RTS Final Draft TDP

Gainesville Regional Transit System 2015–2024 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAJOR UPDATE DRAFT July 2014 Prepared for: GAI...

0 downloads 177 Views 57MB Size
Gainesville Regional Transit System 2015–2024 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAJOR UPDATE DRAFT July 2014

Prepared for: GAINESVILLE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM P.O. Box 490, Station 4 Gainesville, FL 32602 (352) 334-2609

Prepared by: TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 224-8862 www.tindaleoliver.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ Report Organization ............................................................................................................

1 2

Section 2: PERTINENT CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. Service Area Description ..................................................................................................... Population and Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................... Transit Market Assessment ................................................................................................. Roadway Conditions ............................................................................................................ Commuting and Journey to Work Patterns ......................................................................... Summary of Pertinent Conditions ....................................................................................... Transit Policy Context .......................................................................................................... Summary of Policy Context .................................................................................................

4 4 6 13 19 20 24 24 24

Section 3: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND RESULTS ................................................................................. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... Public Participation Requirements ...................................................................................... Public Participation Overview of Activities ......................................................................... Public Participation Event Details and Analysis................................................................... Review Committee .............................................................................................................. 2013 On-Board Survey ........................................................................................................ 2014 Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................................................... Discussion Groups ............................................................................................................... Open House Public Workshops ........................................................................................... Career Source Survey .......................................................................................................... Summary of Public Outreach...............................................................................................

26 26 26 27 28 28 29 44 47 51 51 53

Section 4: RTS SERVICE LEVELS AND PERFORMANCE ..................................................................... 54 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 54 Governance and Funding .................................................................................................... 54 Existing Services Inventory .................................................................................................. 55 Performance Evaluation and Trends ................................................................................... 69 Fixed-Route Trend Analysis ................................................................................................. 69 Demand Response Trend Analysis ...................................................................................... 80 Peer Review Analysis ........................................................................................................... 88 Demand Response Peer Review Analysis ............................................................................ 99 RTS Fare Comparison........................................................................................................... 105

Transit Development Plan

i

Gainesville RTS

Section 5: SITUATION APPRAISAL ................................................................................................. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... Socioeconomic Trends......................................................................................................... Travel Behavior .................................................................................................................... Regional Transportation Issues ........................................................................................... Land Use ......................................................................................................................... Public Involvement .............................................................................................................. Title VI ......................................................................................................................... Technology ......................................................................................................................... 10-Year Fixed Route Ridership Estimate ............................................................................. 10-Year Paratransit Ridership Estimate............................................................................... Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives ........................................................................................ RTS Public Transit Vision ..................................................................................................... RTS Public Transit Mission ................................................................................................... RTS Public Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives .......................................................................

107 107 107 108 108 108 111 111 111 116 119 121 121 121 121

Section 6: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ........................................................ Introduction ......................................................................................................................... COA Service Plan ................................................................................................................. Inter-City Services................................................................................................................ TBEST Needs Plan Ridership Forecasts ................................................................................

134 134 134 134 141

Section 7: PHASED IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN ....................................................... Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10-Year RTS Revenues ......................................................................................................... 10-Year RTS Costs ................................................................................................................ 10-Year RTS Priorities .......................................................................................................... RTS 10-Year Phased Implementation and Financial Plan .................................................... Organization Chart and Staffing Plan .................................................................................. Financial Plan Recommendations .......................................................................................

143 143 143 144 146 147 158 160

Section 8: MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 161 Major Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 161 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 162

Transit Development Plan

ii

Gainesville RTS

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Table 2-1: Table 2-2: Table 2-3: Table 2-4: Table 2-5: Table 2-6: Table 2-7: Table 2-8: Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3: Table 3-4 Table 3-5: Table 3-6 Table 3-7: Table 3-8 Table 4-1: Table 4-2: Table 4-3: Table 4-4: Table 4-5: Table 4-6: Table 4-7: Table 4-8: Table 4-9: Table 4-10: Table 4-11: Table 4-12: Table 4-13: Table 4-14: Table 4-15: Table 4-16: Table 4-17: Table 4-18:

TDP Checklist................................................................................................................. Population Characteristics for Alachua County (2010-2012) ....................................... Population Characteristics for Gainesville (2010-2012) ............................................... 2024 Population Estimates ........................................................................................... Demographic Characteristics, City of Gainesville (2010-2012)..................................... Labor Force Distribution by Service Area ..................................................................... Transit Service Density Threshold................................................................................. Roadway Facilities Operating at an Unacceptable Highway Level of Service............... Journey-to-Work Characteristics, Alachua County (2010-2012) .................................. Review Committee........................................................................................................ Valid Responses ............................................................................................................ Total Times Route Involved in a Transfer ..................................................................... Bus Rider Profile............................................................................................................ Non-Student Bus Rider Profile ...................................................................................... Survey Question Comparison 2009 and 2013 .............................................................. Stakeholder Interviewees ............................................................................................. Key Question Comments .............................................................................................. Summary of RTS Weekday Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014) .................................................................................................................. Summary of RTS Weekday Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014) ..... Summary of RTS Weekday Service Operating Characteristics (Later Gator – Spring 2014) .................................................................................................................. Summary of RTS Saturday Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014) .................................................................................................................. Summary of RTS Saturday Service (Campus and Later Gator – Spring 2014)............... Summary of RTS Sunday Service (City and Campus – Spring 2014) ............................. Summary of Percentage Revenue Hours Allocation (Spring 2014) .............................. Summary of Percentage Revenue Allocation for Campus Routes ................................ Summary of Percentage Revenue Allocation for Later Gator Routes .......................... Inventory of the Existing RTS Fixed-route Vehicles ...................................................... Fixed-route Length and Stop Characteristics ................................................................ Inventory of RTS Paratransit Vehicle Fleet ................................................................... Inventory of Private Transportation Providers that Serve Gainesville ......................... Performance Review Measures, RTS Trend Review Analysis (2012) ............................ RTS Performance Measures Trend Analysis (2008–2012) ............................................ RTS Effectiveness Measures, Trend Analysis (2008-2012) ........................................... RTS Efficiency Measures Trend Analysis (2008-2012) .................................................. Summary of RTS Trend Analysis (2008-2012) ...............................................................

Transit Development Plan

iii

3 6 6 7 8 13 14 20 21 29 31 32 39 39 44 45 48 59 59 59 60 61 61 62 64 64 65 66 68 68 70 71 75 78 79

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-19: Table 4-20: Table 4-21: Table 4-22: Table 4-23: Table 4-24: Table 4-25: Table 4-26: Table 4-27: Table 4-28: Table 4-29: Table 4-30: Table 4-31: Table 4-32: Table 4-33: Table 4-34: Table 4-35: Table 4-36: Table 5-1: Table 5-2: Table 5-3: Table 5-4: Table 6-1: Table 7-1: Table 7-2: Table 7-3: Table 7-4: Table 7-5: Table 7-6: Table 7-7: Table 7-8: Table 7-9: Table 7-10: Table 7-11: Table 7-12:

Performance Review Measures: RTS Demand Response Trend Review Analysis (2012) .............................................................................................................. RTS Performance Measures, Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008-2012) ............. RTS Effectiveness Measures, Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008-2012) ............ RTS Efficiency Measures, Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008-2012) .................. Summary of RTS Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008-2012) ................................ Selected Peer Systems, RTS Peer Review Analysis (2012) ............................................ Performance Review Measures, RTS Peer Review Analysis (2012) .............................. Performance Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) ........................................................ Effectiveness Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) ........................................................ Efficiency Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) .............................................................. RTS Peer Review Analysis Summary (2012) .................................................................. Selected Peer Systems, RTS Demand Response Peer Review Analysis (2012) ............. Performance Review Measures, RTS Demand Response Peer Review Analysis (2012) ............................................................................................................. Performance Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) ........................................................ Effectiveness Measures, RTS Demand Response Peer Review (2012) ......................... Efficiency Measures, RTS Demand Response Peer Review (2012) ............................... RTS Demand Response Peer Review Analysis Summary (2012) ................................... RTS Fare Comparison as of June 2014 .......................................................................... ITS Capital and Operating Cost Summary ..................................................................... Average Weekday Daily Ridership and Growth Rates .................................................. Historic Trends for Paratransit Ridership, 2003-2012 .................................................. Previous Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives Revisions ................................................... 2024 Needs Plan Average Weekday Ridership ............................................................. Financial Plan Operating Assumptions ......................................................................... Financial Plan Capital Assumptions .............................................................................. Implementation Plan Capital Projects List .................................................................... Full-Sized Bus Replacement Needs ............................................................................... Implementation Plan Improvements – First Year ......................................................... Implementation Plan Added Services ........................................................................... Unfunded Needs Plan ................................................................................................... Unfunded Capital Projects ............................................................................................ RTS 10-Year Baseline Financial Summary ..................................................................... RTS 10-Year Implementation Plan Financial Summary ................................................. RTS 10-Year Operating Revenue Summary................................................................... New Staff Needs for Implementation Plan ...................................................................

Transit Development Plan

iv

80 81 84 85 87 89 89 90 94 96 98 100 100 100 102 104 105 106 113 118 120 129 142 145 146 148 148 150 152 153 154 155 156 157 159

Gainesville RTS

LIST OF MAPS Map 2-1: Map 2-2: Map 2-3: Map 2-4: Map 2-5: Map 2-6: Map 2-7: Map 2-8: Map 2-9: Map 5-1: Map 6-1: Map 6-2: Map 6-3: Map 6-4: Map 6-5: Map 6-6:

Study Area and Existing Bus Routes.............................................................................. Minority Population ...................................................................................................... Low-Income Households............................................................................................... Non-English Speaking.................................................................................................... 2015 Density Threshold Assessment ............................................................................ 2024 Density Threshold Assessment ............................................................................ 2012 Transit Orientation Index ..................................................................................... Commuter Inflow .......................................................................................................... Commuter Outflow ....................................................................................................... Future Land Use for the City of Gainesville .................................................................. Gainesville System Proposed Routing .......................................................................... UF Campus Proposed Routing – Weekday ................................................................... Gainesville System Proposed Routing – Saturday ........................................................ Gainesville System Proposed Routing – Sunday ........................................................... UF Campus Proposed Routing – Weekend ................................................................... Alachua County Proposed Intercity Service ..................................................................

5 9 11 12 15 16 18 22 23 110 135 136 137 138 139 140

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Figure 3-1: Figure 3-2: Figure 3-3: Figure 3-4: Figure 3-5: Figure 3-6: Figure 3-7: Figure 3-8: Figure 3-9: Figure 3-10: Figure 3-11: Figure 3-12: Figure 3-13: Figure 3-14: Figure 3-15: Figure 3-16: Figure 3-17: Figure 3-18:

Age Distribution of Residents by Percentage, 2010 .................................................... Transferred to Current Route ....................................................................................... Transferring from Current Route Totals ....................................................................... Length of Time Using RTS Service ................................................................................. Mode Choice if Not by Bus ........................................................................................... Fare Type....................................................................................................................... Daily Pass User RTS Frequency ..................................................................................... Monthly Pass User RTS Frequency................................................................................ Reason for Riding RTS ................................................................................................... Preferred Improvements Summary .............................................................................. Would Use Premium Service ........................................................................................ Payment for Premium Service ...................................................................................... Preferred Source of RTS Information............................................................................ Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................ Vehicles Available in Household ................................................................................... Number of Valid Driver’s Licenses in Household .......................................................... Percent of Fare Payment Type by Income .................................................................... Bus Rider Satisfaction ................................................................................................... Gator1 and SF ID User Satisfaction ...............................................................................

Transit Development Plan

v

10 31 32 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 41

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-19: Figure 3-20: Figure 3-21: Figure 3-22: Figure 3-23: Figure 3-24: Figure 3-25: Figure 3-26: Figure 3-27: Figure 3-28: Figure 3-29: Figure 3-30: Figure 3-31: Figure 3-32: Figure 4-1: Figure 4-2: Figure 4-3: Figure 4-4: Figure 4-5: Figure 4-6: Figure 4-7: Figure 4-8: Figure 4-9: Figure 4-10: Figure 4-11: Figure 4-12: Figure 4-13: Figure 4-14: Figure 4-15: Figure 4-16: Figure 4-17: Figure 4-18: Figure 4-19: Figure 4-20: Figure 4-21: Figure 4-22: Figure 4-23: Figure 4-24:

Non-Gator1 or SF ID User Satisfaction .......................................................................... Bus Rider Satisfaction by Age ....................................................................................... Bus Rider Satisfaction by Income .................................................................................. Bus Rider Satisfaction vs. Length of RTS Bus System Use ............................................. Question 1: Which three things might make you or your constituents ride more often? .................................................................................................................. Question 2: What are the top 3 service improvements? ............................................. Question 3: What is most important for public transportation? ................................. Question 4: What other goals are important? ............................................................. Question 5: Which characteristic is most important? .................................................. Question 6: Are there areas outside of Gainesville that you would like to see served by transit? ......................................................................................................... Do you live in the city of Gainesville? ........................................................................... Do you ride the RTS bus to travel in and around Gainesville? ..................................... Routes Typically Used by Respondents ....................................................................... Respondent Reasons to Ride More Often .................................................................... RTS Bus Route Published Map ...................................................................................... Service Area Population ................................................................................................ Passenger Trips (000) .................................................................................................... Revenue Miles (000) ..................................................................................................... Vehicle Miles (000) ....................................................................................................... Operating Expense (000) .............................................................................................. Passenger Miles (000) ................................................................................................... Revenue Hours .............................................................................................................. Vehicle Hours ................................................................................................................ Revenue Speed (MPH) .................................................................................................. Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service ....................................................................... Gallons of Fuel Consumed ............................................................................................ Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Peak Vehicle ................................................................ Weekday Span of Service (hrs) ..................................................................................... Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita .......................................................................... Average Headway (mins) .............................................................................................. Passenger Trips per Capita............................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ............................................................................... Revenue Miles Between System Failures ..................................................................... Vehicle Miles per Gallon ............................................................................................... Average Fare ................................................................................................................. Operating Expense per Capita ...................................................................................... Operating Expense per Passenger Trip .........................................................................

Transit Development Plan

vi

41 42 42 42 48 49 49 49 50 50 52 52 52 53 56 72 72 72 72 72 72 73 73 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 76 76 76 76 76 76 77 77

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-25: Figure 4-26: Figure 4-27: Figure 4-28: Figure 4-29: Figure 4-30: Figure 4-31: Figure 4-32: Figure 4-33: Figure 4-34: Figure 4-35: Figure 4-36: Figure 4-37: Figure 4-38: Figure 4-39: Figure 4-40: Figure 4-41: Figure 4-42: Figure 4-43: Figure 4-44: Figure 4-45: Figure 4-46: Figure 4-47: Figure 4-48: Figure 4-49: Figure 4-50: Figure 4-51: Figure 4-52: Figure 4-53: Figure 4-54: Figure 4-55: Figure 4-56: Figure 4-57: Figure 4-58: Figure 4-59: Figure 4-60: Figure 4-61: Figure 4-62: Figure 4-63: Figure 4-64:

Farebox Recovery Ratio ................................................................................................ Operating Expenses per Revenue Mile ......................................................................... Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ......................................................................... Revenue Hours per Employee FTE ................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Employee FTE ............................................................................... Average Passenger Trip Length..................................................................................... Passenger Trips ............................................................................................................. Revenue Miles............................................................................................................... Vehicle Miles ................................................................................................................. Operating Expenses ...................................................................................................... Passenger Miles ............................................................................................................ Revenue Hours .............................................................................................................. Vehicle Hours ................................................................................................................ Revenue Speed ............................................................................................................. Vehicle Operated in Maximum Service ........................................................................ Fuel Consumption) ........................................................................................................ Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita .......................................................................... Passenger Trips per Capita............................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ................................................................................ Revenue Mileage between System Failures ................................................................. Vehicle Miles per Gallon (SE) ........................................................................................ Operating Expense per Capita (CE) ............................................................................... Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ............................................................................... Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ......................................................................... Operating Expense per Revenue Mile .......................................................................... Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ......................................................................... Service Area Population ................................................................................................ Service Area Population Density (persons/sq mi) ........................................................ Passenger Trips (000) .................................................................................................... Revenue Miles (000) ..................................................................................................... Vehicle Miles (000) ....................................................................................................... Operating Expense ($000) ............................................................................................ Passenger Miles (000) ................................................................................................... Revenue Hours .............................................................................................................. Vehicle Hours ................................................................................................................ Revenue Speed (mph) ................................................................................................... Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service ....................................................................... Gallons Consumed per Peak Vehicle ............................................................................ Weekday Span of Service (hrs) ..................................................................................... Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita ..........................................................................

Transit Development Plan

vii

77 78 78 78 78 81 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 84 85 85 85 86 86 91 91 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 92 92 93 93

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-65: Figure 4-66: Figure 4-67: Figure 4-68: Figure 4-69: Figure 4-70: Figure 4-71: Figure 4-72: Figure 4-73: Figure 4-74: Figure 4-75: Figure 4-76: Figure 4-77: Figure 4-78: Figure 4-79: Figure 4-80: Figure 4-81: Figure 4-82: Figure 4-83: Figure 4-84: Figure 4-85: Figure 4-86: Figure 4-87: Figure 4-88: Figure 4-89: Figure 5-1: Figure 7-1:

Average Headway (mins) .............................................................................................. Passenger Trips per Capita............................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ............................................................................... Revenue Miles Between System Failures ..................................................................... Vehicle Miles per Gallon ............................................................................................... Average Fare ................................................................................................................. Operating Expense per Capita ...................................................................................... Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ......................................................................... Farebox Recovery (Ratio) .............................................................................................. Operating Expense per Revenue Mile .......................................................................... Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ......................................................................... Revenue Hours per Employee FTE ................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Employee FTE ............................................................................... Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile ................................................................................... Average Trip Length (mi) .............................................................................................. Passenger Trips ............................................................................................................. Revenue Miles (000) ..................................................................................................... Total Operating Expense ............................................................................................... Passenger Miles (000) ................................................................................................... Revenue Hours .............................................................................................................. Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ................................................................................ Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ............................................................................... Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ......................................................................... Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ......................................................................... Total Paratransit Ridership Estimate ............................................................................ RTS 2014 Organization Chart ........................................................................................

93 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 97 97 97 101 101 101 101 102 102 103 103 103 104 120 158

APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Appendix J:

COA Technical Memorandum Three Transit Policy Context COA Technical Memoranda One and Two Stakeholder Responses Stakeholder Questions TBEST Ridership Results Groups Contacted for Discussion Group Brief Summary of Service Standard Report COA Proposed Changes in Service Public Workshop Description and Presentation

Transit Development Plan

viii

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION This study updates the City of Gainesville Regional Transit System’s (RTS) Transit Development Plan (TDP), the strategic guide for public transportation in the community over the next 10 years. RTS is operated as part of the City of Gainesville Public Works Department and is the public transportation provider for the Gainesville Urbanized Area (GUA).1 It provides fixed-route bus service on 48 routes in Gainesville and some parts of Alachua County, including 9 campus-specific and late night routes for the University of Florida (UF). It also offers paratransit service through a private transportation provider. RTS ridership demand has remained strong since the last major TDP update and is expected to continue to increase consistent with a larger national trend. TDP Requirements TDP requirements were formally adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on February 20, 2007. Major requirements of the rule include the following: 

Major updates must be completed every 5 years, covering a 10-year planning horizon.



A public involvement plan must be developed and approved by FDOT or be consistent with the approved Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Public Involvement Plan (PIP).



FDOT, the Regional Workforce Development Board, and the MPO must be advised of all public meetings at which the TDP is presented and discussed, and these entities must be given the opportunity to review and comment on the TDP during the development of the mission, goals, objectives, alternatives, and 10-year implementation program.



Estimation of the community’s demand for transit service (10-year annual projections) must be completed using the planning tools provided by FDOT or a demand estimation technique approved by FDOT.

Contact Information of the Submitting Entity   

Telephone Number: (352) 334-2600 Mailing Address: 100 SE 10th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 332607 Authorizing Agency Representative: Jesus Gomez, RTS Director

1

It is important to note that the RTS service area is not reflective of a single political jurisdiction. Service is provided in parts of the city of Gainesville and Alachua County. For convenience, this is referred to as the GUA, although service does not cover the entirety of the GUA.

Transit Development Plan

1

Gainesville RTS

REPORT ORGANIZATION The 2015–2024 TDP for RTS, is organized into the following sections: Section 1: Introduction outlines TDP requirements and includes contact information for the agency. Section 2: Pertinent Conditions describes local demographic and land use data, including a review of local planning and policy documents as they relate to transit in the GUA. RTS’s service area and performance metrics are also outlined in this section. Section 3: Public Outreach and Results describes RTS’s PIP for this TDP major update and summarizes public outreach events that were conducted consistent with the PIP. An onboard survey and analysis are also included in this section. Section 4: RTS Service Levels and Performance includes a five-year comparison of current performance and an evaluation of RTS against similar transit agencies. Section 5: Situation Appraisal considers the results of the public outreach, the performance of the system, and local plans and policies, including land use policies to outline RTS’s needs. This section also includes a projection of future ridership. Section 6: Alternatives Development and Evaluation considers the alternatives that were identified and vetted through a public outreach process. Section 7: Phased Implementation and Financial Plans uses RTS’s current and recent budget and performance information to project expenditures and revenue during future budget years. Section 8: Major Conclusions and Recommendations provides a brief conclusion.

Transit Development Plan

2

Gainesville RTS

Table 1-1: TDP Checklist Public Participation Process PIP drafted, submitted, and approved by FDOT at TDP initiation Comments solicited from Regional Workforce Board Notification provided to FDOT, Regional Workforce Board, and the MPO of TDP related public meetings FDOT, Regional Workforce Board, and MPO provided opportunity to review and comment during development of the mission, goals, objectives, alternatives, and 10year implementation program Time limit established for receipt of comments PIP and plan execution documented in TDP Situation Appraisal Consideration of Comprehensive Plans Consideration of land use/development forecasts Consideration of state, regional, and local transportation plans Consideration of actions in areas such as parking, development, transit supportive design, etc. Other governmental actions and policies Socioeconomic trends Organizational issues Technology 10-year annual projections of transit ridership using approved model Assessment of whether land uses and urban design patterns support/hinder transit service provision Documentation of performance analysis (prior 5 years and peer review) Documentation of feedback from community (on-board surveys and other communication) Calculation of farebox recovery Mission and Goals Provider's vision Provider's mission Provider's goals Provider's objectives Alternative Courses of Action Development and evaluation of alternative of alternative strategies and actions Benefits (ridership) and costs of each alternative Financial alternatives examined Implementation Program 10-year program of strategies and policies Maps indicating areas to be served Maps indicating types and levels of service Monitoring program to track performance measures 10-year financial plan listing operating and capital expenses Capital acquisition or construction schedule Anticipated revenues by source Relationship to Other Plans Consistency with Florida Transportation Plan Consistency with local government comprehensive plan Consistency with MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Consistency with regional transportation goals and objectives Submission Adopted by RTS – , 2014 Submitted to FDOT

Transit Development Plan

3

Related Section 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 2 2

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 2: PERTINENT CONDITIONS This section of the RTS 2015–2024 TDP Major Update documents existing conditions and provides an understanding of RTS’s operating environment. The following components of the RTS service area were reviewed: • • • •

Population and Demographic Characteristics Roadway Conditions Commuting and Journey to Work Patterns Transit Markets and Policies

Primary data sources for the above information include the U.S. Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), the Bureau of Economics and Business Research (BEBR) of the University of Florida (UF), and the Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO)2 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).3 These data sources were supplemented by information from local and regional agencies, as well. SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION The city of Gainesville is located in Alachua County in north central Florida. Alachua County is bordered on the south by Levy and Marion counties, on the west by Gilchrist County, on the north by Columbia, Union, and Bradford counties, and on the east by Putnam County. Map 2-1 illustrates the TDP study area. RTS provides services in Gainesville, with several adjacent portions of unincorporated Alachua County also served.4

2

MTPO is used interchangeably throughout the document with Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Linear interpolation from MPTO 2030 Socioeconomic Report was used for 2024 horizon year calculations. 4 It is important to note that the RTS service area includes most of the city of Gainesville but not all of it. 3

Transit Development Plan

4

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-1: Study Area and Existing Bus Routes

Transit Development Plan

5

Gainesville RTS

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Population Profile As shown in Table 2-1, the population of Alachua County and civilians employed in the labor force both increased by about 1 percent from 2010 to 2012. Also during this time, the number of households fell by 6 percent and, perhaps related, average household size increased by approximately 6 percent. Table 2-1 Population Characteristics for Alachua County (2010–2012) Characteristic

2010

2012

Persons

247,336

249,440

0.85%

Households

100,516

94,555

-5.93%

Civilians employed in labor force

124,212

125,727

1.22%

Land area (square miles)

969.1

969.1

0.0%

Average household size

2.32

2.47

6.47%

255.22

257.39

0.85%

Persons per square mile of land area

% Change

Source: 2010 Census, 2012 ACS 3-Year Estimates

Table 2-2 shows that the population of the city of Gainesville increased from 2010 to 2012 at a slower rate than the county. The number of civilians in the workforce, however, increased more than three times the rate in Gainesville than it did in Alachua County. Table 2-2 Population Characteristics for Gainesville (2010–2012) Characteristic

2010

2012

% Change

Persons

124,354

125,273

0.74%

Households

45,044

46,374

2.95%

Civilians employed in labor force

60,992

63,640

4.34%

Land area (square miles)

61.3

61.3

0.0%

Average household size

2.19

2.39

9.13%

2,028.6

2,043.6

0.74%

Persons per square mile of land area

Source: 2010 Census, 2012 ACS 3-Year Estimates

Table 2-3 shows the interpolation for the 2024 horizon year for this TDP based on data from the Gainesville 2035 LRTP. It is important to note that the LRTP growth rate was far more significant than the US Census and ACS 3-year estimates.5

5

LRTP growth rate projections occurred in 2007, a period coinciding with rapid population growth that has slowed in the ensuing years. Transit Development Plan

6

Gainesville RTS

Table 2-3 2024 Population Estimates Place

2024

Gainesville Urbanized Area City of Gainesville Unincorporated Alachua County within Urbanized Area Alachua County Source: Gainesville 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

216,634 144,146 72,488 298,500

Demographic Characteristics and Trends Table 2-4 shows that since 2010 there has been a decrease in the Black or African American population in Gainesville and an increase in the White population. However, the population of those of Hispanic/ Latino origin has increased, with the minority population making up 34.2 percent of the population in Gainesville; Map 2-2 displays their distribution. The population making less than $10,000 per year has decreased, and the population in the three highest income brackets has increased. Unsurprisingly, this is reflected in an increase in the percent of the population above the poverty level and median household income. Age distribution in Gainesville has also held relatively constant, with a slight growth in middle-age individuals. Similarly, there has been little change in educational attainment, although it does appear that education status has improved.

Transit Development Plan

7

Gainesville RTS

Table 2-4 Demographic Characteristics, City of Gainesville (2010–2012) Characteristics

2010

Gender Male 48.4% Female 51.6% Race White 64.9% Black or African American 23.0% Other 12.1% Ethnicity Not of Hispanic/Latino origin 90.0% Hispanic or Latino origin 10.0% Age <15 years 11.2% 15–34 years 56.0% 35–64 years 24.6% 65+ years 8.3% Educational Level (25 Year and Over) Less than 9th grade 6.3% th th 9 –12 grade, no diploma 6.4% High school graduate 18.9% Some college, no degree 16.2% Associate degree 8.6% Bachelor's degree 19.3% Professional school, Master's or Doctorate 24.2% Household Income Under $10,000 20.9% $10,000–$14,999 7.3% $15,000–$24,999 16.1% $25,000–$34,999 9.9% $35,000–$49,999 14.9% $50,000–$74,999 12.9% $75,000–$99,999 6.2% $100,000 or more 12.0% Median household income $31,132 Poverty Status People Above poverty level 63.1% People Below poverty level 36.9% Language Spoken at Home English 84.1% Spanish 7.5% Other Indo-European 5.1% Asian and Pacific Islander 3.2% Other 0.2% Note: Some percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

2012

48.0% 52.0% 65.8% 22.8% 11.4% 89.8% 10.2% 10.3% 56.1% 25.2% 8.3% 3.3% 5.4% 20.3% 17.8% 10.5% 20.6% 22.1% 19.7% 7.9% 14.0% 12.5% 12.3% 14.5% 6.8% 12.2% $31,294 63.9% 36.1% 84.0% 7.4% 5.0% 3.2% 0.4%

Source: 2010 Census and 2012 3-Year Estimate

Transit Development Plan

8

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-2: Minority Population

Tech Memo 1

9

Gainesville RTS

Age Distribution Age as an indicator of potential transit demand is more favorable for Gainesville than the state of Florida, as shown in Figure 2-1. More than 39 percent of Gainesville’s population is between the ages of 15 and 24, compared to just 13 percent for Florida. This result is likely driven by the presence of UF and Santa Fe College (SF). However, for two other groups that have a propensity for transit, individuals under age 15 or over age 65, the proportion in Gainesville is less than that of Florida. Nonetheless, the total share of these groups in Gainesville is still higher, at 58.4 percent of the total population, than that of Florida at 47.8 percent. Figure 2-1 Age Distribution of Residents by Percentage, 2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

8.3

17.4

16.5 27

25.1

25.2 39.0

13.0

11.1

17.4

City of Gainesville

Florida

> 65 Years 45 to 64 Years 25 to 44 Years 15 to 24 Years < 15 Years

Note: Some percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: 2010 Census

Income Income is another factor that often influences a person’s decision to use public transit. The American Automobile Association (AAA) estimates the cost of owning and operating a car at between $7,000 and $10,000 per year for 2013. For low-income individuals, this represents a substantial portion of annual income. Map 2-4 displays the areas of Gainesville where greater than 23.5 percent (Gainesville average) of the households are considered low income.6 Language Concentrations of persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) can also serve as an indicator of transit propensity. Map 2-4 displays the areas in Gainesville where respondents speak a language other than English in their home. It could be inferred that the international student population of UF drives up the number of LEP persons.

6

Source: 2012 ACS 5-Year Estimates.

Tech Memo 1

10

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-3: Low-Income Households

Tech Memo 1

11

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-4: Non-English Speaking

Tech Memo 1

12

Gainesville RTS

Labor and Employment Characteristics Table 2-5 displays the percent of population broken down by employment sector in Alachua County. The largest service area includes educational services, health care, and social assistance, comprising more than 40 percent of the employment base. This is attributable to the presence of the institutions like UF, Shands HealthCare, and SF. Table 2-5 Labor Force Distribution by Service Area Service Area

Percent

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

0.2%

Construction

3.5%

Manufacturing

3.3%

Wholesale trade

1.4%

Retail trade

10.2%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities

2.2%

Information

1.7%

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing

4.8%

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services

8.8%

Educational services, and health care and social assistance

40.4%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services

15.1%

Other services, except public administration

4.9%

Public administration Source: 2012 ACS 3-Year Estimates

3.5%

TRANSIT MARKET ASSESSMENT Market assessment tools and ridership forecasting software were used to identify and assess demand for public transportation services. When combined with the public involvement feedback, the demand assessment yields the building blocks for a transit service needs plan for the area. RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis – Latent Demand RTS contracted Connetics Transportation Group in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff and L-tec to complete its Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) in November 2013. The COA included a latent demand analysis, which also sought to identify areas where additional services may be needed. The results of this analysis though using a distinct methodology exhibited strong similarities to the findings presented here and are included in Appendix A. Market Assessments The market assessment for RTS evaluates demand as a function of both density and traditional transit demographic characteristics. The former was assessed using a Density Threshold Assessment (DTA), and the latter was assessed using a Transit Orientation Index (TOI). The two analysis tools can be used to compare existing services to those areas that are determined to be transit-supportive. Tech Memo 1

13

Gainesville RTS

Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) Employment and residential density is a well-established metric for likely transit utilization. A DTA was conducted to identify areas of high density today and in the future. Three density thresholds were developed to identify transit-supportive areas and are presented in Table 2-6. In addition, Maps 2-4 and 2-5 illustrate the 2015 and 2024 DTAs, respectively. Table 2-6 Transit Service Density Threshold Transit Investment

Population Density Threshold

Employment Density Threshold

Medium

4.5–5.9 dwelling units/acre

4–4.9 employees/acre

High

6–7.9 dwelling units/acre

5–6.9 employees/acre

Very High

≥ 8 dwelling units/acre

≥ 7 employees/acre

Source: Minimum thresholds are established in TCRP Report 165 (3rd ed.) (2013).Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Ch. 5, p. 17, “Defining Transit Supportive Areas.”

Tech Memo 1

14

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-5: 2015 Density Threshold Assessment

Tech Memo 1

15

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-6: 2024 Density Threshold Assessment

Tech Memo 1

16

Gainesville RTS

Traditional Market – Transit Orientation Index (TOI) The traditional transit market refers to population segments that historically have demonstrated a higher propensity to use transit. Traditional transit users include older adults (>age 59), youth (
7 8

Source: 2012 ACS 3-year Estimates Differences in years for TOI and DTA reflect differences in source material.

Transit Development Plan

17

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-7: 2012 Transit Orientation Index

Transit Development Plan

18

Gainesville RTS

Transit Market Assessment Summary This section discusses the results of the DTA and TOI. 2015 and 2024 DTAs The 2015 DTA reveals that RTS already serves the densest population and employment areas. Projected growth is also shown to largely be infill development in the existing urbanized areas. Dwelling unit density is shown to increase from “High” to “Very High” in three areas—north of 23rd Avenue, the “Midtown” area north of University Avenue, and north of SW 20th Avenue west of 34th Street. The SE corner of NW 8th Avenue and 13th Street goes from unranked to “High.” Employment unit density is shown to increase from “High” to “Very High” in four areas—south of SW 24th Avenue north of Butler Plaza, northeast of Waldo Road and NE 8th Ave where the Walmart Supercenter is located, the southeast corner of NW 16th Avenue and 13th Street, and west of 13th Street south of SW 16th St. The employment unity density is shown increasing from “Medium” to “High” in the NW corner of NW 16th Avenue and 13th Street. Two areas attained the “Medium” employment density over the projected time period—the northeast corner of NW 16th Avenue and 13th Street and the area just on the west side of NW 6th Street between 8th Avenue and 16th Avenue. All areas which scored a “High” or above for either employment or population density already generally have frequencies of 30 minutes or better during peak periods; in many cases, the frequencies are 15 minutes or better. 2012 TOI The TOI areas scoring “Medium” to “Very High” largely reflect the areas that performed well under the DTA analysis. ROADWAY CONDITIONS A large number of RTS routes operate on roadways with failing levels of service (LOS). For many of these routes, this necessitates varying cycles with decreases in frequency, particularly during peak-hour congestion. Table 2-7 shows roadways operating at LOS E or F.

