Florida five-year statewide transit development concepts

Florida five-year statewide transit development concepts

Material Information

Florida five-year statewide transit development concepts executive summary, final report
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation. -- Public Transit Office
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Planning -- Florida ( lcsh )


General Note:
"April 1995."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Public Transportation, Public Transit Office ; 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:
32860911 ( ALEPH )
C01-00321 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.321 ( 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 nmm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s1995 flu|||| |||||| eng
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00321
2 doi
(OCoLC) 32860911
0 245
Florida five-year statewide transit development concepts :
b executive summary, final report /
c prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Public Transportation, Public Transit Office ; prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
"April 1995."
Local transit
z Florida
x Planning.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Dept. of Transportation.
Public Transit Office.
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.321


. : . . . . . . .... ' ..... '.: ...... ... / ., . ' ...... . . .. : : ;: . : . : ' ... : :'. .. . : . . : ; , . . : r, .,.: . : : " . ' . . .... .... .. : . ; :, . ,,, .. . . . . ...


FLORIDA FIVEYEAR STATEWIDE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Executive Summary f'mal Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Office of Public Transportation Public Transit Office Tallahassee, Florida Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Tampa, Florida CUTR April1995


IN1RODUCflON This document SUllllll3l"ires the results of a larger study of porential statewide transit service COIJCq)IS. The larger study wa<; prepared by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) under oontiact to the Office of Public Transportation, Public 'Ii:aooit Office of the Florida Department of Transportation. The State's role in transit in Florida wa<; expanded in 1989 with the creation of the PublicThmsit Block Grant Program, which carries with it the requiiimlent that each recipient prepare an annual five.year Thmsit DevelqJtnellt Plan (I'DP). A stale\vide transit modal systems plan has long been required, and to dale this plan has been expressed simply as those local projec15 included in the Departmellt's Work Program. This study examines the approaches that might be used if the stllewide cransit modal systems plan were to be expanded beyond that limited scqle. Transit operation and planning in Florida and elsewbere have been primarily a local concern. Federal and State pOO:y am funding preconditions have local but tile goals for public lranSit and the primary decisions regarding public cransit qJeralion and fll18J:X)e have been tile purview of local officials. This study was not conoeived to transform this functional arrangement. The study also is limited by its focus o n one facet of public cransit -the supply of service. Ally plan to implemellt a scenario would also need to examine secvioe design and quality. Furtbermore, in order for any of the scenarios pooed to be fully effective, they would require changes in local land use approaches, an oobanoed pedesttian environment, transit friendly parking policies, and expanded transit marketing. What users of this document will find is a thougbt-provoking dis>;ussion of new ways to think about the role of transit in Florida' s near term future. The full report and this Executive Summary also probe some of the assumptions made about the viability of transit in Florida's unique urban environment. The supply of service is defined as the provision of basic fixed route bus service. Capital costs projected in this study are limited to the cost of additional buses. Other items such as maintenance fucilities, bus stop signage, shelters, park 'n ride lots, and supervisor's vel!les are rot included in this macro level study, although they would be considered for de1ai.led planning and implementltion at the local level. No major expa!1$ions of guideway transit are planned for the five. year time horizon o f the study. l'ransit Development Concepts 1


WHAT IS 11lE PRESENT ROlE OF TRANSrr SERVICE IN FLORIDA? In 1993 nearly 173 million ttansit were made on the 19 ttansit sysrems in 16 of Florida's 29 urbanized areas (UAs)', plus lhecityofKey West (Figure 1). Ux:al availabletothegerv:ral public, operating on route within hours aJ ai fixed inlervals, is !he baddxlne of ttansit in FJcrm. R

Florida's transit systems opem:d 2,122 blll1eS am 185 rail cars in 1993. These systems employed over 5,500 employees am bad qJelllling expenses in exress of $374 million. Per capita transit trips in 1993 ranged from2.8 in Bradenton to52.6 in Miami Although rail transit (almost exclll$ively heavy rail, oommuter rail, am automated guideYiay systems in Dade aod neighboring Broward am Palm lleoch counties) accounted for only 11.7 percent of the stile's transit trips in 1993, these systems produced 24.9 percent o f the transit pamnger miles (guideway trips are longer oo average than bl1$ trips). Per capita transit ridership in Florida urllanized lags behind olher Sunbelt slafl:s like Arirom aod am is aboutone-tbird !bat of California am Georgia. Transit vehicles opernJe less frequently, over longer roures, am for f= hours per day in Florida UAs than in eight other stl1eS of similaJ: geographic am demographic characteristics. Transit Development Concepts 3


4 Flgurel Transit RideJSbip in florida Urbanized Areas 199 3 Transit Ridership Passenger Trips LN$ than t mlt lion 1 5 m i nion 5 20m ll!lon 20 30 mi.llion Over80mlllton N 1 Transit Development Concepts 0a>lon'a Boaeh ltlewSmyma .... KeyWKt


