ion provided for the National Transit Database, WHAT had a farebox recovery ratio of 9.34 percent, and the peer group mean was 11.67%. ) CONTRACTS Several contracts are currently in place for capital and operating costs, and service delivery of the WHAT. Block Grants Federal block grants have reporting requ irements attached. Specifically, annual N T D reports are required in January of each year. These reports i nc lude information on service, performance, incom e expenses, and demographics for fixed route and paratransit. The f irst fiscal year (1999), WHAT was exempted from submitting an NTD report. Thi s was due, in part, to the fact that Polk County was unaware of r eport ing r equire ments, and the WHAT only operated for six months of the fisca l year. In January 2001, Polk County was to have subm i tted the NTD report for FY 2000. After requesting an extens ion of time until Febr uary 2001, CUTR assisted P o l k County in gathering ridership informatio n for paratransit service, and provided ass istanc e in reporting. U nable to meet the Febru ary deadline, Polk County requested a further extension of time. A report was fi led in July 2001 and has not yet been validated. Additionally, the report contains several questio nable values and some m issin g data. Fixed-route information received from LAMTD was inaccurate and incomplete; direct response (pa ratransit ) portion is equally insufficient. As the administrative a g ent, Polk County bears responsibility for reporting accurate and complete informat ion Transit Operator Agreement This agreement is between Polk County and the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District ( LAMTD) for LAMTD to provide the fixed-route service portion of the WHAT. 7


Alternatives 1. Specify terms In the Transit Operation Agreement for protection In the event of default. The Transit Operator Agreement fa ils to specify any recou rse if either party defaults in its duties or respons ib i lit ies set forth therein. This is typically stated in the form of liqui dated damages (actual) and reciprocity of obligations, and protects both parties. 2. Give NTD report in g respon sibility to LAMTD. L AMTD must file NTD reports on b ehalf of Citrus Connection and has been doing so for many years. Comb ining t he reporting inform ation for WHAT and LAMTD coul d be more effective and efficient, and reduce the possibility of errors for fixed-route r e porting (See also, Alternatives under SERVICE DELIVERY.) It i s clear that better coordina t ion needs to occur be tween Polk County Transportat ion Services tPCTS) and LAMTD, and both parties need a better understanding of NTD requirements and repor t ing. FUNDING At this jun cture, it is necessary to p ursue the establishment of long-term dedicated funding sources for WHAT. Dedicated funding sou r ces will help ensure the continued fisca l health of the system for many years into the fut ure There are, basica ll y two types of fundingongoing and supplemental. Ongo ing funding is the fin ancial support for capital and operating expenses. Several feder a l and state grants are available for this purpose, and require additional local contributions. It is the local portion that needs ongoing dedicated fundi ng, and it is necessary to determine how that funding will be derived. Appendix C provides a variety of potential revenue sources. The Countywide T rans i t Study will address funding alternatives in greater detail. Supplemental funding is usually variable and insufficient in the amount needed to carry out day-to-day transit operations. Supplemental funding can be obtaine d from selling a dver tisements i n and on the bus contributio n s from local businesses, a n d any othe r crea t ive way to gain financ ia l support for the transit system. 8


Alternatives 1. Appropriate a portion of the budget. Every year during its budget process. the County and loca l jur isdictions receiving transit services could set as i de money for transit operations just li ke for other departments under thei r control such as public works, planning, etc. 2. Institute an additional sales tax. While this has never been a well r eceived ide a in Polk County, i t is nevertheless, an option. T he City of W i nter Haven could in corporate a .25 or .50 percent sales tax to cover the cost of transit. This is one way to impact everyone, rathe r than just those who drive or own a home This alternative requires voter referendum 3. Establish an ad valorem tax. An additional ad valorem tax would be imposed on those households within the WHAT service area. This requires public involvement and voter app r oval. The LAMTD uses this method to f und its operations and i s a separate entity with the authority to impose such a tax. It is also responsible for the distribution and use of these funds 4. Sell advertising inside and outside of t he buses and on shelters. The WHAT should pursue gaining supplemental revenue through advertising. Advertis in g can consist of various modes. from small and simple posters inside the bus, to wrapping the entire outside of a bus. I ncome generated from advertising can be quite lucrative, depending upon the aggressiveness of the advertising program established by the transit agency. Terms and/or cond i t ions for advertising should be specified by the Policy Board and may in c lu de setting gu i de l ines for subject matter, presentat ion size, and content. OPERATIONS WHAT currently operates four routes (#10, #20, #30, # 40) using three buses. Two routes are 55 m in utes long, and the other two r outes combine to make a 55 minute run. All three buses are schedu led to arrive at the downtown Winter H ave n terminal at the same time, and t her e is virtually no wait time for transfe r s. This is a drastic improvement from the initia l schedule, when the transfer wai t time was between 5 and 50 minutes, with an 9


average wait of 23 minutes. Additionally, a connector route (#50) forms part of the serv ice between Lake land and Winter Haven, schedu led to arr ive and depart in accordance with the other three Winter Haven buses. Winter Haven serves as a connection for all three public transit syster:ns in Po l k County Citrus Connection (lakeland), WHAT, and InterCity (serving East Polk County). I t is often difficult to make timely transfers between the systems, because the routes to and from Winter Haven are lengthy, allowing for many potential delays. Because the system is small, and there are virtually no obstacles (railroad tracks, h i gh number of school zones, etc.) to slow the schedule, on time performance should be much higher. Ridership stud i es revealed a median ontime performance of 75%. Compared to its peers, WHAT is performing in accordance with or better than the peer group mean for the specif ied indicators. When considering associated factors, such as size of service area. route miles. number of buses, and the fact t ha t it is still a new system. WHAT is performing higher than its peer group mean. See Appendix D for Performance, Effectiveness and Efficiency Measures comparing WHAT's FY 2000 NTD data to its peer group's FY 1 g99 NTD data. (FY 1999 NTD data has been comp l etely validated It was compared aga inst WHAT's FY 2000 unvalidated data as that is the first complete fi scal year data available for WHAT.) The peer group cons i sts of transit systems in the Southeast portion of the United States operating 1 motorbus vehicles, and inc lu des four F l orida properties Key West, Ocala, Panama City, and Pasco Alternatives 1 Improve on-time performance. A s stated above, on -time performance is approximate l y 75% and cou l d be better, given the l ogistics of the system. Poor ontime performance can affect ridership because of inconvenience. 2. Chang e route numbers. All three systems operating in Polk County ( LAM TD, WHAT and InterCity) have routes numbered 10, 20 and 30. Addi t i onally, LAMTD and WHAT each have a route number 40. This causes confusion and is part icula rly diffi cu l t when transferring between systems. Periodic joint meetings of the three transit boards could be instituted to inform and res olve these types of coordination efforts. 10


3. Check transfers for frau du lent activity. During the r ide rship studies, it was noted that there were a few t r ansfers that had been used incorrectly . This consfsted of using a transfer after its specified time had exp i red, and us ing a t r a nsfe r to make a return t rip on t he same route. The inc i dence occurred on a very small scale; however, because there is not usually more t han a few r i ders board ing at any given stop, it is easy to mon itor 4 Develop a formal monitoring p rogr am to track performance of individual routes. This information is the bas is for making dec isio ns on t he rou t in g and f r equency of buses Although cons i derable data are currently b e ing collected, a more formal data moni t o ring a nd analysis prog ram shou ld be set up and followe d Comparative performance guidelines can be used to maximize existing service while minimiz ing costs. Once esta bli shed the guidelines a nd monitorin g p r og ram w i ll allow WHAT to evaluate the perfo rm ance of i ndividua l routes A table take n from the most recent TaiTran {Tallahassee) T r ansit Development Plan is i ncluded in A p pend i x E to demonstrate r oute data which should be collected, and how it can be used for comparative analysis. DEMAND ESTIMATES There are severa l different methods availab le to e stimate the l evel of demand for transit s ervice. Demand may be estimated through the us e of tren d analysis peer review compar i sons among comparable transit markets, fare and serv ice elasticities, and de mographic data. Because WHAT is a new system, and only one comp l ete year of operat ional data is avai l ab le, methods us i ng demographic and f are and serv i ce elastic i t i es are the mos t practical. These two methods a r e described below Ride rs h i p Us ing Demog r a phic Data Assumptions of r i dership for t r ansit are based on several factors: cost, ava i l ab il ity, and convenience of parking; road congestion; t r a nsit frequency (headway); locatio n of activity centers; lan d use; densi t y ; t rip generation; and demographic informat io n, such as a g e, income and veh i c le own e rs hip Obviously, attempting to measure each f actor becomes cumbersome and r elatively in determinate. The r efore, a simple r method, using populat i on, will be used. 1 1