Transit Development Plan

19

Gainesville RTS

Table 2-7 Roadway Facilities Operating at an Unacceptable Highway Level of Service

NW 16th Avenue

2012 AADT 19,050

2012 LOS F

2012 MSV 16,380

GUA Boundary

SW 75th Street

19,200

F

17,010

SW 20th Avenue

SW 62nd Boulevard

SW 34th Street

21,524

F

14,040

NW 83rd Street

NW23rd Avenue

NW 39th Avenue

14,157

F

13,320

Roadway Facility NW 34th Street (SR 21) Archer Road

From

To

University Avenue

Fort Clarke Boulevard Newberry Road NW 23rd Avenue 13,614 E 13,320 Note: Roadway facilities included in the 2010 AADT unacceptable LOS listing that are not included in the 2012 AADT listing are SW 20th Ave from SW 75th St to SW 62nd Blvd, and NW 39th Avenue from NW 112th St to NW 98th St. Source: Multimodal Level of Service Report, Year 2012 Average Annual Daily Traffic, North Central Florida Regional Planning Council

RTS will continue to monitor the annual update to the Multimodal Level of Service Report as it adjusts and enhances service in response to changing roadway conditions. COMMUTING AND JOURNEY TO WORK PATTERNS Journey to Work Characteristics Journey-to-work characteristics for Alachua County, as presented in Table 2-8, show that the use of transit has remained the same since 2010, even while driving alone has increased. The latter can be explained partially by a decrease in carpooling. Table 2-8 also shows that commutes have generally gotten longer with more individuals working outside of Alachua County. Commuter Travel Patterns Commuter workflow patterns illustrating where workers live and are employed were assessed using web-based mapping software called “On the Map,” which uses 2011 data from the Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) program. Map 2-2 shows commuter inflow data illustrating where people live who work in Gainesville. This includes eight surrounding counties as well as Alachua County. In addition, this includes eight cities within Alachua County, as well as Gainesville itself. Without taking into account the share of the total population this represents, for municipalities, the city of Alachua had the most number of workers (1,402) who commute into Gainesville, and for counties, Marion County had the greatest amount of commuter inflow (3,273 workers). Map 2-3 shows commuter outflow data illustrating where people work who live in Gainesville. Outflow patterns largely mimic inflow patterns.

Transit Development Plan

20

Gainesville RTS

Table 2-8 Journey-to-Work Characteristics, Alachua County (2010–2012) Characteristics 2010 2012 Place of Work Worked inside county of residence 94.3% 93.8% Worked outside county of residence 5.0% 5.6% Worked outside state of residence 0.7% 0.6% Means of Transportation to Work Car, truck, or van – drove alone 71.4% 72.4% Car, truck, or van – carpooled 12.5% 11.0% Public transportation 4.4% 4.4% Walked 3.3% 3.2% Other means 4.0% 4.6% Worked at home 4.4% 4.4% Travel Time to Work Less than 10 minutes 15.8% 13.8% 10–14 minutes 19.8% 19.0% 15–19 minutes 20.4% 21.7% 20–24 minutes 17.1% 18.2% 25–29 minutes 5.2% 5.5% 30 or more minutes 21.7% 21.7% Departure Time to Work 6 AM–9 AM 59.2% 60.5% Other times 40.8% 39.5% Household Vehicle Ownership None 5.2% 4.3% One 26.8% 26.8% Two 42.1% 43.1% Three or more 25.9% 25.8% Private Vehicle Occupancy Drove alone 71.4% 72.4% 2-person carpool 9.8% 8.9% 3-person carpool 1.7% 1.3% 4-or-more person carpool 1.0% 0.9% Other means (including work at home) 16.1% 16.6% Note: Some percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: 2010 Census, and 2012 ACS 3-Year estimates

Transit Development Plan

21

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-8: Commuter Inflow

Transit Development Plan

22

Gainesville RTS

Map 2-9: Commuter Outflow

Transit Development Plan

23

Gainesville RTS

SUMMARY OFF PERTINENT CONDITIONS RTS service includes a large demographic constituency with a propensity for transit: low-income, LEP, minority, and young. The 2024 forecasts show that areas which serve as a significant source of ridership will remain unchanged. TRANSIT POLICY CONTEXT A major component of the TDP update is the review and assessment of relevant local, state, and federal plans, studies, and policies. The results of this effort provide an understanding of transit planning issues in the Gainesville area and the region. The document review also supports the performance of a situation appraisal, which is an assessment of the operating environment of the transit system. For the sake of brevity, the most relevant themes among these documents are summarized below, and many other documents are summarized in a matrix in Appendix B. University of Florida, Santa Fe College, and RTS Agreements In 1998, RTS entered into an agreement with UF that allows the student body to pre-pay for unlimited transportation service. As of Spring 2014, UF partially or completely funded 34 of RTS’s fixed-routes. UF student and faculty account for more than 70 percent RTS ridership. SF entered into a similar fee agreement in May 2011 and partially or completely funded 8 routes as of Spring 2014. SF students and faculty account for approximately 10 percent of RTS ridership. Funding from both partners has allowed higher frequencies than what is provided on those routes funded by the City and/or County alone, and a conscientious effort to promote transit and limit on campus parking opportunities by both institutions largely explains RTS’s exceptional ridership performance over the last decade. SUMMARY OF POLICY CONTEXT The compilation of land use data and policies can assist in understanding the extent to which local land use plans are supportive of an efficient provision of transit services within Gainesville, identify existing and potential transit ridership generators, and ensure the TDP Major Update is consistent with those local plans. To that end, local plans that are relevant to transit and emphasize land use planning were reviewed. These plans include:          

Alachua County Comprehensive Plan University of Florida Master Plan City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan City of Gainesville Final Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Alachua County Long Term Concurrency Management Alachua/Marion County Regional Transportation Plan MTPO Urban Design Policy Manual MTPO Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) Plan East Gainesville City of Gainesville RTS TDP 2010–2019

Transit Development Plan

24

Gainesville RTS



MTPO LRTP

The plans reviewed state a common call for more mixed-use, dense, walkable multimodal environments that support transit, increase connectivity, and enhance regional economic competitiveness. The goal of increasing transit-supportive development is prevalent in the stated desire to direct future development to infill properties and redevelopment areas, maximizing the use of available urban infrastructure. Coordinating development and redevelopment projects in both the east and west portions of the city and the county to promote social and economic diversity also were common between the policies reviewed. Repeated references to bus rapid transit (BRT), particularly in County documents, in the more heavilycongested corridors in the GUA complement the vision of a multimodal transportation system that includes pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile accommodations.9 Infrastructure improvements for facilities included, but were not limited to, shelters, bus benches, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements and were common across design issues, capital improvements, and the stated goals of overall system qualities that enhance a multimodal transportation network. Moreover, both the City and County have implemented mobility mitigation strategies that direct development fees to the purchase of this capital. Plans at the regional and state level that were reviewed include:    

MAP-21 – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act State Growth Management Legislation – HB 7207 Florida Transportation Plan: Horizon 2060 State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Five-Year/Twenty-Year Plan

Of these, the most directly relevant is MAP-21, which fundamentally changed funding availability from the prior federal transportation bill. MAP-21 decreased the availability of discretionary grants while placing a greater emphasis on maintaining existing assets and tracking performance. MAP-21 is set to expire around the same time as the adoption of this document. With decreasing federal funding, RTS will need to closely monitor whether the federal government decides to extend MAP-21 or authorize a new transportation bill and how either will impact service provision.

9

The City of Gainesville recently completed an Alternatives Analysis that reviewed the feasibility of BRT. Based on the results of the study, direction was given to focus on existing service. It is unclear how this decision will impact BRT-centric policies at this time.

Transit Development Plan

25

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 3: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND RESULTS INTRODUCTION This section summarizes public outreach activities performed as part of the development process of the RTS 2015 TDP Major Update. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Florida Rule 14-73.001 requires that the creation of a TDP include public input. This was facilitated for this TDP through the review and approval of a formal TDP-specific PIP by the local FDOT district (“the Department,” as referenced in the rule) prior to the onset of the planning process. Pertinent language from the rule is provided below: The TDP preparation process shall include opportunities for public involvement as outlined in a TDP public involvement plan, approved by the Department, or the local Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Public Involvement Plan. — Florida Rule 1473.001 The objectives of public outreach for TDP updates are outlined in FDOT’s TDP Update Manual and include: 

Educate the public and present information by promoting proactive and early public involvement.



Solicit input from the public throughout the planning process by gathering full and complete information from the public.



Integrate feedback received from the public into the Transit Development Plan, Situation Appraisal, Mission and Goals, and Alternatives Analysis.



Monitor and improve the public involvement process.

Other applicable state and federal requirements for RTS’s public outreach efforts relating to this major TDP update include: 

Provide reasonable opportunity for comment to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, providers of freight transportation services, and other interested parties. – Florida Rule 14-73.001 and Section 5303, MAP-21



Hold any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times. – Section 5303, MAP-21

Transit Development Plan

26

Gainesville RTS



Employ visualization techniques to describe plans. – Section 5303, MAP-21



Make public information available in electronically-accessible format and means, such as the World Wide Web, as appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for consideration of public information. – Section 5303, MAP-21



Include opportunities for public involvement, review, and comment during the development of mission, goals, and objectives, during the development of alternatives, and during development of the 10-year implementation program. – Florida Rule 14-73.001



Advise FDOT, the regional workforce board, and MPO of all public meetings where the TDP is to be presented or discussed. – Florida Rule 14-73.001



Give FDOT an opportunity to review and comment on the TDP during the development of the mission, goals, objectives, alternatives, and ten year implementation program. – Florida Rule 1473.001



Solicit comments from the regional workforce boards. – Florida Statutes Section 341.052

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES The approved public involvement plan outlined techniques that would be used to facilitate public input during the creation of the TDP. The activities conducted were based on two categories—direct involvement and information distribution. Direct involvement activities included those where active participation was solicited from the public. The direct involvement activities targeted both transit riders who are most affected by the service and non-riders who are representative of the population across the RTS service area. Information distribution techniques provided information to interested parties about the TDP process and upcoming events. These techniques assisted in reaching a larger audience and gave opportunities for a more diverse pool of the community with varying interest levels to be included in the TDP process. Direct involvement activities included the following: 

A Review Committee consisting of representatives from the city and county government, FDOT, MTPO, and CareerSource Florida was asked for input at specific points in the development process.



Stakeholder interviews were conducted of City and County Commissioners, the Gainesville City Manager, and others.



On-board survey analysis of an RTS-conducted board survey that resulted in the collection of over 6,800 surveys (results described below).



A discussion group workshop was conducted to gather insight from representatives of groups with a propensity to use transit.

Transit Development Plan

27

Gainesville RTS



Open house public workshops (two) were hosted by RTS to collect input on potential COA and TDP alternative improvements and goals and objectives.

Information distribution techniques included the following: 

Legal advertisements of meetings/workshops were noticed in the local newspapers (Gainesville Guardian and Sun) and posted to City of Gainesville websites (www.cityofgainesville.org).



Direct contact with state and local agency representatives, including FloridaWorks, the MTPO, and FDOT, who were advised of all public meetings and discussions regarding the TDP via email or other similar communication.



RTS website and Facebook page advertised meetings/workshops (RTS website—go-rts.com and Facebook page—www.facebook.com/regionaltransportationsystem).



Informational postings, which included visual representation of plan information, such as map documents, display boards, and other visual formats for display at public workshops and on buses and other RTS facilities, such as the Rosa Parks Downtown Station.



Electronic communication via a database of interested parties (stakeholders), which included email addresses, physical addresses, and/or telephone numbers, which was kept updated for the duration of the TDP process. This was used for notifications of meetings, events, and other reminders that were sent out for upcoming events.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EVENT DETAILS AND ANALYSIS The following sections provide a detailed account of each of the public outreach activities. REVIEW COMMITTEE The Review Committee is a key component of the TDP development process and was coordinated with the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) MTPO, FDOT, and CareerSource North Central Florida. For this TDP update, RTS established a Review Committee consisting of representatives from these three organizations along with other relevant members throughout the community. Table 31 lists the organizations represented on the review committee. These meetings were held as needed throughout the COA/TDP process to review the TDP developments, inputs, and processes and are described below.10

10

Due to the overlap in functionality, the COA and TDP shared the same review committee and met at the same time.

Transit Development Plan

28

Gainesville RTS

Table 3-1 Review Committee Organizations Represented Alachua County - Public Works

FDOT

Alachua County - Transportation Planning

NCFRPC - MTPO

CareerSource

RTS

City of Gainesville Planning and Development

SF

City of Gainesville Public Works

UF

Meeting #1 The first Review Committee meeting was held on October 3, 2013. This purpose of this meeting was to provide an introduction to the COA and discuss study components, and a group exercise was conducted to identify service and funding priorities. Meeting #2 The second Review Committee meeting was held on February 3, 2014. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the TDP process, discuss the relationship of the COA Study and the TDP update, review the COA technical analysis and preliminary recommendations, and coordinate upcoming public involvement activities. Meeting #3 The third and final meeting of the Review Committee occurred on May 21, 2014. The purpose of this meeting was to present and receive input on the final service plan recommendations. This TDP update project focused on goals and objectives as well as setting priorities for service improvement implementation which assisted in the prioritization of annual service initiatives in the 10-year TDP. 2013 ON-BOARD SURVEY An on-board survey of all RTS fixed-bus routes was conducted by the COA consultant group in Fall 2013 to collect rider input on current transit services, document rider demographics and travel characteristics, and identify potential future service improvements and policies. Survey Approach A self-administered questionnaire was distributed by a team of trained survey personnel to all persons boarding surveyed RTS bus runs; a copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix C. An orientation session was conducted for surveyors before boarding their first bus to instruct them about their duties and responsibilities during the survey. This orientation also allowed trainers to address any issues or concerns that surveyors may have had about the process.

Transit Development Plan

29

Gainesville RTS

Data from the completed surveys were entered into a database and then manually cleaned and edited for anomalies. Table 3-2 presents the valid response rate for question 9 through 24 based on a review of the final on-board survey database. The valid response rate for questions 1 through 8 are included in the COA in Appendix D. On-Board Survey Summary Results This section documents the results of the RTS on-board survey analysis, which is organized into three major categories:  Travel Characteristics – questions about individual trip attributes  Rider Demographics – questions about who is using the system  Customer Service and Opinions – questions about potential service improvements and customer service preferences Travel Characteristics Travel characteristics questions were designed to ask respondents about their individual trip attributes and their travel behavior.       

Trip origin type Trip destination type Trip origin-destination pattern Transit stop/station access and egress travel mode Transfers Vehicle availability Mode choice

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 display the riders who reported transferring at some point during their current trip.11 Table 3-3 displays the total number of times each route was involved in a transfer.

11

The total of riders that transferred is greater than the sum of transfers due to respondents who did not indicate which routes/the number of times they transferred.

Transit Development Plan

30

Gainesville RTS

Table 3-2 Valid Responses

9. History of Using RTS

Valid Responses 6,047

Percent Valid 88.80%

10. Mode If Not By Bus

5,776

84.82%

11. Fare Payment Type

5,991

87.97%

12. Reason For Riding Bus

5,723

84.04%

13. Service Improvements

5,856

85.99%

14. Interest in Using Express Service

4,973

73.02%

15. Preference For Accessing Information

5,752

84.46%

16. Age

5,911

86.80%

17. Gender

5,911

86.80%

18. Ethnicity

5,853

85.95%

19. Language

5,658

83.08%

20. Income

5,610

82.38%

21. Vehicles

5,788

84.99%

22. Licensed Drivers in Household

5,625

82.60%

23. ZIP Code

4,104

60.26%

Survey Question #

24. Service Satisfaction 5,698 83.67% Note: “Percent valid” calculated based on number of total returned surveys (6,810).

Figure 3-1 Transferred to Current Route 1,200

1116

1,000 800 583

600 400

274 165

200

68

0 Total Riders that Transferred

Transit Development Plan

One Transfer

Two Transfers Three Tranfers Four Transfers

31

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-2 Transferring from Current Route Totals 1,200 960

1,000 800

542

600 400

218 200

93

52

0 Total Riders that Transferred

One Transfer

Two Transfers Three Tranfers Four Transfers

Table 3-3 Total Times Route Involved in a Transfer Total Transfers Percent Route Involving Route of Total 1 486 8.6% 38 2 74 1.3% 39 5 382 6.7% 41 6 111 2.0% 43 7 106 1.9% 46 8 235 4.2% 62 9 167 3.0% 75 10 157 2.8% 76 11 227 4.0% 77 12 256 4.5% 117 13 142 2.5% 118 15 486 8.6% 119 16 79 1.4% 120 17 152 2.7% 121 20 584 10.3% 122 21 133 2.3% 125 23 267 4.7% 126 24 87 1.5% 127 25 33 0.6% 128 27 8 0.1% 300 28 22 0.4% 301 34 64 1.1% 302 35 248 4.4% 303 36 68 1.2% Note: Totals based on 5,660 individual transfers. Route

Transit Development Plan

32

Total Transfers Involving Route 58 48 60 194 50 34 250 47 1 52 40 33 39 29 17 46 14 23 0 8 7 36 0

Percent of Total 1.0% 0.8% 1.1% 3.4% 0.9% 0.6% 4.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0%

Gainesville RTS

Question 9 asked respondents how long they have been using RTS bus service. As shown in Figure 3-3, the most common responses were “2–5 years,” “less than 6 months,” and “1–2 years.” These responses indicate that 9 of 10 (90.3%) respondents have been using the system less than 5 years. Given that the ridership base is primarily students who live in Gainesville for less than 5 years, this is not surprising. Figure 3-3 Length of Time Using RTS Service 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

34.1% 25.1%

24.0%

9.6% 6.0% 1.1% First-time Less than 6 6 Months to Rider Months 1 Year

1-2 Years

2-5 Years

More than 5 Years

Question 10 asked RTS riders how they would make the one-way trip if not by bus. Figure 3-4 shows that 46 percent would have used a car in some fashion. Given the typical mode share for personal vehicles, this may support the common observation that millennials have less interest in driving or owning a car; it also points to the impact of parking restrictions which are prevalent on the UF campus. Moreover, the results emphasize the importance of RTS in the community. Extrapolating to annual ridership figures, if 46 percent of those trips had to be made by car, that would be approximately 5 million more trips on the local road network, and many of roads already at or over the recommended level of service. Additionally, almost 15 percent of respondents said they would not be able to make the trip without transit. Considering most trips involved origins or destinations that support social advancement (school, work), transit’s role in the economy cannot be overemphasized. Figure 3-4 Mode Choice if Not by Bus 30%

28.2%

25%

21.8%

20%

18.1%

15%

13.6%

16.0%

10% 5%

1.9%

0.5%

Moped/ Scooter/ Motorcycle

Other

0% Drive

Transit Development Plan

Ride with Wouldn't Someone Make the Trip

Bicycle

33

Walk

Gainesville RTS

Question 11 asked riders to indicate the fare-type that they paid when they boarded the bus. As shown in Figure 3-5, more than three-quarters of the RTS riders surveyed used a college ID (Gator1 or SF) to board the RTS bus. These figures generally collected the ridership key data recorded by RTS’s fareboxes. Figure 3-5 Fare Type Other SF ID ADA ID Card Employee Pass Program Gator1 Semester Pass ($60) Monthly Pass ($35.00/$17.50) Daily Pass ($3.00) Half Fare ($0.75) Full Fare ($1.50)

0.4% 11.1% 2.5% 1.8% 76.2% 0.5% 2.8% 3.2% 0.5% 1.0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Additional cross tabulations were done for Question 11 to determine the frequency of RTS use for riders who use the Daily Pass and Monthly Pass. The results show that the majority of these pass users are using RTS more than five days a week, as displayed in Figures 3-6 and 3-7. It can be surmised that those riders who use a daily pass five or more times per week do not switch to a monthly pass because they cannot afford the bulk cost of the monthly pass; at current rates, a full fare monthly pass is equivalent to fewer than 12 daily passes.12 Figure 3-6 Daily Pass User RTS Frequency 1 Day

Figure 3-7 Monthly Pass User RTS Frequency 1 Day

7.3%

2 Days

4.7%

3 Days

10.9%

Once ever few weeks

20.7%

Once ever few weeks

2.6% 0%

22.6%

7 Days

1.0%

Once a month or less

34.8%

6 Days

16.1%

7 Days

6.7%

5 Days

35.9%

6 Days

7.9%

4 Days

13.0%

5 Days

3.0%

3 Days

8.3%

4 Days

1.2%

2 Days

0.6%

Once a month or less 20%

40%

2.4% 0%

20%

40%

12

It is apparent that some individuals also did not understand the question, with 2.4% of respondents indicating they use a monthly pass but only rider once a month or less.

Transit Development Plan

34

Gainesville RTS

Question 12 asked riders to identify the most important reason for them riding RTS. As shown in Figure 3-8, the most common responses were “Parking is too expensive/difficult” and “RTS bus service is more convenient.” The following responses make up 39.3 percent of total responses and suggest transit dependence: “RTS fits my budget better,” “I do not drive,” “Do not have a valid driver’s license,” “Car is not available all the time,” and “I do not have a car.” Other responses that can be associated with people who likely have an alternative mobility option to transit make up 12 percent of the responses and include “Bus is more environmentally friendly,” “Traffic congestion,” and “I prefer RTS to other alternatives.”13 Figure 3-8 Reason for Riding RTS Other

1.2% 2.6% 3.7% 3.4%

Bus is more environmentally friendly Parking is too expensive/difficult

24.9% 22.7%

Traffic congestion

0.7% 5.9%

Car is not available all the time

10.2% 17.2%

I prefer RTS to other alternatives

7.6% 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Question 13 asked respondents to indicate which transit improvements were most important. As shown in Figure 3-9, “More frequent service on existing routes” was the most common response. In addition, “Later service on existing routes,” “More Saturday service,” and “More benches and shelters” were other frequently noted selections.14 Figure 3-9 Preferred Improvements Summary Other Enhanced Sunday Service More Saturday Service More Frequent Service on Existing Routes Later Service on Existing Routes Earlier Service on Existing Routes Express (limited) Service Bus Service to New Areas More Benches and Shelters

3.3% 3.0% 33.0% 41.4% 34.8% 11.2% 15.3% 20.3% 30.8% 0%

13 14

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Percentages do not total 100 due to respondents selecting multiple improvements.

Transit Development Plan

35

Gainesville RTS

Question 14 asked respondents if they would use “premium” or express (limited stop) service if it was provided. As shown in Figure 3-10, more than one-third of respondents indicated that they would use premium/express service if it was provided, and more than one-third responded “maybe” they would use the “premium” service. This somewhat contradicts the expressed preferences revealed in the above question or may simply indicate that it is a low funding priority but, if funded, it may be used. More than one-third of the respondents indicated uncertainty related to using the service, which likely relates to the vagueness of the questions (no specified fare, pattern, or hours of operation). The corridors that received the highest preference for this service were Archer Road, SW 20th Avenue, 34th Street, and 13th Street, respectively. Of the respondents who stated “Yes” or “Maybe,” only 132 (15%) indicated how much extra money they would pay for this service, displayed in Figure 3-11. Over half of these respondents indicated that they would pay $1.00 or less for premium or express service.15 A total of 31.8 percent of respondents indicated that they would pay from $1.50 to $3.00 for premium service.16 Figure 3-10 Would Use Premium Service

Yes 37%

No 27% Maybe 36%

Figure 3-11 Payment for Premium Service Other $10 - $15 Monthly $10.00 - $15.00 $5.00 -$6.00 $3.50 - $4.00 $2.50 - $3.00 $1.50 -$2.00 $1.00 < $1.00

3.0% 1.5% 1.5% 9.1% 2.3% 14.4% 17.4% 26.5% 24.2% 0%

10%

20%

30%

Question 15 asked respondents how they prefer to receive their information about RTS. As shown in Figure 3-12, the most common response was to use the RTS website. After the RTS website, the most common method of accessing RTS information was either at the bus stop or while on-board the bus. Only small portions receive information via printed material, which is consistent with information distribution trends in all sectors. As a result, RTS has been reducing the number of schedules it prints each semester for some time now. Not surprisingly, phone usage has greatly increased since the last onboard survey as a mechanism for obtaining RTS information.17

15

It is unclear how to interpret these responses since full fare service is already $1.50. Possible explanations include that these respondents pay half fare to ride the bus and do not expect to pay a premium for express service or these are students who believed the fare would be in addition to what they pay as part of student enrollment fees. 16 Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding. 17 Percentages do not total 100 percent as respondents selected multiple sources.

Transit Development Plan

36

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-12 Preferred Source of RTS Information RTS Email

9.1%

In Bus

24.0%

Phone

19.8%

Paper Bus Schedule

11.5%

Library

2.5%

At Bus Stop

23.8%

Newspaper

5.7%

RTS Website

42.1% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Ridership Demographics Questions 16 through 20 make up the demographic portion of the survey. They include a variety of questions that queried respondents about their household income levels, age, gender, ethnicity, and primary language. These types of questions allow RTS to construct a profile of the most common bus rider. Figure 3-13 illustrates the results of these questions. The age breakdown for this section shows that the 18–24 age group is, by far, the largest represented age demographic of the riders surveyed and that the results of this survey are representative of the UF student population. 18 As shown, most respondents were female (consistent with ACS Journey to Work figures), the most common age group is 18–24, and more than half of the respondents (61%) either do not work or make less than $10,000 a year. The most common race/ethnicity among respondents was White, the second most common was Black, and Asian and Hispanic were proportionally similar. The overwhelming majority spoke English, but the responses supported RTS’s efforts to produce more material in Chinese and Spanish. Route 12 produced the largest number of respondents that selected a response other than English.

18

Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Transit Development Plan

37

Gainesville RTS

Age

Gender

Figure 3-13 Demographic Characteristics Male

43.30%

Female

56.7%

Over 74

0.1%

65 to 74

0.5%

55 to 64

2.5%

45 to 54

3.1%

35 to 44

3.9%

25 to 34

13.5%

18 to 24

74.2%

Under 18

2.3%

Do not Work

35.2%

Income

$50,000 or more

9.6%

$40,000 to $49,999

3.2%

$30,000 to $39,999

4.9%

$20,000 to $29,999

8.3%

$10,000 to $19,999

13.0%

Under $10,000

25.8%

Other

3.3%

Ethnicity

Two or More Races

1.7%

Asian

15.7%

Hispanic

15.3%

Black

21.2%

Language

White

42.8%

Other

5.6%

Chinese

4.4%

Spanish

4.6%

English

85.4% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Table 3-4 provides a profile of a typical RTS bus rider based on the most common demographic characteristics reported for each demographic variable; in many respects, the demographic characteristics here are similar to those presented for Alachua County, although there are differences regarding income and education level. Table 3-5 provides a profile of the typical non-student bus rider after excluding the respondents who indicated their student status.

Transit Development Plan

38

Gainesville RTS

Table 3-4 Bus Rider Profile

Table 3-5 Non-Student Bus Rider Profile

Gender

Most Common RTS Bus Rider Demographic Female

Gender

Most Common RTS Bus Rider Demographic Female

Age

18–24

Age

25–34

Race

White

Race

Black

Language spoken

English

Language spoken

English

Fare type

College ID

Fare type

Daily Pass

Income

Under $10,000

Income

Under $10,000

Category

Category

Question 21 asked respondents how many working vehicles are available in their respective households; Figure 3-14 shows the results. Question 22 asked respondents how many licensed drivers were in their household including themselves; Figure 3-15 shows the results. These results indicate that most RTS riders can drive and live in households that have access to at least one car so their choice to drive transit is driven by some other factor than absence of a vehicle. Figure 3-14 Vehicles Available in Household

Two 25%

Figure 3-15 Number of Valid Driver’s Licenses in Household Zero 2% ≥Three 32%

Zero 32%

One 43%

One 41%

Two 25%

To enhance the demographic data analysis, cross-tabulations were performed for fare types paid by age, displayed in Table 3-16. The survey respondents are primarily Gator1 holders under the age of 35 (total of 4,328 respondents). Respondents under the age of 18 also were likely (25%) to be SF ID holders. The lowest percentage (16%) of Gator1 holders was ages 55–64. The 55–64 and 65–74 age groups each had 37 percent of respondents using ADA ID Cards. The largest percent of users of the monthly pass were riders age 74+ (40%).19

19

Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Transit Development Plan

39

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-16 Percent of Fare Payment Type by Income 100% 90% 80%

Fare Payment

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Under 18 0%

18 to 24 0%

25 to 34 0%

35 to 44 2%

45 to 54 3%

55 to 64 1%

65 to 74 0%

Over 74 0%

Semester Pass ($60.00)

4%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Full Cash Fare ($1.50)

2%

0%

2%

5%

2%

3%

3%

0%

Half Fare ($0.75)

8%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

3%

0%

Daily Pass ($3.00)

5%

1%

8%

12%

11%

10%

0%

0%

Employee Pass Program

2%

0%

3%

8%

10%

11%

10%

20%

Monthly Pass ($35.00/$17.50)

10%

1%

5%

11%

16%

16%

13%

40%

ADA ID Card

1%

0%

2%

10%

20%

37%

37%

20%

SF ID

25%

11%

9%

8%

14%

4%

0%

0%

Gator1

42%

85%

69%

42%

23%

16%

33%

20%

Other

Customer Service and Opinions Question 24 asked respondents to give their opinion on various aspects of their bus trip for that day on a scale of “1” (very poor) to “5” (very good); a response of “3” indicates a neutral response. Figure 3-17 displays the results of this survey question. Customer satisfaction was rated above “3” in all categories, indicating that the riders are overall pleased with many aspects of RTS service. The lowest score was in response to shade and shelter availability at locations where the respondents waited for the bus, followed by the length of the respondent’s trip and how often the buses run on that route. These are consistent with responses to Question 13. Figures 3-18 and 3-19 display the riders that did and did not use a Gator1 or SF ID to board the bus, respectively (Satisfaction rating: 1=Very Poor, 3=Fair, 5=Very Good).

Transit Development Plan

40

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-17: Bus Rider Satisfaction Your overall satisfaction with RTS?

4.1

How user-friendly is the RTS website, www.go-rts.org?

4.0

How was the shade or shelter where you waitied?

3.6

How safe did you feel while waiting for the bus?

4.4

How on-time is this bus running today?

4.1

How is the length of time your trip takes?

3.8

How directly does this route go to your destination?

4.1

How courteous was the Bus Operator during your trip?

4.3

How often the buses run on this route?

3.9 0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3-18: Gator1 and SF ID User Satisfaction Your overall satisfaction with RTS?

4.2

How user-friendly is the RTS website, www.go-rts.org?

4.0

How was the shade or shelter where you waitied?

3.7

How safe did you feel while waiting for the bus?

4.4

How on-time is this bus running today?

4.1

How is the length of time your trip takes?

3.8

How directly does this route go to your destination?

4.2

How courteous was the Bus Operator during your trip?

4.3

How often the buses run on this route?

3.9 0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3-19: Non Gator1 or SF ID User Satisfaction Your overall satisfaction with RTS?

4.0

How user-friendly is the RTS website, www.go-rts.org?

4.0

How was the shade or shelter where you waitied?

3.3

How safe did you feel while waiting for the bus?

4.2

How on-time is this bus running today?

4.0

How is the length of time your trip takes?

3.8

How directly does this route go to your destination?

4.0

How courteous was the Bus Operator during your trip?

4.2

How often the buses run on this route?

3.8 0

Transit Development Plan

41

1

2

3

4

5

Gainesville RTS

The most significant of the score differences between the college ID holder and non-ID holder was the score for the shade or shelter where they waited for the bus. Lower scores for non-college ID holders indicate that better shelter and lighting in areas that do not typically serve student populations may increase user satisfaction in these two categories in the future. Given that student areas generally have higher bus frequencies, it is also not surprising that users that have to wait longer for the bus will place a greater emphasis on shade and shelter. Figure 3-18 displays the overall satisfaction of respondents by age. These responses all averaged above “Fair,” indicating a positive level of satisfaction among riders. As shown, respondents under the age of 20 were the least satisfied; however, this age group was only slightly less satisfied than the average score of the other age groups. Figure 3-21 displays respondent satisfaction by income, and Figure 3-22 displays respondent satisfaction by length of use of the RTS system. Respectively, the lowest score was reported by those in the lowest income brackets and first time riders; the latter is not a positive sign for retaining new users and should receive RTS attention. (Satisfaction rating: 1=Very Poor, 3=Fair, 5=Very Good). Figure 3-20 Bus Rider Satisfaction by Age

Figure 3-21 Bus Rider Satisfaction by Income

Over 75

4.1

Do not Work

4.0

65 to 74

4.0

$50,000 or more

4.1

55 to 64

4.0

45 to 54

4.0

$40,000 to $49,999

4.1

35 to 44

4.0

$30,000 to $39,999

4.1

25 to 34

4.0

$20,000 to $29,999

4.1

18 to 24

4.1

$10,000 to $19,999

4.1

Under $10,000

4.0

Under 18

3.9 1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3-22 Bus Rider Satisfaction vs. Length of RTS Bus System Use More than 5 Years

4.0

2 years to 5 Years

4.1

1 to 2 Years

4.1

6 Months to a Year

4.0

Less than 6 Months

4.1

First-time Rider

3.9 1

Transit Development Plan

2

42

3

4

5

Gainesville RTS

On-Board Survey General Conclusions The results from the on-board survey provide insight into various aspects of RTS service. Salient conclusions drawn from the on-board survey analysis are summarized below. 

RTS bus riders indicated that more frequent service on existing routes, later service on existing routes, and more Saturday service were the most desirable system-wide service improvements. These requests are strongly reflected in the ten year improvement schedule.



Most of the respondents indicated that they had been using the RTS bus system for 2–5 years. RTS needs to focus on retaining users once they are no longer a student.



In terms of transit dependency, more than one-quarter of riders stated they would drive if the bus was not available for their trip. This indicates that a number of choice riders use RTS bus service to complete their trips.



The RTS website, www.go-rts.com, is the primary source for riders to get their information about RTS service, schedules, and changes. Therefore, RTS needs to ensure it is kept current.



Almost 75 percent of respondents are between the ages of 18 and 24. Additionally, more than 75 percent of respondents used a Gator1 as their fare payment to board the bus.



The majority of respondents (85.4%) speak English at home. Of the respondents who reported speaking a foreign language at home, the distribution was 4.6 percent Spanish, 4.4 percent Chinese, and 5.6 percent other. RTS needs to direct LEP resources to those routes where these individuals were identified in the greatest numbers.



A comparison of the last on-board survey completed in 2009, revealed similar results and is displayed in Table 3-6. Interesting while all but two fields had the same top response, there was approximately a 5 percent difference in the share of responses that the top variable received for more than 50 percent of the questions showing in most cases increased diversity in responses. One of the fields that switched its top response was the one that dealt with interest in premium service, which changed from “Maybe” to “Yes” since the last survey performed, indicating an increasing interest in enhanced bus service. Furthermore, the number of respondents who selected increasing service frequency increased 15 percent, which seems appropriate considering the responses to premium service. The typical rider did not change. The overall satisfaction of RTS improved slightly from 4.0 to 4.1.

Transit Development Plan

43

Gainesville RTS

Table 3-6 Survey Question Comparison 2009 and 2013 Survey Question Trip Origin Type Transit Access Mode Trip Destination Type Transit Egress Mode Frequency of Making This Trip by Bus Frequency of Riding Bus History of Using RTS Mode If Not By Bus Fare Payment Type Reason for Riding Bus Service Improvements Interest in Using Express Service Preference for Accessing Information Age Gender Ethnicity Income Vehicles Available in Household Licensed Drivers in Household Overall Service Satisfaction

Top Response 2009 Survey Home Walked College/tech Walked 5 days 5 days 2–5 years Drive Gator1 Parking too expensive/ difficult Service frequency Maybe RTS website 18–24 Female White Do not work One One 4

2009% 51.8% 82.5% 38.9% 83.9% 45.4% 56.0% 38.4% 31.3% 75.9% 32.5% 26.4% 49.6% 29.8% 70.6% 56.4% 44.7% 31.7% 47.7% 44.1% NA

Top Response 2013 Survey Home Walked Home Walked 5 days 5 days 2–5 years Drive Gator1 Parking too expensive/ difficult Service frequency Yes RTS website 18–24 Female White Do not work One One 4.1

2013% 43.8% 74.0% 38.5% 77.1% 44.7% 48.6% 34.1% 28.2% 76.2% 24.9% 41.4% 37.5% 42.1% 74.2% 56.7% 42.8% 35.2% 43.1% 41.2% NA

2014 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In Spring 2014, RTS conducted interviews of Alachua County Commissioners, the Gainesville City Manager, Santa Fe College (SF) representatives, and representatives of UF as part of the public outreach effort for the 2014 TDP Major Update.20 Table 3-7 identifies the interviewees and their title. The interview responses are included in Appendix E.