WHY IS FLORIDA CONSIDERING A LARGER ROLE FOR 'IRANSTI? A major reexamination of wbat transportation is and what it is itUended 10 accomplish has been taking place all acroos America over Che past decade. TI1e policies and prac1ices of Che past half cenrury emphasized highway transponalion, basicall y providing for automobiles and trucks. These policies and prnctices have been challenged rising sooial and eronomic oosiS-eVidenced by growing congestion, deteriorating air quality, and the decline of central cities-have extraded a heavy toll and led to a search for altemalive approaches 10 meeting transpor1al.ion needs. The new approach has been 10 emphasize moving goods and people inslfad of vehicles, a recognitlon that various modes of ttampot1ation all have roles to play and that 1hese modes need to be integrated together into a functioning intermodal system. Transit can contnbute to the intenoodal system by providing basi:: mobility for persons who do no! have other means of tramportation and as an altemalive to Che automobile for those who have a choice about bQw they trnvel. Socielal. benefits of reducing roadway congestion, improving air quality, decreasing fuel imports, slowing the demaOO for additional street and road capacity, and enhaociog the mobility of !hale with limited iravel optiom can all result from increased 111e of transit. A greater role for public ttaooit in Florida \VOUkl belp reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trnve1 and the growth in vehicle miles trnveled (VMI), which ClliJelltly is 2.5 times the rate of the stlte s population growth. The conoept of a new and broader role for public lransportation is reflecled in several legislative, policy, and progJlllll actions at the federal and S1ate levels. These ioclude the In!l:rolodal Surface Tt.msportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which requires considecalioo of public trnnsit in the development of mettqlO!ilan ttansportation plans; recent planning in Florida, in srep with ISTEA and action in oCher stales, which eocompass all modes; and other federal legislation regarding air quality allainment goals for the nation's mettopolilan areas through congestion mitigation. Florida has experienced rapid population growth sillce World War ll. The stile's population has grown from just over 4 million in 1950 to over 13 million in 19SXJ, a lripling of the number of inhabilllnls in just 40 years. Most of this growth has lllken place in urban areas, although the growth has !ended to lake place on the edges of 1hese centers rather than in the citY cores. The inability to build road and highway netv.>"O!k capacity to keep pace with Che increased population and growth in trnvet has resulted in urban congestion and deterioraling trnvel speem on many local highways and roads. TrallSit Development Concepts 5


New directions have been made clear in policy Slalements from d1e Fkrila Department of Thlnspor1alion (FOOT) and d1e Florida Tramponation Commission (FTC), which have public II3nlpa13!ion as an alternative 10 d1e use of automobiles on Florida's highways and stteets. Public ttanlp0!13Iion is broadly defum as rail, air, and local transit. These new directions embody a number of significant polnls: Tramporwion is to move goods aiXi people, rot vehicles. Florida residents aiXi visitors should have travel qJtiom in addition 10 d1e automobile. Florida cannot build its way out highway congestion by adding new lanes 10 d1e eldsting road system. The severn! crnmponation modes should function together as a IOiallraiiSpOrtllion system. Interstate highways will be limired 10 a maximwn of ten lanes, four of which will be exclusive lanes fur use by high occupan::y vehicles (HOY) including transit Transit will play a greater role in meeting funue ll1lDSpOrtllion needs in Florida. Transportation aiXi land use planning sllould be aiXi transit-oriented land use should be =our-aged. 6 Transit Development Concepts


I .. WBATJS lHEFLORIDA CONTEXT IN WIDCB PLAY A lARGER ROlE/ A definable demogtapbic patrem and wban form bas developed in Florida over the last 30 years, providing a transittiietldly enviroru:neot throogboot many in the state despite the COOllllOll perception dJat Miami is florida's only viable ttansit market. The si7Jl, location, and growth of populaticin are important for transit use. Seventy-eight pecceot of Florida's toea! pqJUiation, over 10 million peq>le, live in Florida's 29 (fable 1). This is higher than lhe U.S. as a whole, which coomins only 64 percent living in urbanized areas. As seen in Table I, other impol1allt features oorx:erning Florida's pqlUia!ion in general include: Over die past 30 years the pqxdalion in Florida' s UAs bas grown by 200 pen:em. c:ornpared 10 6S the U.S. In each of lhree decades from 1900 10 1990, llie population growth in Florida's urbanized areas bas been more than lhree times tbatof the U .S. Allhough population growth slowed in Florida avec the past two decades, !he annual rate of growth remained more than double that of !he United Slates (3.2 per=t vs. 1.3 percent) between 1980 and 1990. As seen in F'JgUre 2, urbanized areas are roooenl!aled along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and in c:ernra1 Florida. Only three urbanized areas are 10000 outside of these locations. A cluslering of urbanized areas exisls in southeast F1orida from Miami to Palm Beach, along the west roast arowxl 'J'an:pl Bay, and more loosely in centtal F1orida arowxl Orlando. Population density is aoother importmt fuctor in ttansit use. Miami is one of the len most densely pqxllated urba.nized areas in !he OOUlllly. The defflity of all F1orida urbanized areas is similar to that of other Sunbelt growlh states like Texas and California and al!na!t idenlical 10 an older urbanized stile, Ohio. Allhougb Florida is a highly Ul'baniled Slate, it contlim lownsity areas that appear oot to be fuvorable to transit. However, detailed examination of urban paUerm indicates considerable internal variation in density. Several of Florida's UAs contain census traciS with densities of 4,00l perrom or more per square mile. Transit Devel opment Concepts 7