Cal cu l ations from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportatio n Survey (Append i x F) show that Florida has an overall transit usage rate of .88 percent of person trips, roughly hall of the national average, with 9.2 trips per househo l d (less than the standard rate of 10) T he Florida Statistical Abstract can be used to determ ine loca l popu l ation and average number of people per househo l d. Using these figures, it is then possible to estimate total (f i xed route and parat r ansit) daily transit t rips based on population using t h e following formula ((P + HI x 9.2} x .0088 = R Where: p H R = = = Popu l atio n Persons per Household Dai l y Ridership The Florida Statistical Abstract' esti mates WinterHaven' s 1999 populat i on to be 26,022, having an average of 2 53 persons per house h o l d (Census 2000 data is not yet available at the munic i pa l l eve l. ) The daily ridership is then m u ltiplied by 5 (days in a week, even if a trans i t system runs on Saturday and/or Sunday), and the result multiplied by 51 (weeks in a year, excluding approximately 5 holidays) 26,022 + 2.53 10,285 10,285 X 9.2 -94,622 94,622 X .0088 = 833 833 X 5 = 4,165 4,1 65 X 5 1 = 212,415 Th i s es t ima t e i s for a mature system, operat ing at a h i gher leve l of service in the community, whi ch i s reached in approximately 5 years Thus, thi s estimated rid e rship is applied to the 5'" year of WHA T ope r ation, w ith inc r emental i nc r eases d u r ing the 3 and 41 years. 'Florida Statistical Abstract 2000, 34' Ed., Tables 1.25 and 2.05, B ureau of Economi c and Business Research, U n i versity of Florida. 2000. 12


Table 1 Projected Ridership for WHAT 1- 't.< _,--:" \ 2000 ,2001 '' .. 2003 (ACtUfl) Ridership 1 05 733 133 223 1 67,674 212,415 1l.evel of service (an d avemge faro) held coostant Keep i n mind that this i s only an estimate, and actual r ide rship may vary. The WHAT serves a r eas outside its municipa l bounda r ies, and does not serve all areas withi n its bounda ries, so the popu l ation n u mber used herein will vary from the actual population within the service a r ea. Fare and Service Elasticities A n other means of estimating future demand for transit is thro u gh the use of fare and service e lasticiti es. An elast i ci t y is a measure of the sens i t ivity of a dependent va r ia ble, such as passenger trips, to changes in an independ ent variab le, such as fa r e o r level of service. It is a l so represented by the percent change in a de pe ndent vari ab le d i vided by the percent chan g e in an independent variab l e. Whil e conside r able variations can occur, especially o r changes at the l evel of in dividua l routes fare a n d service elasticities have been shown to remain r elatively cons i stent across trans i t systems o f all sizes at the aggregate system le veL The American Public Transportation Association IAPTAl has published a value of -0.43 for the elasticity of riders hip with respect to fare (for systems serving areas with popu l ations of les s than one m i llion). 2 Accordi n g to an Ecosometrics r eport the elasticity of r id ership with respect to l evel of service as measured by vehicle miles is +0.61.' The elastic ity measures are i nterpreted as follows: a 10 p e rc ent i ncrease in the transit fare woul d result in a 4.3 percent decrease in ridership, whil e a 10 percent increase in the level of serv ic e woul d generate a 6.1 percent increase in r idership. These elasticities show that, generally transit riders are more sensi t ive to service levels than to fares. American Public Transi t Association, Effects of Fare Changes on Bus Ridership, Wash i ng ton: America Public Transi t Associat ion, May 1991, 7. 2Ecosometrics In c Patronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Sctvf ctts, p r epa red f o r the U .S. Oepar tment o f Transportation, Washington: Government Prin t in g Offi ce, September 1980, 65. 13


Table 2 presents the results of a far e scenar io and a service scenario. The fi rs t scenario predicts how riders hip will be affected if the current fare of $ 75 wer e to increase to $1.00 (33.33 pe rcent}. According to the elasticity measure, with a fare of approximately $1.00, the system can expect a decrease i n r i dersh i p (as measured by the number of passenger trips}, all o t her t hings being equal. However, s i nce the demand for transit is considered in elasti c with respect to fare (indicating a relatively lo w degree of sensitivit y to f are changes), the increase i n revenue from passengers pay i ng the higher fare will offset the loss from fewer t r i ps. The second scenario exh i bits the results of a 1 0 percent i ncrease in WHA r s l evel of service, as measured by vehic le miles. Since transit demand with respect to the level of service is also conside red to be inel astic, the additional ridership from a 10 percent increase in the leve l of service p r ovided would not produce enough revenue to offset the cost of the additional ser vice. Table 2 Impacts of Scenarios Based on Elastic i ty Analysis I 0. 2 !' I !'. El! lsting Mtaw-. ' (,.,..llmlnoo:y . 26fa .. 10% .. ... .. ,:;. I!>CfJ'ISO lnereaw i" Fare $0. 7 5 $1. 00 $0 75 Average Fare $0 44 $0 .59 $0.44 Fare Revenue $4 1 ,170 $47,37 1 $43, 752 Vehlde Mites 146.680 1 46,680 1 61,348 Passenger Trips 93, 720 80,290 99,437 Operating EXPense $440,610 544 0.6 1 0 $484,671 Change In Riclershl'p (13 430) 5 ,717 Change i n Revenue $6 20 1 $2 582 Change i n Opol'ating NA $44,061 -Expense Net Flnanelallmpact +$6,20 1 -$41,479 N et financial i mpact does not account for i nflation. Coverage CUTR has developed a methodo l ogy to identify the effectiveness of a transit route network in serving people with potent ially high demands for service. Using a Geograph i c 14


Information System IGISI, demograph ic characteristics derived from the U.S. Census Bureau data can be represented graphically in l ayers and overlaid with the transit network to enhance ana lysis via visualization. This methodology is based upon four significant demographic characteristics that indicate transit dependence: (1) youth; (2) el derly; (3) lowincome; and (4) those who do not own cars. These characteristics a re represented by the follow in g census data categories : (1 J persons aged 0 to 17 years; (2) persons aged 60 years and older; (3) households with combined annual incomes less than $10,000; and (4) housing units whose occupants own no vehicles. Census block groups (BG) are the smalles t geographic areas of deta il that contain data for all four of the identified transit dependent demographic characteristics. With the exception of zero vehicle housing units for which no updated data were available, CUTR utilized estimates for the year 1997 (projected from 1990 Census base data and other sources) from the Caliper Corporation, a major supplier of d emographic and spatial data for transportat ion applications. Since demographic data from the 2000 U.S. Census are not yet available at either the tract or block group levels, the Caliper data represent the best and most current data available. Detailed analys is of the process is explained in Appendix G. Table 2 presents the results of the block group analysis, includ ing percents scores, composite scores, and final ranks for each of the 42 block groups within WHAT's '% mile service area. The analysis id entif ied a total of 2 critical-need, 5 high need, 9 medium need, and 26 low-need block groups. All of the b lock groups listed in the table are incl uded in WHAT's current service area, with t he block groups in central Winter Haven receiving t he most service coverage. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the prioritized transit depen den t block groups with an overlay of WHAT's current fixed-route network and service area. For the purpose of this ana l ysis, distinction is made between those block groups which are directly served by a WHAT bus route versus the block groups which lie within the WHAT service area, but do not enjoy direct bus service, i. e., the WHA T bus route l ies outside of 3Biock g roups are smaller than tracts, but larger than blocks. B locks do not contain data dotairing eithet household income or zero vehicle housing units 4According to the American s with Disabil ities Act of 1990, complementary paratr ansit service must be provided to all origins a nd destinations within a m ile di stance from a fixed transit rout e fo r persons who are unable to use 0( access the fixed (Oute t r ansit system. Polk County has adopted this definit i on a s the same fo e the W HAT sef\1lce ama. 15