20

The COA team was responsible for interviewing City of Gainesville Commissioners. A summary of their responses can be found in the appendix.

Transit Development Plan

44

Gainesville RTS

Table 3-7 Interviewees Interviewee Susan Baird Russ Blackburn Naima Brown Mike Byerly Charles Chestnut Linda Dixon Scott Fox Robert Hutchinson Jeff Lee Christen Louten Bob Miller Lee Pinkoson David Price

Title Commissioner, District 4 City Manager SF Vice President of Student Affairs Commissioner District 1 Commissioner District 5 UF Assistant Director, Facilities Planning & Construction Division UF Director, Transportation and Parking Services Commissioner, District 3 Local Coordinating Board Member Local Coordinating Board Member UF Associate Vice President of Business Affairs Commissioner, District 2 SF Acting Director of Student Life

Questionnaire Approach The interviewee questionnaire was designed to gather information about each respondent’s view of RTS, its needs, and its surrounding funding/policy issues. The interview questionnaire is included in Appendix F, and the results are summarized below. General Conclusions from Stakeholder Interviews General Questions All respondents indicated that they believe students make up the majority of the ridership for the RTS system. Several respondents stated their belief that lower-income and non-vehicle-owning populations make up the remainder. All of the respondents also believed that most of the trips on RTS are for trips to school, and approximately half said that the trips were work-related. Only one of the respondents stated that he used RTS service for the purpose of attending meetings on UF’s campus; other respondents indicated that the service was not as practical as trips made in their personal vehicles, considering their schedules. One user stated that RTS had a high percentage of buses that require climbing stairs to board and suggested this was preventing use by some older adults. Replacing these buses with kneeling buses that allow for more level boarding or a smaller step-up could improve ridership from this demographic.21 The respondents’ perception overall was positive; however, several noted that the perception of the public depends on their use of the system. Some also noted that they felt frustrated when they saw empty buses on the road. Service Needs Questions The majority of respondents stated that there is a need for additional transit service in Gainesville. Two respondents indicated that Route 75 should be improved when asked if there should be additional 21

RTS’s new bus purchases include only low-floor buses to improve system-wide access.

Transit Development Plan

45

Gainesville RTS

improvements to the service. When asked whether RTS should focus on adding new modes of service or focus on improving the existing service, the consensus was that the focus should be on improving the existing system. Three of the respondents stated that East Gainesville was not receiving adequate service. Several indicated that there should be service to the outlying municipalities or park-and-ride locations, but many noted the inefficiency of potential routes compared to ridership gains that could be achieved inside the city with improved/expanded service. The respondents from UF indicated the needs of staff and increased park-and-ride options that are not so close to campus. The majority of respondents believe that RTS does a good job with marketing efforts and that they would like to see improved frequency to increase the use of public transit in Gainesville. One respondent believed RTS should become a part of a regional database of services referred to as “one call, one click,” designed to improve coordination of regional travel. When stakeholders were asked what additional steps they felt RTS should take to increase its use in the GUA, responses were consistent about improving service and locating funding for the improvement of service. Several stakeholders also stated that pursuing a farefree zone would have a positive effect on the community and on RTS use. Funding/Policy Questions The majority of respondents did not have strong opinions about whether RTS should become a Regional Transit Authority instead of a City department; however, many agreed that it may help get additional funding. When asked what types of local funding should be available, the responses were varied; however, a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MTSU) was mentioned by two respondents, and several indicated the difficulty associated with implementing a sales tax. Several respondents stated their opposition to using the gas tax to fund transit services. All but one of the respondents stated that they would be willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system and more frequent transit service. The most common response to what a reasonable fare is for transit service was from $1.00 to $2.00, depending on transfers and length of the trip. The majority of respondents stated that service would improve and that ridership would rise at varying degrees. Stakeholder Interview Comparison 2009 and 2014 Responses from stakeholders were similar overall between the two survey years. Issues of time savings were cited as reasons they did not use transit and that service frequency and travel time were the most significant issues facing riders. The responses between both years considered the accessibility of each system and the level of service that the low-income, minority, older adult, and disabled populations have in using RTS. Respondents in 2009 were more focused on a lack of density in these specific areas that made accessing transit more difficult. Respondents in 2013 focused on the lack of amenities in both the areas where these riders live (shelters, curb ramps, benches, etc.) and improving features that make the bus more user-friendly for these populations (kneeling bus, low floors, etc.). Both sets of respondents indicated a need for enhanced service and more park-and-ride availability. Responses to funding questions varied between years and among respondents, but there was more of an emphasis on universal access and free fares in the previous survey.

Transit Development Plan

46

Gainesville RTS

DISCUSSION GROUPS A discussion group is an excellent tool for revealing the attitudes of a specific group of people because of the open-ended nature of group discussions. One discussion group held with representatives from a variety of organizations throughout the RTS service area constituency represented likely transit riders. The discussion group was held on April 29, 2014 in the Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) multi-purpose room located near Downtown Gainesville and the Rosa Parks Downtown Transit Center. Invitations were sent to more than 20 groups (see Appendix H); organizations represented at the discussion group were:        

MYcroSchool Gainesville City of Gainesville Neighborhood Planning United Way of North Central Florida Peaceful Paths Meridian Behavioral Healthcare Gainesville Regional Airport Builders Association of North Florida Santa Fe Displaced Homemaker Program

Presentation and Group Exercises The discussion group workshop was organized into three parts: 1. Presentation of the TDP and the transit planning process 2. Presentation and discussion of key questions 3. Polling exercise The discussion group began with a presentation of the TDP process and its purpose, an overview of the transit planning process, and also presentation of existing RTS goals. The presentation was designed to provide some background to the group on the focus of the workshop and to trigger some thought that would support the discussion of key questions. The transit planning overview was provided to convey to the group the importance of setting priorities that are consistent with community values. Following the discussion of key questions, the group was polled using electronic polling equipment. The polling exercise facilitated the effort to quantify the opinions of the group based on the sharing and exchange of ideas that occurred during the key question discussion. As indicated, three key questions were posed to the group for discussion:   

RTS impressions – what do you think and hear about RTS? Role of RTS – what is most important for RTS service: productivity or coverage? Proposed improvements – what would make RTS easier or more comfortable to use?

As each question was presented, clarifications and examples were made to the group regarding major concepts that were relevant to each. During the key question discussion, comments received for each

Transit Development Plan

47

Gainesville RTS

question were recorded on a large easel board to allow workshop attendees to see their comments and share them with the rest of the group. Ensuing discussions allowed attendees to elaborate or clarify any comments that needed additional information. Table 3-8 presents a list of comments received for each question during the discussion portion of the workshop. Table 3-8 Key Question Comments Q1: RTS Impressions

Q2: Role of RTS

Q3: Proposed Improvements

RTS is focused on students.

Ensure productive service.

More frequent service.

Service is not frequent enough.

Maximize service coverage.

Later service.

There is a lack of convenience.

Support economic development.

Reliable/consistent schedules.

Take cars off of the road.

Guaranteed ride home program.

Focus on residents.

More transit infrastructure.

After the discussion of key questions, polling exercise instructions were presented to the group. Using the electronic polling equipment, the group was asked to answer six questions that would gauge their preferences service improvements and on RTS priorities. The results for each of the questions are presented in Figures 3-23 through 3-28. Figure 3-23 Question 1: Which three things might make you or your constituents ride more often?

100% 78%

67% 44%

0% Shorter wait

Transit Development Plan

More comfortable wait

Safer walk to the stop

48

More comfortable bus

Faster bus trip

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-24 Question 2: What are the top 3 service improvements?

78% 67% 44% 33%

33% 22%

Improved on-time performance

Increased frequency

More weekend service

Later/earlier service

Improved bus stops

Connections to more areas

Figure 3-25 Question 3: What is most important for public transportation?

56% 44%

Achieving the highest ridership

Covering the most area

Figure 3-26 Question 4: What other goals are important?

78% 56% 33% 22%

Reduce environmental impacts

Transit Development Plan

Help create jobs

Enhance public spaces

49

Provide transportation to visitors

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-27 Question 5: Which characteristic is most important?

89%

11% 0% Cost effective service

Reliable service

Easy to use/comfortable service

Figure 3-28 Question 6: Are there areas outside of Gainesville that you would like to see served by transit?

No, 33%

Yes, 67%

Discussion Group Conclusions The workshop generated a large of amount of discussion on a number of RTS and public transportation priorities. Several salient conclusions can be drawn from the information gathered: 

Several of the attendees felt strongly that RTS is largely focused on providing service to UF and that more resources should be reallocated to residents of the city and county.



Attendees agree that more frequent service is a key priority for RTS. This is evident by the responses to polling questions 1 and 2, in which respondents indicated a shorter wait and more frequency as the top ranking priorities, respectively. In addition, there is an indirect association between high levels of service frequency and reliability. Reliability was by far the top ranking choice among the three choices given for Question 5.



Group responses were evenly distributed for one key transit planning question—Question 3, which asked respondents what was most important, providing broad coverage or increasing productivity. These two concepts are generally opposed to each other and, as demonstrated

Transit Development Plan

50

Gainesville RTS

through the results of this exercise, communities typically attempt to balance these priorities based on limited resources. 

The group felt strongly that public transportation is a tool for economic development. In Question 4, 78 percent indicated that helping create jobs is a major goal for public transportation.

OPEN HOUSE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS Open House Public Workshop #1 The first public workshop was held in October 2013 at the Old Gainesville Depot just north of the Downtown Rosa Park Transit Station, to allow accessibility to transit-dependent populations. This workshop provided an overview of the COA process and gathered input from the attendees about what they thought were the needs of RTS. Exercises included providing individuals with maps on which to draw new routes they desired or to make modifications to existing routes, as well as with imaginary money to allocate among different service options.22 Open House Public Workshop #2 The second workshop was held at the beginning of May 2014 at Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), also conveniently located near the Rosa Parks Downtown Station. The workshop reviewed the COA analysis and its four general parts: a performance assessment of existing transit services, identification of existing and future community transit service needs, development of future transit service plans to address existing deficiencies and future needs, and an estimation of future operating and capital costs to implement and maintain recommended future transit services and facilities. Attendees were able to rank the COA improvement packages to help identify improvement staging in the 10-year financial plan. The audience also was introduced to the TDP update, tasks, and timeframes for their completion with input sought on RTS’s long-term vision and goals. These exercises also were carried out during the day with the TDP and COA consultant teams stationed at Rosa Parks Downtown Station, Oaks Mall, and Butler Plaza for several hours at a time. CAREER SOURCE SURVEY Employees of Career Source of North Central Florida distributed surveys to persons to whom they provided services in March and May 2014 to determine their use of transit and their perspective on RTS service. The questions asked and responses given to the 31 surveys returned are discussed below. The first two questions of the survey are displayed in Figures 3-29 and 3-30.

22

Appendix C contains a summary of responses as recorded by the COA consultant team.

Transit Development Plan

51

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-29 Do you live in the city of Gainesville?

Figure 3-30 Do you ride the RTS bus to travel in and around Gainesville?

NO 3%

NO 13% YES 87%

YES 97%

Question 2a asked respondents who answered “no” to Question 2 to select from multiple choices about why they did not. The four respondents who stated they did not use the bus had various reasons. One claimed that he used to ride the bus before purchasing a vehicle and another stated that the bus does not go to Jobs Corps on the weekend. Both other respondents indicated that the bus stops needed more benches and shelters, that the buses do not travel where they need to go, and that the bus does not run frequently enough. Question 2b asked the 27 (87%) respondents who do ride the bus to travel in and around Gainesville to write in the routes they typically use. The results of this question are displayed in Figure 3-31. As shown, routes 1, 13, and 43 were the most common responses among respondents.23 Figure 3-31 Routes Typically Used by Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1

2

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 25 28 34 35 36 40 43 62 75

Question 3 asked respondents to indicate what three things might make you ride more often? The results of this question are displayed in Figure 3-32. As shown, the most frequent response that might was a shorter wait for the bus, followed by a faster trip. Increased frequencies and speed of service are common responses for service improvements among riders.

23

Only routes with at least one write-in are displayed.

Transit Development Plan

52

Gainesville RTS

Figure 3-32 Respondent Reasons to Ride More Often 50%

47%

44%

40% 30%

23%

20%

12%

10%

9%

5%

7%

0% A shorter Safer walk to A more More A faster trip More places wait the bus stop comfortable comforable to go bus wait at the bus stop

Other

Workforce Survey Conclusions The workforce survey represented a small sample group but the responses were relatively consistent with the responses from the other surveys conducted during the TDP and COA processes. The reasons for not using RTS service revolve around lack of frequency or span of service. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH The PIP for the RTS 2015 TDP update was successful in collecting feedback from both users and nonusers on RTS’s current services, proposed services, and goals and objectives. As a result, the activities completed in this effort meet the requirements of Florida Rule 14-73.001 governing the creation of transit plans and are consistent with what was outlined in the PIP submitted to FDOT and approved at the beginning of the TDP Major Update process. Information for the TDP was solicited and collected from all interested parties regardless of race, creed, income level, age, ethnic background, country of origin, or any other protected category, with meeting advertisements in Spanish and English.

Transit Development Plan

53

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 4: RTS SERVICE LEVELS AND PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION This section of the RTS 2015–2024 TDP Major Update reviews and evaluates RTS’s operating characteristics and performance. This evaluation identifies areas of good performance and areas that present an opportunity for improvement. The following components are included in this section:  





Governance and Funding Existing Services Inventory o Fixed-Route o Paratransit o Vehicle Fleet o Private Transportation Providers Performance Evaluation and Trends o Fixed-Route o Demand Response Peer Review Evaluation and Trends o Fixed-Route o Demand Response o RTS Fare Comparison

GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING RTS operates as a division of the City of Gainesville Public Works Department and is currently the only fixed-route public transit service provider in Alachua County. The system is governed by the City Commission, which also oversees all other City departments. As a City department, RTS shares resources with the City of Gainesville. This allows RTS to maintain lower administrative staffing and overhead levels, as reflected in the ratio of employees to revenue miles. As the agency grows, and if it were to expand service to other municipalities in the county, this governance structure may prove challenging. Although it is governed and managed through the City, RTS receives funding from a variety of sources, including UF, SF, Alachua County, FDOT, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); of these, UF provides the largest source of funding. This diverse funding base results in a very high farebox ratio, with approximately half of the operating costs covered through fares and fees. As such, RTS has the highest farebox ratio in the state and acts as a model for other transit agencies in this regard. The RTS service area totals 76 square miles. RTS also provides contracted complementary paratransit services for areas within Gainesville or within ¾-mile of an RTS fixed-route bus line. In FY2013, RTS had 278 full-time employees, including 35 administrative employees and 36 maintenance employees. RTS maintains a fleet of 123 buses for service on 42 weekday fixed routes. Late-night and weekend bus

Transit Development Plan

54

Gainesville RTS

services also are offered, although at lower service levels than peak weekday service. RTS maintains one transit center, the Rosa Parks Transit Center in Downtown Gainesville. Several other facilities function as transfer centers but lack the necessary infrastructure; the largest is located on the UF campus, with additional centers at the Oaks Mall, Butler Plaza, and SF. RTS currently is constructing a modern operational and maintenance facility south of downtown Gainesville near the undersized current facility. EXISTING SERVICES INVENTORY This section reviews the services that RTS provides in Gainesville and to the unincorporated parts of Alachua County. RTS directly operates fixed-route service and purchases paratransit service. The paratransit services include door-to-door transportation disadvantaged services and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation services. Fixed-route Services The RTS bus system (as of Spring 2014) is shown in Figure 4-1. Downtown Gainesville and UF act as the center for much of the service, with the majority of routes connecting in one of these two places. The regular one-way fare is $1.50, with half-fares available to groups such as veterans, youth, and persons with disabilities. Children 40 inches tall or shorter (roughly the height of a farebox) ride RTS for free when accompanied by an adult. Students attending UF and SF pay for unlimited rides with their student ID as part of student fees that are incorporated into their tuition. Services operate 7 days per week with weekday spans of approximately 20 hours or less and headways ranging from 9–105 minutes. Fixed-route Service Schedule and Ridership RTS provides fixed-route service seven days per week, with reduced levels of weekend service throughout the system. RTS adjusts its service schedule and routing several times a year to reflect population fluctuations associated with UF semester changes. Tables 4-1 through 4-6 display the schedule as of Spring 2014 for Monday–Friday, Saturday, and Sunday service. Ridership data for Fall 2013 are included in Appendix G. Revenue Hours Percentage Allocation RTS receives a portion of its operational funding through several public partnerships. The mechanism that determines the amount of funding contributed by each partner is tied to the number of revenue hours provided to that entity, which, in turn, is based on either jurisdictional revenue mileage, base service levels prior to the 1998 UF agreement, or a combination of the two. Table 4-7 displays the revenue percentage allocation for the City, County, UF, and SF.

Transit Development Plan

55

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-1 RTS Bus Route Published Map

Transit Development Plan

56

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-1 Summary of RTS Weekday Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014)

1

Downtown Station to Butler Plaza

4

60

6:00 AM

10:30 PM

15

15

18

60

60

Daily OneWay Trips 107

2A

Downtown Station to Walmart Supercenter

1

60

5:32 AM

7:32 PM

60

60

60

60

0

29

2B

Downtown Station to N. Main Post Office

1

60

6:33 AM

6:00 PM

60

60

60

60

0

16

5

Downtown Station to Oaks Mall

3

60

6:03 AM

2:00 AM

20

20

24

30

30

101

6

Downtown Station to Plaza Verde

1

60

5:40 AM

7:40 PM

60

60

60

60

0

29

7

Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows

1

60

6:03 AM

7:30 PM

60

60

60

60

0

28

8

Shands to North Walmart Supercenter

3

90

5:46 AM

10:20 PM

30

30

30

45

45

63

9

Reitz Union to Hunters Run

5

45

6:27 AM

1:50 AM

9

9

9

20

20

200

10

Downtown Station to Santa Fe

3

70

7:05 AM

7:00 PM

23

35

35

35

0

44

11A

Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows

1

60

5:30 AM

10:30 PM

60

60

60

60

60

35

11B

Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows

1

60

8:33 AM

4:00 PM

60

60

60

60

60

16

12

Reitz Union to Butler Plaza

5

50

6:20 AM

2:43 AM

10

10

12

23

23

178

13

Beaty Towers to Florida Works

3

30

6:28 AM

1:40 AM

10

10

10

30

30

164

15

Downtown Station to NW 13th Street

2

60

5:30 AM

10:30 PM

30

30

35

60

60

55

16

Beaty Towers to Sugar Hill

1.5

36

6:30 AM

1:33 AM

24

24

24

30

30

78

17

Beaty Towers to Downtown Station

1.5

36

6:42 AM

1:46 AM

24

24

24

30

30

78

20

Reitz Union to Oaks Mall

6

60

6:00 AM

1:30 AM

10

10

10

15

30

186

21

Reitz Union to Cabana Beach

5

50

6:30 AM

8:00 PM

25

10

10

25

0

144

23

Oaks Mall to Santa Fe

2

45

7:15 AM

10:00 PM

45

23

23

35

35

68

24A

Downtown Station to Job Corps

1

60

6:03 AM

7:30 PM

60

60

60

60

0

16

24B

Downtown to Airport

1

60

5:30 AM

6:00 PM

60

60

60

60

0

29

25

UF Commuter Lot to Airport

1

65

7:15 AM

6:35 PM

65

65

65

65

0

21

27

Downtown Station to Walmart Supercenter

1

60

7:15 AM

2:42 PM

60

60

0

0

0

14

Service Frequency Route

24

Description

Peak Buses

Cycle24

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

Lists most common cycle.

Transit Development Plan

57

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-1 (cont.) Summary of RTS Weekday Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014)

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

5:26 PM 1:30 AM 1:41 AM

16 20 10

16 20 10

16 20 10

0 25 23

0 50 45

Daily OneWay Trips 72 92 174

6:55 AM

6:25 PM

30

30

30

30

0

50

32 52 32 60

8:10 AM 6:55 AM 8:08 AM 7:27 AM

10:18 AM 8:55 PM 10:16 AM 3:00 PM

32 26 32 60

32 13 32 60

0 13 0 60

0 50 0 0

0 0 0 0

9 106 9 16

2

60

7:05 AM

5:28 PM

30

60

30

0

0

30

3 2 1 3 1 1

85 30 60 105 60 45

6:05 AM 7:10 AM 7:30 AM 6:00 AM 7:28 AM 7:30 AM

10:00 PM 5:37 PM 3:00 PM 7:30 PM 5:00 PM 10:50 AM

28 30 60 35 60 45

28 15 60 53 60 45

28 30 60 35 60 0

80 0 0 35 0 0

80 0 0 0 0 0

59 72 16 38 20 9

Service Frequency Route

Description

28 34 35

The Hub to Forest Park The Hub to Lexington Crossing Reitz Union to SW 35th Place The Hub to SW 34th Street Post Office The Hub to University Commons The Hub to Gainesville Place The Hub to Old Archer Road Santa Fe to Airport Beaty Towers to Walmart Supercenter Shands to Santa Fe UF - Downtown Circulator Oaks Mall to Lexington Crossing Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza Santa Fe to Haile Market Square Santa Fe to Cabana Beach

36 36U 38 38T 39 41 43 46 62 75 76 77

Transit Development Plan

Peak Buses

Cycle

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

3 3 5

48 60 50

7:44 AM 6:45 AM 6:30 AM

2

60

1 4 1 1

58

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-2 Summary of RTS Weekday Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014)

118

Park & Ride 1 (Cultural Center)

4

32

7:00 AM

7:00 PM

8

8

8

30

0

Daily OneWay Trips 169

119

Family Housing

1

30

7:00 AM

5:30 PM

30

30

30

0

0

42

120

West Circulator (Frat Row)

2

18

7:00 AM

7:30 PM

9

9

9

18

0

157

121

Commuter Lot

2

30

7:00 AM

7:10 PM

15

15

15

30

0

92

122

UF North/South Circulator

1

45

7:20 AM

5:05 PM

45

45

45

0

0

26

125

Lakeside

3

30

7:00 AM

5:20 PM

10

10

10

0

0

126

126

UF East/West Circulator

2

45

5:40 PM

2:00 AM

0

0

0

23

45

36

127

East Circulator (Sorority Row)

2

24

7:05 AM

7:15 PM

12

12

12

24

0

115

Service Frequency Route

Description

Peak Buses

Cycle

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

Table 4-3 Summary of RTS Weekday Service Operating Characteristics (Later Gator – Spring 2014) Route

Description

Peak Buses

Cycle

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

Service Frequency

Daily OneWay Trips

300

Later Gator A (Frat Row) - W, Th, F

3

30

8:30 PM

2:45 AM

10

74

301

Later Gator B (Southwest Gainesville) - Th, F

3

60

8:30 PM

2:55 AM

20

38

302

Later Gator C (Oaks Mall) - Th, F

3

75

8:30 PM

3:00 AM

25

30

Transit Development Plan

59

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-4 Summary of RTS Saturday Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes – Spring 2014) Peak Buses

Cycle

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

2

60

7:03 AM

1

60

5

Downtown Station to Butler Plaza Downtown Station to Walmart Supercenter Downtown Station to Oaks Mall

2

6

Downtown Station to Plaza Verde

8

Route

Description

Service Frequency Morning Peak

6:00 PM

7:03 AM

60

0.5

Shands to North Walmart Supercenter

9

Reitz Union to Hunters Run

10

Daily OneWay Trips

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

60

30

30

30

0

42

5:32 PM

60

60

60

0

0

22

7:03 AM

2:00 AM

30

30

30

30

30

74

60

8:03 AM

4:40 PM

120

120

120

0

0

10

1

90

6:35 AM

5:46 PM

90

90

90

0

0

16

1

40

9:07 AM

7:07 PM

0

40

40

40

0

31

0.5

60

7:03 AM

5:30 PM

120

120

120

0

0

11

1

60

7:03 AM

5:30 PM

60

60

60

0

0

22

12

Downtown Station to Santa Fe Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows Reitz Union to Butler Plaza

2

45

7:20 AM

7:18 PM

45

23

45

45

0

56

13

Beaty Towers to Florida Works

0.5

30

6:45 AM

6:03 PM

60

60

60

60

0

24

15

Downtown Station to NW 13th Street

1

60

7:03 AM

5:33 PM

60

60

60

0

0

22

16

Beaty Towers to Sugar Hill

0.5

30

7:15 AM

6:15 PM

60

60

60

60

0

23

20

Reitz Union to Oaks Mall

3

60

7:00 AM

8:10 PM

60

20

20

20

0

70

25B

UF Cultural Plaza to Airport

1

75

7:18 AM

5:50 PM

65

65

65

0

0

18

35

Reitz Union to SW 35th Place

1

45

7:05 AM

5:40 PM

45

45

45

0

0

29

75

Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza

1

105

6:40 AM

6:05 PM

105

105

105

105

0

14

1 2A

11A

Transit Development Plan

60

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-5 Summary of RTS Saturday Service (Campus and Later Gator – Spring 2014)

126

UF East/West Circulator

2

45

10:55 AM

2:00 AM

45

45

23

45

Daily OneWay Trips 54

128

Reitz Union to Lake Wauberg

1

60

9:30 AM

5:00 PM

60

60

0

0

16

300

3

30

8:30 PM

2:45 AM

0

0

0

10

74

3

60

8:30 PM

2:55 AM

0

0

0

20

38

302

Later Gator A (Frat Row) Later Gator B (Southwest Gainesville) Later Gator C (Oaks Mall)

3

75

8:30 PM

3:05 AM

0

0

0

25

30

303

Later Gator D (SW 13th Avenue)

2

60

8:45 PM

2:30 AM

0

0

0

30

23

305

Later Gator F (Butler Plaza)

2

60

8:30 PM

3:00 AM

0

0

0

30

27

Service Frequency Route

301

Description

Peak Buses

Cycle

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

Table 4-6 Summary of RTS Sunday Service (City and Campus – Spring 2014) Service Frequency Route

Description

Peak Buses

1 5 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35

Downtown Station to Butler Plaza Downtown Station to Oaks Mall Shands to North Walmart Supercenter Reitz Union to Hunters Run Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows Reitz Union to Butler Plaza Beaty Towers to Florida Works Downtown Station to NW 13th Street Beaty Towers to Sugar Hill Reitz Union to Oaks Mall UF Commuter Lot to Airport Reitz Union to SW 35th Place

2 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 2 1 1

1 60 90 40 60 45 60 60 60 60 75 45

10:03 AM 10:03 AM 10:16 AM 10:10 AM 10:03 AM 9:58 AM 10:03 AM 10:03 AM 10:15 AM 10:00 AM 9:48 AM 10:02 AM

126

UF East/West Circulator

1

45

10:55 AM

Transit Development Plan

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

5:30 PM 5:30 PM 5:46 PM 5:47 PM 5:30 PM 5:48 PM 5:45 PM 5:33 PM 5:34 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 5:40 PM

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0

30 60 90 40 60 45 60 60 60 30 65 45

30 60 90 40 60 45 60 60 60 30 65 45

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Daily OneWay Trips 30 16 10 24 16 22 16 16 16 30 18 21

11:40 PM

0

45

45

23

45

45

Cycle

Start of First Trip

Start of Last Trip

61

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-7 Summary of Percentage Revenue Hours Allocation (Spring 2014) Gainesville RTS Route

Route Description

City

County

Wkdy

Sat

Wkdy

Sat

UF Wkdy

Sat

29%

SF Sun

1

Downtown Station to Butler Plaza via Archer Road

71%

100%

2

Downtown Station to Walmart Supercenter via Lincoln Estates

100%

100%

5

Downtown Station to Oaks Mall via University Avenue

53%

51%

6

Downtown Station to North Walmart Supercenter via 6th Street

100%

100%

7

Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows

57%

8

Shands to North Walmart Supercenter via NW 13th Street

87%

100%

13%

100%

9

Reitz Union to Hunters Run

15%

100%

85%

100%

10

Downtown Station to Santa Fe via 16th/23rd Avenue

30%

70%

13%

30%

11

Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows via University

92%

92%

8%

8%

12

Reitz Union to Butler Plaza

13

NW 23rd Avenue to FloridaWorks via UF / 13th Street

18%

18%

15

Downtown Station to NW 13th Street

100%

100%

16

UF / Shands to Sugar Hill

54%

100%

17

UF / Shands to Downtown Station

20

Reitz Union to Oaks Mall via 20th Avenue

21

Reitz Union to Cabana Beach via 20th Avenue

23

Haile Market Square to Santa Fe via Fort Clarke

33%

24A

Downtown Station to Lamplighter

100

25A

UF Commuter Lot to Airport

47%

100% 49%

100%

43%

9%

9%

57% 100% 100%

100%

100%

73%

73%

100% 100%

46%

100%

100% 24%

63%

76%

37%

100%

100% 67% 100% 43%

Downtown Station to 16th Avenue / Health Department

28

The Hub to Butler Plaza via 20th Avenue

100%

34

The Hub to 34th Street Post Office / Lexington Crossing

100%

62

100%

100% 57%

27

Transit Development Plan

Wkdy

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-7 (cont.) Summary of Percentage Revenue Hours Allocation (Spring 2014) Gainesville RTS Route

Route Description

City Wkdy

County Sat

Wkdy

Sat

SF

Sat

Sun

54%

100%

100%

Wkdy

35

Reitz Union to SW 35th Place

36

Reitz Union to Butler Plaza via 35th Place

100%

38

Reitz Union to Gainesville Place

100%

39

Santa Fe to Santa Fe via 39th Avenue

41

Downtown Station to North Walmart Supercenter

43

Shands to Santa Fe

46

Reitz Union to Downtown

62

Santa Fe to Butler Plaza

75

Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza via 75th Street

76

Santa Fe to Haile Market Square

100%

77

Santa Fe to Cabana Beach

100%

Transit Development Plan

46%

UF Wkdy

100% 100% 44%

19%

27%

9%

100% 100% 17%

63

17%

83%

83%

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-8 Summary of Percentage Revenue Allocation for Campus Routes Gainesville RTS Route

UF

Route Description

Wkdy

117

Park-and-Ride 2 (34th Street)

100%

118

Park-and-Ride 1 (Cultural Center)

100%

119

Family Housing

100%

120

West Circulator/Fraternity Row

100%

121

North-South Campus

100%

122

Veterinary School/Shands

100%

125

Lakeside/Fraternity Row

100%

126

UF East/West Circulator

100%

127

Sorority Row/Beaty Towers

100%

128

Reitz Union to Lake Wauberg

Sat

Sun

100%

100%

100%

Table 4-9 Summary of Percentage Revenue Allocation for Later Gator Routes Service Plan Hours Comparison and Allocation Route

Transit Development Plan

Route Description

UF Wkdy

Sat

301

Later Gator B (Southwest Gainesville)

100%

100%

302

Later Gator C (Oaks Mall)

100%

100%

303

Later Gator D (SW 13th Avenue)

100%

305

Later Gator F (Butler Plaza)

100%

64

Gainesville RTS

Fixed-Route Bus Service Table 4-10 displays the current vehicles in the RTS fleet and the various technology that the vehicles have on-board. The average age of the RTS fleet is nine years. Table 4-10 Inventory of the Existing RTS Fixed-Route Vehicles

Length

Step or Ramp

Seating Capacity

Standing Capacity

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)

Automated Passenger Counting

Talking Bus

Hybrid

GILLIG

40

Step

43

19

no

no

no

no

2000

GILLIG

35

Ramp

32

53

yes

no

no

no

1

2000

GILLIG

40

Ramp

40

38

yes

no

no

no

9

2001

GILLIG

35

Ramp

32

53

yes

no

no

no

8

2001

GILLIG

40

Step

43

27

yes

no

yes

no

11

2001

GILLIG

40

Step

43

21

yes

no

no

no

15

2001

NOVA

40

Step

44

26

yes

no

yes

no

10

2005

GILLIG

40

Step

43

27

yes

no

yes

no

4

2006

GILLIG

40

Step

43

27

yes

yes

yes

no

12

2007

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

45

yes

yes

yes

no

5

2007

GILLIG

40

Step

43

27

yes

yes

yes

no

4

2009

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

45

yes

yes

yes

no

17

2010

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

45

yes

yes

yes

no

4

2011

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

44

yes

no

yes

no

2

2011

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

43

yes

no

yes

no

6

2012

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

43

yes

no

yes

no

2

2012

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

30

yes

yes

yes

yes

3

2013

GILLIG

40

Ramp

36

31

yes

no

yes

yes

Number of Vehicles

Year

Manufacturer

9

1997

1

Transit Development Plan

65

Gainesville RTS

Fixed-Route Length and Bus Stop Totals City and County Breakdown Table 4-11 displays the route length and stop totals for the entire route and the percent breakdown of each for Gainesville and Alachua County. Table 4-11 Fixed-Route Length and Stop Characteristics Route

Total Length

County Mileage Portion

City Mileage Portion

Total Stops

County Stops Portion

City Stops Portion

1

10.0

0%

100%

54

0%

100%

2A

15.1

12%

88%

64

8%

92%

2B

14.3

0%

100%

60

0%

100%

5

12.7

0%

100%

65

0%

100%

6

10.6

0%

100%

58

0%

100%

7

12.0

41%

59%

63

43%

57%

8

17.8

0%

100%

91

0%

100%

9

7.7

0%

100%

45

0%

100%

10

16.6

24%

76%

76

18%

82%

11

12.5

12%

88%

61

15%

85%

11B

12.8

12%

88%

61

15%

85%

11C

16.1

30%

70%

78

35%

65%

12

8.7

0%

100%

43

0%

100%

13

5.9

31%

69%

36

31%

69%

13B

6.5

28%

72%

38

29%

71%

15

14.3

0%

100%

74

0%

100%

16

6.0

0%

100%

32

0%

100%

16B

6.6

0%

100%

34

0%

100%

17

5.5

0%

100%

25

0%

100%

17B

6.1

0%

100%

27

0%

100%

20

11.0

0%

100%

52

0%

100%

20B

11.4

0%

100%

54

0%

100%

21

8.9

0%

100%

41

0%

100%

23

8.3

70%

30%

31

61%

39%

24

18.4

2%

98%

64

2%

98%

24B

19.4

5%

95%

67

3%

97%

25

15.8

0%

100%

61

0%

100%

25B

18.1

0%

100%

74

0%

100%

27

11.3

0%

100%

51

0%

100%

28

9.4

0%

100%

44

0%

100%

34

10.4

0%

100%

47

0%

100%

35

9.7

0%

100%

45

0%

100%

Transit Development Plan

66

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-11 (cont.) Fixed-Route Length and Stop Characteristics Route

Total Length

County Mileage Portion

City Mileage Portion

Total Stops

County Stops Portion

City Stops Portion

36

11.5

0%

100%

60

0%

100%

36B

6.6

0%

100%

36

0%

100%

38

7.5

0%

100%

35

0%

100%

38B

5.9

0%

100%

29

0%

100%

39

22.0

31%

69%

77

34%

66%

41

16.4

0%

100%

71

0%

100%

43

20.6

33%

67%

95

27%

73%

46

4.0

0%

100%

24

0%

100%

62

12.2

0%

100%

52

0%

100%

75

28.2

82%

18%

120

83%

18%

76

16.4

70%

30%

50

64%

36%

77

15.1

61%

39%

37

32%

68%

117

7.5

0%

100%

37

0%

100%

118

4.8

0%

100%

25

0%

100%

119

4.8

0%

100%

29

0%

100%

120

2.4

0%

100%

16

0%

100%

121

6.3

0%

100%

22

0%

100%

122

7.4

0%

100%

40

0%

100%

125

4.6

0%

100%

28

0%

100%

126

7.2

0%

100%

42

0%

100%

127

2.2

0%

100%

14

0%

100%

128

20.2

68%

32%

50

26%

74%

300

5.9

0%

100%

34

0%

100%

301

13.9

0%

100%

77

0%

100%

302

15.7

0%

100%

79

0%

100%

303

11.8

16%

84%

63

17%

83%

305

11.1

0%

100%

58

0%

100%

Paratransit Services The Alachua County Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) provides the City’s ADA service. MV Transportation is Alachua County’s CTC. As shown in Table 4-12, the service utilizes 22 vehicles, all of which have wheelchair capacity. The average age of the paratransit fleet is 5 years.