Table I Summacy of U rbani2WI Area Demograpblcs Workers Using Public Transit 2.3% 7.6% Urbanized Area Pcpulalion (millions) 10.2 158.3 Share ofTOial Pqrulation in Urbanized Areas 78.0% 64.0% TOial Pq,ulalion Growth J96().19'Xl 2ID.2% 65.1% 197().19'Xl 146.3% 33.6% 1980-l'l'Xl 37.0% 13.7% Annualized Populalion Growth 1960-19'Xl 4.6% 1.7% 197().19'Xl 4 .6% 1.5% 1980-19'Xl 3.2% 1.3% Population Demity (perrons pee square mile) 2.353 2,594 Mioority (oon-wbire) Pen:eqe 17.7% 24.5% Mioority (Hispanr;) Per=tage 13.7% 11.6% Households Without Vehicles 10.0% 13.7% Persom below Poverty l..e'iel 12.4% 12.6% Persom with Mobility Limitation 8.0% 7.1% Persom 65 Years or Older 18.3% 12.1% Soolte: U.S.Ilepiutmeul &reau orm. c:cmu., 1960, 1970, 1980, ani19'JO c:cmu. of PqJulalion. 8 Transit Deve lopment ConcepiS


Flgure2 Population in Florida Urbanized ;\real; Transit Service and Florida Urbanized Areas Population e l e .., .. to.oo 1ot ,uo uo. oot e ., . ,, .. ....... ovu t .ooo,ooo o,.lt Wr ur ... .,,,..ijl 'Key WOBlla an lhcorpa!!d clly but It not an urbanized .. a .::IV 1 .-,c., W n t .,. ., .... Although the magnitude of lllbanizalion and the ra1e of growth provide a fuvoolble setting for transit, only 2.3 percent of WO(kC!S in Aorida UAs use transit for commuting Qllllpared with 7.6 percent for the Unired Slates. The lack of job ooncentration in downtown locatiom, a feature of mbanired that grew rapidly after World War U has made transit use for oommuting less attractive h1 Aorida than in many olber slates. Certain demographic ciJaraderistics are iiqxx'rant fur oonsideralioo in transit planning. Transit need and use are closely with urban communities of a certain minimwn pqru1atm and demity that have a Transit Dewlopment Concepts 9


signifiCallt share of young and elderly popula!ion, and whose earn low or modest irx:omes, possess mobility limitarioo;, and have limited personal vehicle availability. A review of florida's demographics reveals the foUowing: As a whole, florida UAs COIIIllin a lower level of non-whire:s than the U.S. (18 percent vs. 25 percent); )X)iSibly a factor in lower aamit use. Howevtr, cenain Florida UAs have higher non-white pqlUlalions, such as Tallahassee (28 percent), Miami (1:7 percent), and Jacksonville (25 percent). Over 18 percent of all persons living in Florida's w1lanized areas are age 65 and over. This conttasts with only 12 percent for all U .S. w1lanized areas. Florida l$ similar to the U.S. in poverty level and mobility limilalion. levels are high in Florida. Approxiroalely 1 4 percent ofbru;eho]ds in the U .S. utbani:zed areas do not have a vehicle available. only 10 percent of Florida's households are without vehicles. Even Miami, where 16 percent of the households are without vehicles, barely exceeds the national w1lanized area statistic. The overall dernograpbic conditiom fuvorable for aamit use in:lude the following: A high degree of urbanization. Population densities that can suwort aamit in significant portions of several w1lanized -usually larger ones. A large share of age 65. Significant minority pqlUlalion in some w1lanized areas. 10 Transit Development Concepts