the b loc k group, but is accessib l e % mile away. Based upon this ana lys i s, i t was determined that both of the critical-nee d transit-dependent blo c k groups in Winter Haven are di rectly served. In a ddi t ion, service i s di rec tly p rovided to all but one of the h ig h need transit-dependent block groups in the northwest portion of the ser vice area which lies most l y within the Auburndale city limits; howe v er, most of t h e area is included within the % mile service area Only one block group i n the medium-need category in the southern t i p of the se r vice area is not di rec tly served however development in the northern and western a reas lie within the % m ile servi ce area. Look ing strict l y at t he municipal bound ari es of Winter Have n most a ll block groups enjoy direct bus service either through or a lo ng the defined boundaries. The four exceptions li e in the eastern are as of the c ity l imits, i n clu ding two med iumneed block gro up s and two l ow-need b lock gr oups. Roads are a good i ndicato r o f re sidential and commercial d e velopment. The streets from the Census TIGER/line 2000 data visible on F i gure 1 ind ic ate that the le ast served areas within both WHAT's % m i le service area and t h e City o f Winter Hav e n hav e little development. The rankings for transit p r iority n eed used i n this analysis ar e base d upon proportions; therefo r e although two b l ock groups in eastern Winter Haven ranked as medium need, there would be relat i vely few i ndivi duals who would benefit from transit service, compared to other areas. Fur thermore, extend ing WHAT routes to serve these relatively few ind i v id ua ls would resu l t in sig nificantly dec r eased cost effici ency o f the current service. 16


) \ 1 Figure 1 Transit Priority Block Groups -WHAT 3 / 4 Service Area 'v / ...-------..... al!a LEGEND '' \I I I f J \./ \,( / ( 1(. ../c \..-t......-._ ( v v NWHAT Routota D 314 ml Service Area ( I D Auburndale City Limits D Wlnt .er Haven City Um Transit Priority Block Groups: Critical Need (2) H igh Need (5) PMd lum Need (9) Low Need (26) N A -....... """


COSTS Tables 4 and 5 present estimated costs associated w ith operating the f i xed -rou te portion of WHAT, based on information obtained from t h e 2000 NTD data reports. These are the most r easonab l e assumpt io ns available but cost est i mates shou l d be refined when increased service is i mplemented and greater detail is ava il ab l e. Priorities shou l d be r evised based on f isca l constra ints, or potentia l new fund ing sources must be identifi e d As shown in Tab l e 4 FY 2002 operating costs at the cu r rent level of service are expected to be $399,457. If one route is a d ded (as prop osed in the TDP to serve Cypress Gardens), total capital and operating costs would be $52 1,281. Table 5 shows the projected costs for the next five years, from FY 2002-2006. Information rep oned for paratrans i t service appears to be inaccurate; as a result, esti m ated paratransit costs are not inc l uded. Beca use Polk County current l y provides door-to-door service throughout the County, it may be difficu l t to separate servic e s p r ov i ded for WHAT. I t is important to note that when expanding routes, hourly serv i ce for paratransi t is not equiva lent to f i xed route, and cannot be costed in the same manner. The best way to estimate costs for WHAT paratransit service is to divide the tota l n umber of WHAT passenger trips by the tota l county passenger t r ips to get a percentage of total service provided Thi s p erce n tage cou l d then be appl ied to othe r in dicato rs, such as ope r ating and ma i ntenance expenses 18



SERVICE DELIVERY Roles and Responsibilit i es The Policy Board oversees the provis i on of publ i c transportation services in the Winter Haven area. The Policy Board i s responsible for establishing fares, service standards, rules and regul ations and has final approval on matters rega rding policy and lega l obligations. Polk County serves as the adm i nistrative agent and is the lega l entity respons ible for the day-today operation and management of WHAT. Polk County i s the receiver of a ll grants and funds used to carry out the delivery of WHAT transportation services. As such, they are responsib le for all reporting requi r ements of grant recipients. Additionally, they are responsible for p roviding quarterly reports outlining ridership, revenues, expenses and other information to the Policy Board. Polk County directly provides the complementary paratransit service for WHAT Through a Transit Operator Agreement with Polk County, the L akeland Area Mass Transit District ( LAMTD ) p rovi des fixed route services. Polk County pays LAM TO $37.64 per hour to perform this serv i ce. Alternatives Once again it should be noted that alternatives are options to current operating procedures and assume that arrangements could be kep t status quo. T he alternatives presented are elementary i n nature, and can be used in any combination or variety. The Countywide Transit Study, scheduled to begin late r this calendar year will explore the following alternatives in greater detail. Specifically, Section 5.1 of the Scope of Services states that the study is to ( i)dentify, cost and evaluate transit service improvement alternatives that can be i mplemen ted by existing transportation prov i ders under the current institutional structure." Section 5.2 further requests that the study will "(i) dentify, cost and eva luate t ransit service imp r ovemen t alternatives as provided under alternate institutional arrangements o r structu res." 1. Post a Request for Proposal for operator(sl to prov ide transit service(s). Several private companies across the nation are providing transit services. One example is in Ocala, one of WHAT's peers (in Appendix Dl. The advantage of 20


privatizing is that efficiency measures usually increase, and there is the constant threat of contract termination in the event of failure to perform accord i ng to the standards set by the governing body. If a private company operates for profit, the service can be more expensive, but often more cost effective. Additionally, private companies are able to expand services and purchase capital equipment more qu i ckly. 2. Post a Request for Proposal for a transit management company. Another means of ensuring productivity, effectiveness and efficiency is through a management company. T ypically, a management company will serve as the administ r ative agent, acting as the rec ipient of funds, but does not directly provide transit service. It also has the ability to manage transit services across multiple jurisdic t ions and support reg ional transportation goals. This is done through contracting with public or private providers. 3. Have LAMTD serve as the administrative agent. LAMTD is currently the administrative agent for the Citrus Connection As such, it is familiar with reporting requirements and standards of operation If LAMTD was the administrative agent, it offers the opti on of prov iding all (fixed-route and paratransit) or part of the serv i ce. Report i ng, grant applications, capital imp rov ements, funding, and administration would be consolidated, thereby streamlining the processes and increasing reporting accuracy. Like p ri vate companies, LAMTD (because it is a separate authority) is able to expand services and purchase capital equipment more quickly than other governmental entities. 4. Contract with Polk County for paratransit service. Polk County currently prov ides paratransit service for the WHAT, and to the majority of Pol k County. They are experienced in this type of service delivery, and are in the process of expanding their fleet. 5. Develop a separate transit authority for Winter Haven. Th is opti on makes W i nter Haven distinct and allows an independent body to act solely on behalf of the WHAT. While this may init i ally seem to be a desi rab l e option, it could be self-defeating. When distinct authorit ies operate next to each other, i t is les s li k ely that e i the r transit system will cross a boundary that will encroach into the other's district. For example, i nstead of the Lakeland-Winter Haven connector run ning from the transit terminal in Lakeland to the t r ansit terminal 21


in Winter Haven, it's final destination in Winter Haven would, most l ike ly, be Havenda l e Square. It would then be necessary for a passenger to transfer to another bus to get to the downtown Winter Haven terminal. 6. Unite the WHAT and LAMTD boards under one authority. As mentioned in the FUNDING section, LAMTD has the authority to im pose ad valorem taxes, and is certainly experienced in expanding its boundaries. Winter Haven would have representation on the Board to protect its interests This would strengthen the cooperation between local bodies and, as mentioned above, conso l idate reporting, grant app lic ations, capital im pr ovements, funding, and administration. SUMMARY This evaluation was initiated prior to the inception of the Countywide study. Alternatives w ith regard to institutional structure are not necessarily timely, and may be considered as piecemeal. Obvious ly, a holistic approach is preferred and expedient. At the same time, there are some short term efforts that can be applied to increase system efficiency. P rior itization of improvement alternatives will provide a basis lor future operational decisions. Inc r eased f re quenc y w i ll yield more ridership (more riders on the buses), and service area expans ion will yield a greater number of ind ivid ual r iders. Expansion of marketi ng efforts will increase revenue and ridership. Operational improvements, such as on time performance, chang ing route numbers and developmen t of a monitoring program, are minor adjustments that would i mprove system image and performance, and may attract discretionary r ide rs. Contractual agreements should specify terms in the event of default. Th is protects both parties and prov ides a clear understanding of effective damages. WHAT has been ope rating for approximately 2 Y, years and has been very successful during its short lifetime Ridership (usually measured in terms of r iders p e r revenue hour} is hig her than originally anticipated, and continues to grow. The Board and the service providers are keeping a close eye on system p erfo rm ance. The community ind icates a posit ive view of transit and has a desire to see i t continue, further supporting the system. 22