Transit Development Plan

67

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-12 Inventory of RTS Paratransit Vehicle Fleet Number of Vehicles

Year

Make

Description

Lift Type

Seats

Wheelchair Capacity

1 2 4 3 5 2 3 2

2006 2007 2007 2009 2011 2011 2012 2012

Ford Chevrolet Champion Chevrolet Chevrolet Chevrolet Ford Ford

E350 21' Cutaway 3500 21' Cutaway 3500 21' Cutaway Ricon 21' Cutaway 21' Goshen Cutaway 21' Crusader Bus 21' Crusader Bus F-450

Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 21

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Public and Private Transportation Providers A number of other public and private transportation providers, such as Megabus, provide service to/through Gainesville using Rosa Parks Downtown Station, UF Commuter Lot, or Hull Road as their destination stops. Table 4-12 shows these providers and schedules when the information was available. Table 4-13 Inventory of Private Transportation Providers that Serve Gainesville Agency/Provider

Route

Days

The Ride Solution

Palatka

Mon–Fri

GMG Transports Miami Bus Service

Gainesville to SE Fla. Gainesville to S Fla. Gainesville to Miami (Tampa) Gainesville to Miami (Orlando)

Varies Thurs–Sun Every day Every day

Magenta Line / Clay County Transit

Keystone Heights to Gainesville

Mon–Fri

Greyhound

To/from Gainesville

Mon–Sun

American E Tours

Thurs Every day Every day

Travelynx Fabulous Coach Lines Inc

Gainesville to South Fla. Gainesville to Miami (Tampa) Gainesville to Miami (Orlando) Charter Service Charter Service

A Candies Coachworks

Charter Service

Red Coach USA

Megabus

Annett Bus Lines Legendary Coaches AA Susie's Limo Stagecoach Transportation Holiday Coach Lines Source: RTS

Transit Development Plan

Charter Service Charter Service Charter Service Charter Service Charter Service

68

Address/Website 220 North 11th St., Palatka FL 32177, www.theridesolution.com www.gmgtrans.com www.miamibusservice.com 3975 NW South River Dr., Miami FL 33142, www.redcoachusa.com 604 Walnut St., Green Cove Springs FL 32043, www.clayccoa.org 101 NE 23rd Ave., Gainesville FL 32609, www.greyhound.com Miami FL, americanetours.com us.megabus.com Cocoa FL, Travelynx.com Branford FL, fabulouscoach.com Gainesville FL, candiescoachworks.com Ocala FL, annettbuslines.com Gainesville FL, legendarycoaches.com Jacksonville FL, suiselimo.com Ocala FL, stagecoachtransportation.com Gainesville FL, holidaycoachlines.com

Gainesville RTS

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND TRENDS25 This section evaluates RTS’s fixed-route transit and demand response services to provide a general overview of the state of the system. It examines how the system performs against its peers and how it has performed since the last major TDP update. FIXED-ROUTE TREND ANALYSIS Data for the effectiveness and efficiency indicators used in the trend analysis were compiled from National Transit Database (NTD) reports, as required by Section 5335, submitted for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 available from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS).26 Graphs, tables, and text summaries help illuminate patterns. Table 4-14 shows all of the variables used in this performance trend analysis. •

Performance Measures27 – quantity of service supply, passenger and fare revenue generation, and resource input.



Effectiveness Measures – service consumption and comparisons of passenger travel to another service attribute, further refined into: o o



Service effectiveness (SE) – travel obtained per unit of service Cost effectiveness (CE) – cost incurred per unit of travel or units of travel per cost

Efficiency Measures – the system’s ability to provide outputs as a function of inputs and to comparisons of time and money or distance and money; essentially, it provides an indication of cost incurred per unit of service or how expensive it is to operate.

25

Appendix I contains an evaluation of RTS’s service based on the standards adopted in June 2013 to satisfy FTA Title VI Circular 4702B. 26 Most current available. 27 Performance measures derive from basic units and, depending on their application, do not necessarily provide insight into acceptable or desirable performance. Measures become more meaningful when compared against each other on a per-unit basis. For an extreme but meaningful illustration, the number of passenger trips in New York City will be much higher than in Gainesville, but whether this also indicates a more efficient consumption of service can be determined only by analyzing how this service is consumed on an hourly, per-mile, per-dollar, etc., basis. This leads to the addition of effectiveness and efficiency measures, as presented below.

Transit Development Plan

69

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-14 Performance Review Measures, RTS Trend Review Analysis (2012) Performance Measures

Effectiveness Measures

Service Area Population

Passenger Trips per Capita (SE)

Passenger Trips

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile (SE)

Revenue Miles

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (SE)

Vehicle Miles Operating Expenses Passenger Miles Revenue Hours

Revenue Mileage between System Failures (SE) Vehicle Miles per Gallon (SE) Operating Expense per Capita (CE) Operating Expense per Passenger Trip (CE) Average Fare (CE) Farebox Recovery Ratio (CE)

Efficiency Measures Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Revenue Hours per Employee FTE Passenger Trips per Employee FTE

Vehicle Hours Revenue Speed Vehicles Operated in Maximum Svc. Fuel Consumption Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Vehicle Operated in Maximum Service Weekday Span of Service Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita Average Headway FTE = Full-Time Equivalent, CE = Cost Efficiency, SE = Service Efficiency.

Performance Measures The following summarizes observed trends among the performance measures, as shown in Table 4-15 and Figures 4-2 through 4-16.28 

Service area population increased during the five-year period from 2008 to 2012. The figure reflecting a spike in 2011 was erroneously reported to NTD in 2011, but was subsequently corrected in 2012. The actual 2011 service area population is estimated to be closer to 160,000.



The total number of passenger trips increased by nearly 20 percent from 2008 to 2012. As expected, revenue miles and hours also increased to provide the impetus for this growth in ridership; the reductions seen in 2009 were due to decreased campus service. The increases are attributable to service frequency improvements, the addition of new routes, and the extension of service span. The relation to non-revenue service stayed relatively constant. A new maintenance operations facility is planned that is close to the current facility and is not expected to have a significant effect on deadhead miles.

28

An attempt was made to create uniform Y-axis scale increments across similar valuables, but this should still be reviewed when comparing graphs.

Transit Development Plan

70

Gainesville RTS



Total operating expense increased 26.2 percent from 2008 to 2012. National increases in fuel prices, normal increases in labor costs, and service improvements led to these increases. Vehicles operated in maximum service increased by nine vehicles (from 88 to 97) due to peak period service improvements.



Total gallons of fuel consumed increased consistent with the increase in vehicles operated in maximum service.



Importantly, passenger trips increased at a greater rate than miles and hours of service, population growth, and fuel consumed. The large increase in ridership also appears to have had a minimal impact on revenue speed.



Span of service increased only slightly meaning that passenger growth primarily occurred within the service span that existed prior to 2008. Some of the increase in passenger trips may be accounted for by the improvement in average headway. Table 4-15 RTS Performance Measures, Trend Analysis (2008–2012)

Performance Measure

2008

2009

Service Area 149,173 151,294 Population Passenger Trips 9,004,928 8,939,980 Revenue Miles 2,846,734 2,821,703 Vehicle Miles 2,977,640 2,963,463 Operating Expense $16,396,047 $16,578,691 Passenger Miles 25,213,798 25,031,944 Revenue Hours 247,834 248,819 Vehicle Hours 257,940 258,820 Revenue Speed 11.5 11.3 (mph) Vehicles Operated 88 88 in Max Service Gallons of Fuel 902,120 842,930 Consumed Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Peak 10,251 9,579 Vehicle Weekday Span of 20.2 20.2 Service (hrs) Vehicle Miles per 20.0 19.6 Service Area Capita Average Headway 12.1 12.4 Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Transit Development Plan

% Change (2008–2012)

2010

2011

2012

151,294

187,781

160,000

7.3%

9,373,060 2,808,703 2,946,437 $16,673,905 26,244,568 255,786 265,803

9,964,034 3,138,234 3,254,102 $18,796,130 24,411,883 272,364 282,041

10,652,169 3,297,766 3,453,641 $20,684,101 26,097,814 288,112 298,561

18.3% 15.8% 16.0% 26.2% 3.5% 16.3% 15.8%

11.0

11.5

11.5

-0.4%

88

93

97

10.2%

878,621

907,026

970,740

7.6%

9,984

9,753

10,008

-2.4%

21.2

21.2

21.1

4.6%

19.5

17.3

21.6

8.1%

12.9

11.9

11.5

-5.1%

71

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-2 Service Area Population

Figure 4-3 Passenger Trips (000)

Figure 4-4 Revenue Miles (000)

Figure 4-5 Vehicle Miles (000)

Figure 4-6 Operating Expense (000)

Figure 4-7 Passenger Miles (000)

Transit Development Plan

72

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-8 Revenue Hours

Figure 4-9 Vehicle Hours

Figure 4-10 Revenue Speed (mph)

Figure 4-11 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

Figure 4-12 Gallons of Fuel Consumed

Transit Development Plan

Figure 4-13 Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Peak Vehicle

73

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-14 Weekday Span of Service (hrs)

Figure 4-15 Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita

Figure 4-16 Average Headway (mins)

Effectiveness Measures Selected effectiveness measures are presented in Table 4-16 and Figures 4-17 through 4-25. 

Passenger trips per capita increased overall from 2008 to 2012, a reflection of consistentlyincreasing route productivity. The same can be said about revenue miles and hours—passenger trip growth outpaced both.



Revenue miles between system failures increased 78.7 percent from 2008 to 2012. The replacement of more than 20 older buses with new or newer buses between 2010 and 2012 likely contributed to fewer failures.



Fuel efficiency increased as reflected by an increase in average miles per gallon. This may be attributable to new/newer vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including the addition of some hybrid vehicles to the fleet.

Transit Development Plan

74

Gainesville RTS



The average fare increased for the period, likely related to a fare increase from $1.00 to $1.50 and a greater proportion of service being funded by UF and SF.



The farebox recovery ratio, already higher than many other transit agencies in Florida, increased from 2008 to 2012. The increase in farebox recovery also is attributable to increased funding from UF and SF.



Operating expense per capita increased from 2008 to 2012, following the trend of operating expense outpacing population growth over the long term. This largely mimics the trend of operating expense per trip with 2010 being the only year in which passenger trips increased at a greater rate than operating expense. Table 4-16 RTS Effectiveness Measures, Trend Analysis (2008–2012) 2008

2009

2010

2011*

2012

% Change FY 2008–12

Passenger Trips per Capita

60.4

59.1

62.0

53.1

66.6

10.3%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.2

2.2%

Effectiveness Measure Service Effectiveness

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

36.3

35.9

36.6

36.6

37.0

1.8%

Revenue Miles between System Failures

4,073

4,180

5,475

6,353

7,280

78.7%

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.6

7.9%

$0.99

$1.09

$1.09

$1.12

$1.17

18.2%

$109.91

$108.56

$110.20

$100.10

$129.20

17.6%

$1.82

$1.85

$1.78

$1.89

$1.94

6.6%

54.1%

59.2%

61.5%

59.4%

60.3%

11.4%

Vehicle Miles per Gallon Cost Effectiveness Average Fare Operating Expense per Capita Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Farebox Recovery Ratio Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Transit Development Plan

75

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-17 Passenger Trips per Capita

Figure 4-18 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Figure 4-19 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Figure 4-20 Revenue Miles Between System Failures

Figure 4-21 Vehicle Miles per Gallon

Figure 4-22 Average Fare

Transit Development Plan

76

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-23 Operating Expense per Capita

Figure 4-24 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Figure 4-25 Farebox Recovery Ratio

Efficiency Measures Efficiency measures are presented in Table 4-17 and Figures 4-26 through 4-27. 

Overall operating expense increased by more than operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile, which indicates productive service improvements.



RTS continues to be staffed efficiently, as evidenced by an increase in passenger trips per employee (consistently the highest in the state). However, service expansion likely resulted in a need for additional employees, as evidenced by a decrease in revenues hours per employee.

Transit Development Plan

77

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-17 RTS Efficiency Measures, Trend Analysis (2008–2012) 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

% Change 2008–2012

$5.76 $66.16 1,139 41,391

$5.88 $66.63 1,145 41,171

$5.94 $65.19 1,107 40,574

$5.99 $69.01 1,134 41,486

$6.27 $71.79 1,043 43,246

8.85% 8.51% -8.36% 4.48%

Measure Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Revenue Hours per Employee FTE Passenger Trips per Employee FTE Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Figure 4-26 Operating Expenses per Revenue Mile

Figure 4-27 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

Figure 4-28 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE

Figure 4-29 Passenger Trips per Employee FTE

The summary in Table 4-18 includes the percent change of RTS over time between 2008 and 2012, and whether they are performing in a neutral (less than +/- 10%), negative (undesirable), or positive

Transit Development Plan

78

Gainesville RTS

(desirable) state. Included also are the percent change figures from the last major TDP update. Between 2008 and 2012, RTS performed better for almost every variable than it did between 2003 and 2008. Table 4-18 Summary of RTS Trend Analysis (2008–2012) Performance Measure

Percent Change (2003–2008)

Percent Change (2008–2012)

Indicator* (2008–2012)

General Performance Service Supply Service Area Population 3.47% 7.26% NA Passenger Trips 11.13% 18.30% NA Revenue Miles 18.20% 15.84% NA Vehicle Miles 15.30% 15.99% NA Operating Expenses 50.18% 26.15% NA Passenger Miles -7.14% 3.51% NA Revenue Hours 14.45% 16.25% NA Vehicle Hours 12.97% 15.75% NA Revenue Speed 13.18% -0.35% NA Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 0.00% 10.23% NA Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed 13.25% 7.61% NA Gallons Consumed per Peak Vehicle 15.28% -2.38% (o) Weekday Span of Service 4.56% 4.61% NA Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita 10.27% 8.12% NA Average Age of Fleet -10.61% -24.06% (+) Average Headway -2.42% -5.12% (o) Effectiveness Measures Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Capita 7.40% 10.23% (+) Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile -5.99% 2.22% (o) Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour -4.92% 1.76% (o) Revenue Miles between System Failures 34.61% 78.76% (+) Vehicle Miles per Gallon 0.00% 7.88% (o) Cost Effectiveness Average Fare *90.91% 18.18% (+) Operating Expense per Capita 45.14% 17.62% (-) Operating Expense per Passenger Trip 35.14% 6.59% (o) Farebox Recovery Ratio 7.04% 11.40% (+) Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Revenue Mile 27.05% 8.85% (o) Operating Expense per Revenue Hour 28.49% 8.51% (o) Vehicle Utilization Revenue Hours per Employee FTE 1.54% -8.36% (o) Passenger Trips per Employee FTE -3.56% 4.48% (o) Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile 2.34% -0.12% (o) *Reported in 2003 as $0.09. (+) = Positive Trend; (o) = Neutral Trend; (-) = Negative Trend. NA = Not Available Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS

Transit Development Plan

79

Gainesville RTS

DEMAND RESPONSE TREND ANALYSIS A similar analysis to the one above was also completed for RTS’s demand response service. Where applicable, it considered the same performance, effectiveness, and efficiency manners. Table 4-19 shows all of the variables used in this performance trend analysis. Table 4-19 Performance Review Measures, RTS Demand Response Trend Review Analysis (2012) Performance Measures

Effectiveness Measures

Passenger Trips

Passenger Trips per Capita (SE)

Average Trip Length (in miles)

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile (SE)

Efficiency Measures Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

Revenue Miles Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (SE) Vehicle Miles Revenue Mileage between Failures (SE) Operating Expenses Vehicle Miles per Gallon (SE) Passenger Miles Operating Expense per Capita (CE) Revenue Hours Operating Expense per Trip (CE) Vehicle Hours Revenue Speed Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Fuel Consumption Weekday Span of Service Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita SE = Service Efficiency, CE = Cost Efficiency

Performance Measures The following summarizes observed trends among the performance measures, as shown in Table 4-20 and Figures 4-30 through 4-41. 

The total number of passenger trips increased by nearly 30 percent from 2008 to 2012. As will be discussed later, demand response trips increased at a greater rate than RTS’s directlyoperated fixed-route service for this period..



During this time, the average passenger trip length increased by two miles, which explains the large increase in passenger miles. Operating speeds also increased greatly, which explains why the increase in revenue miles is larger than the increase in revenue hours.



Total operating expense increased almost 52 percent from 2008 to 2012. It is important to note that the large increase occurred between 2008 and 2009, when RTS executed a new contract for its demand response service that established higher trip rates, as the prior contract trip rates had been fixed since that contract was executed in 2003.

Transit Development Plan

80

Gainesville RTS



Importantly, passenger trips increased at a slower rate than the other selected performance measures, except for revenue hours.



Despite an overall increase in fuel consumption the amount consumed per vehicle fell by 3 percent during this period. Table 4-20 RTS Performance Measures, Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008–2012)

Performance Measure

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

% Change (2008–2012)

Average Passenger Trip Length 7.2 8.2 8.2 9.2 9.2 (mi) Passenger Trips 38,314 39,728 44,020 45,296 49,526 Revenue Miles 275,353 327,670 366,785 421,344 470,191 Vehicle Miles 329,806 379,516 434,998 499,704 557,635 Operating Expense $773,171 $1,132,819 $1,197,407 $1,130,877 $1,171,190 Passenger Miles 315,707 325,770 360,964 416,552 455,452 Revenue Hours 22,468 24,601 22,822 25,160 27,791 29 Vehicle Hours 26,636 28,262 26,982 25,160 32,857 Revenue Speed 12.3 13.3 16.1 16.8 16.9 Vehicles Operated in Maximum 16 22 21 35 35 Service Fuel Consumption NA 79,348 162,266 96,598 122,130 30 Weekday Span of Service 17 17 17 17 17 Vehicle Miles per Service Area 2.2 2.5 NA 2.7 3.5 Capita Note: Revenue/vehicle hours reported in 2011 are likely not comparable to other years. NA = Not Available Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Figure 4-30 Average Passenger Trip Length (miles)

28.0% 29.3% 70.8% 69.1% 51.5% 44.3% 23.7% 23.4% 38.1% 118.8% 53.9% 0.0% 57.9%

Figure 4-31 Passenger Trips

29

Vehicle Hours was incorrectly reported the same as revenue hours. This value was inadvertently unchanged during this period. The ADA portion of RTS’s demand response service mimics that of its fixed route service. 30

Transit Development Plan

81

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-32 Revenue Miles

Figure 4-33 Vehicle Miles

Figure 4-34 Operating Expenses

Figure 4-35 Passenger Miles

Figure 4-36 Revenue Hours

Transit Development Plan

Figure 4-37 Vehicle Hours

82

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-38 Revenue Speed

Figure 4-39 Vehicle Operated in Maximum Service

Figure 4-40 Fuel Consumption*

Figure 4-41 Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita

*2008 data not available

Effectiveness Measures Selected effectiveness measures are presented in Table 4-21 and Figures 4-42 through 4-48. 

Passenger trips per revenue mile decreased from 2008 to 2012, following the trend of revenue miles outpacing passenger trips over the same period of time and reflecting the increase in average passenger trip length and operating speeds. Conversely, passenger trips per revenue hour increased from 2008 to 2012.



Over the next planning horizon, vehicle maintenance will need to be a focus area, with negative trends exhibited for both revenue mileage between system failures and vehicle miles per gallon.



Although operating expense per passenger trip increased from 2008 to 2012, the measure has decreased since 2010.

Transit Development Plan

83

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-21 RTS Effectiveness Measures, Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008–2012) Effectiveness Measure Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Capita Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Revenue Mileage between System Failures (SE) Vehicle Miles per Gallon (SE) Cost Effectiveness Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Capita (CE) Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

2008

2009

2011

% Change (20082012)

2012

0.26 0.14 1.7

0.26 0.12 1.6

0.29 0.12 1.9

0.24 0.11 1.8

0.31 0.11 1.8

19.2% -21.4% 4.1%

27,535

40,959

30,565

9,576

10,449

-62.1%

4.8

2.7

5.2

4.6

-4.4%

$28.51 $7.49

$27.20 $7.91

$24.97 $6.02

$23.65 $7.32

17.2% 41.3%

$20.18 $5.18

Figure 4-42 Passenger Trips per Capita

Figure 4-43 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Figure 4-44 Revenue Mileage between System Failures (SE)

31

2010

Figure 4-45 Vehicle Miles per Gallon (SE)31

Information for 2008 was not available.

Transit Development Plan

84

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-46 Operating Expense per Capita (CE)

Figure 4-47 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Figure 4-48 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Efficiency Measures Efficiency measures are presented in Table 4-22 and Figures 4-46 and 4-47. 

Both efficiency measures reflect the trends observed above. Table 4-22 RTS Efficiency Measures, Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008–2012) Measure

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

% Change 2008–2012

Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

$2.81 $34.41

$3.46 $46.05

$3.26 $52.47

$2.68 $44.95

$2.49 $42.14

-11.4% 22.5%

Transit Development Plan

85

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-49 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

Figure 4-50 Operating Expenses per Revenue Hour

The summary in Table 4-23 includes the percent change of RTS over time between 2008 and 2012 and whether it is performing in a neutral (less than +/- 10%), negative (undesirable), or positive (desirable) state.

Transit Development Plan

86

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-23 Summary of RTS Demand Response Trend Analysis (2008–2012) Percent Change (2008–2012)

Indicator* (2008–2012)

Passenger Trips

29.26%

NA

Revenue Miles

70.76%

NA

Vehicle Miles

69.08%

NA

Operating Expenses

51.48%

NA

Passenger Miles

44.26%

NA

Revenue Hours

23.69%

NA

Vehicle Hours

23.36%

NA

Revenue Speed

38.05%

NA

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

118.75%

NA

Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed

53.92%

NA

Weekday Span of Service

0.00%

NA

Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita

57.92%

NA

Average Age of Fleet

-36.50%

(+)

Average Trip Length

27.96%

(o)

Passenger Trips per Capita

19.23%

(+)

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

-21.43%

(-)

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

4.09%

(o)

Revenue Miles between System Failures

-62.05%

(-)

Vehicle Miles per Gallon**

-4.39%

(o)

Operating Expense per Capita

41.31%

(-)

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

17.20%

(-)

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

-11.39%

(+)

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

22.46%

(-)

Performance Measure General Performance Service Supply

Effectiveness Measures Service Effectiveness

Cost Effectiveness

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency

Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile 1.20% (o) **=2008 data not available, 2009 data used. (+) = Positive Trend; (o) = Neutral Trend; (-) = Negative Trend, NA = Not Available Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Transit Development Plan

87

Gainesville RTS

PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS A peer review analysis was conducted for RTS to compare its performance with other transit systems having similar characteristics. Performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures are provided in tabular and graphical formats to illustrate the performance of RTS relative to the peer group. For each selected indicator and measure, the tables provide the RTS value, the minimum value among the peer group, the maximum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent difference that RTS values are away from the mean. Finally, an indicator is given as to whether the RTS score is positive, negative, or not applicable (N/A) within the selected peer group. Peer System Selection Methodology The peer selection was conducted using 2012 NTD data available from the FTIS database. The FTIS contains a reporting module that identifies peers based on agency similarity across a number of variables, including:        

College population Service area population Service area population density Passenger trips Operating expense Revenue miles Average speed Vehicles operated in maximum service

Peers were first identified by filtering down to only those systems in which the college population is greater than 40 percent of the service area population. The list was then further refined based on similarities across the other variables listed above and comparisons in prior TDPs for historic purposes. Table 4-24 presents the results of the peer selection. Performance Measures Selected performance measures for the peer review are presented in this section. Categories of performance measures largely reflect those presented in the trend analysis. Table 4-25 presents the measures used to evaluate the peers, and Table 4-26 displays the measures of RTS compared to the means of the peer group.

Transit Development Plan

88

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-24 Selected Peer Systems: RTS Peer Review Analysis (2012) System

Location

32

Lane Transit District (LTD) Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA Ride) City of Tallahassee (StarMetro) Athens Transit System (TheBus) Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (TheRide) Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD)

Eugene, OR State College, PA Tallahassee, FL Athens, GA Lansing, MI Ann Arbor, MI Urbana, IL

Table 4-25 Performance Review Measures, RTS Peer Review Analysis (2012) Performance Measures Service Area Population

Effectiveness Measures Passenger Trips per Capita (SE)

Passenger Trips

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile (SE)

Revenue Miles

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (SE) Revenue Mileage between System Failures (SE) Vehicle Miles per Gallon (SE) Operating Expense per Capita (CE) Operating Expense per Passenger Trip (CE) Average Fare (CE) Farebox Recovery Ratio (CE)

Vehicle Miles Operating Expenses Passenger Miles Revenue Hours

Efficiency Measures Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Revenue Hours per Employee FTE Passenger Trips per Employee FTE

Vehicle Hours Revenue Speed Vehicles Operated in Max. Svc. Fuel Consumption Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Vehicle Operated in Max. Svc. Weekday Span of Service Veh. Miies per Svc. Area Capita Average Headway FTE = Full-Time Equivalent, CE = Cost Efficiency, SE = Service Efficiency

32

Information from Lane Transit District is broken out into two categories, Fixed-Route Local Bus-Only and Fixed-Route Local Bus + Bus Rapid Transit. The Local-Bus-Only information was used to calculate the peer group mean, and the Local Bus + Bus Rapid Transit is presented alongside for comparison.

Transit Development Plan

89

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-26 Performance Measures: RTS Peer Review (2012) Indicator Service Area Population Service Area Pop. Density (persons/sq. mi.) Passenger Trips Revenue Miles Vehicle Miles Operating Expenses Passenger Miles Revenue Hours Vehicle Hours Revenue Speed (MPH) Vehicles Operated in Max. Service Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Peak Vehicle Weekday Span of Service (hrs) Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita Average Age of Fleet Average Headway Source: NTD data reported by FTIS.

RTS 160,000 2,105 10,652,169 3,297,766 3,453,641 $20,684,101 26,097,814 288,112 298,561 11 97 10,008 21 22 7.0 11.5

Peer Group Minimum 112,000 617 1,789,737 764,370 793,825 $4,062,876 5,188,373 66,351 67,882 10 22 8,494 16 7 5.0 10.4

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

297,500 4,716 11,351,420 3,297,766 3,453,641 $29,010,513 34,829,555 288,112 298,561 13 97 11,510 24 23 8.7 38.6

186,261 2,156 7,687,024 2,389,733 2,554,946 $19,503,753 21,646,583 197,790 207,607 12 68 10,077 20 14 6.9 21.2

Some observations from the summary performance measure information are: 

RTS carries more passengers than the peer average despite having a smaller population and lower density than the average of its peers. A lower population density, however, can present productivity challenges, regardless of the level of service.



The revenue miles and revenue hours for RTS are above the peer group mean. Given a population less than the mean, this indicates that RTS is providing a higher degree of service per capita. As expected, vehicles operated in maximum service are also higher than the peer group mean. Since RTS does not have the maximum number of passenger trips among its peers, some of the other peer agencies are experiencing greater service consumption on a per-trip and perhour basis than RTS.



Overall operating expenses are only slightly above the peer group mean compared to passenger trips, revenue miles, and revenue hours, which were all substantially higher than the peer group mean. This suggests that RTS services are operating efficiently compared to the peer group.



Weekday span for RTS is above the peer group mean, indicating that earlier and/or later service is being provided by RTS as compared to the peer group, which corresponds to the above average provision of service miles and hours. As another indicator of quality of service provision, RTS’s average headway is far superior to the peer group average.

Transit Development Plan

90

Gainesville RTS

Figures 4-51 through 4-65 present the performance measures for the RTS peer review analysis. Figure 4-51 Service Area Population

Figure 4-52 Service Area Population Density (persons/square mile)

Figure 4-53 Passenger Trips (000)

Figure 4-54 Revenue Miles (000)

Figure 4-55 Vehicle Miles (000)

Figure 4-56 Operating Expense ($000)

Transit Development Plan

91

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-57 Passenger Miles (000)

Figure 4-58 Revenue Hours

Figure 4-59 Vehicle Hours

Figure 4-60 Revenue Speed (mph)

Figure 4-61 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

Figure 4-62 Gallons Consumed per Peak Vehicle

Transit Development Plan

92

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-63 Weekday Span of Service (hrs)

Figure 4-64 Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita

Figure 4-65 Average Headway (mins)

Effectiveness Measures Table 4-27 and Figures 4-66 through 4-74 present the effectiveness measures for the RTS peer review analysis.33 The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures for the peer review analysis. 

Passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per revenue hour are both within five percent of the peer group mean. This is an indication that RTS’s overall productivity is similar in comparison to the selected peer group mean. The high number of trips per capita indicates a propensity for the service area population to use transit.



Farebox recovery and average fare for RTS are both above the peer group mean and are the highest for the peer group. This means that RTS’s services require less public subsidy than its peers.

33

The definitions and categorizations of measures presented here differ slightly from the performance measures and standards developed as part of the triennial Title VI submittal to FTA. Future updates of RTS’s Title VI standards will work to rectify any inconsistencies.

Transit Development Plan

93

Gainesville RTS



Operating expense per capita is higher than the peer group mean. The peer group is made up of cities that each hosts a large university; however, UF has the largest student body of the peer group according to data maintained by the National Center for Education statistics. Students may be less likely to be reflected in population statistics for Gainesville. This tendency could affect Gainesville more than other cities in the peer group due to the relative size of the university.34



Vehicle miles per gallon is slightly less than the mean, as is revenue miles between system failures, but this may be partially attributable to RTS operating older vehicles compared to the peer group mean.35 Table 4-27 Effectiveness Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) RTS

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

66.6 3.2 37 7,280 3.6

15.3 2.1 22.2 2,302 3.1

77.6 4.4 55.9 21,997 4.3

43.6 3.1 38.4 8,124 3.7

$1.17 $129.28 $1.94 60.3

$0.58 $34.81 $1.61 17.9

$1.17 $194.48 $3.52 60.3

$0.81 $105.22 $2.57 34.5

Measure Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Capita Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Revenue Miles Between System Failures Vehicle Miles per Gallon Cost Effectiveness Average Fare Operating Expense per Capita Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Farebox Recovery Ratio (%) Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Figure 4-66 Passenger Trips per Capita

34 35

Figure 4-67 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

This is further compounded by the presence of Santa Fe College. A review of fuel types utilized by each agency would also have to be investigated for a complete understanding.

Transit Development Plan

94

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-68 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Figure 4-69 Revenue Miles Between System Failures

Figure 4-70 Vehicle Miles per Gallon

Figure 4-71 Average Fare

Figure 4-72 Operating Expense per Capita

Figure 4-73 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Transit Development Plan

95

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-74 Farebox Recovery (Ratio)

Efficiency Measures Table 4-28 and Figures 4-75 through 4-79 present the efficiency measures for the RTS peer review analysis. A key finding from these results includes the following: 

Operating expense per revenue hour and per revenue mile both are below the peer group mean. This is an indication of potentially lower labor costs and better control of items like overhead and other indirect costs relative to RTS’s peers. Table 4-28: Efficiency Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) Measure Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Revenue Hours per Employee FTE Passenger Trips per Employee FTE Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

RTS $6.27 $71.79 1,170 43,247 0.95

Figure 4-75 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

Transit Development Plan

Peer Group Minimum $5.32 $61.23 971 24,449 0.90

Peer Group Maximum $10.71 $136.74 1,170 54,435 0.96

Peer Group Mean $7.84 $95.75 1,067 40,685 0.94

Figure 4-76 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

96

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-77 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE

Figure 4-78 Passenger Trips per Employee FTE

Figure 4-79 Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile

Summary Results of Peer Review Analysis Table 4-29 provides a summary of the peer review analysis for the RTS system. The summary includes the percent that RTS is away from the peer group mean for each performance measure and, where applicable, whether they are performing in a neutral (o) (+/- 10% from mean), undesirable, or desirable state. Relative to its peers, RTS is performing in a neutral or positive manner for the majority of variables. It is important to note that for the passenger trips per revenue hour indicator, one of the three measures in which RTS is performing worse than the peer average, when looked at it in light of operating expense per passenger trips, the majority of agencies performing better are capturing these trips in a more expensive manner than RTS.

Transit Development Plan

97

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-29 RTS Peer Review Analysis Summary (2012) Percent From Mean

Measure

Performance Measures Service Area Population -14.1% Service Area Population Density (sq. mi.) -2.4% Passenger Trips 38.6% Revenue Miles 38.0% Vehicle Miles 35.2% Operating Expenses 6.1% Passenger Miles 20.6% Revenue Hours 45.7% Vehicle Hours 43.8% Revenue Speed (MPH) -5.2% Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 42.6% Gallons Consumed per Peak Vehicle -0.7% Weekday Span of Service 8.2% Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita 50.8% Average Age of Fleet 2.1% Average Headway -84.4% Effectiveness Measures Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Capita 52.6% Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile 2.6% Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour -3.8% Revenue Miles between System Failures -11.6% Vehicle Miles per Gallon -4.9% Cost Effectiveness Average Fare 44.4% Operating Expense per Capita 22.9% Operating Expense per Passenger Trip -24.5% Farebox Recovery Ratio 74.7% Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Revenue Mile -20.1% Operating Expense per Revenue Hour -25.0% Vehicle Utilization Revenue Hours per Employee FTE 9.7% Passenger Trips per Employee FTE 6.3% Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile 1.6% (+) = Positive Trend; (o) = Neutral Trend; (-) = Negative Trend

Indicator

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (o) NA (o) NA NA (o) (+)

(+) (o) (o) (-) (o) (+) (-) (+) (+)

(+) (+) (o) (o) (o)

Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

Transit Development Plan

98

Gainesville RTS

DEMAND RESPONSE PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS A peer review analysis was conducted for RTS’s demand response service with other transit systems having similar characteristics and that also provide demand response service. NTD data serve as the primary data source for peer analyses. As a mode, however, NTD does not distinguish whether the mode is open to the general public or only to specific groups, such as persons with disabilities. For this reason, each of these agencies was investigated to determine the structure of its demand response service. CATA was identified as the only agency among the peers that offers its service to the general public, which is a significant departure from the model used by RTS. Understanding the differences between the peer group agencies offers a tremendous opportunity to see potential impacts that these philosophies have on performance metrics. For this reason, CATA was kept in the analysis to provide insight as to the impact that opening demand response services to the general public may have on a paratransit system’s performance metrics. Performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures are provided in tabular and graphical formats to illustrate the performance of RTS relative to the peer group. For each selected indicator and measure, the tables provide the RTS value, the minimum value among the peer group, the maximum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent above or below that RTS values are away from the mean. Finally, an indicator is given as to whether the RTS score is positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable (N/A) standing within the selected peer group. Demand Response Peer System Selection Methodology The peer selection was conducted for the demand response using 2012 NTD data available from the FTIS database. The FTIS contains a reporting module that identifies peers based on their similarity across a number of variables including: 

College population



Service area population



Service area population density



Passenger trips



Operating expense



Revenue miles



Average speed Vehicles operated in maximum service



Peers were first identified by filtering down to only those systems in which the college population is greater than 40 percent of the service area population. The list was then further refined based on similarities across the other variables listed above and comparisons in prior TDPs for historic purposes. Table 4-30 presents the results of the peer selection.