HOW lVfiGIIT A GREATER ROlE FOR 1RANSIT BE DEFINED IN FLORIDA? WHAT WOUlD rr COST? Florida policy, and to a Jesser extent dernogr.!phics, support a broader role for transit Yet it is Ullclear how that larger role might be :rllievcd. The major objective of Ibis study been to explore the range of The method selecled for that been 10 construct a series of six alternative scenarias, each based on a strategy tbr achieving a particular goal.for transit Each of the six scenarios is developed for tllefive)ear time period 1995 to 1999. Twe.nLy percent of the tu:get level of service is !0 be a/. the beginning of each inc:rementil plan year. The only capitil requiremeniS are the cosiS of additional buses necessary to reach the target levels of servJCe. The scenarias assume all iocreases in the supply of transit services will be in terms of fixed-roure service and will ()XU( in urbanized areas. Transit Development Concepts 11


Scenario 1: Trend Scenario. This scenario extmls exirong starewide trems fur the opelllling costs, capital costs, number of buses, and passenger tt1>s fur Aorida's major transit qJel'atoi'S (i.e . S13le block grant funding) through 1999. The basis for these projectiom is the reported Section 15 dati on 1Illll'lit supply. passenger trips, revenues, and expenses for the 1Illll'lit systems for the years 19851hrough 1993. T1:lere projectioll'l ilxlicate wbal might be expected to 1ake place if corxlitiom remain the same as in the past Dire years. Table 2 presems the capital and opelllling costs, number of buses, and trips projected by the 1rend Scenario. Operaling Expeme Total Buses Passenger (milliom) Table2 Trend Scenario, Projectioos 1995-1999 $400 $420 $44 J $461 $482 Slffl $142 $125 $106 $108 2,217 2,285 2,353 2,421 2,489 t75 tro t86 191 t97 $1,8&> $597 of a of a The major strength of the Trend Scenario is its statistical strengdl and objectivity. A disadvantage is lbat specific 1Illll'lit system projectioll'l may become obsolete given a major change in an external fi:tor, i.e expamion of a 1Illll'lit system or the elimination of some services to an area. 12 Transit Development Concepts


n Scenario 2: Bottom-Up Scenario. This scenario reflects the sum of local community MOOs and wishes as expressed through "I'rarepol1alion Development Plans (IDPs) developed for the 19 transit systerm opernting in Uibaniztxl areas and in Key West. FDOI' requires each recipient of Stile transit assistux:e funds to prepare a five-year tl'llmit development plan. Local tramit systems project Meds and demand in their service areas. Although local agencies are f.uniliar with the need and demand in their service areas, ioconsistencies between 1DPs exist became of various atti!Udes, goals, and objectives of dte tl'llmit operators. For example, 1DPs differ greatly between systemS that desire growth and those that do not B=nse tl'llmit agencies are allowed great flexibility in detennining local demand for transit, it is extremely difficult to produce meaningful statewide totals from individualiDPs. Nonetheless, the IDPs do indicate a magnitude of locally preferred services and what th06e might CC$L This scenario is a compilation of those desired Meds and costs carried to the StlleWide level. Table 4 displays the operating costs, capital costs, and number of btlleS as summed from the variom local TOPs. Table4 Bottom-Up Scenario, Projectiom 1995-1999 Operating Expense $564 $626 $672 $803 $'6Tl $3,006 Capital Expense $618 $708 $720 $544 $514 $2 ,669 Total Expertse $1,182 $1,334 $1,392 $1,347 $1,391 $5,675 of Buses 2,41:7 2,671 2,897 3 ,117 198 224 249 274 300 nla Transit Development Concepts 13


Scenario 3: Coverage Scenario. lli sc:emOO targets the lhorough ooverage of Florida's urtanized areas. The Coverage Scemrio is on the premille thai, fa-=it to effectively pere11111e the discrelionaly market of IOOie who have personal vehicles available, =it must offer the possibility of making a large share of the trips desired by an iMMiuaL lli requires good geographic covezage of the wban area by the trnmit frequent service, an:! operalion during the boors peq>le desire to aavel. Several assumptiom have been made in devekying this srenario. A cenain of population is oecessary to suppon fixed-route =it service. It is gemally rerognilfd that urban census uacts wi1h 300J or more persom per mile is a threshold for this [}Pe of service. Arodler is that peq>le are rot willing to walk more !han 114 mile to a tran$it stqJ. Therefore, a netv.OO< (FJgUre 3) is superimposed on IOO;e jlC)I1XJIE of eacl! wbanized area where remus llllct population density exceeds the minimum threshold. To provide maximum trall$il options, the boors of service are stiOOardized faall systems to a minimum 5:30 am to midnight service, seven days a week. The hypodlelical netv.OO< provides for minimum route ooverage with 112 mile separations. As seen in Table 5, route density in:realles as population density rises from Service Category I (3,00J to 5,999persom per square mile) to Service Category U (6,00J+ persons per square mile). Service frequeix:y also is irx:realed during weekday, off-peak boors (fable 6). Flgure3 Bus Roote and Coverage 14 Transit Development Concepts