Additionally, WHAT patrons are friendly and helpful, maki ng new riders feel comfortable and welcome. T his "small town"' feeling lends warmth to r idin g transit in Winter Haven and is, perhaps, one of the most alluring, yet unpredictable, aspects of WHAT. Most of the issues noted are m ino r in nature and improvements would ass ist the function ing and/or performance of the WHAT. Because the execut ion of WHAT involves many p l ayers (city and county commissioners, Winter Haven Public Works, LAMTD, PCTS, and TPO}, communication and coordination i s critical. It can also be t ime consuming and effortful, but will realize more fruit and less inconvenience in the lo ng run. Overall, WHAT has demonstrated a strong beginning. No fatal flaws emerged from the evaluation, and it appears to have the support needed to continue. 23




INTERVIEWS FOR EVALUATION OF THE WHAT PILOT PROJECT (July 23 August 1, 2001) Between July 23 and Aug 1, 2001, TPO staff completed interview quest ionnai res with seven (7) individuals residing or working in the Winter Haven Area Transit service area. The goal was to access the attitudes of these individuals regarding current transit services. Respondents included representatives from public health ( 1}, social services (3). city staff (1 }, community development (1) and a community service/advocate volunteer (1 ). These interviews, combined w ith t h e t h i rtee n (13) completed by CUTR in September and October of 2000, complete the twenty (20) interviews of local officials and community leaders established as a goal in the CUTR Scope of Work for the Evaluation of the WHAT Pilot Project A. What are your opinions/thoughts about the current WHAT serv i ce? All r espo ndents thought there was support for the service in the Winter Haven area. Two indicated that the fact that the system was implemented and continues is evidence of support. One thought that the involvement of the Polk Transportation Planning Organization in WHAT planning indicated endorsement by that body and t hat impl ied countywide support. When asked why there is support, respo n dents sa id: most citizens view the need for transportation as basic like the need for housing community assessments rank transportation as a prio rity need and many citizens are aware of that. peopl e identify WHAT as their system people are pleased with WHAT ro u tes and schedules the continued increase in ride r ship indicates support citizen concern for people with disabilities especially t hose who are blind, generated initial support. When asked about negative attitudes r egard ing i mplementing or continuing WHAT, no respondent could recall hearing any negative comments. However, four responden t s said they occasionally hear concerns expressed about low ride rship All respondents agreed that WHAT i s responsive to community needs. Examples given for respons iveness were: route adjustments in the F lorence Villa area particularly the two way circulation of buses on t he Florence Villa segment of the Northside Route willingness to consider adjusting the Auburndale route to accommodate transit dependent citizens. establishing the Lakeland -toAuburndale -to-Winter Haven connector ro ute A-1


willingness of the WHAT Policy Board to consider all requests, even those by an ind ivi dual c i tizen for a route change adding bike racks on buses ins tall ing shelters and benches current planning efforts for expanding the WHAT terminal Traffic congestion in Winter Haven Four of the seven respondents agreed that traffic congestion was a pro blem in the Winter Haven area. No respondent thought WHAT reduced congestion One thought that traffic congestions continues to grow worse. However, one observed that elderly peopl e who continue to drive, even though they can no longer do so safely, should be encouraged to use WHAT. Another suggested using the buses for special events to reduce congestion and parking problems associated with the events. Four of the respondents have r idden a WHAT bus. Of the fou r, two rode on specia l promotion trips, another r ides only after a route adjustment to evaluate the changes and the fourth regula rly takes clients on WHAT trips as pa r t of the respondents jo b F ive had ridden on other public transit. For those who had ridd en other systems, most of that use was in larger cities and all of them indicated posit ive experiences on those systems. One mentioned how free of stress and thoroughly relaxing ri d ing the bus was compared to d riving an automobile. Two respondents thought getting people to experience a trip on WHAT would encourage some of them to use the system on a regular basis. WHAT's current role All seven respondents thought WHAT was serving peop l e without access to automobiles. Specific groups mentioned were: elderly those with low to moderate inco mes people who can't afford a car people who can't drive because of a handicap middle school and high school students. Most t rips were thought to be for shopping, medi cal appo intments or recreation and trips for employme n t were not thought to be a typical use of WHAT. However, one respondent has an employee who cannot drive and uses WHAT to commute to work as well as for most other trip purposes. Also, one respondent thought student participation in after school programs/events was an important trip purpose. A 2


B. What are your opinions/thoughts about future WHAT service: Respondents mentioned the following goals that have been talked about for transportation in the Winter H aven area. continue public transit and add two new routes add more buses to WHAT service provide free bus passes build a permanent terminal facility in or near the downtown area add evening and Sunday service prov ide more connections with the county's inter city bus service. provide additional passe nger shelters Regarding the community's willingness to provided additional loca l funds for WHAT, four respondents said the community would be willing and three had no opinion. One of the respondents suggested educating t he public about the amount of state and federal funds proj ecte d to be available to subsidize WHAT, relative to the amount of local funding required, befo re asking citizens for additional local support. The respondent thought t he public had no idea of the amount of state and federal dollars available to WHAT. Another respondent stressed that the people who ride WHAT don't have much money t o contribute to the local support. Respondents expressed t hese five (5) year visions for WHAT. a system that is much larger but remains very responsive to the needs of citizens a system expanded to cover all areas where there is a need serv ice expanded to area north and east of the lake Elbert area in Winter Have n lake Alfred, and the Carefree Cove n eighb orhood north of Winter Haven off highway 17. more frequent service. more shelters. The added shelters should be larger, provide more seating area and do a better job of keeping rain out. Some shelters would be air conditioned. the name changed from what to chain of lakes transit. an expanded terminal facility. Within ten (10) to twenty (20) years Only three respondents offered a ten year vision. public transit is available countywide and the service has r easonable service frequency public transit is viewed as a community asset similar to the way public librarie s are viewed public transit has spread across political boundaries and increased cooperation between political jurisdictions. service is available throughout Winter Haven. all Polk County communities are connected by transit. A


C. Recommendations for i mproving WHAT service. Respondents named these improvements to attract more riders: more route coverage in or near residential areas. make bus stops more accessib le by building more sidewalks. additional passenger shelters. add some smaller buses that can maneuver in narrow streets and load/unload closer to building entrances. use r f rie ndly rider guides. consolidated route schedule brochure/booklet edu cate citizens about features of b uses that lower step up height to allow easier boarding. offer special colored bus pass that indicate rider s with disabilities since it's not always easy to identify a person with a d i sability. exp and marketing/public relations efforts. Respondents thought these WHAT improvements will need to be made to meet community goals. always t hink of citizen nee ds first. base transit decisions on a countywide rather than a single community perspective. consolidate planning for WHAT with other transit planning. expanded transit service would mean visitors wouldn't have to rent cars. The way it is now in Florida, tourist are forced to rent a car. begin to think of transit as a way to r educe the number of cars on our roadways. Policies in place that should be changed to better support transit services for the Winter Haven area Only one r espondent suggested a policy change. The change was more funding to support transportation services for the transportation disadva n taged. D. Summary Respondents l isted the following major strengths. On this point, respondents repeated previous statements made in response to system responsiveness (qu estion 2) and WHAT's role (question 6). The consensus was that the res ponsiveness is the major strength of the system, as evidenced by improvements to routes and schedules, adding t he Winter Haven -toAuburndale to-Lakeland route and prov iding shelters and benches. In addition, one respondent listed courteous and helpful bus drive rs as a major strength and three respondents said major strengths were the leade rsh i p provided by the WHAT Policy Board and the quality of serv ic e provided by the contract operator. Two respondents suggested that, given the need for public t ransport ation the fact that the system exist at all is t h e major strength. A -4