Transit Development Plan

99

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-30 Selected Peer Systems, RTS Demand Response Peer Review Analysis (2012) System

Location

Lane Transit District (LTD) Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA Ride) City of Tallahassee (StarMetro) Athens Transit System (TheBus) Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (TheRide) Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD)

Eugene, OR State College, PA Tallahassee, FL Athens, GA Lansing, MI Ann Arbor, MI Urbana, IL

Performance Measures Selected performance measures for the demand response peer review are presented in this section. Categories of performance measures largely reflect those presented in the trend analysis. Table 4-31 presents the measures used to evaluate the peers, and Table 4-32 displays the measures of RTS compared to the means of the peer group. Table 4-31 Performance Review Measures, RTS Demand Response Peer Review Analysis (2012) Performance Measures

Effectiveness Measures

Average Trip Length (miles)

Efficiency Measures Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile (SE)

Passenger Trips Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (SE) Revenue Miles Operating Expense per Passenger Trip (CE) Operating Expenses Passenger Miles Revenue Hours CE = Cost Efficiency, SE = Service Efficiency

Table 4-32 Performance Measures, RTS Peer Review (2012) Indicator Average Trip Length (in miles) Passenger Trips Revenue Miles Operating Expenses Passenger Miles Revenue Hours

9.2 49,526 470,191 $1,171,190 455,452

Peer Group Minimum 3.3 8,020 61,629 $206,026 50,989

9.2 510,140 2,664,998 $14,073,846 4,446,489

Peer Group Mean 7.0 135,516 755,847 $3,316,890 1,058,199

27,791

3,804

183,267

57,857

RTS

Peer Group Maximum

Source: NTD data reported by FTIS.

Transit Development Plan

100

Gainesville RTS

Observations from the summary performance measure information include the following: 

RTS carries less passengers than the peer average, this is, in large part, due to RTS operating less revenue miles and revenue hours than the peer mean.



Overall, demand response service provided by LTD (Eugene, OR) and CATA (Lansing, MI) significantly increases the peer group mean therefore placing RTS’s demand response service well below the peer group mean.

Figures 4-80 through 4-85 present the performance measures for the RTS demand response peer review analysis. Figure 4-80 Average Trip Length (in miles)

Figure 4-81 Passenger Trips

Figure 4-82 Revenue Miles (000)

Figure 4-83 Total Operating Expense

Transit Development Plan

101

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-84 Passenger Miles (000)

Figure 4-85 Revenue Hours

Effectiveness Measures Table 4-33 and Figures 4-86 through 4-88 present the effectiveness measures for the RTS demand response peer review analysis.36 The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures for the demand response peer review analysis. 

Passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per revenue hour are both lower than the peer group mean. This is an indication that RTS’s overall productivity is lower in comparison to the selected peer group mean. Table 4-33 Effectiveness Measures, RTS Demand Response Peer Review (2012) RTS

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

0.11 1.78

0.11 1.49

0.35 3.3

0.17 2.17

$23.65

$11.57

$40.52

$25.16

Measure Service Effectiveness Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Cost Effectiveness Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

36

The definitions and categorizations of measures presented here differ slightly from the performance measures and standards developed as part of the triennial Title VI submittal to FTA (see Appendix I for an evaluation of RTS routes using these measures). Future updates of RTS’s Title VI standards will work to rectify any inconsistencies.

Transit Development Plan

102

Gainesville RTS

Figure 4-86 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Figure 4-87 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Figure 4-88 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Efficiency Measures Table 4-34 and Figure 4-89 present the efficiency measure for the RTS demand response peer review analysis. Key findings include the following: 

Operating expense per revenue hour is below the peer group mean. This is an indication of potentially lower labor costs and better control of items like overhead and other indirect costs relative to RTS’s peers.



Despite CATA having opened its service to the general public, there passenger trips per mile and operating expense per passenger trip are both above the peer average.

Transit Development Plan

103

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-34 Efficiency Measures, RTS Demand Response Peer Review (2012) Measure Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

RTS

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

$42.14

$38.18

$76.79

$51.21

Figure 4-89 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

Summary Results of Demand Response Peer Review Analysis Table 4-35 provides a summary of the demand response peer review analysis for the RTS system. The summary shows the percent difference between RTS and the peer group mean for each performance measure. Where applicable, RTS’s value represents a neutral (o) (less than 10% difference from average), negative (undesirable distance from average), or positive (desirable distance from average) performance. Relative to its peers, RTS is performing in a neutral or positive manner for many variables. It is important to note that for many of these metrics, the philosophy of RTS is to provide as many trips as possible on the lower-cost fixed-route service. By shifting as many of these trips as possible onto fixed-route service, a similar level of mobility is provided for a much lower operational cost. Another factor that may influence the length of each RTS trip is that users who qualify for paratransit service may prefer to pay the $3.00 fare for longer trips that would otherwise require one or multiple transfers via fixed-route service. Increasing frequency and making this transfer easier may allow even more of these trips to shift to lower-cost fixed-route service. When comparing RTS to CATA (the only system that has curb-to-curb service available to the general public), it is appears that opening up the service to the general public would not lower the cost per trip. CATA’s value for this service is comparable to other services and is higher than the cost per trip for fixed-

Transit Development Plan

104

Gainesville RTS

route services. With a service type that provides door-to-door service, it becomes very difficult to provide the efficiencies that fixed route offers in an urban environment, such as Gainesville. Table 4-35 RTS Demand Response Peer Review Analysis Summary (2012) Percent From Mean

Measure

General Performance Service Supply Average Trip Length (in miles) 31.3% Passenger Trips -63.5% Revenue Miles -37.8% Operating Expenses -64.7% Revenue Hours -52.0% Service Consumption Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile -36.7% Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour -18.0% Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Passenger Trip -6.0% Operating Expense per Revenue Hour -17.7 (+) = Positive Trend; (o) = Neutral Trend; (-) = Negative Trend

Indicator NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (o) (+)

Source: NTD data as reported by FTIS.

RTS FARE COMPARISON A fare comparison was done to evaluate RTS against all other Florida agencies. Table 4-36 shows the results of this analysis.37 For each fare category, RTS’s fare level is less than the state average. The largest difference occurs for monthly passes, where there is a 33 percent difference between the cost of an RTS monthly pass and the state average.38 Fare differences, however, are smaller when comparing RTS against the peer agencies used above. Relative to its peers, RTS full cash fare is 8 percent less than the average. RTS’s all-day and monthly passes, however, are 28 and 33 percent less than the average, respectively.

37

It is important to note that the figures in Table 4-36 are generalized and do not account for all the nuances associated with each fare type for each agency. 38 In July 2014, RTS installed new fareboxes across its fleet. These new fareboxes represent a leap in technology of over 20 years and offer the capability to introduce a number of new pass types. In Fall 2014, RTS will review its fare structure in its entirety, considering both the introduction of new pass types and fare levels for all pass types and trips.

Transit Development Plan

105

Gainesville RTS

Table 4-36 RTS Fare Comparison as of June 2014 Agency Name Gainesville Regional Transit System The Bus (Hernando) Martin County Transit Key West Dept. of Transportation St Johns Transit (St. Augustine) Lake Express (Tavares, Lake Co.) Treasure Coast Connector (St. Lucie) SunTran Ocala/Marion Transit OCT (Okaloosa County) Bay County Transit Manatee County Area Transit Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Lee County Transit Broward County Transit Division Lakeland Area Mass Transit District County of Volusia, VOTRAN Miami-Dade Transit Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority City of Tallahassee PalmTran Jacksonville Transportation Authority Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Sarasota County Area Transit Space Coast Area Transit Pasco County Public Transportation Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc. Indian River County Average of All Agencies Highest Fare Lowest Fare (excluding IRC) RTS Difference from high RTS Difference from low RTS Difference from Average NA = Not Available, * Not Reported to NTD

Transit Development Plan

Full Cash Fare $1.50 $1.25 $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 $2.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.25 $2.00 $1.25 $1.75 $1.50 $1.50 $2.25

All Day Pass $3.00 NA NA NA NA $3.00 $5.00 NA NA $4.00 $3.00 $4.50 $3.50 $4.00 $3.00 $3.50 $5.65

$35.00 $25.00 NA $25.00 $45.00 $30.00 $50.00 $45.00 $30.00 $35.00 $30.00 $65.00 $35.00 $58.00 $47.00 $45.00 $112.50

Discount Cash Fare $0.75 $0.60 NA $1.00 $1.00 $0.50 $1.00 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.60 $1.00 $0.60 $0.85 $0.75 $0.75 $1.10

2012 Average Fare $1.17 $0.71 * * $0.41 $0.55 $1.06 $0.78 $0.67 $0.70 $0.50 $1.08 $0.73 $0.87 $1.10 $0.66 $1.09

$2.00

$2.25

$50.00

NA

$0.96

232

$1.25 $2.00 $1.50 $2.00

$3.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.70

$38.00 $70.00 $50.00 $65.00

$0.60 $1.00 $0.75 $1.00

$0.90 $0.78 $1.04 $0.94

58 126 118 156

$1.25 $1.50 $1.50 $2.00 $0.00 $1.63 $2.25 $1.00 -$0.75 $0.50 -$0.13

$4.00 NA $3.75 $5.00 $0.00 $3.83 $5.65 $2.25 -$2.65 $.75 -$0.83

$50.00 $42.00 $37.50 $50.00 $0.00 $46.60 $112.50 $25.00 -$77.50 $10.00 -$11.60

$0.60 $0.75 $0.75 $1.00 $0.00 $0.80 $1.10 $0.50 -$0.35 $0.25 -$0.05

$0.68 $0.43 $1.15 $1.25 $0.00 $0.84 $1.25 $0.41 -$0.08 $0.76 $0.33

45 24 18 8 15

106

Monthly Pass

2012 Peak Vehicles 97 4 4 4 7 7 33 6 14 14 19 155 46 253 22 57 789

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 5: SITUATION APPRAISAL INTRODUCTION The TDP Rule requires that TDP major updates include a situation appraisal of the environment in which a transit agency operates. To develop an understanding of the transit context for Gainesville and Alachua County, several specific elements were assessed, as listed below. This section was developed using input gathered from public involvement activities and the results of technical evaluations of RTS service. Issues, trends, and specific implications for RTS are summarized in the remainder of this section for each of the major elements listed below (where specific topics have already been partially addressed the reader is directed to that section.          

Socioeconomic Trends Travel Behavior Regional Transportation Issues Land Use Public involvement Title VI Technology 10-Year Fixed Route Ridership Estimate 10-Year Paratransit Ridership Estimate Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives

SOCIOECOMONIC TRENDS Population and Employment Growth39 Nationally, transit ridership has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. This is due to a number of factors, but one of these reasons seems to be changing preferences regarding travel modes among the U.S. population. Following this trend, new ridership will come from forecasted population growth and a higher transit mode share. Given the focus of Gainesville and Alachua County on multimodal travel and mixed-use development, it is posturing for this increase, as well as encouraging it. RTS also should review whether areas of predicted growth change with the 2040 LRTP or if traditional loci of residential and commercial employment remain constant. Effort also will need to be given to improving those existing areas where demographics typically correlate with a strong transit ridership but where current frequency is low.

39

For specific figures, refer to Baseline Conditions section.

Transit Development Plan

107

Gainesville RTS

Demographic and Transit Markets The mobility needs assessment showed that RTS generally covers those areas identified by TOI and DTA as transit-supportive. As stated above, frequencies to these areas can be low, however, and there are some areas still not served like the northern portion of the GUA that has a large older-adult population. RTS is also not currently providing service to surrounding municipalities. Whereas past service has not yielded high ridership, more than 1,0000 individuals travel daily between Gainesville and Alachua County’s other municipalities for work, and the growth rate in these areas has largely been greater than that of Gainesville since 2000. ADA Paratransit Service RTS’s ADA trips have increased 52 percent, from 32,527 in 2003 to 49,526 in FY 2012. As the proportion of population ages 65 and older continues to increase, the demand for paratransit services will only continue to rise. Therefore, RTS should implement programs and services that increase the accessibility of the less-costly fixed-route bus service such as detailed travel training and the operation of low-floor buses TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Based on the 2035 LRTP projected population growth, to achieve the TBEST ridership projections shown below, mode share would need to increase. While this is occurring nationwide, this will be challenging given the widespread availability of free or cheap parking in most areas other than UF campus. Nonetheless, a number of major corridors, such as Newberry and Archer Roads, are already at or beyond their design capacity, with no planned future improvements. This congestion may act as a stimulus to push individuals to transit. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES RTS is currently a division of the City of Gainesville. While, historically, there has been some discussion of RTS becoming a Regional Transportation Authority, it has not received serious attention. Moreover, service currently is not provided in much of the unincorporated areas of the county or in its municipalities. Given how costly this service would be for RTS it is likely financially infeasible for even the largest of these municipalities to offer this service to its residents. Nonetheless, there are those who would benefit from it, and surrounding counties do offer flexible service that covers all its residents. Whether RTS could serve as the transit provider for the whole county while remaining a division of the City is unclear. LAND USE The key corridors with desirable densities for transit use, such as SW 20th Avenue and SW 2nd Avenue, all currently have 30-minute frequencies or better. The existing and future land use pattern beyond Gainesville’s core urban area is low-density and does not typify development patterns that support

Transit Development Plan

108

Gainesville RTS

transit ridership. Beyond the express inter-city routes mentioned above, service to these areas likely would require low-productivity, high-cost flex routes. A number of large developments, however, are presently being proposed on the periphery of RTS’s service area, reflecting the general GUA population shift west. As these develop, RTS will need to consider changes to the route network to ensure necessary frequencies and span of service. Three of major developments (Celebration Pointe, SantaFe Village, and Newberry Village) are scheduled to provide transit amenities and a transfer center at no cost to RTS as part of their development agreement. RTS also will need to continue to coordinate with City and County growth management departments to stay informed of and influence future development patterns. Map 5-1 displays the future land use of the city of Gainesville.

Transit Development Plan

109

Gainesville RTS

Map 5-1: Future Land Use for the City of Gainesville

Transit Development Plan

110

Gainesville RTS

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Several outreach events were conducted during the development of the COA and TDP Major Update, aimed at facilitating public input from area residents, transit users, and stakeholders. The themes that emerged at these events largely reflect those expressed during the last major update: a strong desire for frequency improvements, stop amenities, and extended hours, particularly in areas and on routes that are less used by UF and SF students. Since the last major TDP update, the perception remains that RTS exists to serve only the student population or students are able to ride for “free.” Making improvements such as adding more Sunday service or later service in areas away from campus can help with this and can help with explaining the substantial investment each student makes to receive the service that it does. Such improvements will also be required if Gainesville and Alachua County are to achieve the multimodal network they desire. TITLE VI All entities receiving federal transit funding must demonstrate that service is being provided in a manner that does not discriminate based on income, age, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or disability. Information about populations that classify themselves based on these characteristics is maintained through the ACS and is available by census tract for the city of Gainesville. RTS service was evaluated against the demographic characteristics of the census block groups in and around Gainesville and shows that RTS provides a high level of service to low-income, minority, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons that reside within its service area.40 These populations generally are located around the UF campus, Downtown, and East Gainesville. Importantly, RTS has made significant efforts to provide services and material to individuals who do not speak English. TECHNOLOGY Improvements to transit technology have the potential to help RTS deliver a more reliable, customerfriendly transit service for Gainesville service area. Like all other sectors, the amount of data to analyze and sort is become overwhelming. A number of tools are being developed that apply advanced sensor, computer, and communication technologies in an integrated manner to improve the safety, efficiency, and convenience of the transportation system. These tools are generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Importantly, to develop an appropriate 10-year implementation plan and corresponding financial plan, it is necessary to identify all ITS needs. As part of this TDP, ITS enhancements are described and a general assessment of their value to RTS is provided.

40

This is strongly influenced by the service to student areas, but RTS has made a concerted effort on an annual basis to provide additional service to non-student low-income, minority, and LEP concentrated areas.

Transit Development Plan

111

Gainesville RTS

Existing ITS Technologies RTS’s current ITS infrastructure is decentralized and includes:       

Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) on 44 of the fleets 123 buses (Vendor: Urban Transportation Associates) Second Generation (2-G) Automatic Vehicle Location Equipment (AVL) on 114 of the fleet’s 123 buses (Vendor: Transloc);41 AVL equipment on support vehicles (Vendor Fleetmatics) Stop annunciation on 90 of the fleets 123 buses FleetNet Software for runcutting, maintenance history, work orders, and asset management42 Bus and transfer station video cameras43 (Vendor: Seon) Genfare CENTSaBill fareboxes44 Analog radio for bus communication

With the advent of the new administration and operations facility, RTS will expand its technology to include FleetWatch Fluid Management software, facility-wide Wi-Fi technology for data downloads (Wireless Local Area Network *WLAN+), and a video wall that integrates to a live stream of the City’s Transportation Management System (TMS). RTS ITS Needs The ITS needs for RTS include an enterprise solution that integrates and expands upon the components listed above. Specific components of this system are shown in Table 5-1, and the remainder of this section includes brief descriptions of each. More information on the timing and cost (whether operating or capital) of these ITS needs is included in the TDP financial plan.

41

APC and AVL equipment are integrated. AVL equipment provides mobile and desktop-based solutions for transit riders to identify the location of vehicles, receive arrival texts, etc. 42 Schedules and work orders also are developed and stored in internally-developed Microsoft Excel and Access applications. 43 Camera equipment does not provide real-time feed. 44 Fareboxes are being replaced by Odyssey model in Summer 2014. The new model will accept passes; the current model excepts only cash fares.

Transit Development Plan

112

Gainesville RTS

Table 5-1 ITS Capital and Operating Cost Summary Number

Improvement

1

Computer-Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL)/Single Sign-On/ Real-Time Passenger Information1

2

Operations Software2 3

3

Asset Management Software

4

Surveillance System4

5 6 7 8 9 10

Operating Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate

$150,000

$2,300,000

$40,000

$1,051,910

$26,000

Real-Time Information @ Major Terminals (Digital Signage)

5

5

Wi-Fi @ Major Terminals

$200,000

$200,000

$87,000

$440,000

$3,000

$20,000

6

Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

$170,000 7

Automatic Passenger Counters Radio Replacement

$70,000

8

Credit/Debit Card Ticketing

$287,000 $80,000

9

$24,000 10

11

Software Tools and Database Licenses

12

End of Life Server Replacement and additional IT Personnel11

13

Wifi On-Board Buses

$167,000 $60,000

$100,000

$40,000

$86,100

$12,300

Total $700,000 $4,800,410 System to provide real-time information, vehicle tracking, sign-on, and dispatch functions and also conversion to 4G. Bus router would use a cellular network to exchange data with connection points through IP network and would provide data communication for live video between bus and control center, bus and road supervisors, communicate transfer protections, etc.). Costs estimated based on data from MCAT, BCT, and from DOT ITS database. 2 Includes also necessary modules for scheduling, runcutting, roster, etc. 3 Includes RTS portion of integration with City Public Works Cityworks software. Costs developed based on even split of $78,000 total operating cost fee from GRU and Gainesville Public Works. 4 Surveillance system assumes citywide network and as quoted to RTS from vendors. 5,6 Two locations, including Rosa Parks. Cost includes installation, outdoor LED display, training, and servers and is based on recent procurement from MCAT and DOT database of ITS infrastructure. 7 For TSP equipment installation at 7 intersections. Costs from Go-Enhance RTS study. 8 Upgrade remaining 82 vehicles at current unit cost of $3,500. Future buses include this equipment in purchase price. 9 Upgrade to digital radio. Separate voice from data channels. Costs from DOT database of ITS infrastructure. 10 For ticket vending machines at Rosa Parks, Butler Plaza, and Oaks Mall. 11 Includes Oracle/SQL multiple database and user access. Costs based on 2012 procurement in Houston, TX. 12 Needed to support new/upgraded equipment. Personnel cost assumes fully loaded overhead costs. 13 Cost estimated based on Seattle pilot project. 1

Notes: Costs shown represent professional opinions and are for planning purposes only. No offer, solicitation, or guarantee is represented or made, and actual costs at the time of procurement may vary. Costs taken from DOT database of ITS infrastructure available online at http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov.

Transit Development Plan

113

Gainesville RTS

Computer‐Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator/ Single Sign‐On/Real Time Passenger Information System RTS has proposed a shift to a Computer‐Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location (CAD/AVL) system that will improve the management of fleet operations and the tracking of vehicle movements. The current AVL system has limited functionality, simply showing bus position and not communicating more pertinent information such as on-time performance, hard braking, bus bunching, etc. The new CAD/AVL system would also move to a 4G wireless technology, integrate with RTS fareboxes, and manage both revenue and support vehicles. The CAD/AVL solution would include the implementation of mobile data terminals (MDT) that would display key information such as mapping, driver manifests, bus trip schedules, and safety information. For example, a driver enters his/her employee ID, which is associated with a certain assignment, and then, for the remainder of his/her run, he/she does not have to enter any other trip information. Similarly, through this association, the stop annunciation system automatically knows what route the bus will be on and, therefore, what stops to announce. Scheduling Software A scheduling software package is a computer-based comprehensive scheduling and customer information system. It is used primarily for the efficient production of vehicle timetables and operator assignments with agencies often able to achieve operating costs savings of up to 10 percent after implementation. The programs generally have different modules available, and each is usually sold separately by the manufacturer. Basic modules include vehicle and operator scheduling systems that address bus scheduling and the runcutting process. GIS Based Asset Management System A Geographic Information System (GIS)-centric asset management solution combines ArcGIS and its asset data management repository to perform intelligent and cost-effective inspection, monitoring, and condition assessments. Such an asset management system will assist RTS in developing a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, as required and emphasized in current federal transportation bill MAP-21. The City of Gainesville Public Works Department is in the process of implementing a software package that would allow RTS to split the licensing fee and use this package at a cheaper cost than if it were to procure a system independently. On‐Board Vehicle Surveillance System RTS would like to expand the on‐board, closed‐circuit camera surveillance system on its buses to provide a live feed and add such functionality to the Rosa Parks Downtown Transfer Station (RPDTS). This would require connecting to a cellular network to transmit the feed. The system will help deter crime and disruptive behavior and boost the overall safety and security of the system. Initially live feed would only be on request with 1 gigabyte (GB) of data purchased per bus per month.45

45

1 GB of data will provide about 10 hours of live streaming from one camera from one bus per month. Currently, buses are equipped with seven cameras.

Transit Development Plan

114

Gainesville RTS

Real‐Time Information (Digital Signage) and Wi-Fi at Major Terminals RTS would like to continue to improve the customer experience by providing Wi-Fi at RPDTS and the future Butler Plaza Transfer Center. These two locations will serve a majority of all system routes. The signage would go beyond the currently available arrival and departure times and also include disruptions and delays, transfers, and other important information. Automatic Passenger Counters As stated above, one-third of RTS’s fleet has APC equipment installed. Installing of APCs on the remainder of the fleet would provide for 100 percent passenger activity coverage and would broaden the flexibility of daily bus assignments. Radio Replacement The RTS radio system is approximately 15 years old and has limited functionality. A new system would explore creating separate voice and data radio systems for improved information exchange capabilities. Credit/Debit Card Ticketing To facilitate fare purchases, RTS wishes to extend to patrons the option to pay by credit or debit card at RPDTS, Oaks Mall, and the future Butler Plaza Transfer Center. Purchases also could be made on-line. This is a common trend among large agencies and facilitates the attractiveness and use of the bus system. Software Tools and Database Licenses RTS will continue to maintain compliance with software license agreements for databases and programs such as ArcMap that are used for various support and project related functions. End-of-Life Server Replacement RTS is planning the development of a Life Cycle Replacement Plan for server infrastructure, which would include cost estimates and procedures for end‐of‐life replacement as well as upgrades and maintenance of software and hardware components where necessary. Additional IT Personnel and IT Temporary Staff Any organization with a robust technology infrastructure will require a trained IT staff who can maintain it. Given RTS’s commitment to technology and its planned enhancements, it also will be prudent for the agency to develop an IT staffing plan to ensure appropriate and sufficient support for both current and new/upgraded equipment with the proper mix of permanent and temporary staffing.

Transit Development Plan

115

Gainesville RTS

10-YEAR FIXED ROUTE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATE Introduction Transit demand was assessed for the RTS fixed-route system using the FDOT-approved ridership forecasting tool TBEST (Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool). Two sets of ridership forecasts were developed, including a baseline forecast of maintaining current service levels over the next 10 years (nobuild or status quo) and a forecast of ridership based on the alternatives proposed by the COA.46 The ridership forecast results will be used to evaluate, compare, and prioritize the recommended improvements. The 10-year baseline forecasts are summarized in this section. The TBEST Model It has long been a goal of FDOT to standardize the modeling tool for transit demand across the state, similar to the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) model that is used by MPOs in developing Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). As such, FDOT developed TBEST, a comprehensive transit analysis and ridership-forecasting model capable of simulating travel demand at the individual route level. The software was designed to provide near- and mid-term forecasts of transit ridership consistent with the needs of transit operational planning and TDP development. This innovative model provides a statewide standard that allows FDOT to compare Florida transit agencies of various sizes across the state in a consistent way. As such, the model had to be versatile enough to accommodate the various sizes, modes, and configurations of the wide array of transit systems in Florida. The tradeoff for such versatility is that ridership estimates generated by the model are very high-level and are best used to compare alternatives on concurrent networks against each other, and are not appropriate for an investment-grade study of a major capital project or a realistic approximation of future ridership levels. In producing model outputs, TBEST considers the following factors: 

Transit network connectivity – the level of connectivity relates to the number of transfers that are possible between routes within the bus network.



Spatial and temporal accessibility – service frequency and the distance between stops; the larger the physical distance between potential bus riders and bus stops, the lower the level of service utilization; similarly, less frequent service is perceived as being less reliable and therefore is less utilized.



Time-of-day variations – accommodates peak-period travel patterns with greater service utilization forecasts.



Route competition and route complementarities – accounts for competition between routes, like routes that connect to the same destinations or that travel on common corridors; conversely, routes

46

RTS attempted to calculate systemwide ridership for current service levels under a $0.25 fare increase and the introduction of a $0.25 transfer but discovered several issues with the model coefficient for these modifications. FDOT was notified and acknowledged the issue.

Transit Development Plan

116

Gainesville RTS

that are synchronized and support each other in terms of schedule and service to major destinations or transfer locations benefit from a complementary relationship. Data required to update the RTS network included the following:     

Bus schedules with time points and route map Operating characteristics for bus transit routes, including route type, headways, route length, days of service, service span, and fares Observed average daily ridership by route Socioeconomic data in GIS and tabular formats GIS bus stop and route layers

The projections use the most recent version of the modeling software, TBEST Version 4.1. Model Inputs, Assumptions, and Limitations The inputs and the assumptions made in modeling the RTS system in TBEST are presented below. Whereas there is flexibility in a number of parameters, some are fixed. For example, the model is not interactive with roadway network conditions. Therefore, ridership forecasts will not show direct sensitivity to future changes in roadway traffic conditions or speeds. Additionally, coefficients that direct the propensity of boardings and transfers on a specific route are coded into the programming language of TBEST and cannot be adjusted.47 Additionally, RTS adjusts its fixed-route bus schedules seasonally to account for changing transit demand associated with the semester schedule for UF and SF. Therefore, average daily ridership for each route differs greatly depending on the time of year (spring, fall, or summer); over the last three years, the average monthly ridership in the months of December, May, June, and July is only 51 percent of average monthly ridership for the other months. The TBEST model used an RTS service structure consistent with the Fall semester. Therefore, the average daily ridership identified would be applicable only to routes as they are structured in the fall and spring. Care must then be exercised when comparing these estimates to historic NTD average daily ridership, which is averaged over the course of a year. Demographic Data The demographic data used as a base input for the TBEST model are derived from Census 2010 geography and population characteristics, 2010 InfoUSA employment data, and 2011 parcel-level land use data from the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR). Based on these data inputs, the model captures market demand (population, employment, and land use characteristics) within ¼-mile of each stop.

47

Similar to the transfer issue noted above, problems with transfer coefficients also were detected and conveyed to FDOT. These errors proved particularly problematic for weekend service during which, on some routes, the level of ridership generated on weekend days was projected to be higher than that for weekdays for the same alignment, which is illogical for most transit routes. As such, direct comparisons between weekend and weekday ridership on specific routes should be avoided.

Transit Development Plan

117

Gainesville RTS

Population and Employment Growth Rates TBEST uses ACS data for population and employment that has been projected into a future year based on growth rate estimates. The annual population (2.98%) and employment (3.59%) growth rates are higher than recently-observed rates. These values, however, cannot be adjusted.48 Results for Maintaining Existing Service This section includes a description of the TBEST model run and summarizes the ridership forecasts produced by TBEST.49 The TBEST method of model calibration is referred to as validation and is required before creating a ridership estimate. Validation uses daily ridership averages for the baseline model to automatically adjust model coefficients so that modeled ridership more closely approximates existing observed behavior. In this way, ridership for the base year will be the same as measured ridership as this is usually what is used to calibrate the model. Observed Fall 2013 ridership data from RTS’s APC equipment were used to for validation purposes.50 Using the validated model, the 2013 and 2024 scenarios were created. Both scenarios represent the existing fixed-route system without any modifications. Based on the TBEST results shown in Table 5-2, maintaining the status quo will result in a significant increase in RTS transit ridership from the base year of 2013 to the TDP horizon year of 2024. According to TBEST, average weekday daily ridership is expected to increase approximately 10 percent by 2024, and average Saturday and Sunday daily ridership is expected to increase 33 percent and 56 percent, respectively.51 Table 5-2 Average Weekday Daily Ridership and Growth Rates Route Weekday Saturday Sunday

Average Daily Ridership, 2013 66,696 12,377 4,214

Average Daily Ridership, 2024 73,432 16,397 6,563

Absolute Change, 2013–2024 6,736 4,020 2,349

Average Growth Rate, 2013–2024 10.1% 32.5% 55.7%

48

Inflexibility in this area is for statewide standardization purposes. TBEST cannot display sensitivities to external factors such as an improved marketing and advertising program, changes in structure, and other local conditions. 50 At time of model validation and run, Spring 2014 ridership information was not available. There is typically less than a 20% difference between APC ridership figures and farebox figures, with APC figures often being higher. 51 The annual average growth rate observed between Fall 2011 and Fall 2013 for weekdays was 2.4%, Saturdays 15.8%, and Sundays 32.4%. Annual growth rates observed from the TBEST model for weekdays are 1.1%, Saturdays 3.2%, and Sundays 5.0%. It is important to note that the 1% growth roughly corresponds with City of Gainesville population growth in the last decade. 49

Transit Development Plan

118

Gainesville RTS

10-YEAR PARATRANSIT RIDERSHIP ESTIMATE Paratransit Demand Paratransit ridership is influenced by the proportion of the population who qualify for the service and the accessibility of the fixed-route infrastructure. The less actual or perceived barriers to the fixed-route bus network, the fewer individuals rely on paratransit services for mobility. Even if real or perceived barriers are removed, however, RTS should expect paratransit ridership to increase. The U.S. has an aging population, and a higher proportion of the U.S. population is expected to be age 65 or older in the next 10 years. It would follow that the number of persons with limited mobility also will increase. Roughly 10 percent of RTS’s service area population was over age 65 in 2010, which is lower than the statewide average of approximately 17 percent. The recent and anticipated increase in average age is being driven by several factors, including longer life spans and the relative size of the “baby boomer” generation. 52 An increase in paratransit ridership in Gainesville for future years would be consistent with an increase on a national level.53 To account for these uncertainties, a range of paratransit ridership projections was created that include high-, moderate-, and low-range estimates. There is currently no existing workflow or model within TBEST for paratransit ridership estimation, so, unlike for the fixed-route service, a different methodology had to be used. Historic ridership trends for paratransit ridership are shown in Table 5-3 and were used to predict future ridership levels. Paratransit ridership, although somewhat variable from year to year, increased overall by 52 percent (annual rate 4.8%) in the period between 2003 and 2012. This compares to an increase of only 31 percent (annual rate 3.1%) for fixed-route ridership, indicating that the demand for paratransit service has increased faster than the demand for fixed-route service in the last decade. Paratransit ridership when averaged over 10 years has followed a relatively straight line. A linear growth rate was then used to form the low-range estimate due to the likelihood that a higher percentage of the population may be qualifying for the service in the future. The high-range estimate applied the historic annual growth rate with increases built-in year over year.54 A mid-range estimate was determined by averaging the two.