I u I n TableS Network Coverage 3,0005,999 6,000+ Table6 Traosit Service HOIUS and Frequencies Weel

Table7 Coverage Scenario, Projections 1995-1999 Operating $656 $942 $1.251 $1,583 $1,939 $5,347 $323 $270 $251 $242 $249 $1,150 Total. &pense $979 $1,213 $1,5(JZ $1,825 $2,188 $6,496 Number of Buses 2,632 3,142 3,652 4,162 4 ,672 n/a Passenger Trips 222 270 319 367 416 n/a (millions) The major advantage of the CoYer.lge Scenario is that it provides a SlaOOardi2fd methodology for examining transit l'x:eds that can be applied to any or all urbanized areas to establish a common level of servire. The lllrget level of servire is considerably higher than chat currently offered by most Aorida transit sysrems but 110( s ignifK:antly different from what is provided in Nonh American cities with high levels of transit servire. One limitation is chat it does 110( take inlo aa:ount the variety of destinalion or attr.ICtion of specific employmem, comme!Cial, or recreational= 16 Transit Development Concep ts


Scenario 4: Modal Split Sceoario. A shift of travel from automobiles to tramit is an impoltlnt strategy in reducing congestion, improving air quality, and diminishing the demand for additional roadway capacity. Jmplemetlling such a shift is the main goal of the Modal Split Scenario. The success of such a shift may be the tramit modal split-for a given area the peteent share of person u:ips made by tr.msit in that area. For example, a modal split of five peteent that transit passenge!S made up five peteent of all person !rips laken within a given area. The Modal Split Scenario is based on the assumption that currenl transit modal spli1s are low in Florida; that they can be improved; and that improving transit modal spli1s can be done by eslablishing various targets and providing enough resrnrrces to allain those targecs. At the urbanized area level, 7.6 peteenl of U.S. workers use public transit as their journey-to-work mode, compared to 2.3 percent in Florida. Higher population densities, higher employment densities, lower automobile owne!Ship, higher level of transit services, historical trends, and othel' factors all contribute to higher transit modal splils in a given area. Although Florida's urbanized areas show relatively low transit modal splits, the Miarni-Hi.aleab urbani:zl!d area sbov.;s a 5.9 percent tr.msit share (for workers using public tr.msit) in the 1990 oensus; with several census places in the urbani100 area having more than a 10 percent transit share. A reasonable approach to increasing transit modal split is to set targets. OllCe targecs are eslablished it is poiSible to measure the number of vehicles and maintenance fucilities and amount of capital costs and operating expenses needed to attain those targecs. Rather than to assume a single "ideal" transit mode split, it is suggested to eslablish a range o f targecs for both all travel and for the journey to work for each wbanized area. The following are the proposed ranges for both categories of travel: Low: a target level of main!aioing the current transit mode split. Middle: a target level of a 25 percent increase over the Ctllrellt tramitshare. High: a target level of a 50 peroent increase over the current tram it level. The capillll and operating resrnrrces necessary to allain the targets are estimalcd for each urbani100 area for the target year 1999. The to1lll for the state is the sum of the resources estimated fol-individual wbanized areas. &timates o f operating expenses are based on the number of pe!SOn trips and the number of transit vehicle miles needed to attain the target levels. With each target for the journey to work, the nwnber of peak period buses Transit Development Concepts 17


and the capital ca!IS for purchasing these are eslimatfd for lhe five-year period. Table 8 preseniS lhe operating capital ca!IS, aol lhe IlW1lber of buses neoossary 10 aaain lhe transit modal split targets by 1999. TableS Modal Sp& &mario, Projediom 1995-1999 Clpelating Expense LDw $413 $438 $465 $492 $521 $1,985 Mediwn $434 $481 $531 $584 $641 $2,268 High $454 $523 $597 $676 $700 $2 ,5 52 Capital Expeme Low $191 $133 $109 $94 $95 $541 Mediwn $2 1 0 $ 153 $129 $liS $117 $626 High $228 $172 $149 $136 $139 $712 TOial&pense Low $(i)4 $571 $573 $586 $616 $2,526 Medium $643 $633 $600 $IJ)9 $757 $2,894 High $682 $(B5 $746 $812 $899 $3,264 Nwnller of Buses Low 2,145 2 ,168 2,191 2,214 2, 2 37 n/a Mediwn 2,213 2,304 2 ,395 2,486 2,sn n/a High 2,282 2 ,442 2,002 2 ,7& 2,922 n/a (millions) Low 175 178 1 80 182 1 84 n/a Medium 183 194 204 214 224 n/a High 193 213 233 253 273 n/a 1 8 Transit Development Concepts