Have perceptions of WHAT changed since its i ntroduction? Five of the respon dents t hought perceptions were and conti nue to be positive and two respondents wer e not sure about changes in perceptions. Four men t ioned t here is probably a perception that r ider ship is lower than it should be. If you could pick one thing to change about t he Winter Haven transit system. what would it be? Respondents se l ected the following changes. increase service frequency estab li sh a permanent source of funding. l arger shelters with more seating area for areas with high boa r d ing activity. make WHAT accessible to more people by p r ovid in g sidewalks and conven i ent/safe p l aces to wait to boa r d . change t he paint colo rs and scene on WHAT buses more promoti on of k i nds of discount passes ava i lab l e and provi de more places to p urchase discount passes. A-5




WHAT Driver Survey Results On August 1 2001, The Polk Transportation Plann ing Organization (TPO) wa s provided assistance by the Transit Director of the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District in getting WHAT drivers to complete a sutVey The survey used a questionnaire provided by CUTR. Six drivers completed the questionnaire. R esults are presented below. 1. Drivers were asked to rank the mos t common comp l aints h eard from passengers, using 1 fo r the most fre q uent complaint and 5 lor the least freq uent. Since only one d river u s e d th e 1 -5 ran kin g, the r esu lts are reported as the percent of drive r s who marked a g iven comp l ain t w ith out re gard t o its freq uency. The dal a neported does not indicate the r elative frequ ency o f com p l ain t s but s hows the perce n t age o f d rivers i ndicating w h i ch ones they i dentify as common comp la i n ts. Percont o f tha six (6) drlvan Ind icatin g Compla ints heard from passengers if i tem is a common complaint 17% no complaints i dentified as common 6 7% b u s doesn' t go where 1 wan t 50% bus i s not clean 33% bus I s lat e 17% no bus shelters/benches 17 % bus is not com f ortab l e 17% bus schedule too hard to unders tand 17% passengers cannot get infotma tio n 0 % bus l eaves stop too ear l y Oo/o route o t destination on bus not c lear 0% sa f ety and security 0% OTHER (spec i fy) none reported 2. Drivers were also asked to rank th e f ollow ing poss i ble i mp r ovemen ts fr om 1 to 6 with 1 as the most helpful but no d rtve r use d th e comp lete ranking guide li n e. As i n q ues t ion 1 above, th e data r eported does not indi cate the rel ativ e hel pfu l ness of the impr ovements but i d entifies th e p erce ntage of drivers categorizing an i mprovem ent as hel pful. Pe rcent of the six {6) drivers indicating Possible Improvements a possible improvement as helpful. 33% no i mprovement i d entif ied. 67% incr ease n umber of she l ters at b us s t ops 50% maintai n buses more freque ntly 0% g ive more t im e in sche dules 0% give more time in sched u les 0% I ncrease frequency 0% prov i de better route an d schedu l e information 0% O T HER (speCify) none reported B 1


4 Do you know of any safety problems o n any routes? Percent of the six (6) drive rs Know of any safety problems 33% No 0% Yes 67% No response If so, exp l a i n Not applicable 5. Are there any run times which are d ifficult to maintain? Percent of the six (6) drivers Are there run times which are difficult to maintain 83% No 0% Yes 17% No response If so, explain Not applicable 7. Other comments that would be helpful to improving service i n Winter Haven. One of the six drivers responded: "Give rout e information to businesses on the route.'" B-2




REVENUE SOURCES Opportunities for funding transit and transit-related facilities are plentiful largely restr icted by project type, location, use, and effect. Potential funding op tions are listed below. Bonds A bond is a certificate or evidence of a debt on which the issuing company or governmental body p romises to pay the bondholders a specified amount of interest for a specified length of t i me, and to repay the loan on the expiration date Bonds are sold to finance improvements and may require voter approval. {See also, Tax Increment Financing.) County Incentive Grant Program This program provides grants to counties to improve a transportation facility which is located on the State Highway System or which relieves traffic congestion on the State Highway System. Dedica ted Millage Rates At least fou r counties in Flor i da dedicate millage to their transit system: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk, and Volusia. These ad valorem taxes have been a major source of revenu e for the systems. Flor ida's Constitution li m its the amount of ad valorem taxes that may be levied by a municipality to 10 mills Development Agreements A local government may agree to approve a new development p lan if the developer agrees to provide transportation improvements o r right-of-way needed to support the development. Improvements are t hen turned over to the public agency, which is responsib le for maintenance and operation. T his is a voluntary approach, although the resulting agreements are binding. The p roce ss also typically involves some conc essions on the part of the municipality. Exactions Monetary payments, contributions of land, or infrastructure improvements may be required by a government agency as a condition of development approval. Such exactions are typically d eter mine d through negotiations between a municipality and a developer. Regulatory exactions must be r oughly proportional both in nature and degree to the impacts of the regulated activity. Federal Demonstration Projects This fund ing is promoted b y congressmen who feel a project is n eeded within their area and is applied for through federal appropriation bills Fundraising A variety of fundraising activities can be used to encourage loca l businesses, property owners, or philanthropic groups to contribute f i nancial assistance toward transportation activities. C-1


Gas Taxes In essence, this is a user fee that enables government to tax gasoline for the purpose of fundi ng transportatio n expenditures. Gas taxes are of central importance to assuring adequate transportation funding. Florida is a le ader i n the use of local option gas taxes for transportation fundi ng. Table 1 shows the distribution percentages for FY 1999, obtained from the Flor i da Department of Revenue. Local governments are autho rized to levy up to 1 2 cents of lo cal option fuel taxes in the form of three separate levies, as descr i bed below. Grants 1 to 6 Cents Loca l Option Fuel Tax Loca l governments are authorized to levy a tax of 1 to 6 ce nts on every net gallon of motor and diese l fuel sold in a county. This tax may be authorized by an ord i nance adopted by a majority vote of the govern i ng body or voter approva l in a county w i de referendum. Tax proceeds may only be used for transportation expenditures, i ncluding public transportation operations and maintenance. 1 to 5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tal< County governmen t s are authorized to levy a tax of one to f i ve cents on every net gallon of motor fuel so l d within a county. Diesel fuel is not subject to this tax. This tax is levied by an ordinance adopted by a ma jor ity p lus one vote of the membership of the governing body or voter approval in a county wide referendum The tax proceeds may be used for transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the capita l improvements element of an adopted local government comprehensive plan including those i mprovements for the public transportation system. N in th-Cent Fuel Tax The Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax is a tax of one cent on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel so l d within a county T he tax may be authorized by an ordinance adop ted by an extraordinary vote of the govern ing body or voter referendum. County and municipal governments may use the tax proceeds for transportation expenditures, inc l ud i ng, but not limited to pub li c transportation operations and ma i ntenance. Grants come in a variety of forms and are offered by a variety of government and pub li c agencies, private sources, and foundations. Grants are monetary contr i but io ns that do not have to be repaid. They are usually distributed through an application process, and may be for any number of purposes. A few of the more common grants that may be available are listed below. Sect i on 5307 Formula program that funds capital and operat i ng assistance in urbanized areas C 2


Section 5309 Provides transit capital assistance for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems fixed guideway modernization, and bus and bus related facilities. Impact Fees Impact fees are charges levied against a development p r oject to help fund the cost of off site capital improvements that benefit that development. The fee is determined by assessing the p r ojected impact the development will have on surrounding public facilities. Fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of serv ing a given development, and cannot be used to address existing deficiencies. In other words, the need for new facil ities must be attributable to new development. Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant Program TEA-21 creates a new program for Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants. The p r ogram i s authorize d at $150 million annually ($50 million of thi s amount was guaranteed in FY 1999). The guaranteed portion r ises by $25 million a year. reaching the full authorized level of $150 million in FY 2003. The program requires a 50% non-USDOT match. The program provides funding to loca l areas to develop transportation serv ices designed to transport welfare recipients and other low-income individuals to and from job s, and to develop transportation services for res idents of urban centers and rural and suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities The J ob Access and Reverse Commute Program is a discretionary program Eligible rec ip ients for the program include local agencies and author ities. non-profit organizations, and designated recipients under the Section 5307 program. In urbanized areas with 200,000 population or above, the MPO selects the applicants. Local Agency Partnering Local agency partnering involves the uniting of local agencies to achieve an end that will benefit all parties. The parties voluntarily s ign a contract that specifies a financial commitment, as well as a commitment to impl ementation This is a widely used form of financial support. Where transit may cross district b oundar ies (city to county, for instance). the l ack of participation by one government could have a negative effect on the oth e r(s}. National Corridor Planning and Development Program (NCPDJ This program, under the Federal Highway Administration, provides funding for planning, project development, construction and operation of projects that serve high priority corridors throughout the United States. States and metropolitan planning organizations IMPOs) are eligib le for discretionary gr ants for feas ibility studies, plann ing multi-state coordination, environmental review, and construction. Other Federal Programs A variety of programs and funding exist within the realm of the federal government, beyond those already mentioned. Because of the numerous branches of the federal government, frequent changes in funding provisions and a llo cation, and associated C-3