52

Baby boomers are defined as those individuals born post-World War II, between 1946 and mid-1964. Medicaid will soon allow service providers beyond the Community Transportation Coordinator provide trips. This in turn will affect paratransit rates as riders explore other options. Rate changes in turn will affect ridership. The impact this will have on overall paratransit service levels is unclear but is being monitored. 54 Essentially, this methodology is capturing differences in exponential versus linear growth. 53

Transit Development Plan

119

Gainesville RTS

Table 5-3 Historic Trends for Paratransit Ridership 2003–2012 2003

2004

Paratransit trips 32.5 30.4 (thousands) Change from prior year -2.1 (thousands) % Paratransit -6.6% ridership change Source: National Transit Database

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Average Annual Growth Rate

36.9

38.2

36.5

38.3

39.7

44.0

45.3

49.5

-

6.5

1.3

-1.7

1.8

1.4

4.3

1.3

4.2

1.9

21.3%

3.5%

-4.4%

5.0%

3.7%

10.8%

2.9%

9.3%

4.8%

The geometric growth rate of 4.8 percent was used to estimate paratransit ridership for 2013 through 2024 and serve as the “High” ridership projection. The growth rate based on the annual average increase (1,900) was used for the “Low” ridership projection. The average of these two was as the moderate projection, and the resulting range year 2024 of this TDP update is between 72,194 (50 percent increase) and 86,789 (75 percent increase) paratransit trips. Figure 5-1 Total Paratransit Ridership Estimate 100 90 80

Ridership Thousands

70 60 50 Historic Paratransit Trips

40

High 30 Moderate 20

Low

10

Transit Development Plan

120

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

0

Gainesville RTS

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES This section provides the transit vision, mission, goals, objectives, and initiatives (GOIs) for the RTS TDP. The vision and mission remain the same as in the previous 2010–2019 RTS TDP Major Update. The GOIs continue to include and emphasize the content and modifications that stemmed from the RTS staff retreat held in February 2013 and included in the last annual TDP update. Major points of emphasis from that retreat included the creation of initiatives that were measurable and ensuring that all GOIs reflect staff input, political and economic changes, and feedback received from the public in recent years. As a result, the GOIs prepared after the retreat were reviewed, and an update to those GOIs is presented in this section. The updated GOIs were developed based on discussions with RTS staff and input gathered through the public involvement process. The objectives remain largely unchanged but have been regrouped under three distinct goals. Table 5-4 at the end of this section summarizes how each of RTS’s previous TDP goals, objectives, and initiatives have been modified and integrated into the revised goals, objectives, and initiatives presented in this section. RTS PUBLIC TRANSIT VISION To be the transportation mode of choice for the Gainesville Metropolitan area. RTS PUBLIC TRANSIT MISSION To enhance the quality of life in our community by providing safe, courteous, equitable, reliable, and energy-efficient transportation services. RTS PUBLIC TRANSIT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES Goal 1: Provide excellent customer service. Objective 1.1: Increase marketing and public outreach efforts to educate citizens, the electorate, and visitors about the benefits, availability, and characteristics of existing and planned transit services. Initiatives for Objective 1.1: Initiative 1.1.1: Develop a pocket-sized "RTS quick fact sheet" to be distributed at all events and to RTS transit operators, which details the history of RTS, how to use the system, when it is available, its benefits, sources for additional information, and funding sources. Initiative 1.1.2: Attend 5 community events or organization meetings (such as UF football games, Spring Garden Festival, Alachua County Youth Fair, etc.) and 3 Chamber of Commerce meetings each year to share information about RTS’s existing and planned services to integrate the public’s ideas into future planning efforts and funding sources.

Transit Development Plan

121

Gainesville RTS

Initiative 1.1.3: Use Census and local datasets to identify community facilities in transitdependent areas where RTS public schedules can be distributed. Initiative 1.1.4: Work in coordination with local organizations to participate in 2 job fairs per year to increase knowledge about the transit system and transit careers. Initiative 1.1.5: Increase RTS branding on buses, publications/presentation materials, office collateral, bus stops, uniforms, and shelters by developing one standard logo and applying it to all material by 2015. Initiative 1.1.6: Promote transit services through mixed media, such as Facebook (no less than three weekly posts), YouTube (no less than 1 post per year), radio (1 ad per year), and local television (no less than 3 ads per year). Initiative 1.1.7: Maintain and regularly update the website with current service and schedule information. Clearly display trip planning services such as Google Trip Planner and TransLoc. Objective 1.2: Follow federal, State, and local regulations regarding public involvement to properly solicit citizen feedback. Initiatives for Objective 1.2: Initiative 1.2.1: Conduct public meetings on a per-semester basis to discuss enhancements in service and other major initiatives, such as the Transit Development Plan (TDP), fare changes, and Program of Projects. Develop standardized material for communicating changes. Initiative 1.2.2: Conduct an on-board survey every 5 years as part of major TDP updates to monitor changes in user demographics, travel behavior characteristics, user satisfaction, and validate Automatic Passenger Count (APC) information. Use survey findings to update TDP, as appropriate. Initiative 1.2.3: Create and place a customer comment card on RTS buses and website to acquire citizen feedback. Place another card in the operations building for driver feedback. Where contact information is given, provide a response within 1 week. Objective 1.3: On a yearly basis, hold activities that improve staff morale. Initiatives for Objective 1.3: Initiative 1.3.1: Develop and implement an employee recognition program that highlights an outstanding employee each quarter, as selected by his/her peers.

Transit Development Plan

122

Gainesville RTS

Initiative 1.3.2: Use the results of the City Employee Satisfaction Survey to make changes, as appropriate, that will improve employee morale. Objective 1.4: Continue to improve RTS internal communications. Initiatives for Objective 1.4: Initiative 1.4.1: Hold meetings of Planning and Operations per semester, prior to the implementation of any service changes, to discuss mutual concerns, questions, plans, recommendations, etc. Initiative 1.4.2: Publish an internal RTS newsletter that includes staff profiles three times per year. Initiative 1.4.3: Post internal updates and memoranda at key locations throughout RTS facilities. Objective 1.5: Develop metrics that track and address safety and customer complaint incidents in order to promote good customer service and public and staff safety. Initiatives for Objective 1.5: Initiative 1.5.1: Reduce the number of accidents per 100,000 revenue hours. Initiative 1.5.2: Annually submit a list to Public Works of the top 20% of active stops (by ridership) at intersections to encourage installation of appropriate signage and signalization. Initiative 1.5.3: Continue operator and maintenance safety training program hours during summer. Initiative 1.5.4: Provide lighting at stops that have the heaviest activity before 6:30 AM or after 6:30 PM. Initiative 1.5.5: Establish a dedicated driving range by 2015. Initiative 1.5.6: Ensure that 100% of new hires take mandatory National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliance courses within 90 days of hire. Initiative 1.5.7: Discourage drunk driving by providing Gator Aider and Later Gator service commensurate with demand to areas identified by UF. Initiative 1.5.8: Establish a method for monitoring compliance with the RTS Systems Safety Plan (SSP).

Transit Development Plan

123

Gainesville RTS

Initiative 1.5.9: Establish signage inside transit vehicles by 2015 that reminds passengers to practice safe riding habits (i.e., hold on when the bus is moving, tell the driver a bike is being retrieved, etc.) Initiative 1.5.10: Reduce the number of complaints per 100,000 riders. Initiative 1.5.11: Reduce customer service complaints per 10,000 riders on ADA trips. Goal 2: Be good stewards of public resources. Objective 2.1: Improve and expand revenue and transit partnerships. Initiatives for Objective 2.1: Initiative 2.1.1: Share information yearly with UF and SF regarding route performance, service concerns, and other opportunities for service revisions and/or improvements. Initiative 2.1.2: Use the development review process and public outreach activities to pursue and enhance additional business partnerships. Initiative 2.1.3: Increase revenue through greater participation in the Employee Bus Pass Program by 1 employer per year while maintaining a 95% retention rate among existing participants. Objective 2.2: Increase and diversify revenue sources. Initiatives for Objective 2.2: Initiative 2.2.1: At a minimum, maintain advertising revenue’s current share of budget while seeking to increase said revenue by 2% each year. Initiative 2.2.2: Maintain a list by each section of the grants they will apply for in the fiscal year within a common database, including those tied to the enhancement or creation of fixed route service, paratransit service, facility and infrastructure expansion, and all other aspects of service delivery. Initiative 2.2.3: Request financial support from the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, the MTPO, FDOT, and FTA on an annual basis. Initiative 2.2.4: Use the marketing efforts listed under Goal 1 to achieve a dedicated funding source for transit. Initiative 2.2.5: Develop a 5-year fare review and update cycle to ensure that fares on both campus and city routes provide on average of at least 25% of the total service cost without the need to implement dramatic fare increases, while meeting all Title IV considerations regarding fare equity.

Transit Development Plan

124

Gainesville RTS

Objective 2.3: Develop a performance monitoring program that addresses the design and performance of fixed-route and paratransit services, including their cost efficiency. Initiatives for Objective 2.3: Initiative 2.3.1: Design the performance monitoring program in a manner that recognizes the different types of service provided by RTS and the transit-dependent nature of some areas of our community, taking into consideration performance at the trip, route, segment, and stop levels for needed modifications to span of service, frequency, vehicle size, and weekday versus weekend service. Initiative 2.3.2: Meet the fixed-route and paratransit service standards established under the performance monitoring program to gauge service effectiveness and efficiency, including metrics for passengers per revenue hour, subsidy per passenger, operating cost per passenger/hour/trip, missed trips, full bus incidents, and cost recovery ratio. Initiative 2.3.3: Meet the fixed-route design standards established under the performance monitoring program to gauge service effectiveness and efficiency, including route directness, proximity to activity centers/human services, deadhead location, route and stop spacing, surrounding land use and employment, and street and sidewalk characteristics. Initiative 2.3.4: Maintain an overall average on-time performance (i.e., bus arrives at stop no more than 1 minute early or 5.5 minutes late) of 80% on all fixed-route services. Initiative 2.3.5: Increase transit ridership by 1 percent each year. Initiative 2.3.6: Conduct a COA every 5 years to provide detailed information for major updates to the TDP. Initiative 2.3.7: Conduct an analysis by 2016 exploring alternative rostering strategies. Initiative 2.3.8: Develop cross-functional diagram identifying functions and responsible parties for the scheduling process. Objective 2.4: Improve the quality and convenience of transit services provided to passengers in the Gainesville Metropolitan area.

Transit Development Plan

125

Gainesville RTS

Initiatives for Objective 2.4: Initiative 2.4.4: Provide transit service for a minimum of 14 hours per day on 80% of fixedroute services, excluding Later Gator and campus routes. Initiative 2.4.5: Provide 20-minute peak hour frequencies within a ¼-mile of all high-density residential areas, as described in the City of Gainesville’s UMU-1, UMU-2 zoning, RH-1, and RH-2 zoning. Initiative 2.4.6: Plan park-and-ride facilities at key locations along major corridors. Initiative 2.4.7: Explore the feasibility of implementing deviated fixed-routes and demand response to reach areas in the community where fixed-route services are not feasible and/or are cost prohibitive. Initiative 2.4.8: Improve existing transit services and implement new transit services consistent with the 10-year transit needs identified in the most recent TDP update. Objective 2.5: Implement and expand Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) to better identify and serve areas of transit demand. Initiatives for Objective 2.5: Initiative 2.5.1: Develop an ITS plan by 2015 that follows a Systems Engineering approach to developing new ITS projects. Initiative 2.5.2: Implement a new fare collection system to improve revenue collection by 2015. Initiative 2.5.4: Maintain IT and security systems by installing equipment at Rosa Parks Downtown Station and the Operations & Maintenance facility. Initiative 2.5.5: Implement FleetNet as the new maintenance software application by 2015. Initiative 2.5.6: Install APC on at least 50% of fleet by 2023. Initiative 2.5.8: Research implementing an enterprise database solution to unify primary data components, including bus stop inventory, route inventory, APC data, amenity data, farebox data, etc., by 2015. Initiative 2.5.9: Maintain and enhance a bus stop, route, and facilities inventory using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Objective 2.6: Promote and coordinate transit services and improvements by coordinating and participating with local and regional planning efforts and City/County development review processes.

Transit Development Plan

126

Gainesville RTS

Initiatives for Objective 2.6: Initiative 2.6.1: Review all development plan submittals and provide written comments on projects that would impact existing or planned transit services or would allow for bus stop/station improvements. Initiative 2.6.2: Support land use planning and regulations that facilitate pedestrian mobility and transit ridership such as small street blocks, connectivity, placement of parking to the side or rear of buildings, and wide sidewalks. Initiative 2.6.4: Ensure consistency with the long-term planning efforts of relevant local and state agencies, governments, and organizations, especially Alachua County and the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plans. Initiative 2.6.5: Coordinate with local and regional agencies to implement new services and amenities using mobility fees collected as part of the alternative concurrency management process. Initiative 2.6.6: Prior to service changes, send notifications to Regional Planning Council, MTPO, City and County Planning Departments, and Public Works. Initiative 2.6.7: Coordinate the RTS commuter assistance program with the FloridaWorks GREENRIDE web-based carpooling system and the University of Florida. Goal 3: Operate public transportation that improves the quality of life. Objective 3.1: Reduce environmental impacts by reducing energy demand and increasing recycling efforts. Initiatives for Objective 3.1: Initiative 3.1.1: Maintain a list of recyclable materials in Maintenance, including yearly quantities of materials recycled and establish targeted reductions based on current quantities. Initiative 3.1.2: Install energy monitoring panels in RTS buildings by 2015 and set target reductions by 2016 after establishing initial baseline. Initiative 3.1.3: Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit vehicles. Initiative 3.1.4: Continue participating in FDOT Bus Fuel Fleet Evaluation Tool committee. Initiative 3.1.5: Use FDOT Bus Fuel Fleet Evaluation Tool as guide for new vehicle purchases. Initiative 3.1.6: Maintain a fleet of fixed-route vehicles with an average age of less than 6 years to reduce maintenance costs.

Transit Development Plan

127

Gainesville RTS

Initiative 3.1.7: Maintain a fleet of ADA paratransit vans with an average age of less than 5 years or 100,000 miles. Initiative 3.1.8: As support vehicles reach obsolescence, replace with hybrid vehicles (if financially feasible). Objective 3.2: Improve the amenities in the Gainesville Metropolitan area. Initiatives for Objective 3.2: Initiative 3.2.1: Create a metric to evaluate bicycle-based bus stop amenity needs (e.g., bike racks) to provide said amenities where bicycle usage is highest or provision of bicycle-based amenities would effectively expand the RTS service area. Initiative 3.2.2: Provide wheelchair-based bus stop amenities (e.g., waiting pads) where wheelchair usage is highest. Initiative 3.2.3: Annually submit a list to Public Works of the top 15% of stops (by ridership) that lack sidewalk connections for consideration when developing their work program. Initiative 3.2.4: Implement an equitable bus stop maintenance and improvement program to maintain the aesthetic quality of and financial investment in bus stop amenities and transit infrastructure across the community. Initiative 3.2.5: Provide system maps at all stops with multiple routes. Initiative 3.2.6: Use ridership figures and customer suggestions received by phone, customer card, Facebook, etc., to enhance bus stops according to the design standards outlined in the Bus Stop Improvement Plan. Objective 3.3: Provide equitable, balanced, and accessible transit services, including improved access and services to transit-dependent and ADA passengers. Initiatives for Objective 3.3: Initiative 3.3.1: Provide access to RTS schedules for the visually-impaired. Initiative 3.3.2: Update the ADA paratransit guide annually. Initiative 3.3.3: Continue to contract with the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for the provision of paratransit service under the ADA. Initiative 3.3.4: Establish and use a system for making announcements via "talking bus" to disseminate information to visually-impaired, LEP, and low-literacy riders.

Transit Development Plan

128

Gainesville RTS

Table 5-4 Previous Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives Revisions Previous Goal(s), Objective(s), or Initiative(s) Goal 1

Objective 1.1

Initiative 1.1.1

Initiative 1.1.2

Initiative 1.1.3 Initiative 1.1.4 Initiative 1.1.5

Initiative 1.1.6 Initiative 1.1.7 Objective 1.2

Initiative 1.2.1

Initiative 1.2.2

Initiative 1.2.3

Goal 2

Objective 2.1 Initiative 2.1.1 Initiative 2.1.2

Increase the visibility of RTS services through marketing, education, and outreach. Increase marketing and public outreach efforts to educate citizens, the electorate, and visitors about the benefits, availability, and characteristics of existing and planned transit services. Develop a pocket-sized "RTS quick fact sheet" to be distributed at all events and to RTS transit operators, which details the history of RTS, how to use the system, when it is available, its benefits, sources for additional information, and the importance of a dedicated funding source. Attend one community organization meeting, five community events (such as UF football games, Spring Garden Festival, Alachua County Youth Fair, etc.), and three Chamber of Commerce meetings each year to share information about RTS existing and planned services, to integrate the public’s ideas into future planning efforts, and to communicate the importance of a dedicated funding source. Use Census and local datasets to identify community facilities in transit-dependent areas where RTS public schedules can be distributed. Work in coordination with local organizations to participate in two local job fairs per year to increase knowledge about the transit system and transit careers. Increase RTS branding on buses, publications/presentation materials, office collateral, bus stops, uniforms, and shelters by developing one standard logo and applying it to all material by 2015. Promote transit services through mixed media, such as Facebook (no less than 3 weekly posts), YouTube (no less than 1 post per year), radio (1 ad per year), and local television (no less than 3 ads per year). Maintain and regularly update the website with current service and schedule information. Clearly display trip planning services like Google Trip Planner and TransLoc. Follow Federal, State, and local regulations regarding public involvement in order to properly solicit citizen feedback. Conduct public meetings on a per-semester basis to discuss enhancements in service and other major initiatives, such as the Transportation Development Plan, fare changes, Program of Projects, Citizens Advisory Board Meetings. Develop standardized material for communicating changes. Conduct an on-board survey every five years as part of major TDP updates to monitor changes in user demographics, travel behavior characteristics, user satisfaction, and validate Automatic Passenger Count (APC) information. Use survey findings to update TDP as appropriate. Create and place a customer comment card on RTS buses and website to acquire citizen feedback. Place another card in operations building for driver feedback. Where contact information is given, provide a comment received response within a week. Increase RTS staff morale.

On a yearly basis, hold activities that improve morale. Develop and implement an employee recognition program that highlights an outstanding employee each quarter, as selected by their peers. Use the results of the City Employee Satisfaction Survey to make changes, as appropriate, that will improve employee morale.

Transit Development Plan

129

Change or Revision Combined with Objective 1.1 to create new Objective 1.1 Combined with Goal 1 to create new Objective 1.1 Reworded for clarity

Reworded for clarity

No Change No Change No Change

No Change No Change No Change

Reworded for clarity

No Change

Reworded for clarity Combined with Objective 2.1 to create new Objective 1.3 Combined with Goal 2 to create New Objective 1.3 New Initiative 1.3.1 New Initiative 1.3.2

Gainesville RTS

Objective 2.2 Initiative 2.2.1 Initiative 2.2.2 Initiative 2.2.3 Goal 3 Objective 3.1 Initiative 3.1.1 Initiative 3.1.2 Initiative 3.1.3 Objective 3.2 Initiative 3.2.1

Initiative 3.2.2

Initiative 3.2.3 Initiative 3.2.4 Goal 4

Objective 4.1 Initiative 4.1.1 Initiative 4.1.2 Initiative 4.1..3 Initiative 4.1.4 Initiative 4.1.5 Initiative 4.1.6 Initiative 4.1.7 Initiative 4.1.8

Continue to improve RTS internal communications. Planning and Operations will meet once per semester, prior to the implementation of any service changes, in order to discuss mutual concerns, questions, plans, recommendations, etc. Publish an internal RTS newsletter that includes staff profiles 3 times per year. Post internal updates and memoranda at key locations throughout RTS facilities. Expand revenue. Improve and expand transit partnerships. Share information yearly with University of Florida and Santa Fe College regarding route performance, service concerns, and other opportunities for service revisions and/or improvements. Use the development review process and public outreach activities to pursue and enhance additional business partnerships. Increase revenue through greater participation in the Employee Bus Pass Program by 1 employer per year while maintaining a 95% retention rate amongst existing participants. Increase and diversify revenue sources. At a minimum, maintain advertising revenue’s current share of budget while seeking to increase said revenue by 2% each year. Each section will maintain a list of the grants they will apply for in the fiscal year within a common database, including those tied to the enhancement or creation of fixed route service, paratransit service, facility and infrastructure expansion, and all other aspects of service delivery. Request financial support from the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, the MTPO, FDOT, and FTA on an annual basis. Utilize marketing efforts listed under Goal 1 to achieve a dedicated funding source for transit. Reduce environmental impacts.

Reduce energy demand and increase recycling efforts. Maintenance will maintain a list of recyclable material, including yearly quantities of materials recycled and establish targeted reductions based on current quantities. Install energy monitoring panels in RTS buildings by 2015 and set target reductions by 2016 after establishing initial baseline. Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit vehicles. Continue participating in Florida Department of Transportation Bus Fuel Fleet Evaluation Tool committee. Use FDOT Bus Fuel Fleet Evaluation Tool as guide for new vehicle purchases Maintain a fleet of fixed-route vehicles with an average age of less than 6 years to reduce maintenance costs. Maintain a fleet of ADA paratransit vans with an average age of less than 5 years or 100,000 miles. As support vehicles reach obsolescence, replace with hybrid vehicles (if financially feasible).

Transit Development Plan

130

New Objective 1.4 New Initiative 1.4.1 New Initiative 1.4.2 New Initiative 1.4.3 Combined with Objective 3.1 to create new Objective 2.2 Combined with Goal 3 to create new Objective 2.1 New Initiative 2.1.1 New Initiative 2.1.2 New Initiative 2.1.3 New Objective 2.2 New Initiative 2.2.1

New Initiative 2.2.2

New Initiative 2.2.3 New Initiative 2.2.4 Combined with Objective 4.1 to create new objective 3.1 Combined with Goal 4 to create new Objective 3.1 New Initiative 3.1.1 New Initiative 3.1.2 New Initiative 3.1.3 New Initiative 3.1.4 New Initiative 3.1.5 New Initiative 3.1.6 New Initiative 3.1.7 New Initiative 3.1.8

Gainesville RTS

Goal 5

Objective 5.1

Initiative 5.1.1 Initiative 5.1.2 Initiative 5.1.3 Initiative 5.1.4 Initiative 5.1.5 Initiative 5.1.6

Goal 6

Improve the amenities in the Gainesville Metropolitan area.

Enhance RTS amenities. Create a metric to evaluate bicycle-based bus stop amenity needs (e.g. bike racks) in order to provide said amenities where bicycle usage is highest or provision of bicyclebased amenities would effectively expand the RTS service area. Provide wheelchair-based bus stop amenities (e.g. waiting pads) where wheelchair usage is highest. Annually submit a list to Public Works of the top 15% of stops (by ridership) that lack sidewalk connections for consideration when developing their work program. Implement an equitable bus stop maintenance and improvement program in order to maintain the aesthetic quality of, and financial investment in, bus stop amenities and transit infrastructure across the community. Provide system maps at all stops with multiple routes. Use ridership figures and customer suggestions received by phone, customer card, Facebook, etc. to enhance bus stops according to the design standards outlined in the Bus Stop Improvement Plan. Promote public and staff safety.

Objective 6.1

Develop metrics to track and address safety incidents.

Initiative 6.1.1

Reduce the number of accidents per 100,000 revenue hours. Annually submit a list to Public Works of the top 20% of active stops (by ridership) at intersections in order to encourage installation of appropriate signage and signalization. Continue operator and maintenance safety training program hours during summer. Provide lighting at stops that have the heaviest activity before 6:30AM or after 6:30PM. Establish a dedicated driving range by 2015. Ensure that 100% of new hires take mandatory National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliance courses within 90 days of hire. Discourage drunk driving by providing Gator Aider and Later Gator service commensurate with demand to areas identified by UF. Establish a method for monitoring compliance with the RTS Systems Safety Plan (SSP). Establish signage inside transit vehicles by 2015 that reminds passengers to practice safe riding habits (i.e., to hold on when the bus is moving, to tell the driver a bike is being retrieved, etc.)

Initiative 6.1.2 Initiative 6.1.3 Initiative 6.1.4 Initiative 6.1.5 Initiative 6.1.6 Initiative 6.1.7 Initiative 6.1.8 Initiative 6.1.9

Goal 7

Provide equitable and balanced transit services.

Objective 7.1

Improve access and increase transit services to transit dependent and ADA passengers.

Initiative 7.1.1 Initiative 7.1.2 Initiative 7.1.3 Initiative 7.1.4

Provide access to RTS schedules for the visually impaired. Update the ADA paratransit guide annually. Continue to contract with the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for the provision of paratransit service under the ADA. Establish and utilize system for making announcements via "talking bus" in order to disseminate information to visually impaired, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and lowliteracy riders.

Transit Development Plan

131

Combined with Objective 5.1 to create new Objective 3.2 Combined with Goal 5 to create new Objective 3.2 New Initiative 3.2.1

New Initiative 3.2.2 New Initiative 3.2.3

New Initiative 3.2.4 New Initiative 3.2.5 New Initiative 3.2.6 Combined with Objective 6.1 to create new Objective 1.5 Combined with Goal 6 to create new Objective 1.5 New Initiative 1.5.1 New Initiative 1.5.2 New Initiative 1.5.3 New Initiative 1.5.4 New Initiative 1.5.5 New Initiative 1.5.6 New Initiative 1.5.7 New Initiative 1.5.8 New Initiative 1.5.9 Combined with Objective 7.1 to create Objective 3.3 Combined with Goal 7 to create Objective 3.3 New Initiative 3.3.1 New Initiative 3.3.2 New Initiative 3.3.3 New Initiative 3.3.4

Gainesville RTS

Goal 8

Monitor and improve service quality and performance to increase ridership and reduce cost.

Objective 8.1

Develop a performance monitoring program that addresses the design and performance of fixed-route and paratransit services, including their cost efficiency.

Initiative 8.2.1 Initiative 8.2.2

Design the performance monitoring program in a manner that recognizes the different types of service provided by RTS and the transit-dependent nature of some areas of our community, taking into consideration performance at the trip, route, segment, and stop levels for needed modifications to span of service, frequency, vehicle size, and weekday versus weekend service. Meet the fixed-route and paratransit service standards established under the performance monitoring program in order to gauge service effectiveness and efficiency, including metrics for passengers per revenue hour, subsidy per passenger, operating cost per passenger/hour/trip, missed trips, full bus incidents, and cost recovery ratio. Meet the fixed-route design standards established under the performance monitoring program in order to gauge service effectiveness and efficiency, including route directness, proximity to activity centers/human services, deadhead location, route and stop spacing, surrounding land use and employment, and street and sidewalk characteristics. Maintain an overall average on-time performance (i.e. bus arrives at stop no more than 1 minute early or 5.5 minutes late) of 80% on all fixed-route services. Increase transit ridership by 1 percent each year. Conduct a COA every 5 years to provide detailed information for major updates to the TDP. Conduct an analysis by 2016 exploring alternative rostering strategies. Develop cross functional diagram identifying functions and responsible parties for the scheduling process. Improve the quality and convenience of transit services provided to passengers in the Gainesville Metropolitan area. Reduce the number of complaints per 100,000 riders. Reduce customer service complaints per 10,000 riders on ADA trips.

Initiative 8.2.3

Expand service hours by 4,000 hours each year.

Initiative 8.1.1

Initiative 8.1.2

Initiative 8.1.3

Initiative 8.1.4 Initiative 8.1.5 Initiative 8.1.6 Initiative 8.1.7 Initiative 8.1.8 Objective 8.2

Initiative 8.2.4 Initiative 8.2.5 Initiative 8.2.6 Initiative 8.2.7 Initiative 8.2.8 Objective 8.3 Initiative 8.3.1 Initiative 8.3.2 Initiative 8.3.3

Initiative 8.3.4

Provide transit service for a minimum of 14 hours per day on 80% of fixed route services, excluding Later Gator and campus routes. Provide 20-minute peak hour frequencies within a ¼ mile of all high density residential areas as described in the City of Gainesville’s UMU-1, UMU-2 zoning, RH-1 and RH-2 zoning. Plan park-and-ride facilities at key locations along major corridors. Explore the feasibility of implementing deviated fixed-routes and demand response to reach areas in the community where fixed route services are not feasible and/or are cost prohibitive. Improve existing transit services and implement new transit services consistent with the 10-year transit needs identified in the 2009 TDP (2010-2019). Implement and expand Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements to better identify and serve areas of transit demand. Develop an ITS plan by 2015 that follows a Systems Engineering approach to developing new ITS projects. Implement a new fare collection system to improve revenue collection by 2015. Develop a 5-year fare review and update cycle to ensure that fares on both campus and City routes provide on average at least 25% of the total service cost without the need to implement dramatic fare increases, while meeting all Title IV considerations regarding fare equity. Maintain IT and security systems by installing equipment at Rosa Parks Downtown Station and the Operations and Maintenance facility.

Transit Development Plan

132

Combined with Objective 8.1 to create new Objective 2.3 Combined with Goal 8 to create new Objective 2.3

New Initiative 2.3.1

New Initiative 2.3.2

New Initiative 2.3.3

New Initiative 2.3.4 New Initiative 2.3.5 New Initiative 2.3.6 New Initiative 2.3.7 New Initiative 2.3.8 New Objective 2.4 New Initiative 1.5.10 New Initiative 1.5.11 Remove to focus on quality of service and reflect likely budgetary constraints New Initiative 2.4.4 New Initiative 2.4.5

New Initiative 2.4.6 New Initiative 2.4.7

New Initiative 2.4.8 New Objective 2.5 New Initiative 2.5.1 New Initiative 2.5.2 New Initiative 2.2.5

New Initiative 2.5.4

Gainesville RTS

Initiative 8.3.5 Initiative 8.3.6 Initiative 8.3.7 Initiative 8.3.8 Initiative 8.3.9

Implement FleetNet as new Maintenance software application by 2015. Install APC on 50% of fleet by 2023. Install APC devices on all new buses. Research implementing an enterprise database solution to unify primary data components, including bus stop inventory, route inventory, APC data, amenity data, farebox data, etc. by 2015. Maintain and enhance a bus stop, route, and facilities inventory using geographic information systems (GIS).

Goal 9

Coordinate transit services with local and regional planning efforts.

Objective 9.1

Promote transit improvements by continuing to participate in City/County development review processes.

Initiative 9.1.1

Initiative 9.1.2

Initiative 9.1.3

Initiative 9.1.4 Initiative 9.1.5 Initiative 9.1.6 Initiative 9.1.7

Review all development plan submittals and provide written comments on projects that would impact existing or planned transit services or would allow for bus stop/station improvements. Support land use planning and regulations that facilitate pedestrian mobility and transit ridership such as small street blocks, connectivity, placement of parking to the side or rear of buildings, and wide sidewalks. Prioritize placement of premium transit routes along corridors and to activity centers that planning efforts have identified as appropriate for mixed-use development at sufficient densities to support transit. Ensure consistency with the long-term planning efforts of relevant local and state agencies, governments, and organizations, especially Alachua County and the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plans. Coordinate with local and regional agencies to implement new services and amenities using mobility fees collected as part of the alternative concurrency management process. Prior to service changes, send notifications to Regional Planning Council, MTPO, City and County Planning Departments, and Public Works. Coordinate the RTS commuter assistance program with the FloridaWorks GREENRIDE web-based carpooling system and UF.

Transit Development Plan

133

New Initiative 2.5.5 New Initiative 2.5.6 and reworded for clarity Remove for redundancy New Initiative 2.5.8 New Initiative 2.5.9 Combined with Objective 9.1 to create new Objective 2.6 Combined with Goal 9 to create new Objective 2.6 New Initiative 2.6.1 New Initiative 2.6.2

Removed following outreach activities that strongly emphasized focus on existing services. New Initiative 2.6.4

New Initiative 2.6.5 New Initiative 2.6.6 New Initiative 2.6.7

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 6: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION INTRODUCTION This section presents the transit service improvement alternatives for the 2015–2024 TDP. Proposed alternatives constitute the operating portion of the Needs Plan and reflect the COA Service Plan completed for RTS in June 2014; it also includes a group of limited stop inter-city services. The COA Service Plan was developed based on feedback received through public outreach efforts, analysis of transit demand and market assessments, and discussions with RTS staff. Inter-city services include a broad range of intra-county services that connect the various satellite communities within Alachua County to Gainesville. In addition to presenting the TDP Needs Plan, this section includes ridership forecasts prepared using TBEST ridership forecasting software. COA SERVICE PLAN The COA Service Plan includes a number of service improvements for every day of the week, including frequency enhancements, later/earlier service, route realignments, and service to new areas. The COA Service Plan also includes the discontinuation of several underperforming sections of the RTS bus network. Changes in the level of service for each route, defined generally as changes in service span and frequency by day of the week, is specifically provided in Appendix J. New routes and discontinued routes also are clearly delineated in that appendix. Maps 6-1 through 6-5 illustrate changes in service coverage and include:     

Proposed Weekday Routing Proposed UF Campus Weekday Routing Proposed Saturday Routing Proposed Sunday Routing Proposed UF Campus Weekend Routing

Overall, the COA Service Plan increases daily revenue hours of service on weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday by approximately 10 (136 additional hours), 36 (122 additional hours), and 107 (128 additional hours) percent, respectively.55 INTER-CITY SERVICES Inter-city services consist of a group of six limited-stop bus routes that serve the six municipalities in Alachua County that have over 1,000 individuals.56 Map 6-6 illustrates the six inter-city routes.

55

New total hours by service day: weekday = 1,485; Saturday = 455; Sunday = 248. These municipalities include High Springs, Alachua, Waldo, Newberry, Archer, and Hawthorne. It is important to note that letters were sent to all municipalities in March 2014 to assess their interest in such service. While Newberry and Alachua expressed interest, neither have decided to pursue service. 56

Transit Development Plan

134

Gainesville RTS

Map 6-1: Gainesville System Proposed Routing

Transit Development Plan

135

Gainesville RTS

Map 6-2: UF Campus Proposed Routing – Weekday

Transit Development Plan

136

Gainesville RTS

Map 6-3: Gainesville System Proposed Routing – Saturday

Transit Development Plan

137

Gainesville RTS

Map 6-4: Gainesville System Proposed Routing – Sunday

Transit Development Plan

138

Gainesville RTS

Map 6-5: UF Campus Proposed Routing – Weekend

Transit Development Plan

139

Gainesville RTS

Map 6-6: Alachua County Proposed Intercity Service

Transit Development Plan

140

Gainesville RTS

TBEST NEEDS PLAN RIDERSHIP FORECASTS Year 2024 TBEST ridership forecasts were prepared for the Needs Plan. Systemwide TBEST Needs Plan ridership forecast results are shown in Table 6.1, which show ridership comparisons for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service, respectively. More detailed route-by-route results are included in Appendix G. Year 2024 Baseline ridership forecasts also are included in the tables to illustrate the change in ridership between the status quo scenario and COA alternative proposal. It is important to note that the TBEST modeling exercise assumes full implementation of the Needs Plan. In reality, over the time horizon of the plan, only a portion of the projects likely will be able to be implemented and, moreover, the model assumes that ridership has stabilized by 2024. Additionally, and as previously noted, annualized numbers are not shown as the ridership figures are based on the RTS peak schedule. Salient conclusions and implications based on the 2024 ridership forecasts are summarized below: 

TBEST ridership forecasts for the Needs Plan scenario are substantially higher for every day of the week than forecasts for the Baseline scenario. This is not surprising given the increase in revenue hours of service proposed in the COA Service Plan. o

The increase in system-wide needs plan average weekday ridership is approximately double the Baseline forecasts. The increase is 20 percent and 10 percent for the Needs Plan and Baseline scenarios, respectively. Overall, however, because of the increase in hours, the changes the COA service plan sees a slight decrease in productivity.

o

The increase in average Saturday ridership in the Needs Plan scenario is more than three times the forecast under the Baseline scenario. Saturday ridership increases by more than 100 percent, whereas in the Baseline scenario, the increase is approximately 32.5 percent. Productivity also increases in the Needs Plan scenario.

o

The increase in average Sunday ridership in the Needs Plan is nearly six times that of the Baseline scenarios.57



Inter-city services ranked among the lowest performing routes in the 2024 Needs Plan scenario.



On its own, Baseline growth is substantial given the 10-year timeframe for the TBEST forecasts. Based on the TBEST Needs Plan projections, the TDP Needs Plan strategically builds on that demonstrated growth and further enhances ridership growth and transit utilization in the Gainesville area.

57

As stated previously, ridership forecasts seemed to be particularly inflated for weekend service due to model coefficient errors that have been reported to FDOT. The huge increase in weekend ridership under the Needs Plan should be viewed cautiously.