' .. A major benefit of !his scenario is that it sets very specific goals for what tramit can be expec!fd to do in securing a modal split in an urbanized area. is consisrent with FOOT's policy of an expanded role for ttansit in Aorida' s uriJanized The scenario is also consistent with dle emerging slra!egy for shifting travel from automobiles to ttamit that is appearing in stlle and locallransporlation policies and plam elsewhere-iably in Oregon, Washing1oo, and in some uriJanized in California. The main limitation of Ibis scenario is tbe attaiornel1t of largels. Even if tbe needed resowces were made available 10 provide the capacity to aaain tbe targeiS, there is no guarantee that the desired amount of shift of travel from automobiles to ttansi t would 1llke place. Low cleMity sprawl of many Florida uriJanized areas is DO! conducive to ttansit use. Land use policies which encourage higher resideolial and fuvor clustered employment are providing a tramit friendly enviromnent in some Aorida communities. Implementing appropriate land use policies can assist in tbe attainment of greater transit use. The availability and cost of parking also are tilctors that work for or agaimt tramit. Marketing tramit through a variety of incentives is another important strategy for encouraging ridership. All of these fuclors, and others, must work together in a synergistic manner in order for transit 10 a larger role in Aorida's tramportalion future. Transit Development Concepts 19


Scenario 5: Corridor Coogestioo Sceoario. The goo! of Ibis samario is to relieve congestion in FIOOda's urlJan corridors. A shift of travel from autolllOOiles to tl"alllit is an important strategy in redu:ing oongestion, improving air quality, aJXI diminishing the demand for addiOOnal roodway capacity. FOOT policy sQlemen!S define a grea1er role for tl"alllit through congestion mitigation or the provision of an alternative mode 1o the automobile. Therefore, the appmiCh cootained in the Conidor Congestion Scenario ,.nich seiS a particular for irrq)roving roodway level of sernce along coogesred corridors is oonsisll:nt with this strategy aJXI FOOT policy. The amount of resoun::es ne=sary to auain this can be described in tenns of the incremental service frequen:y, operating expeme, number of buses, aJXI capilal eo>t for purchasing these buses. Development of Ibis scenario ir:luded the selection of the ooe or two mast oongested oorridO!s in urbanized areas with such oongestion. A toW of 36 conidors from 23 urbanized areas were identified. Only roadway segiren!S thai are identified as oongesred ( thole operating at the level of sernce "F") were selected for analysis. For each selected corridor, the iJxremenlal tl"alllit service was estimated so thai the level of service corridor was ircreased to its minimum leve!-d-service stmdard (level of service "D" for 34 conidors aJXI c fortheremaining2)by 1999. Oncetheiruemenlalserncefrequen:ywasestimated, the incremental qJel3ting expemes were calculared aJXI the number of buses aJXI capilal eo>t for the five )'CaiS were detennired. After these estimares were oomplered for the selectEd oorridO!s in the 23 urbanized areas, they were swnmed to oblain a state 0061. Table 9 presen!S the oost for phasing in the service level over the five years of the plan. A major benefit of Ibis scenario is thai it seiS a specific goo! for tl"alllit can be expected to do in helping to secure the minimum stmdard on oongested conidors in urbanized areas. This soenario is consistent with FOOT's policy of an expanded role for tl"alllit in FIOOda's urlJan areas. The soenario is also consistent with emerging strategies for shifting llaVel from au!OmOOiles 1o tl"alllit. The main limitllion of this scenario is in the auainment of the goo!. Even if the resowces were made to provide the level of service thai is ne=sary to reach the desired goo!, there is no guaranree thai the desired amount of shift of llaVel from au!OmOOiles to tl"alllit would take place. Attainment of the goo! involves much more than providing the ne=sary amount of tl"alllit service. The benefits of reduoed coogestioo aJXI irrq)roved air quality are worthwhile oommwlity goals, but peroeived personal benefits to potential tl"alllit UlelS are basic to attrncting riders to =it. Supportive laOO use aJXI parking policies aJXI apprqJriare marketing are key to eocooraging the use of tl"alllit. 20 Transit Development Concepts


Table9 Conidor Congestion Scenario, Projediom 1995-1999 $688 $1,010 $1,357 $1,729 $2,130 $5,798 $307 $254 $234 $224 $231 $ 1,076 Total Expense $995 $1,264 $1,591 $1,953 $2,3(;{) $6,874 Number of Buses 2,663 3,114 3,565 4 0 1 6 4,467 nla Passenger Trips 251 328 406 483 561 nla (millions) Transit Development Concepts 21