restrictions in each program area, it would be necessary for the local government agency to explore other possible funding sources. Some areas where funding may exist include the Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, Economic Development Administration, and the Department of Hous ing and Urban Development. Public/Privat e Partnerships A public/private partnership is the pairing and cooperation of public and private resources to achieve an end that will benefit both the pr ivate developer and the public sector. A local government may benefit from the construction of a needed improvement at a low cost and in a more expeditious manner than could be accomplished by the government. The private enterprise may benefit from the profits earned throug h its implementation. Regional Surface Transportation Program Transport a t ion projects on a sys tem funded by federal aid (functionally classified above a loca l road in urban areas or above a minor collector in rural areas) are eligible for RSTP funds Monies are available to fund capital costs for transit projects, and fringe and corridor parking facilities. Reserve Funds In reserve fund financing, funds are accumulated in advance for ca pital improvements. The accumulation may result from surplus or earmarked operational rev enue s, funds in depreciation reserves or the sale of capital assets Safety Funds Any unit o f loca l or state government can request highway safety funds for projects to demonstrate evaluate or enhance a special coun termeasure activity. Th e applicant must show that an identified highway safety prob lem exists within their jurisdiction and is supported by documented evidence. Sales Tax Sales tax is a state or local-level tax on the retail sale of specified property or services. It is a percentage of the cost. Usually, levying a sales tax for the pu rpose of funding special projects (such as t ransportatio n) requires a public referendum. Small County Outreach Program This program provides assistance to small county governments for res urfacing or reconstructing county roads or in constructing capacity or safety imp rovements to county roads Special Assessment Districts Special assessment districts levy a tax on property owners who will benefit from specific improvements These may be initiated by local governments, developers, or property owners wishing to expedite the imp rovement(s). One parameter of specia l assessment districts is that property owners must not pay more than they receive in special benefits. C


State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) This is a pilot program under which four states California, Florida, Missouri, and Rhode island are authorized to enter into cooperative agreements to set up infrastructure revolving funds eligible to be cap i talized with federal transportation funds. This new SIB program gives states the capacity to increase the effici ency of their transportation investment and leverage federal resources by attracting non-federal public and private investment. As loans are repaid, the initia l capital is replen i shed, and it can support a new cycle of projects. State-Shared Revenue Sources Florida has two sources of state shared revenue, which may be used for right-of -way acquisit ion and transportation improvements. The first is authorized by the Florida Constitution and is a $ .02 motor fuel tax. Eighty percent of the total revenue generated is allocated for debt service on bond i ssuance; the remaining twenty percent i s allocated to l ocal governments. The second type is a $.01 county gas tax which is also used for county debt service. State Transportation Trust Fund ISTTFJ The two major contributors to this fund are state fuel sales tax revenue {of which about 90 percent goes to the STTF), and the State Comprehensive Enhanced Transportation System {SCETS) tax. Other sources include Florida's fuel use tax, aviation fuel tax, vehicle licensing fees, initial auto reg i strat ion fees, and rental car surcharges. In accordance with .46, Florida Statutues, 15 percent of all revenues distr i buted to the STTF are to be dedicated annually by FOOT for public transit and cap i tal rail pro j ects. Public T ransit Servjce Dev elopment Program The Service Development Program was enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide initial fund i ng for special projects. The program is selectively applied to determine whether a new or innovative technique or measure can be used to improve or expand public transit in an area. Service Development projects specif i cally include projects involving the use of new technolog i es, services, routes, or vehicle frequencies; the purchase of spec ial transportation services. and other such techniques for increasing service to the riding publ i c as are applicab l e to specific localities and user groups. Service Development projects are sub ject to spec i fied times of dura t ion. but no more than three years for system operations and maintenance procedures and no more than two years for marketing and technology projects. Surface Transportation Program (STPJ The STP prov i des flexible funding that may be used by states and local municipalit ies for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as on roads and highways. C-5


Tax Increment Financing This is a type of bond financing used in areas where la rge-scale redeve lopment is feasible. A redeve lopment district is designated and assigned a tax base equivalent to the value of all property within the district. The area is redeveloped with proceeds from the sale of tax increment bonds. These bonds are sol d by the municipality or tax district to f und improvements. Once redevelopment i s completed, the developed prop erty has a higher assessed value and yields more tax r evenu e. The tax "increment" above the initia lly established level is used to ret ire the bonds. Once the bonds are retired, the tax revenues from the enhanced tax base are distributed normally. Transit Enhancements This funding is designed to enhance the travel experience for public transit riders, and may include access for disabled persons historic p re servation bus shelters, landscaping, or bicycle/pedestrian fac ilities. Transportation Community and System Preservation Pilot Program ITCSPJ The TCSP provides funding for planning, implementation, and research to investigate and address the rel ationshi ps between transportation and community and system preservation, and to identify pr ivate sector-based ini t iatives, such as transit-oriented development, trafficcalming measures, or other projects to reduce the need for future infrast ructure inve s tments Transportation Corporations Flor ida t ranspo rtation finance and planning law provides for the creation of transportation corporations. These are nonprofit corporations authorized to act on b ehalf of the FDOT to ass ist with project planning and design, assemble right-of -way and financial support, and promote projects. "Project" is defined as any im provement to an existing highway that is included in an adopted work program. The legislat ion is aimed at increasing private sector f i nancial support for development of transportation facil ities and systems by new and alternative means. Transporta tion Development Districts Transportation development districts are special assessment districts that are established for the purpose of funding a desired transportation imp rovement. They allow the imposition of special taxes in an area that would benefit from the transportation project Special assessments are derived from development that will be generated as a result of the transportation facility. Revenue bonds are often issued to cover the improvement, backed by anticipated increases in tax revenue. Transportation Enhancements Transportation e nhancements are transportation related activities that are designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation's intermodal t ran sportation system. The Transportation Enhancements Program provides for the implementation of a variety o f non-traditional projects with examples including restoration of historic transportation facilities, bike and pe destr ian facilities, and preservation o f abandoned railway corridors. C-6


Transportation for Livable Communities These funds are available for bicycle, pedestrian, transit or other pro j ects that enhance community vitality, includ ing planning studies. Transportation Outreach Program This program is dedicated to funding transportation projects of a high pr iority, based on preservation, enhancing economic growth, and imp roving choices for mobility. C 7