Transit Development Plan

141

Gainesville RTS

Table 6-1 2024 Needs Plan Average Weekday Ridership

Route Name

Baseline 2013 Average Daily Ridership

Baseline 2024 Average Daily Ridership

Total Weekday Total Saturday Total Sunday

66,696 12,377 4,214

73,432 16,397 6,563

Transit Development Plan

142

Needs Plan 2024 Average Daily Ridership 78,719 25,441 16,986

Needs Plan vs. Baseline Difference

2013–2024 Needs Plan Growth Rate

7.2% 35.5% 158.8%

18.0% 105.6% 303.1%

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 7: PHASED IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN INTRODUCTION The TDP financial plan provides a generalized framework to guide RTS decision making over the 10-year planning horizon. This plan is a living document that will be continually updated. The 10-year plan developed herein was built upon historic and proposed future funding availability and informed through an extensive public outreach process that reached out to thousands of community members, including both regular users and non-users of the system, along with a diverse range of community representatives, stakeholders, and elected leaders. This outreach was tied into the development of the COA, which set forward a list of recommendations (alternatives) for service adjustments and improvements. 10-YEAR RTS REVENUES Revenues for RTS were projected using the most current capital and operating budgets and categorized based on whether they could be spent on capital or operating programs. For funding categories that are flexible, or that go towards both capital and operating, revenue was categorized based on historical distribution. Today most revenue goes toward operating. This may change with revisions to federal and state regulations, which are currently in a period of uncertainty. Additionally, it was assumed that the contributions provided by RTS’s various funding partners would continue at or near their current levels. These revenues were, however, adjusted periodically for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This behavior reflects historical reality with costs steadily increasing at a faster rate than revenue because of inflation. Importantly, contributions from two of RTS’s funding partners, UF and SF, are tied to student ridership which is now largely firm. Increased revenue will chiefly result from moderate per credit hour fee increases. The only new revenue source identified for the financial plan is a proposed surtax that the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners has voted to place on the ballot for November 2014. 58 If passed the 1 cent local option sales tax would fund a variety of transportation improvements throughout Alachua County. The revenue generated by this tax would be split between the County and cities within the county for a pre-determined list of transportation improvements. The City of Gainesville is the only entity including transit improvements as part of the projects that would use this potential revenue.

58

Over the ten year period in assumption is also included that RTS will be awarded $4 million in FTA discretionary grants. While historically this is much lower than what has been experienced in the last decade it is more consistent with recent federal funding levels and the availability of discretionary grants.

Transit Development Plan

143

Gainesville RTS

RTS’s financial portion is estimated to be approximately $41.5 million over the eight-year life of the tax.59 The financial plan assumes adoption of this surtax. In its absence, the status quo will likely be maintained with few of the COA recommendations implemented. 10-YEAR RTS COSTS Transit operating costs for RTS services were projected using an average operating cost assumption based on current and anticipated future service. This cost per hour assumes a fully-loaded cost that includes overhead, employee benefits, fuel costs, and capital maintenance, among other things. Capital costs were estimated based on trends as observed through recent RTS procurements, a broad range of professional experience, and recent procurements for goods and services from other transit agencies. Costs were inflated for the 10-year period based on the CPI.60 The vehicle replacement plan uses standard FTA guidelines as of June 2014 as to the average useful life of a bus in terms of years (12) and mileage (500,000). As reflected in this plan, RTS will continue to follow these guidelines when requesting funding to maintain a fleet with a consistent average age that balances capital, operating, and maintenance costs with providing reliable service for its customers. As of today, almost one-third of RTS’s fleet is past its useful life. As a result, there is a large capital need for vehicle replacement in the early years of the plan. Other operational and capital cost assumptions that were used to generate the 10-year financial plan are listed in Tables 7-1 and 7-2, respectively.

59

The surtax list was proposed several months before the final COA recommendations. In many cases, there is a clear overlap between the two, but there are some differences in both timing of certain improvements and which routes will be improved. Additionally, while the COA recommendations include the entire service area the list of surtax projects only include those routes whose length is >=75% or more within the city (at time of proposal). As such, routes that received high priority from the COA are not eligible for funding. This distinction also allows for the funding of improvements to routes within the City that are partially or entirely funded at this time by UF and/or SF. 60 This is one benchmark for the effects of inflation. When federal interest rates are low, as they are currently, future increases in inflation can be expected. Costs and inflation should continue to be monitored by RTS when developing cost projections for future years.

Transit Development Plan

144

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-1 Financial Plan Operating Assumptions Assumption

Value (2015)

Fixed-route operating cost per revenue hour (full cost)

$73.61

Operating hours for baseline service

301,000

Operating hours for ADA Service ADA paratransit operating cost per revenue hour Operating cost inflation rate Number of weekdays (city/county routes) Number of weekdays (campus routes) Number of Saturdays Number of Sundays Holidays (without service) Later Gator A service days Later Gator B and C service days Later Gator D and F service days ADA cost per trip Projected 2024 ADA trips Projected 2015 ADA trips

36,000

Vehicle hours calculated based on FY 2014 October-May hours and assumes that FY 2014 June-September will be equal to FY 2013 June-September Based on estimate from recent NTD data

$42.62

Escalated NTD cost per hours

Transit Development Plan

1.8%

Notes/Source Escalated NTD cost per hour

Based on CPI - Updated May 2014

252 217 52 52 9 142 103 45 $24.48 79,500 56,000

Escalated NTD cost per trip Projected based on historic ten year average increase Projected based on historic ten year average increase

145

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-2 Financial Plan Capital Assumptions61 Life Span (Years) 12 8 8 n/a n/a n/a

$690,159 $68,314 $25,180 1 to 3 1 to 4 123

Bus transfer center

n/a

$3,000,000

Landing pad Shelter Bench Trash can Bus bay Spare vehicle ratio Capital cost inflation rate

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

$5,500 $14,460 $425 $305 $250,000 20% 1.8%

Capital 62

Bus Cost (Diesel Hybrid 40') Paratransit van Support vehicle cost Ratio of support vehicles to buses Ratio of ADA vans to buses Existing peak vehicle fleet size

Value

Notes/Sources Recent RTS Procurements through State contracts or professional estimate 1 service vehicle for every 3 buses 1 ADA van for every 4 buses Vehicle Inventory Based on cost of 4–6 bus bay Five Points Transfer Center estimated as part of GoEnhance RTS Study. Assumes other proposed locations will have similar design and cost.

Based on recent actual RTS costs or vendor quotes.

FTA Standard Based on CPI - Updated May 2014

10-YEAR RTS PRIORITIES The alternatives developed by the COA often required several routes to be modified or realigned concurrently to provide continuous service to the RTS service area. These routes modifications were grouped into “packages” of improvements that were then prioritized. The improvements that were identified by the COA can be broken down into several broad categories, which affect most of the RTS service area: 

Improved frequency on existing routes – RTS provides frequent service between UF and several adjacent areas of the city that are heavily populated with students. Outside these areas, frequencies are often 60 minutes or only 30 minutes on common segments. The COA recommends improving most of these other routes to 30 frequencies or better.



Implement new local service – Latent demand analysis and public outreach efforts identified areas warranting service that lack it today. This was particularly apparent in the northern portion of the City. New routes were added to these areas to provide service coverage.

61

See section 5 for capital cost estimates of ITS infrastructure. Hybrid bus model used to reflect recent community preference. Given the increased cost of such vehicles future procurements will need to reassess their cost-effectiveness and determine if these models should continue to be purchased or if a cheaper model should be pursued. 62

Transit Development Plan

146

Gainesville RTS



Improvements to weekend service – Weekend service spans are often 10 hours or less, with frequencies as low as 120 minutes. Even with this impractical and unattractive level of service, Saturday and Sunday ridership growth has often outpaced weekday ridership in recent years clearly articulating a demand for more service. A large number of hours were added to weekend service to correct these deficiencies.



Information Technology improvements – A major component of the 10-year Needs Plan includes technology improvements that will improve operational efficiency and customer service and in turn allow RTS to stretch operational funds farther; see Section 5.



Infrastructure Improvements – Trip behavior gathered from the on-board survey highlighted the need for a number of realignments, which, in turn, emphasized the current deficiency in transfer facilities. To support the rerouting and improve accessibility and frequencies, transfer facilities are being proposed at UF, SF, the Five Points area, NW 13th St, Butler Plaza, and the Oaks Mall.63 The on-board survey and other public outreach activities also stressed the continual desire by RTS patrons for improved better stop amenities including shelters and benches.

RTS 10-YEAR PHASED IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN As stated above, implementation of the alternatives identified by the COA in the RTS 10-year Needs Plan is contingent on passage of a 1-cent local option sales tax. This will provide the revenue needed to institute regular replacement of revenue vehicles, bus stop improvements, and the provision of new or revised services to the GUA. Even with the surtax, however, a number of improvements still cannot be implemented within the 10-year timeframe based on revenue and cost estimates. The identified bus stop improvements focus on improving the customer experience and making it easier for users of all abilities to access the fixed-route network; this will hopefully enable a number of trips that, previous to the improvements, would have required the more costly paratransit network. Table 73 shows the cost of the accessibility improvements that could be funded by the sales tax over ten years.64 Additional capital items that could not be funded by the sales tax revenue over 8 years include for example the ITS improvements that were discussed in the situation appraisal, the transfer centers mentioned above, and a large number of landing pad improvements.

63

The Butler Plaza transfer facility will be provided to RTS at no cost as part of the developer’s transportation mitigation obligations. 64 Bus stop locations for amenities based on ridership levels.

Transit Development Plan

147

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-3 Implementation Plan Capital Projects List Capital Cost Estimate

Number of Stops Included

Landing pad accessibility improvements

$1,011,715

168

Shelter improvements

$1,046,496

68

Bench improvements

$17,054

38

Trash can improvements

$20,461

64

Bus bay improvements

$1,554,651

6

Total

$3,650,377

Improvement

The RTS bus fleet is also facing serious challenges in the years ahead. Buses are typically procured in bulk when funding becomes available or before new service is rolled out that requires new buses. For RTS, this pattern has resulted in a fleet that has a substantial number of vehicles that have already reached the end of their useful life and need to be replaced at the beginning of the plan (balanced over a few years). Vehicle replacement is assumed in the baseline plan, which results in a large deficit and will not be possible to meaningfully address given current funding streams. As a result, while a need is shown in each year most of it will have to be deferred to future years which will only exacerbate service reliability and rising maintenance/operating costs. Service vehicles were assumed to be replaced to achieve a relatively uniform annual cost. An outline of the buses that will be required is shown in Table 7-4. Table 7-4 Full Sized Bus Replacement Needs65

65

25

Number of Paratransit Vans -

Number of Support Vehicles 4

$17,354,695

2016

18

8

4

$13,305,356

2017

12

8

4

$9,253,482

2018

7

-

4

$5,202,974

2019

3

7

4

$2,845,364

2020

6

9

4

$5,309,606

2021

5

7

4

$4,484,983

2022

7

-

4

$5,587,825

2023

11

-

4

$8,872,540

2024

8

-

4

$6,601,159

Total

102

39

40

$78,817,817

Year

Number of Buses

2015

Capital Cost Estimate

Useful life assumed to be five years for paratransit vehicles and eight years for support vehicles.

Transit Development Plan

148

Gainesville RTS

The operating component of the ten year plan is presented as two different scenarios. The first scenario presented is a baseline that assumes RTS service will continue at the levels that are currently in place. The other scenario represents an implementation plan that assumes additional revenue from a local option sales tax, a portion of which would be allocated towards RTS. This revenue would go towards vehicle replacement and the capital projects listed above, but also towards implementation of the alternatives proposed in the COA. The COA would also require five additional buses that would add to the backlog of vehicle replacement needs. The improvements that are included in this proposal are listed in Table 7-5, with impacts to the daily hours and fleet size reflected in Table 7-6.66

66

Total funding from possible surtax for operational costs was annualized. This figure (in conjunction with jurisdictional constraints) then determined the maximum amount of improvements that could be implemented. Costs were kept approximately at a level so that if the surtax was renewed in Year 9 annualized revenue cost could be covered by annualized revenue. For example, if $2.5 million dollars was available annually for operational improvements costs were not escalated by Year 9 to over $2.5 million since Year 9 revenue if kept at the same levels would not be able to cover them. It is also important to note that improvements were all implemented in the first year. The feasibility of which is possible given the nature of the changes.

Transit Development Plan

149

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-5 Implementation Plan Improvements - First Year Package Number

Service Days

Routes

Weekday, Weekday Weekday Weekday Saturday Saturday Saturday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday Weekday

6, 11A, 11B, 15 (7) 7 11A, 11B 300, 301, 302 300, 301, 302, 305 303 6 15 11B 15 5 2 11B 15 15 34, 36

Weekday

34

Weekday Weekday

9, 35, 121, 122 9

15

Weekday

121

16

Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday

122 122 116, 125, 127 (126) 126 116 125

Weekday

127

Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday

127 28 28 117 117 118

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14

17 18 19

Transit Development Plan

Service Change

150

Adjust Alignment Eliminate route Operate frequency to 60 mins on both routes Begin 30 mins later in evening Begin 30 mins later in evening Begin 15 mins later in evening Increase frequency from 120 to 60 mins Increase evening frequency from 60 to 45 mins Extend evening 2 hrs Begin 30 minutes later, extend 2 hrs Increase frequency peak periods from 24 to 20 mins Establish new service Add new 60-min service Increase frequency from 60 to 30 mins all day Extend 2 hrs earlier, 1 hr later Adjust alignment Reduce frequency from 20 to 25 mins day, 25 to 38 mins evening, 50 to 75 mins late evening Adjust alignment Reduce evening by 1 hr Reduce frequency from 15 to 23 mins all day, 30 to 45 mins evening Increase frequency from 45 to 30 mins all day Extend 20 mins earlier, 1 hr later Adjust alignment Eliminate route Add new route at 25 mins all day Extend to 1 AM Increase frequency from 12 to 10 mins day, 24 to 10 mins evening Extend to 1 AM Adjust alignment Reduce frequency from 16 to 20 mins Adjust alignment Reduce frequency from 16 to 15 mins all day Adjust alignment

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-5 (cont.) Implementation Plan Improvements - First Year Package Number 20

Service Days

Routes

22

Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday

12 21 21 38

23

Saturday

12

24

Sunday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday

5 116, 125, 127 (126) 126 125, 127 9

Saturday

35

Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday Weekday Weekday Saturday Saturday Saturday

37

Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Sunday

116, 125, 127 (126) 126 125, 127 9 35 35 53 120 11B 15 15 2, 13, 24A, 24B, 25A, 27, 41 13 25A 27 41 46 46 13 8 13 8 6

38

Weekday

227

39

Saturday

12

21

25

26

27

28 29 30 31

Weekday 32

33 34 35 36

Transit Development Plan

Service Change Reduce frequency late evening from 23 to 45 mins Increase frequency AM peak from 25 to 10 mins Reduce morning by 1.5 hrs Increase frequency AM peak from 26 to 13 mins Increase frequency afternoons/evening from 45 to 23 mins Increase frequency from 60 to 30 mins all day Adjust alignment Eliminate route Establish new Saturday service Eliminate service Increase frequency from 45 to 23 mins all day and extend evening 3 hrs Adjust alignment Eliminate route Establish new Sunday service Eliminate service Increase frequency from 45 to 23 mins all day Extend 1 hr earlier, 1 hr later Establish new route at 60 mins all day Reduce frequency all day from 9 to 10 mins Establish new 60-min service Increase frequency from 60 to 30 mins all day Extend evening 2 hrs Adjust alignment Reduce frequency from 10 to 15 mins Increase frequency from 65 to 60 mins Extend afternoon 3 hrs Reduce frequency from 30 to 60 mins peak Adjust alignment Increase frequency AM peak from 30 to 15 mins Increase frequency from 60 to 30 mins Increase frequency all day from 90 to 30 mins Extend evening 2 hrs Start 25 mins earlier, extend 2 hrs later Establish new service Establish new route AM peak-only at approximately 33 mins frequency Extend evening 1 hr

151

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-5 (cont.) Implementation Plan Improvements - First Year Package Number

Service Days

Routes

Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday

13 8 13 8 23, 62 77 23 23 62 62 24A 24A

46

Saturday

2, 13, 25A

48 54 68 69

Sunday Sunday

25 16

Adjust alignment Extend morning and evening 1 hr

Weekday Weekday

8 8

Reduce frequency late evening from 45 to 90 mins Extend evening 1 hr

40 41

42

45

Service Change Increase frequency from 60 to 45 mins Increase frequency all day from 90 to 45 mins Extend AM by 1 hr, evening by 1 hr Start 2 hrs earlier, extend evening 45 min later Adjust alignment Eliminate route Reduce frequency from 23 to 40 mins Reduce evening service by 3 hrs Increase frequency from 60 to 20 mins all day Extend afternoon and evening 7 hrs Start 30 mins later, extend evening 1 hr Start 1:40 later in AM Adjust alignment

Table 7-6 Implementation Plan Added Services Daily Hours

Annual Hours

New Peak Fleet Requirements

Peak Vehicles Added

Weekday

67

3,484

104

1

Saturday

72

3,744

28

7

Sunday

94

23,688

24

10

Total

233

30,916

N/A

N/A

Day

Those service improvements that were identified by the COA but could not be funded even with additional revenue provided by the sales tax are listed in Table 7-7. Additional capital projects that are currently unfunded are also listed in Table 7-8. These projects include bus stops and other amenities located outside the City of Gainesville, as well as those stops within the city that sales tax revenue would not be sufficient to fund.

Transit Development Plan

152

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-7 Unfunded Needs Plan Package Number

Service Days

Routes

Service Change

Weekday

75

Weekday

75

42a 43

Saturday Saturday Saturday Sunday Sunday Weekday Weekday

75 75 75 75 75 39 6

44

Sunday

12

47 49

Saturday Weekday

2 2

50

Weekday

2

Adjust alignment Increase frequency peak from 35 to 30 mins, midday 53 to 30 mins, reduce evening from 35 to 45 mins Adjust alignment Increase frequency 105 to 45 mins all day Start 20 mins later, extend 40 mins later Adjust alignment Establish new service at 45 mins Increase frequency from 60 to 35 mins Extend evening 2 hrs Start 1 hr earlier, extend 1 hr later at 45 mins Extend evening 2 hrs at 60 mins Extend evening 3 hrs at 60 mins Reduce early AM frequency from 30 to 60 mins

51

Weekday, Saturday, Sunday Weekday

10

11 12

16, 17, 43 16, 17

Weekday

16,17

Weekday

43

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday Weekday Weekday Sunday Weekday Weekday Weekday Saturday Weekday

43 16, 43 10 6 6 20 20 40 39 75 53 1

64

Saturday

1

65 66 67

Saturday Sunday Sunday

1 1 5

52 53

Transit Development Plan

Cost (2015 dollars) $115,938

$48,307 $80,767 $133,931 $22,260 $7,387 $6,048 $55,650 $18,550

Adjust alignment Reduce evening by 1 hr Improve evening frequency from 60 to 30 mins Reduce frequency all day from 28 to 30 mins Establish new route Extend evening 1 hr Eliminate Saturday service Extend 1 hr earlier, 3 hrs later Reduce frequency from 60 to 30 mins Extend evening by 30 mins Start 2 hrs earlier, extend 2 hrs later Establish new route at 30 mins all day Extend afternoon 3 hrs Extend evening 3 hrs Establish new route at 60 mins all day Extend evening 2 hrs Reduce frequency from 60 to 30 in AM, reduce from 30 to 60 mins in evening Extend evening 2 hrs Start 2 hrs earlier, extend evening 1 hr Start 2 hrs earlier, extend evening 1 hr

153

$20,034

$160,830 $80,958 $15,311 $207,761 $52,262 $16,139 $426,653 $100,542 $113,156 $24,336 $34,874 $12,096 $7,656 $23,579 $9,876

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-8 Unfunded Capital Projects Capital Cost Estimate

Number of Stops

Landing pad accessibility improvements

$4,196,500

763

Shelter improvements

$1,026,660

71

$28,050

69

Improvement

Bench improvements Trash can improvements

$21,045

69

$1,250,000

5

$18,000,000

N/A

ITS Improvements

$4,800,410

N/A

Replacement Buses

$28,294,210

N/A

Total

$57,616,875

Bus bay improvements Transfer Center

A summary of the overall cost implications of the baseline scenario and the Implementation Plan are presented in Tables 7-9 and 7-10, respectively. Projected revenues for RTS are presented in Table 7-11. As shown in these tables, even with assumed sales tax revenue, the unfunded vehicle need is only partially satisfied. It is also apparent that RTS will need to postpone needed capital expenditures and may even need to cut service if expected cost increases in ADA service occur and current revenue sources do not expand. It is important to note that the annualized costs of COA alternative improvements derive from Fall/Spring service levels and, therefore, represent a maximum value. A number of routes that were improved or added do not or will not operate in Summer. Daily revenue hours for Summer 2014 are 66 percent of Spring 2014 daily revenue hours. When implemented, their costs will be lower than what is reflected here.

Transit Development Plan

154

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-9 RTS 10-Year Baseline Financial Summary67 FY15 Estimated

FY16 Estimated

FY17 Estimated

FY18 Estimated

FY19 Estimated

FY20 Estimated

FY21 Estimated

FY22 Estimated

FY23 Estimated

FY24 Estimated

Baseline Service Operating Costs Baseline Fixed Route Operating Cost Existing ADA Contracted and Other Services Total Maintain Existing Service (Costs)

$22,156,610 $1,428,408 $23,585,018

$22,555,429 $1,512,683 $24,068,112

$22,961,427 $1,599,529 $24,560,955

$23,374,732 $1,689,011 $25,063,743

$23,795,478 $1,781,196 $25,576,674

$24,223,796 $1,876,153 $26,099,949

$24,659,824 $1,973,951 $26,633,776

$25,103,701 $2,074,663 $27,178,364

$25,555,568 $2,178,360 $27,733,928

$26,015,568 $2,285,118 $28,300,686

$240,402,134 $18,399,072 $258,801,205

Baseline Operating Revenues Baseline Operating Revenue Net Operating Surplus/Deficit

$23,692,450 $107,432

$23,869,263 -$198,849

$23,916,590 -$644,365

$24,024,502 -$1,039,241

$24,204,035 -$1,372,639

$24,252,796 -$1,847,153

$24,362,758 -$2,271,018

$24,545,066 -$2,633,298

$24,595,305 -$3,138,623

$24,707,366 -$3,593,320

$242,170,132 -$16,631,073

Baseline Capital Costs Vehicle Replacement Total Baseline Non-Operating Costs

$17,464,695 $17,464,695

$13,305,356 $13,305,356

$9,253,482 $9,253,482

$5,202,974 $5,202,974

$2,845,364 $2,845,364

$5,309,606 $5,309,606

$4,484,983 $4,484,983

$5,587,825 $5,587,825

$8,872,540 $8,872,540

$6,601,159 $6,601,159

$78,927,985 $78,927,985

Baseline Capital Revenues Baseline Capital Revenue Net Capital Surplus/Deficit Aggregate Capital Surplus/Deficit (Vehicle Needs)

$2,626,860 -$14,837,835 -$14,837,835

$4,638,146 -$8,667,210 -$23,505,045

$2,641,167 -$6,612,315 -$30,117,360

$2,659,200 -$2,543,774 -$32,661,134

$2,670,660 -$174,704 -$32,835,838

$4,673,772 -$635,833 -$33,471,672

$2,692,048 -$1,792,934 -$35,264,606

$2,703,685 -$2,884,140 -$38,148,746

$2,706,892 -$6,165,648 -$44,314,395

$2,725,414 -$3,875,745 -$48,190,140

$30,737,845 -$48,190,140

Net Baseline Operating and Capital Revenue

-$14,730,403

-$8,866,059

-$7,256,680

-$3,583,015

-$1,547,343

-$2,482,986

-$4,063,952

-$5,517,438

-$9,304,271

-$7,469,065

-$64,821,213

Total

The line item for existing ADA contracted and other services includes anticipated increases in demand for trips associated with an aging US population, as well as anticipated increases in costs associated with inflation. The costs associated with the projected increase in trips are factored in gradually over the course of ten years. Demand for these services often exceeds the available resources, and it is possible that future year cost increases will be limited by budget constraints that limit the number of trips that are able to be accommodated. There are several strategies that may also affect future ADA ridership, including shifting requirements for qualified riders, and changing requirements for trip scheduling, that may have a positive or negative effect on the demand for trips.

67

The operating deficit shown in early years is largely influenced by revenue streams that are not growing as fast as cost streams. This assumption is reflective of trends that are evident today, however this is a projection only and future years may differ. A large unfunded vehicle need is reflected in capital revenues, however RTS may elect to defer purchase of replacement vehicles to future years while funding is sought, which would not result in a deficit budget.

Tech Memo 1

155

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-10 RTS Ten Year Implementation Plan Financial Summary FY15 Estimated

FY16 Estimated

FY17 Estimated

FY18 Estimated

FY19 Estimated

FY20 Estimated

FY21 Estimated

FY22 Estimated

FY23 Estimated

FY24 Estimated

Cost Affordable Needs Plan Service Operating Costs Baseline Fixed Route Operating Cost Existing ADA Contracted and Other Services Sales Tax Funded Service Improvements Total Needs Plan Operating Cost

$22,156,610 $1,428,408 $2,007,868 $25,592,886

$22,555,429 $1,512,683 $2,044,009 $26,112,121

$22,961,427 $1,599,529 $2,080,802 $26,641,757

$23,374,732 $1,689,011 $2,118,256 $27,181,999

$23,795,478 $1,781,196 $2,156,385 $27,733,059

$24,223,796 $1,876,153 $2,195,199 $28,295,149

$24,659,824 $1,973,951 $2,234,713 $28,868,489

$25,103,701 $2,074,663 $2,274,938 $29,453,302

$25,555,568 $2,178,360 $2,315,887 $30,049,814

$26,015,568 $2,285,118 $2,357,573 $30,658,258

$240,402,134 $18,399,072 $21,785,629 $258,801,205

Cost Affordable Needs Plan Operating Revenues Baseline Operating Revenue Needs Plan Sales Tax Operating Revenue Total Needs Plan Operating Revenue

$23,692,450 $2,244,798 $25,904,553

$23,869,263 $2,244,798 $26,080,777

$23,916,590 $2,244,798 $26,127,506

$24,024,502 $2,244,798 $26,234,808

$24,204,035 $2,244,798 $26,413,719

$24,252,796 $2,244,798 $26,461,849

$24,362,758 $2,244,798 $26,571,167

$24,545,066 $2,244,798 $26,752,820

$24,595,305 $0 $24,557,594

$24,707,366 $0 $24,668,976

$242,170,132 $17,958,385 $259,773,768

$311,667

-$31,344

-$514,251

-$947,192

-$1,319,339

-$1,833,300

-$2,297,322

-$2,700,482

-$5,492,220

-$5,989,282

-$20,813,066

$17,464,695 $690,159 $266,750 $18,421,604

$13,305,356 $0 $775,960 $14,081,316

$9,253,482 $0 $781,767 $10,035,249

$5,202,974 $0 $780,583 $5,983,558

$2,845,364 $0 $251,416 $3,096,780

$5,309,606 $0 $256,608 $5,566,214

$4,484,983 $0 $260,888 $4,745,870

$5,587,825 $0 $276,427 $5,864,252

$8,872,540 $0 $0 $8,872,540

$6,601,159 $0 $0 $6,601,159

$78,927,985 $690,159 $3,650,398 $83,268,542

$2,626,860 $456,297 $2,486,991 $5,570,148

$4,638,146 $456,297 $2,486,991 $7,581,434

$2,641,167 $456,297 $2,486,991 $5,584,455

$2,659,200 $456,297 $2,486,991 $5,602,489

$2,670,660 $456,297 $2,486,991 $5,613,948

$4,673,772 $456,297 $2,486,991 $7,617,061

$2,692,048 $456,297 $2,486,991 $5,635,337

$2,703,685 $456,297 $2,486,991 $5,646,973

$2,706,892 $0 $0 $2,706,892

$2,725,414 $0 $0 $2,725,414

$30,737,845 $3,650,376 $19,895,930 $54,284,151

Net Capital Surplus/Deficit Aggregate Capital Surplus/Deficit

-$15,794,744 -$15,794,744

-$9,443,170 -$25,237,914

-$7,394,082 -$32,631,996

-$3,324,357 -$35,956,354

-$426,120 -$36,382,473

-$892,442 -$37,274,915

-$2,053,822 -$39,328,737

-$3,160,567 -$42,489,304

-$6,165,648 -$48,654,952

-$3,875,745 -$52,530,697

-$52,530,697

Total RTS Needs Plan Revenue

-$15,483,077

-$9,474,514

-$7,908,333

-$4,271,549

-$1,745,459

-$2,725,742

-$4,351,144

-$5,861,048

-$11,657,869

-$9,865,027

-$73,343,763

Net Operating Surplus/Deficit Cost Affordable Needs Plan Capital Costs Vehicle Replacement Vehicle Expansion Capital Projects Total Needs Plan Capital Costs Cost Affordable Needs Plan Capital Revenues Baseline Capital Revenue Needs Plan Sales Tax Capital Revenue Needs Plan Sales Tax Vehicle Revenue Total Needs Plan Capital Revenue

Total

Capital revenues that are shown on the implementation plan are aggregated to show the effect of unfunded vehicle needs and other capital infrastructure that carries over to future years. Operating costs, though a similar total is shown, do not aggregate year over year. This total is shown for illustrative purposes only.

Tech Memo 1

156

Gainesville RTS

Table 7-11 RTS 10-Year Operating Revenue Summary 2015 Local, State, and Federal Revenues FTA Operating FTA Capital Federal Discretionary FDOT Subtotal FDOT Block Grant FDOT Section 5311, 5316, 5317 FDOT Service Development Grant County City Sub-Total Fares, Passes, and Local Agreements UF Net Contribution Subtotal UF Baseline Serivce SF Fares and Passes Other*

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,823,374 1,438,322 2,248,657 1,700,534 324,384 223,739 999,035 2,973,579

2016 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$10,482,968 $ 12,670,684 $ 12,783,447 $ 1,041,496 $ 1,305,538 $ 705,860

Sub-Total

2,823,374 1,438,322 2,000,000 2,248,657 1,700,534 324,384 223,739 999,035 3,003,315 $12,512,704

$ 12,796,489 $ 12,911,282 $ 1,051,911 $ 1,318,593 $ 712,919

$15,723,579

$15,879,912

2017 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,823,374 1,438,322 2,248,657 1,700,534 324,384 223,739 999,035 3,033,348

$10,542,737 $ 12,794,423 $ 12,911,282 $ 1,051,911 $ 1,331,779 $ 720,048 $15,898,161

2018 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2019

2,851,608 1,452,706 2,271,144 1,717,539 327,628 225,976 1,009,026 3,063,681

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$10,648,164 $ 12,792,319 $ 12,911,282 $ 1,051,911 $ 1,345,097 $ 727,248

2,851,608 1,452,706 2,271,144 1,717,539 327,628 225,976 1,009,026 3,094,318

$10,678,801 $ 12,919,291 $ 13,040,395 $ 1,062,430 $ 1,358,548 $ 734,521

$15,916,576

$16,074,790

2020 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,851,608 1,452,706 2,000,000 2,271,144 1,717,539 327,628 225,976 1,009,026 3,125,261

$12,709,744 $ 12,917,111 $ 13,040,395 $ 1,062,430 $ 1,372,134 $ 741,866 $16,093,541

2021 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,880,124 1,467,233 2,293,855 1,734,715 330,904 228,236 1,019,116 3,156,514

$10,816,842 $ 12,914,892 $ 13,040,395 $ 1,062,430 $ 1,385,855 $ 749,285 $16,112,462

2022 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,880,124 1,467,233 2,293,855 1,734,715 330,904 228,236 1,019,116 3,188,079

$10,848,407 $ 13,043,037 $ 13,170,799 $ 1,073,055 $ 1,399,713 $ 756,777 $16,272,582

2023 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,880,124 1,467,233 2,293,855 1,734,715 330,904 228,236 1,019,116 3,219,960

$10,880,288 $ 13,040,737 $ 13,170,799 $ 1,073,055 $ 1,413,711 $ 764,345 $16,291,848

2024 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Ten-Year Total

2,908,925 1,481,905 2,316,794 1,752,062 334,214 230,519 1,029,307 3,252,159

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

28,574,240 14,556,688 4,000,000 22,757,764 17,210,426 3,282,964 2,264,374 10,110,838 31,110,214

$10,989,090 $ 111,109,744 $ 13,038,396 $ 13,170,799 $ 1,073,055 $ 1,427,848 $ 771,989

$ 1,148,120,226 $ 130,150,873 $ 10,603,686 $ 13,658,816 $ 7,384,858

$16,311,287 $ 160,574,738

Total Existing Revenue

$ 26,206,547

$ 28,392,616

$ 26,440,898

$ 26,564,740

$ 26,753,591

$ 28,803,285

$ 26,929,303

$ 27,120,989

$ 27,172,135

$ 27,300,377

$ 271,684,482

Potential Future Revenue Total Proposed RTS Share - Penny Sales Tax Proposed Capital Share Proposed Vehicle Share Proposed Operating Share UF Service Reallocation Savings Reallocation Savings Other than UF

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ 5,188,086 $ 2,486,991 $ 456,297 $ 2,244,798 $ (116,859) $ (33,883)

$ 5,188,086 $ 2,486,991 $ 456,297 $ 2,244,798 $ (118,963) $ (34,493)

$ 5,188,086 $ 2,486,991 $ 456,297 $ 2,244,798 $ (121,104) $ (35,114)

$ 5,188,086 $ 2,486,991 $ 456,297 $ 2,244,798 $ (123,284) $ (35,746)

$ 5,188,086 $ 2,486,991 $ 456,297 $ 2,244,798 $ (125,503) $ (36,389)

$ 5,188,086 $ 2,486,991 $ 456,297 $ 2,244,798 $ (127,762) $ (37,044)

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

5,188,086 2,486,991 456,297 2,244,798 (112,763) (32,695)

5,188,086 2,486,991 456,297 2,244,798 (114,793) (33,284)

(130,062) (37,711)

(132,403) (38,390)

37,854,315 19,895,930 3,650,376 17,958,385 (1,223,495) (354,749)

It is important to note that the annualized costs of COA alternative improvements derive from fall/spring service levels and therefore represent a maximum value. A number of routes that are improved or added do not or will not operate in the summer. Daily revenue hours for summer 2014 are 66 percent of spring 2014 daily revenue hours. When implemented, their costs will be lower than what is reflected here. Additionally, the implementation of improvements outlined in the COA would be expected to increase ridership, however considering the high student ridership and low proportion of cash fares, and that the average cash fare is $0.61, this additional revenue is small relative to other revenue streams, and so was not included in the revenue presented here. City revenue was increased annually due to the city’s role as the provider of RTS services. Other revenues include items such as advertising on buses, shelters, and interest revenue.

Tech Memo 1

157

Gainesville RTS

ORGANIZATION CHART AND STAFFING PLAN Implementation of the plans above will affect RTS staffing needs. The baseline scenario represents the current RTS structure, and would not require additional operators or supervisor staffing for implementation.68 Due to the number of vehicles reaching the end of their useful lives, however, RTS may require additional mechanic and vehicle maintenance staffing. At this time, though, there is no additional operating revenue for these positions. The RTS staff and impacts of the implementation plan are described below. All RTS duties are performed under the Transit Director. The overall organizational structure is shown in Figure 7-1, but it is important to note that some employees may be shared with other city departments, and that total employees shown on this chart may differ from what is reported to NTD. Figure 7-1 RTS 2014 Organization Chart

68

This does not imply that current staffing levels are desirous. Currently, RTS operates more trips per full-time employee equivalent than any other transit agency in the state. While this efficiency keeps operating costs low it places a large burden on existing staff and limits staff to only performing the most necessary tasks to place service on the road.