Scenario 6: Peer Scenario. FOOT has adqllfd a policy lhat transit is to provide a grearer role in state tranSpOr1lllion needs. The "Peer Srenario, one way of what lhat role might be, examirJes how Florida compares with other S1ares in providing transit services and how lbese Cornpa.rOOo can help delemtire if an im'ealed role foc transit is a reasoooble elqleCiation. Experiences of other S1ares may indicale if transit ill Aorida has maxi.mi2fd its porential, or whether additional invesanem ill transit is needed 10 meet mobility needs, reduce congestion, and enharre the quality of life in our commtmities. If the former were proven 10 he the case, then a continualioo of existing levels of support would be adequate. However, it is detiiO!lStraled lhat there is qJpCXIUllity foc expaOOed transit sezvice, and the information gleaJUI from the experieoce of othe!o is to develq> a scemrio to !llalOmize lhat q>portunity. Eight= were selected as "peers" foc a comparative analysis of transit' s role. Arizo.na, California, Colorado, Georgia, Texas, and Washingtoo were carefully cho!en for demographic cbaracrerislics, ecooomic base conditions, arxl/or growth trerm similar 10 Aorida. Ohio and Permsylv.mia reflect older urban patterns and have a longer, more continuous transit histoly. The ro l e of transit was examined ill each of lbese stileS lbrougb use of Federal Transit Admillislralioo (FI' A) Section 15 1q>01ts for 1992 and ocher material from the U.S. Censm and the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS). This examination lakes place on IW'O levels: a staleWide level and the Ulbanizxld area level. Fxh of the nine stileS (Florida plus the eight peers) and all of the wbanized areas in lbese S1ares were examined on the basis of transit StWlY and 011 transit use. Transit supply includes system route size, fleet size, vellicle miles, vehicle hours, and other measures. Transit mode differences (i.e., bus rail, feny boot) are OO!fd. Ridership is the priociple measure of transit use. Costs of providing the transit 5elVice and farebox and other revelllles are considered. This scenario is presenlf:d in IW'O parts. The first is the comparative analysis of Aorida and the eight peer stileS. This discussion begins widt gemal de111ment of a future scenario for Aorida that might be achieved by offering a level of aamit 5elVice lhat approxilnales lhat of the peer StileS. Table 10 preserus an overview of some of the gemal cbaracrerislics of Aorida and the eight peer staleS. In to the peer stileS, Florida ranks second in pecoent of pq>ulalion living in UAs, dtifd in staleWide populalion density, and first in auto> per 1,00) populalion. zz Transit Development Concepts


11:ansit supply shows considerable variation from stale to slate and amoog the lllbani2ed areas in the nine staleS. The most simple indication of U:arnitsupply is simply the presence or ab.o;enre.of tramit service, In comparison to the peer staleS, Florida has the lowest percentageofUAs providing ttamitservice (Figure 4). Total UAs (3} (33) (7) (29) (1 0) (15) (16) (32) (1 0) II w/transit (2) (29) (6) (17) (10) (14) (14) (21) (10) Source: Fed00'81 Administration Section 15 Data, 1992 Per capita tramit trips is the measure wed to compare ttamit use among Florida and the eight peer staleS. This was been examined at both the statewide and ll!ba.oizeo;l area levels. Figure 5 compares the nine states at the state level and is a compilation of data from the lllbani2ed areas. Although ovet'3ll tra.rnit me in Florida is lower than in the peer slates, guideway lramit plays a more significant role (Table II) than in m06t of the other peers. Guideway ttamit is defined as in::ludi.og all rail modes plus other types of tra.rnit where vehicle movement is directed by the physical slrUCtllre avet which it moves. Light rail, beavy rail, commuter rail, people movers, cable cars, inclined planes, and monorails are all examples. Transit Development Concepts 23


Florida's guidel.vay transit is corx:eiliili!Ed in 1he southeastern part of 1he stare where 1he heavy rail and automated poople JllOYef of lile Metro-Dade T!llmit Agercy (MDT A) and lile commuter rail syslem of the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (friRail) provide se

.. "' 3.7 29. 8 3.3 12. 9 6 5 10. 9 11.9 17 4 9 I 3 I 33 I 7 I 24 1 6 I 16 I 32 I 10 I 2.7 I 72.9% I I 25. 3 I 84.9% I I 2.3 I 7o.6% 102 78.7% 3.3 51.2% 6.9 63.3% I 8.5 I 71.8% I I 113 I 66.6% I 3.2 I 66.1% TablelO Peer Stare 32.3 I 114,006 6.0% 3.5% I 13.1% I 13.5% I S40 190.8 I 163,707 3.0% 2.6% 10.6% 12.5% 560 31.8 104,100 2.9% 1.4 % 9 .8% 11.7% 640 239.6 65,758 5.4% 3.3% 18.0% 12.7% 700 119.9 59,441 2.1% 1.9% 10.1% 1 4 .7% 580 264. 9 44,828 0.4% 0.0% 12.8% 12.5% 650 265.1 I 46,058 0.2% 0.0% 15.1% 11.1% I S40 64.9 268,601 2.6% 1.9% 1 0.1% 18.1% I 500 73.1 71,3()3 2 4 % 1.8% 11.9% 10.9% I 590