OENE.RAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Key We&t Port Arthu r Tot.l (1999) Total (1999) Sel'llioo Area Popc.l<:ltion (000} 32.4 7 56 72 Service Area Size {square m ile s ) 19.00 38. 70 Passenger Tt%lS (000} 343.35 172.44 P 3$$C.,gc r Mile$ (000) 1,184.57 896 .57 V ehicle Miles (000) ...... 234:43 (000) 218.23 2 31.42 Vehidc Hours (000) 20.76 14.81 Revenue Hcurs (000) 14.45 1 4 .58 Route Mile$ 29.00 79 .00 TOI.Jee FTES nta 2.10 Admin i$U;)!iYQ Em{lloyoo FTEs "'' 1 .20 Vehicles Available fa Maximum SOrvioe 12.00 10.00 Vehicles in Ser"vice 5.00 s.oo R<'ltio 1 40.1)0% 100.00% T O:a l Gal lons Consumed ( 000} 53.67 6 4 1 A TABLE I System Total Ptrformante Indicators 1 1\olotorbus Vehi cle Category .. ..,. SanAngolo Total {1999) Tota l (1999) Tot al ( 1H9) 321.07 90A1 59.21 7$1 ,00 49. 00 46.50 58.18 155.65 $7.$9 419.44 913-$9 n/a 197. 22 290.42 269.52 182.08 2 7 3.91 11.23 1 9 24 15.31 10.48 1 7 70 1 4.34 26$.00 17.00 108.20 $395.93 $638.57 SM1.54 $50.00 St75A1 $173.88 nJa $1.220.21 ,.,. $406.$6 $331.62 nla $432 .20 $ 1 34.20 nta $ 111.25 $200.32 "'' $7. 32 $ 136. 37 "'' $11 .65 $8.41 $13..25 $92.28 11.70 14. 1 0 n/a 11 .30 14. 00 .,. 0.40 0 1 0 n/a 0 .00 Q.OO n /a 8.00 7 00 8 .00 5.00 5.00 $.00 60.00% 20.00% 26.30 4A .13 49.48 T uscaloosa Panama City Wintr Total (1999) (2000 ) ..... 100.50 1 22.90 .,. t19 05 1,340.00 78.50 nla m.C!4 t95. 30 ..... 48.61 1 4l.S9 1,3 7 9 .70 153.5 7 nl m .sz 163.69 116.48 218. 7 1 2 1 3 19 .... ., .... 200.92 14.36 9.87 6.$2 14.()<; 1 3.36 9.36 6.37 12.58 &6.00 104.00 44.20 99.2.4 $598.10 $206.09 Wl!.69 S571.63 $21 6 .$$ $19.83 n/a $ 1 31.33 $406.45 $$14.69 nta $404.23 $399.64 nla $t18.24 $2$3.05 $0.00 n/a $$9.12 $ 1 96..95 $549 .87 n/ $78.24 $2.41.6 2 $431.36 .,. $59.12 S146.2.c $0.00 n /a .,. $$.03 $118 .51 $20 .59 $19.12 $70. 89 1 5 60 $,00 "'' 11.95 10.60 5.00 "'' 1 0 00 2.. 60 0.60 n/a 1 .12 2 50 0.50 .,. 0.84 9 .00 3.00 4 .00 7 33 4 0 0 3.00 3.00 4.38 125 .00% 0.00% 31.33 64. 7 ... $ 1.23 30.86 n la 4

EFFECTIVE NESS MEASURE S Key West PonArthur Total {1999) T<1Uil (1$99) SEfWtCE SUPPLY VehiCle Mies Per Ca,Pila 8.14 4 13 SER VICE CONSUMPTION Passenger TriP$ Pt"r Capita 10.57 3.b4 Pa$$CS'Igor Trips Per Revenue Mile 1.59 0 .15 Pa&Senger Trips Per Revenue Hour 23.77 11.34 QUAL ITY OF SERVICE Averag9 $ peed (R.M. IR. H ) 14.97 1 5.00 Average He3Ciway (11'1 minute$) 4 7.46 1 20 63 A1:JC of F leet (in yeacs ) 6.25 7.<;0 Nu mber of lnciCe n ts 4.00 0.00 N u m ber of Vetide $y$tetn 87.00 92.00 Revenue MiiC$ Bt:lwaen In cidents {000) 54.06 n!a RCYonoo Miles Between F ailures (000) 2.49 2.52 AVAllA81LITY Rev enue MiiC$ Pr Route M i e (OCO) 7.31 2 .90 Weekday Span of Service (In hours) 1650 1 2 00 Roote Miles Pet Sq. ()f S

EFFICIENCY MEASURES Key West Port Arthur Total(1999} Total (1999) COST EFF I CIENCY Opetatlng Expense Per Capita $32.20 $13.60 Ope;r,3lin g EliPf>t'oSC Pr POO\'e ty 11.WH 1 6 .33% LOC<.'II Revenue Per Opetal inQ Expen se 34.75% 19 1 7% Operal ii'IS) Revenu e Per ()petsting &peme 13.58% 16.33% VEHI C L E UTILIZAOON VehieiC Mile$ Pet Peak Vhiele (000) 02.88 46,89 VOhicle Hours Per Pm Veh iCle (000) 4.15 2.96 Revenue Mfles Per VehiCle M il e 0.82 0 .99 Revenue M i le$ P e r TO\al Vc;hi do s (000 ) 18 ,02 23. 1 4 Reveno o Hours Per T otal Vetllc 1es (000) 1.20 1.46 LABOR PROOUCT IVrTY Revenue liQI.Irs Per EI'TIS)Ioyoo; FTE (000) n/a 1.17 Possenger T ri p s Per FlE ( 000) rva 1 3.91 ENERGY U T I LIZA.'TI ON Vehicte Miles Per Garon 4.93 3 ,65 FARE A\'erage F are IUS $0.73 Systtm TcHal Efficit ncy Measures t..S Motorbus Veh i cle C :ategory ..... Ange l o Ocala Total {1999) Tolll(1999\ Tota l 11 999\ $ 1 23 $ 7 .06 $11.17 $79.19 $127. 71 $132.31 $fU1 $4.10 $6.77 $<).04 $0, 70 nla $.2.17 $2.33 $2.75 $37.79 $36.06 $48.14 $0.27 $0.64 $0.29 12.83Y 27. 47% 10.48% 3.35% 14.45% 8.39% nla 1 7 42% 30.28% nla 1 6.28% 9.87% 39.44 58.08 suo 2 .2 $ 3.06 0 .92 0.94 o.t3 22.76 39.13 40.05 1 .31 2 .$, .... 0 90 1.26 nla 4 .97 1 1 ()4 .,. 7.50 6 .03 5.25 $0.23 $0.59 $0.57 Tusca lo osa Panama City Wintqr HAven Peer Gro u p T otal(1999} To-tal (1999} Total (2000) Mean $3.97 $1 .68 n/ $10.13 $ 149. 55 $68.70 $85.20 $125.76 $3.06 S3.3S $5.26 $4.6 1 $0.43 $1.34 n/a $0.86 $2 .81 $ 1 .34 $2.64 $2. 7 6 1 $44. 7 9 $22.02 $40.11 $44. 0 4 $ 1 .02 $0.13 n/a $0.59 36 .20 % 9.62'h nl 19.76%: 19.81 % 9 .99% 7 .43% 91. 92% nl nl 3&.71% 19.&1% n l nl 1 5 .13% 55. 88 54.$6 38.83 49.&1 3.59 3.29 2.31 3 1 8 0 .95 0.94 0.83 0 9 1 23 69 51 .1 9 2 4.16 30.27 1.48 3.12 1. 59 1.8.9 0 00 1.$6 nl 1.15 1 2 .52 10.25 nf 10.54 4 .36 $.30 nl 5 29 $ 0 6 1 $0. U $0.39 $0 48