FigureS Unlinked l'a9;mger Trips per Capita -.. .... .... .... Soon:e: FEderal Sectioo 15 Rqxlns, 1992. Tablell Peer State Traosit Vebides and Rode Miles (1992) 6S4 2.fT/ 0 3.51 26 """ Transit Development Co nee piS


The second part of the Peer Scenario is the developlllellt of a tra.nsit fu!llre in Florida lhat raises the levcl of service to that of the peer states. Vehicle revenue miles (VRMs) per capita is identified as tbe service level fudor requiring an increase to normalize Florida's public transpoltltion service 10 peer state levels. The analysis was perfonned at the state and Uibanized area levels. The necessary increase in lllOIO!bus VRMs represents the additional service required to raise Florida's VRMs per capita to a particular peer slate level. Capital costs were estimated based on the number of additional buses that would be necessary 10 support an increase in Florida's VRMs to the peer state levels. Opernling = v;ere estimated by multiplying the opmlting cost per vehicle revenue mile by the required additional VRMs. Table 12 presents the required operating OOSIS, capital costs, and mnnber of buses required by .the Peer Scenario. T able12 Peer Sceoario, Projedioos 1995-1999 $001 $225 $168 $145 $657 $647 $660 $735 $2,894 Number of Buses 2,416 2,563 2,857 nla Passenger T$5 180 187 195 202 209 n/a (millions) T rans i t Develop ment Con ce pts 27


COMPARING OUR OP110NS. A comparison of costs, number of buses, aJXI p3ssenger t$5 is presellled in Tables 13 aJXI 14. The qJe!llling costs associated with sustli.ning any of lbe scenarios beyond 1999 shoold be reoognizfd as 1999's qJe!llling costs plus an for inflation. Addilioml capital costs would be required beyond 1999 fur replaooment of buses and facility improvements. This document is oot a plan, but a tool fur considering bow different policy decisions might affect the role of in Florida's near tenn future. The presentation of dJese scenarios and their relalEd costs retlect new ways of thinking about thai role of tran5it Each scenario offetS a panicuJar coocept for comideration as decision makets weigh IIanspo!tllion options. 28 Transit Development Concepts


' . Trend $007 $562 $566 $589 Bottom-Up 1,182 1,334 1,392 1,391 5,675 Coverage 1 ,213 1,825 2,188 6,496 Modal Split 682 695 812 899 3,264 Corridor 995 1,264 1,953 2 ,300 6,874 Peer 657 647 689 735 Operating Expeme Trend $400 $420 $461 $482 $1,880 Bou.om-Up 564 626 803 877 3,006 Coverage 656 942 1,251 1,583 5,347 Modal Split 454 523 597 676 7(fJ 2 ,552 Corridor Congestion 688 1,357 1 ,729 2,130 5 ,798 Peer 433 515 557 (fJ1 198 Capital Expenre Trend $207 $125 $106 $108 Bottom-Up 618 720 544 514 Coverage 323 270 251 242 249 Modal Split 228 172 149 136 139 Conidor Congestion 307 254 234 224 231 Peer 225 168 145 132 135 Trans i t Development Concepts ; 29


N umberofB=s Trend Bottom-up Covmge Modal Split Corridor Congestioo Peer Passenger Tlips (milliom) Trend Bottom-Up Covmge Modal Split Corridor Congestion Peer Table14 Sanario Clmp8rison 2,217 2,285 2,427 2,671 2,632 3,142 2,282 2,442 2,663 3,114 175 l&l 198 224 222 270 193 213 lSI 328 l&l 187 30 Transit Development Concepts 2,353 2,421 2,489 2,897 3,117 3,300 3,652 4,162 4,672 2,002 2,762 2 ,922 3,565 4,016 4,467 710 186 191 197 249 274 300 319 367 416 233 253 273 406 483 561 195 202 209


Florida 60S SuWimneC Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8541 Seaetruy ofTrnnsportation: Ben G. Watts Public Transportation Director: Nick Serianni Transit Office Manager. Marion Hart Project Manager: Tara Bartee Planning Administrator Public Transit Office MS26 (904)48&-m4 Center for Urban Traruportalion Rtsearch University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 (813)974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Director: Gary L. Brosch Project Manager: Ronald C. Sheck Project Slaff. Michael Brooks XuebaoOru Suzanne Dieringer Shdly Happel Michael Hartmann Eric Hill NilganKamp Rongfang Liu Robert Nevins Rebecca Rahimi Patricia Turner l"tffany Turner Fadhely Viloria Mitchell y OJk


CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB I 18 Tafl"Cla, Florida 33620.5350 (813) 97+3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168


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.