m I .)()' o' i ;.l_ ""' ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 2 6 28 29 30 31 32 33 rl;,-, ;..: : ... \ ,tTorAt:, -___ .._ .... ...,_ ... ,JIIDERS. '. :; 94,999 53 ,161 1 1 9,923 56 506 142,723 56 236 80,727 48,414 75 808 58. 427 89 635 4 1 6 1 2 127 947 55 348 94 272 38. 543 1 36 207 47,966 101,535 28,530 46 588 32 702 211 ,115 53 .366 317,7 1 6 79,654 80 563 41,6 3 1 29,430 44,033 1 0 2,85 6 49,647 76,4 1 6 47,844 62,926 46,031 71,986 33,917 1 0 1 2 54 53,003 117, 1 58 46,124 102 ,0 50 3 3,52 1 95,3 22 35, 54 8 99,4 62 43,756 120,934 34,387 20, 859 16, 339 36 348 14, 059 32 697 1 3 055 16, 079 14, 983 29 146 25.504 2 8 629 1 5.720 Tab l e 3-16 TA LTRAN FY 1999 Route Statistics Passengers, Revenue, Mi l es, and Hours by Route October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999 Scoring lndicatQr:s . _.. :,0.;" Jc, .. >o,.-. : : iL ; b..:._,,.. ?l r :..;;:x;; ::-: '; ; ..,.c'r. . ; 3,654 $ 53 530 s 1 92,974 1.7 9 26.00 $ 1 0 1 $ 14.65 3,56a $ 75 26 1 s 205, 116 2.12 33 .43 $ 1.33 $ 20 .96 3,496 $ 7 1,033 s 2 1 1,3 97 2.45 40 8 1 $ 1.22 $ 20 .31 3 1 64 $ 48,642 s 175,744 1.67 25 5 1 $ 1.00 $ 1 5 3 7 3 782 $ 49,1 2 9 s 212,089 1.30 20 .05 $ 0 .84 $ 1 2 .99 3 189 $ 52,338 s 151,0 5 2 2. 1 5 28.11 $ 1.26 $ 16. 4 1 3 804 s 80 ,662 s 200,914 2 .31 33.63 $ 1.4 6 $ 2 1.20 3 ,472 s 54,671 $ 139,911 2.45 2 7 .1 5 $ 1.42 $ 15.74 3 402 s 5 2 ,899 $ 174 ,125 2.84 40.04 $ 1. 1 0 $ 15.55 2 842 s 35,165 $ 103 ,5 84 3.56 38.44 $ 1.23 s 13.31 2 627 s 31.107 $ 116 ,708 1.42 17.74 $ 0 .95 s 11.84 6 976 s 129.013 $ 193 ,72 0 3.96 30.26 $ 2.42 s 1 8 .4 9 7 .176 s 121. 72 4 $ 289. 1 43 3 .99 44.27 $ 1.53 s 1 6 .96 3 ,331 s 44,633 $ 1 51.121 1 .94 24.19 $ 1 .07 $ 13.40 2.936 s 22.795 $ 1 59 .8 36 0 .67 1 0.03 $ 0 .52 $ 7 77 3,40 1 $ 46. 631 $ 180 220 2 0 7 30 .25 s 0 .96 $ 1 4.30 3,211 $ 46, 8 1 4 $ 173 6 73 1 6 0 23.80 $ 1 0 2 $ 15.20 2,895 $ 36. 286 $ 1 67 ,091 1 .37 21.74 $ 0 .63 $ 13.22 2,758 $ 36, 945 $ 123 120 2.12 26.11 s 1 .15 $ 14.12 3,334 s 60, 972 $ 192 400 1.91 30.37 $ 1 1 5 $ 18. 2 9 3,576 $ 65 177 $ 1 67 430 2 .54 3 2.77 $ 1 4 1 $ 18.23 2,483 $ 61, 79 2 $ 121, 679 3 04 41,10 $ 1 84 $ 2 4 6 9 2,693 $ 55 679 $ 129 036 2 .66 35 .40 $ 1 57 $ 20 .68 2, 917 $ 53 017 s 1 58 835 2.27 34 .10 $ 1.2 1 $ 16.17 2,985 $ 59 322 s 1 24,82 6 3.52 40 5 1 $ 1.73 $ 1 9 67 1, 328 $ 11,653 s 59,309 1.28 1 5.70 $ 0.71 $ 8 77 1,250 $ 1 7 ,975 s 5 1,033 2 .59 29 .09 $ 1 .2 8 $ 1 4.38 989 $ 16,931 s 47,389 2.50 33 .06 $ 1.3 0 s 1 7.12 1 3 1 4 $ 7 ,797 s 54,390 1.07 12.23 $ 0 .52 s 5.93 1 505 $ 1 6, 4 7 1 s 92,5 80 1.14 1 9 .37 $ 0 .65 s 1 0.95 1 1 52 $ 1 3 ,806 $ 57,065 1.82 2 4.66 $ 0 .88 $ 1 1 .99 ';-.r;: "FY 1 m ; 1 OP.ER (' l >! .. ' RATIO /RIDER' ..... ..; RA,fl(. : ......... '- ,_. ....... -: l ..... 2 7.7 % $ 2 03 a 3 .2% 2 1 36.7% $ 1.71 107 .7 % 1 2 33 6 % s 1 .48 1 1 2.8% 9 27 .7% s 2 .18 81.9% 22 2 3 .2 % s 2 .80 66 .5% 27 34. 6% s 1.69 98 .5% 16 40.1% s 1.57 114 .2% 7 39. 1 % $ 1 .48 105 .9% 1 3 30.4% $ 1 .26 110 0 % 1 0 34 .0% $ 1.02 120 9 % 6 26 .2% $ 2 .55 68.9% 25 66.6% $ 0 9 2 160.0% 1 42. 1 % $ 0 .9 1 142.3 % 3 29.5% $ 1 .68 84.9 % 20 14.3% $ 5 43 37.5 % 31 27. 0 % $ 1.75 68.7% 19 28 1% $ 2.27 80.2% 23 22 9% $ 2.66 68.5% 26 3 1 .6 % $ 1 .71 9 1.6% 16 3 1.7 % $ 1 .90 95.1% 17 36 9% s 1 .43 1 1 2 .6% 8 50 8 % s 1.19 143 .5% 2 43. 1 % $ 1.35 1 23 .1% 5 33. 4% $ 1.60 104 .1% 14 47.5% $ 1 .03 1 4 1 .7% 4 1 9 .6% $ 2 .84 56 .0% 29 3 5 .2% $ 1 4 0 103 .8% 15 35.7% $ 1 .45 108.2% 11 14 .3% $ 3 .38 42.9% 30 1 7.6% $ 3 .18 56.4% 28 24 .2 % $ 1 99 76.9 % 24


E 2




7' NPTS Calculation s for Florida Area Number of person t rips by mode ( transit s. non-transit) purpose (work and non-work) and by hour of day 2Peak hours i nclude : 6:00am 9 : 00am and 4 : 00pm -7: 00pm Ca l cula t i ons mad e by CUTR u s i n g the F l o rid a portion o f the 19 9 5 Nat ion wid e P erso n al Transportatio n Survey database Peak Hours




METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS OF COVERAGE The first step in thi s analysis was to calculate the percent distributions of each of the four demographic characteristics within each block group. This process res u lted in a table of values i ndicating the percent of youths, elderly persons, low-inco me households, and zero-vehicle housing units for each of Polk County's bloc k groups. A l ine in a spreadsheet (or, similarly, a record in a database table) represents a unique block group and its asso c iated demograph i c characteristics. Values of both average and standard deviation were ca lcu l ated for each of the four demographic characteristics across block groups. Statistically, t he standard deviation may be thought of as a measure of distance from the average value. According to an empirical rule of thumb, for most moderately -sized data sets with a bell shaped normal distribution approximately 68% of the data values will lie within one standard deviation of the average, and approximately 95% will lie within two standard deviations. The block groups were then stratified into four priority ranks for each demog raphic characteristic, based on the following three break points in the percentage ranges: average percent, average percent plus one standard deviations and average percent plus two standard deviations. Three breaks result in four parts; thus, the bloc k groups fell into one of the four priority ranks of transit need for each demographic characteristic: below average (low need ), above average but below one standard deviation (med ium need). between one and two standard deviations above average (high ne ed). and more than two standa rd deviations above average (cri tica l nee d) The next step was to assign discrete numerical sco re s to all block groups within each of the fou r priority ranks established for each demographic characteristic These scores serve two basic purposes: to provide uniform ranking to all of the bloc k groups within a particu lar priority rank, and to differentiate numerically among the four priority ranks for each dem ographic characteristic. A comparative probability estimation method was util ized to develop the scores. First, the probability that a block group would be part of a specific priority rank for a given demog raphic characteristic was calculated for each category. For example, 11 of Polk County's 243 block groups are part of the "critical need" priority ranking for the elderly characteristic. This means there i s a 4.5% probability (number of block groups in priority rank + the total number of bloc k groups x 1 00%) that one of Polk County's block groups fall within t he percentage range established for that particular priority rank for the elderly cha racterist ic. G 1


After the probabilities were calculated for each demographic characteristic's priority ranks, they were then used to estimate scores via comparative probability ratios, that is, the probability percentage for each priority rank was divided into the probabil ity percentage tor the "low need" rank. This numerator was selected so that for each characteristic, the census tracts in the "low need" rank would receive a score of one (1.0). Again, using the "critical need" priority rank of the elderly characteristic as an example, it was determined that the score for this category would be 13.9. This was derived by dividing the probability for the "low need" category {62.6%) by the "critical need" priority rank probability of 4.5%, which equals 13.9. Finally, composite scores were calculated tor each block group by summing the individual priority rank scores assigned for eac h demographic characteristic. Block groups were then ranked by composite score and stratified into four leve ls, using the same method for developing characteristic cat egor ies. Block groups that fall into the crit ical need" priority ran k are defined as primary transit dependent block groups, i.e., block groups with persons having the greatest propensity for transit, based on its associated percentages of youth, elderly, lowincome households. and zero vehicle housing units. Secondary transit dependent block groups are those that fall into the "high need" priority rank, tertiary transit-dependent block group s are those in t he "medium need" priority rank and the fourth level transit-dependent block groups are those ranked as "low need" priority. G-2


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.