Transit Development Plan

158

Gainesville RTS

The operations staff, which includes the bus operators and their supervisors, makes up the largest staff portion (78%), followed by the maintenance crew (16%). Overhead staff includes marketing, procurement, and planning staff positions.69 RTS also has an internship program to supplement staff levels with temporary positions. Table 7-12 shows new staff required under the implementation plan that assumes revenue from the proposed surtax. Even with the revenue from the sales tax there will still be a large unfunded need for vehicle replacements. For this reason, it is assumed that additional mechanic and parts staff will be needed as well as an additional manager to handle the increased staffing. These additional positions will help support the increasing maintenance demands of an aging fleet. If new funding is not secured, as much as 40 percent of the RTS fleet may be older than 12 years within the planning horizon of the TDP.70 Currently, there is one mechanic to service vehicles for every 30,000 annual miles driven. Assuming that the aging fleet reduces this ratio by 30% (as this will be the approximate proportion of the fleet that will more regularly need additional maintenance), there would be one mechanic needed for every 20,000 annual miles driven. This would result in the need for an additional 5 mechanics needed. The implementation plan would also result in additional annual hours that would require approximately 1 more mechanic. If additional funding is located for replacement buses, the need for additional mechanics will be reduced. It was also assumed that one additional operator will be needed for every 2,000 of additional annual hours that are needed each year. This estimate includes a 20% margin necessary to plan for extra-board operators and account for higher staff attrition associated with new hires. Table 7-12 New Staff Needs for Implementation Plan Cost Affordable Needs Plan

RTS Staff Maintenance Mechanic I

3

Mechanic II

2

Parts Specialist

2

Vehicle Service Attendant

1

Maintenance Worker III

1

Assistant Maintenance Manager

1

Operations Transit Operations Supervisors

1

Transit Supervisor/Scheduler

2

Transit Operators

15

Buyer

1

69

The chart does not reflect vacancies of which there are many. The scheduling of maintenance shifts will also have to be addressed with weekend operating hours increasing greatly. 70

Transit Development Plan

159

Gainesville RTS

FINANCIAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The revenue scenarios presented above represent several challenges and opportunities for RTS. Particularly burdensome for both scenarios is the existing large number of vehicles past the end of their useful lives. Moreover, despite the possibility of additional revenue under the implementation plan, it is unclear that operational enhancements will continue after 2022 if the surtax is not renewed. Overall, a funding deficit exists for both plans. Without additional funding sources, RTS may be required to make some difficult decisions regarding continuation of current service levels. As costs continue to increase faster than revenues, particularly fuel costs, the operational challenges faced by RTS will only be exacerbated.

Transit Development Plan

160

Gainesville RTS

SECTION 8: MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Transit service in Gainesville provides a critical mobility option for students, residents, and visitors. RTS provides the capacity for tens of thousands of daily trips, many of which would likely be completed by personal automobile. RTS allows UF and SFC to function with far fewer parking spaces and major roadways to operate with less congestion than would likely be possible otherwise. As is typical of any transportation infrastructure, transit service is supported through taxpayer revenue and user fees. The fares that are generated by RTS, including those revenues paid through an agreement with UF and SF, cover a much higher portion of the costs than is typical for transit service around Florida and in other parts of the country. The average farebox return for a transit agency in the US is roughly 21 percent, while RTS’s farebox return exceeds 50 percent. RTS has improved its operating performance since the last major TDP update as reflected by increasing passenger trips per capita, average fare, and farebox recovery ratio. Moreover, RTS’s ridership outpaced population growth in the service area. In order to maintain these positive trends, it will be necessary for RTS to continue to monitor and evaluate ridership, productivity, and farebox return. The improvements outlined in this 10-year plan include an implementation plan based on the assumption of a one-cent local option sales tax. These improvements include the regular replacement of revenue vehicles, improved frequency on existing routes, new local service, and improvements and upgrades of infrastructure and technology. The majority of operational improvements reflected in the plan are the result of a recently completed COA. Some of these improvements may still require further study and public outreach before implementation, as existing conditions may change before funding becomes available for their implementation. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 



  

UF will continue to be a focal point of RTS service, as the student population relies on RTS for the bulk of its transportation to and around the main campus due to parking shortages and limited roadway capacity in and around the campus. Inter-city transit services would be beneficial within Alachua County to accommodate commuter trips from these areas. The relative impact, however, of these improvements to other improvements means that they are likely to occur outside of the ten-year horizon of the TDP. RTS fares for various fare categories are generally less than that of the statewide average. Local planning documents favor development styles and patterns that are supportive of transit use and should benefit RTS in the future as they manifest themselves. The perception of RTS in the community is largely positive and is particularly positive among riders, as reflected in an on-board survey. Nonetheless, perceptions remain of favoritism exhibited toward student riders.

Transit Development Plan

161

Gainesville RTS



Outside the possible adoption of a one-cent local option sales tax, revenue levels are expected to be stagnant or declining. This will present a number of challenges to maintaining existing service levels.

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 



Future success will depend on maintaining a close working relationship with UF and SF. This will particularly involve identifying a location and funding for a transfer center at each location that can efficiently accommodate current and future service levels and ridership. The new fareboxes provide an opportunity for RTS to explore fare changes and fare types. RTS should further explore the offerings and price points of its peers and other Florida agencies. ITS infrastructure remains incredibly limited and a revenue source to address these capital costs is not clearly articulated in this plan. With the continued growth in data and customer expectations RTS will need to look at diverting capital funding from existing items in order to purchase ITS infrastructure. RTS needs to look for ways to improve funding for County-based routes. During the COA and TDP process the loudest demands for service improvements often came from individuals that used routes in the County on the periphery of RTS’s service area. Currently, the County has opted to not include transit projects in the list of projects to be funded by a possible one-cent local option sales tax. This means that immediate future improvements are unlikely.

Transit Development Plan

162

Gainesville RTS

Appendix A COA Technical Memorandum Three

Appendix

A

Gainesville RTS

of COne (COA) Comprehensive Operations Table Analysis

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis November 25, 2013 Submitted by:

In Association With:

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0

Latent Demand Methodology ....................................................................................... 2

3.0

Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................... 3

4.0

Ridership Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5

5.0

Results Discussion ......................................................................................................... 8

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Introduction 1.0

INTRODUCTION

This memo describes the latent demand analysis conducted for the RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). The purpose of the latent demand analysis is to estimate the potential for generating additional transit ridership in a geographic area. Unlike a ridership analysis of an existing system, which focuses on the corridors where service is already offered, a latent demand analysis examines the characteristics that help predict the potential for transit ridership in both served and underserved areas. To that end, two distinct markets were considered in the analysis: 1) 2)

areas where characteristics indicate a latent demand for transit use, with a strong propensity for transit use but where ridership is low; and areas where characteristics indicate a strong propensity for transit use and ridership is high.

The first market represents areas that are underserved by transit, and where RTS could achieve ridership gains by providing service. The second market includes areas where transit use is already high, but where additional service may generate further ridership gains.

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 1

Methodology 2.0

LATENT DEMAND METHODOLOGY

The methodology used to determine the areas of latent demand within Alachua County involved identifying two distinct subsets of areas based on demographic and ridership data. Demographic data from the 2010 Census and 2007-2011 American Community Survey were used to develop a latent demand index that identifies block groups with characteristics that indicate a strong propensity for transit ridership. Block groups in Alachua County were assigned values of low, medium, or high transit propensity based on the performance of various demographic characteristics, described in greater detail in the Demographic Analysis section below. The block groups identified as having a high propensity for transit use based on demographic characteristics form one subset of the analysis. Average weekday ridership data by stop was obtained from APC data collected in September 2012. Block groups in Alachua County were assigned values of no service, low, medium, or high ridership based on a calculated ridership measure for the block group, described in greater detail in the Ridership Analysis section below. The block groups identified as having low and high ridership form the other subset of the analysis. The demographic and ridership subsets were then combined to identify the two market areas described in the introduction. Block groups that have a high propensity for transit use based on demographic characteristics but exhibit low ridership are areas that may be underserved by transit, and where RTS could likely generate more ridership by providing more, or different, service. Block groups that have a high propensity for transit use based on demographic characteristics and exhibit high ridership are areas where further ridership gains possibly could be generated by providing additional or premium-type service.

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 2

Demographic Analysis 3.0

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Demographic data were used to develop a demographic index that identifies areas with characteristics that indicate a strong propensity for transit ridership. The following data were used to calculate the demographic index: 



2010 US Census o Population density o Percent minority population o Percent population over age 65 o Percent population age 18-24 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates o Percent population with income below poverty level o Percent households without vehicle

Each of these measures correlates with high transit ridership. The measures for each block group were compared against the average value in Alachua County and assigned a score based on their comparative performance. Measures that fell within one-half of a standard deviation around the mean were assigned a score of 2. Measures that were greater than one-half a standard deviation above the mean were assigned a score of 3, and those that were less than one-half a standard deviation below the mean were assigned a score of 1. The scores for all six measures were then summed for each block group to generate the demographic index score. The average latent demand index score for all block groups in Alachua County was 11.3 with a standard deviation of 2.2. Block groups with a latent demand index score within one standard deviation of the average score, or a score of 10 to 13, were assigned a medium value. Block groups with a score of 14 or higher were assigned a high value, and those with a score of 9 or lower were assigned a low value. Figure 3-1 shows the results of the demographic index.

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 3

Methodology Figure 3-1 Demographic Index

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 4

Demographic Analysis

Ridership Analysis 4.0

RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS

A normalized ridership value for each block group was derived by dividing the number of weekday boardings that occur within the block group by the number of daily bus trips that serve (intersect) the block group and the area of the block group. This calculated ridership value provides a measure of the existing ridership relative to the amount of service provided and the area over which that service is provided. Average weekday ridership data by stop was obtained from APC data collected in September 2012 and was aggregated by block group. The daily number of trips on each route was determined from the Fall 2013 City and Campus Bus Schedule, and included City Routes, Campus Routes, and Later Gator Routes. The number of trips serving each block group was determined by aggregating the daily trips for each route intersecting the block group. Block groups within Alachua County that are not served by RTS (no intersecting routes) were assigned a ridership index value of “no service” and were not included in the calculation of the average ridership score for the remaining block groups. Block groups with a ridership score within one-quarter standard deviation of the average score for all block groups served by RTS were assigned a medium value. Block groups with a score of greater than one-quarter standard deviation above the mean were assigned a high value, and those with a score less than one-quarter standard deviation below the mean were assigned a low value. Figure 3-2 shows the results of the ridership analysis for Alachua County. Figure 3-3 shows the results of the ridership analysis for the existing RTS service area.

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 5

Ridership Analysis Figure 3-2 Ridership Index for Alachua County

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 6

Ridership Analysis

Ridership Analysis Figure 3-3 Ridership Index for RTS Service Area

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 7

Ridership Analysis

Results Discussion 5.0

RESULTS DISCUSSION

The results of the demographic and ridership analysis were combined in order identify areas that had a high propensity for transit use (high demographic index score) and high or low ridership. As described previously, block groups that have a high propensity for transit use based on demographic characteristics but exhibit low ridership are areas that may be underserved by transit, and where RTS could likely generate more ridership by providing more service. Block groups that have a high propensity for transit use based on demographic characteristics and exhibit high ridership are areas where further ridership gains could likely be generated by providing additional or premium-type service. The results of the combined demographic and ridership analysis for Alachua County are shown in Figure 34. The results for the RTS service area are shown in Figure 3-5. Underserved Areas: High Propensity, Low Ridership The results shown in Figure 3-4 indicate that there are no areas of high propensity for transit use beyond the RTS service area. In other words, RTS is already serving the areas of the Alachua County where demographic characteristics indicate that people are most likely to use transit. Several block groups within the RTS service area and the City of Gainesville show up as being areas with high propensity for transit use but low existing ridership. These block groups are primarily located to the north and east of the University of Florida campus, east of downtown Gainesville, and in an area just north of the University of Florida Eastside Campus. Most of these block groups exhibit similar demographic characteristics: above average population density, minority population and college-student age population as compared with the county as a whole. All of but one of these block groups was assigned a high rating for population with income below the poverty level and households without access to a vehicle. A summary of the identified areas is shown in Table 3-1 below.

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 8

Results Discussion Table 3-1: Areas Identified as High Propensity, Low Ridership Block Group

Bounding Area/Description

Block Group 4, Census Tract 10 Block Group Census Tract 2

2,

Block Group Census Tract 6

2,

Block Group Census Tract 7

1,

Block Group Census Tract 4

1,

Block Group Census Tract 5

4,

NW 8th Ave to the north, SW 13th St to the east, University Ave to the south, NW 23rd St to the west SW 2nd Ave to the north, SW 2nd St to the east, SW Depot Ave to the south, SW 7th Terrace to the west NE 8th Ave to the north, NE 18th St to the east, University Ave to the south, Waldo Rd to the west University Ave to the north, SE 15th St to the east, SE 7th Ave to the south, Waldo Rd Greenway to the west NE 39th Ave to north, Waldo Rd to the east, NW 23rd Ave to the south, NE 15th St to the west NE 8th Ave to the north, Waldo Rd to the east, University Ave to the south, NE 7th St to the west

Average Weekday Boardings

Daily Trips

159

313

75

317

22

112

Minority population; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

63

87

Minority population; zero vehicle households

61

114

Minority population; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

46

73

Zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

Demographic measures receiving "high" score Population 18-24 year olds; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty Population density; population 18-24 year olds; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

Block Group 2, Census Tract 15.15

SW 27th Ave to the north, SW 31st Place to the south, SW 23rd St to the east

32

281

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; minority population; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

Block Group Census Tract 2

NW 8th Ave to the north, NW 8th St to the east, NW 3rd Ave to the south, NW 13th St to the west

25

106

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; population with income below poverty

3,

Additional Service Areas: High Propensity, High Ridership As shown in Figure 3-5, areas identified as having a high propensity for transit ridership and also having a high level of existing ridership relative to the amount of service provided are primarily located in the southeastern quadrant of RTS’ service area. Two of the identified block groups are located beyond the Gainesville city limits. Most of these block groups are characterized by one or more apartment complexes, and all but one of the identified block groups was assigned a high rating for population density and population with income below the poverty level. Three of the block groups have low levels of boarding activity relative to the other identified block groups, but also have low levels of existing service. These include the two block groups to the west of I-75 and the block group to the south of University Avenue and west of SW 34th Street where the Point West and Cazabella Apartment complexes are located. A summary of the identified areas is shown in Table 3-2 below.

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 9

Results Discussion Table 3-2: Areas Identified as High Propensity, High Ridership Block Group

Bounding Area/Description

Block Group 2, Census Tract 22.17 Block Group Census Tract 2

5,

Block Group 1, Census Tract 15.16 Block Group 2, Census Tract 15.21 Block Group 1, Census Tract 22.17 Block Group 3, Census Tract 15.15 Block Group 2, Census Tract 15.16 Block Group 2, Census Tract 15.17 Block Group 3, Census Tract 8.08 Block Group 3, Census Tract 16.04

University Ave to the north, I-75 to the east, SW 4th Place to the south, Tower Rd to the west University Ave to the north, SW 12th St to the east, SW 4th Ave to the south, SW 13th St to the west SW 35th Place to the north, SW 23rd St to the east, Williston Rd to the south, SW 25th Terrace to the west SW 20th Ave to the north, SW 34th St to the east, SW 24th Ave to the south, SW 38th Terrace to the west SW 4th Place to the north, Squire Drive to the east, SW 8th Ave to the south, Tower Rd to the west SW 23rd St to the east, SW 35th Place to the south, The Enclave Apartment to the west, SW 23rd Terrace to the north SW 35th Place to the north, SW 25th Terrace to the east, SW 40th Place to the south, SW 27th St to the west SW 35th Place to the north, SW 28th Terrace to the east, SW 42nd Place to the south, SW 34th St to the west SW 25th Place to the north, S Main St to the east, Williston Rd to the south, SW 13th St to the west University Ave to the north, SW 34th St to the east, Cazabella Apartments to the south, Hogtown Creek to the west

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Average Weekday Boardings

Daily Trips

Demographic measures receiving "high" score

40

8

Population density; minority population; population with income below poverty

306

509

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

520

281

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; population with income below poverty

780

186

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

156

8

Population density; minority population; population with income below poverty

1,276

349

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; population with income below poverty

1,483

275

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; population with income below poverty

892

315

Population density; population 18-24 year olds; minority population; zero vehicle households

693

99

99

67

Page 10

population 18-24 year olds; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty Population density; population 18-24 year olds; zero vehicle households; population with income below poverty

Results Discussion Figure 3-4 Latent Demand Results for Alachua County

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 11

Results Discussion Figure 3-4 Latent Demand Results for RTS Service Area

Technical Memorandum #3 – Latent Demand Analysis RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis

Page 12

Appendix B Transit Policy Context

Appendix

B

Gainesville RTS

TABLE B-1 Matrix and Summary of Transit Policy Context for Gainesvilee and Alachua County Plan/Program Details Plan/Program/Study Reviewed

Geographic Applicability

Date of Most Recent Update July 17, 2012

U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration



Surface Transportation Funding that transforms the policy and programmatic framework for investments to guide the growth and development of the country’s vital transportation infrastructure.

Florida Legislature and local governments



HB 7207 repeals most of the Statemandated growth management planning laws that have governed development activities within Florida since the original Growth Management Act of 1975, including transportation concurrency

2010

FDOT



2005

Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged



MTPO for the Gainesville Urbanized Area



The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) looks at a 50-year transportation planning horizon and calls for a fundamental change in how and where Florida invests in transportation The plan, required under the Florida Statutes, includes the following elements: - Explanation of the Florida Coordinated Transportation System - Five-Year Report Card - Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Review - Strategic Vision and Goals, Objectives, & Measures Outlines transportation strategies and priority investments that support and strengthen the region’s economic vitality, improve connectivity of people

MAP-12 - Moving Ahead for Progress in st the 21 Century

Federal

State Growth Management Legislation (House Bill 7207)

State

June 2, 2011

Florida Transportation Plan: Horizon 2060 (FTP)

State

State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged FiveYear/Twenty-Year Plan

State

YEAR 2035 Livable Community Reinvestment Plan – Long Range

City of Gainesville, Alachua County

Plan/Program Overview

Responsible Agency

2011

Date 1

Key Considerations for the Situation Appraisal



Creates streamlined, performance-based, and multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the U.S. transportation system. Addresses safety, maintaining infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency, protecting the environment, and reducing project delivery delays.  Enhances many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established in 1991.  The repeal of state-mandated transportation concurrency provides local governments with the opportunity to develop a more localized concurrency program that aligns with the development and mobility goals of the community.  HB 7207 strengthens legislative language that supports multimodal approaches to transportation by stating that Comprehensive Plan Transportation Elements “shall provide for a safe, convenient multi-modal transportation system.”  The FTP supports the development of state, regional, and local transit services through a series of related goals and objectives, emphasizing new and innovative approaches by all modes to meet the needs today and in the future. 





Short-term strategic vision includes developing and field-testing a model community transportation system for persons who are Transportation Disadvantaged. Long-range strategic vision includes developing a universal cost-effective transportation system with a uniform funding system and services that are designed and implemented regionally throughout the state.

The Gainesville Urbanized Area will have a multi-modal transportation system that integrates land use and transportation planning and investments. Specific outcomes: - Sustainable, safe, secure, energy efficient and livable land

Gainesville RTS Plans Review 1

Plan/Program Details Plan/Program/Study Reviewed

Geographic Applicability

Date of Most Recent Update

Plan/Program Overview

Responsible Agency

Transportation Plan 

Alachua County Comprehensive Plan

City of Gainesville, Alachua County

2011

Alachua County Growth Management Department



Key Considerations for the Situation Appraisal

and freight, enhance the quality of life for people of all ages and abilities, and preserve the community’s environment. The Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan

Outlines Future Land Use Element and Transportation Mobility Element





University of Florida Master Plan

University of Florida Campus, City of Gainesville, Alachua County

2012

University of Florida



The Transportation Element includes Goals, Objectives, and Policies that apply to the main campus and Alachua County Satellite Properties and address automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access as well as parking.







City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan

City of Gainesville, Alachua County

2013

City of Gainesville



The three elements of the comprehensive plan related to transit are; Future Land Use Element, Transportation Mobility Element, and the Capital Improvements Element.

Date 2



use patterns that provide mobility choices; - Balance east-west growth to reduce economic disparity; - Transportation infrastructure investments that direct growth to existing infill and redevelopment areas; and - A network of Rapid Transit Facilities connecting regional employment centers in order to enhance economic competiveness of the area. The Land Use Element states several strategies that include the use of land to maximize use of available urban infrastructure, encouraging development of residential land that promotes social and economic diversity. The Transportation Mobility Element identifies several Principles to reach the goal of establishing a multi-modal transportation system that provides mobility for all users of the transportation network. Goal 1 – Coordinating with the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, and the MTPO to develop and maintain a balanced transportation system that provides campus access and expanded transportation choice for all who access the University Campus. Goal 2 – Preserve, maintain and expand the on-campus transportation system to meet the needs of all who access the University Campus that is convenient, safe, sustainable and encourages non-auto travel choices. Goal 3 – To provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities that safely and efficiently accommodate walking and bicycling in a comfortable and aesthetically-pleasing environment. Future Land Use Element - Goal 1: To improve the quality of life by creating and maintaining choices in housing, offices, retail, and workplaces in mixed use walkable environments. - Goal 2: Redevelop areas within the city, as needed, in a manner that promotes quality of life, transportation choice, a healthy economy, and discourages sprawl. - Goal 3: Achieve the highest long-term quality of life for residents with sound social, economic, and environmental principles through land development minimizing detrimental impacts to the built and natural environment.

Gainesville RTS Plans Review 1

Plan/Program Details Plan/Program/Study Reviewed

Geographic Applicability

Date of Most Recent Update

Plan/Program Overview

Responsible Agency

Key Considerations for the Situation Appraisal





City of Gainesville Final Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)

Alachua County Long Term Concurrency Management

City of Gainesville

Alachua County

2010

2006

City of Gainesville – City Plan Board

Alachua County





Document analyzes the City’s progress in implementing its comprehensive plan, accounting for changes in population, land area, development activity, and regional and state policy. The EAR combines this analysis with an updated vision for the future and provides recommendations as to how the comprehensive plan should be amended. Identifies corridors that are over capacity or will be in the near future due to existing traffic volumes, anticipated traffic volumes due to trop reservations for approved developments and long term trip reservations for planned developments.

    







Date 3

Transportation Mobility Element - Establish a transportation system that enhances compact development, redevelopment and quality of life, sensitive to cultural and environmental amenities, and that implements the “Year 2035 LRTP”. The system shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and auto users. Capital Improvements Element - To provide and maintain, in a timely fashion, adequate, efficient, reliable, equitable and environmentally sound public facilities that are financially feasible. Issue 1: Clarify Activity Center, Mixed-Use, and Urban Design Requirements Issue 2: Establish Policies for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gases within the City Issue 3: Encourage Livable Neighborhoods for People of All Ages Issue 4: Fund Transportation Choice Encourage Infill and Redevelopment in Central and East Gainesville

Roads presently operating below LOS Standard (over capacity) th nd th - SW 20 Avenue from SW 62 Blvd to SW 34 Street th - Newberry Road (SR 26) from SW 8 to I-75 Roads operating below LOS Standard with reserved trips th - Archer Road (SR 24) from SW 34 to I-75 rd - Newberry Road (SR 26) from I-75 to CR 241 (NW 143 ) th - Archer Road (SR 24) from I-75 to Tower Road (SW 75 ) th st - Archer Road (SR 24) from Tower Road (SW 75 ) to SW 91 rd th th - NW 23 Avenue from NW 98 to NW 55 th th - Tower Road (SW 75 ) from Archer Road (SR 24) to SW 8 Ave Roads operating between 90 – 99 % of capacity with reserved trips rd th rd - NW 83 Street from NW 39 (SR 222) to NW 23 th st nd - SW 20 Avenue from SW 61 to SW 62 Blvd (Over I-75) nd - Williston Road (SR 121) from SW 62 Ave to I-75 th rd - NW 38 Avenue (SR 222) from I-75 to NW 83 Street

Gainesville RTS Plans Review 1

Plan/Program Details Plan/Program/Study Reviewed

Geographic Applicability

Alachua/Marion County Regional Transportation Plan

Alachua/Marion Counties

MTPO Urban Design Policy Manual

Gainesville Metropolitan Area

Date of Most Recent Update 2007

2009

Plan/Program Overview

Responsible Agency Alachua/Marion Counties

MTPO





Plan must; identify regionally significant transportation facilities located within the regional transportation area, contain a prioritized list of regionally significant projects, use professionally accepted techniques for measuring Level of Service (LOS), adopt the projects listed into the capital improvements schedule of the local government’s comprehensive plan. Report unifies the Design Team’s policies to provide a singular reference resource for future referrals.

Key Considerations for the Situation Appraisal

 

 





Transportation Improvements Program

Plan East Gainesville

Gainesville Urbanized Area

2011

MTPO



Identifies all transportation projects within the Gainesville Metropolitan Area which Federal Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration approval is required whether or not the projects are funded



City of Gainesville,

2003

City of Gainesville,



Recommended in the transportation plan is the development of a BRT system



Date 4

Regionally significant facilities - Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville Greyhound Station Regionally Significant Projects - Alachua County Traffic Management System - Countywide

Bicycle Travel/Parking Facilities – Shall be incorporated to the extent possible. Intermodal and Multimodal Planning Policy – Facilities, shelters, and bicycle racks be provided and designated multimodal corridors shall have priority for development of intermodal and multimodal travel facilities and programs. Joint bicycle, pedestrian, intermodal and multimodal policies – Continue activities that include; advisory and administrative; education, encouragement, and enforcement; facilities and program. Pedestrian Policies – Reconstruction or new construction shall include designated pedestrian access to accommodate pedestrian travel, including facilities such as signalized crosswalks, refuge islands and underpasses shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. 2014 – 2016 - Automated Vehicle Locator software. - Shelters, benches, signs, logos, shop equipment, signal preemption, preventative and associated capital maintenance. - Discretionary grants to purchase transit vehicles and related equipment - Employee training, fare boxes, and passenger information systems - Discretionary grants to purchase transit coaches and neighborhood transfer center - Small transit incentive cities allocation Linking East Gainesville activity centers with downtown, University of Florida and commercial development along the

Gainesville RTS Plans Review 1

Plan/Program Details Plan/Program/Study Reviewed

Geographic Applicability

Date of Most Recent Update

Alachua County City of Gainesville RTS TDP 2010 - 2019

Gainesville Urbanized Area

Plan/Program Overview

Responsible Agency Alachua County

2009

Gainesville RTS



that provides improved travel times and amenities A strategic assessment and planning document for Gainesville RTS transit service

Date 5

Key Considerations for the Situation Appraisal

 

linear Archer Road corridor would create a seamless, integrated transit system. The plan outlines the status and performance of the system and needs as of 2009. The plan also includes a vision and financial plan.

Gainesville RTS Plans Review 1

Appendix C COA Technical Memoranda One and Two

Appendix

C

Gainesville RTS

   

 

 

 

            Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA)

   

 

           

                             

     

Technical Memorandum #1 – Summary of Staff, Stakeholder, Public and Rider Input  July 22, 2014 

Submitted by: 

In Association With: 

Table of Contents   TABLE OF CONTENTS  Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 2  Appendicies (saved as separate Electronic file) ........................................................................ 2  1.0 

Project Overview .......................................................................................................... 3 

2.0 

Summary of Public Engagement Plan ............................................................................ 4 

2.1  Public Engagement Plan ........................................................................................................ 4  Stakeholder Input ............................................................................................................................ 6  Public and Rider Input ...................................................................................................................... 6 

3.0 

Staff Input ..................................................................................................................... 8 

RTS Staff Input ................................................................................................................................. 8  3.1  Management and Planning ................................................................................................... 8  3.2  Transit Bus Operators ........................................................................................................... 8  3.3  Transit Supervisors and Customer Service ............................................................................. 8 

4.0  4.1  4.2 

5.0  5.1  5.2 

Stakeholder Input ......................................................................................................... 9  Transit Steering Committee (TSC) .......................................................................................... 9  Key Stakeholder Input ......................................................................................................... 10 

Public and Transit Rider Input ..................................................................................... 11  Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 11  Transit Rider Input .............................................................................................................. 14 

 

APPENDICIES (SAVED AS SEPARATE ELECTRONIC FILE)  Appendix A: Project Involvement  Appendix B: Staff Input  Appendix C: Stakeholder Input  Appendix D: Stakeholder Questionaire and Responses  Appendix E: Public & Transit Rider Input   

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Public Engagement Activities   1.0

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The  Gainesville  Comprehensive  Operations  Analysis  (COA)  is  being  conducted  by  the  City  of  Gainesville  Regional  Transit  System  (RTS).  The  purpose  of  the  RTS  COA  is  to  evaluate  existing  transit  operations  in  comparison  with  a  detailed  technical  analysis  of  travel  market  demand  in  the  region  for  short‐term  and  long‐term  transit  needs.  The  COA  study  includes  an  on‐board  rider  survey,  driver  interviews,  field  observations, and a transit propensity analysis. The study process is illustrated on Figure 1. The goal is to  enhance the overall effectiveness of the RTS transit system and to identify short‐term solutions as well as  long‐term investments. The COA study area is shown on Figure 2. 

Figure 1: Gainesville COA Study Process

    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 3 

Summary of Public Engagement Activities   2.0

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN 

Successful community engagement is focused on communicating with the public and receiving information  from  all  interested  persons,  groups,  and  government  organizations  regarding  a  project.  In  this  case,  the  project  is  the  RTS  COA  which  is  examining  improvements  in  service  to  the  existing  RTS  bus  service.  This  Public  Engagement  Plan  outlines  the  process  to  be  taken  to  ensure  the  appropriate  level  of  public  involvement  is  performed  for  this  project  in  compliance  with  the  Florida  Department  of  Transportation’s  (FDOT) Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Manual, Part 1, Chapter 11, and Part 2, Chapter 9;  the FDOT Public Involvement Handbook.  Successful public engagement is about communicating project goals and analysis clearly, providing a forum  for  input  throughout  the  study,  and  integrating  stakeholder  input  into  the  technical  analysis.  It  is  also  necessary to reach broad segments of the community by making information easily available. This requires  a process that is characterized by technical competence, honesty and integrity, and good listening. These  principles created the framework for the public engagement that occurred for the COA. 

2.1 

Public Engagement Plan 

Activities  implemented  as  part  of  COA  Public  Engagement  Plan  allowed people living and working in the RTS service area, and other  interested  parties  to  contribute  their  thoughts  regarding  bus  service.  The  goal  of  the  COA  Public  Engagement  Plan  was  to  generate interest in the project purpose and meetings as well as an  awareness  of  the  scope,  schedule,  and  opportunities  for  public  input.  This  supported  the  primary  objective  of  ensuring  that  the  community was given opportunities to review and comment on the  findings of the COA Study and that concerns were addressed in the  analysis The COA Public Engagement Plan provided elected officials,  students,  business  owners,  the  public,  agency  staff,  and  other  interested  parties  with  a  two‐way  line  of  continuous  communication,  easy‐to‐understand  project  information,  and  readily  accessible  project  materials.  For  example,  the  public  information  meeting  format  for  each  of  the  Gainesville  RTS  COA  meetings was to present the same information during the day at the  RTS  bus  stops  as  would  be  presented  in  the  evening  at  an  open  house  meeting  in  the  community  (see  image  at  right).  In  this  way,  the  community  engagement  plan  was  taken  to  the  passengers  who  may  be  unable  to  get  to  or  uncomfortable  attending  a  traditional  public  workshop  which  helps  ensure  that  the  study reflects the diverse values and needs of the RTS service area.    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 4 

Summary of Public Engagement Activities    Figure 2: Gainesville COA Study Area

   

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 5 

Summary of Public Engagement Activities     In addition, the COA Public Engagement Plan provided for:     

Availability of maps, technical analysis, and project information;   Input on RTS service characteristics, transit improvements, and evaluation criteria; and  Access to staff, consultant team members, and the decision‐making process. 

The entire project team participated in this effort: Connetics Transportation Group; Parsons Brinckerhoff;  and Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants.   The  project  team  was  responsible  for  preparing  presentation  and  handout  materials  and  making  presentations  as  requested  by  the  RTS  Project  Manager,  as  well  as  preparing  meeting  summaries  of  all  meetings. 

Technical Input  The Consultant team worked with a technical stakeholder group (see Appendix A) referred to as the Transit  Steering  Committee.      The  TSC  reviewed  and  provided  input  into  the  study’s  key  deliverables,  including:   Public  Engagement  Plan,  study  goals,  evaluation  methodology,  and  each  screening  step  throughout  the  study process.  Before each public information meeting, this group reviewed the materials that were to be  presented.  The  TSC  met  three  times  during  the  study  to  provide  input.  The  TSC  was  composed  of  representatives from major stakeholder groups including:  

RTS 



City of Gainesville 



Florida Department Of  Transportation 



University of Florida (UF) 



Santa Fe College (SFC) 

Alachua County 



Florida Works 

  

Public and Rider Input  The  public  engagement  plan  began  by  using  non‐traditional  methods  as  well  as  traditional  methods  for  reaching  the  community.  At  each  engagement,  the  Consultant  team  offered  the community the opportunity to join a mailing list (see image at  right) or suggest a community member of organization to add to  the  list;  there  were  other  transit  studies  being  conducted  in  the  community and the consultant team cross‐pollinated mailing lists with those consultant teams.. On‐board  surveys, driver and rider interviews, and one‐on‐one reviews of study recommendations were conducted to  allow for passengers and the public to offer comments on the COA study. Figure 3 provides a summary of a  prioritization survey conducted at the Rosa Park Downtown Terminal, the Oaks Mall, Butler Plaza and the  Public Meeting held on May 1, 2014.  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 6 

Summary of Public Engagement Activities

 

Figure 3: COA Study Prioritization Survey Results

 

FREQUENCY Weekday Rte # # Responses 75 15 5 3 6 2 43 2 1 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 21 1 23 1 24B 1 25 1 34 1 36 1 39 1 62 1 76 1

SPAN OF SERVICE Saturday Rte # # Responses 75 20 6 3 12 3 23 3 1 2 5 2 8 2 20 2 25 2 35 2 9 1 15 1 39 1 43 1 76 1 128 1

Rte # 75 12 20 25 1 2 5 6 8 9 15 35 39 43 76 128

Sunday # Responses 16 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Weekday Rte # # Responses 75 13 39 3 10 2 12 2 43 2 1 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 15 1 20 1 24B 1 25 1 36 1 76 1

Saturday Rte # # Responses 75 19 2 2 10 2 23 2 39 2 43 2 6 1 7 1 8 1 12 1 20 1 25 1 35 1 76 1

Rte # 75 2 39 43 8 10 25 76

 

   

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Sunday # Responses 13 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Page 7 

 

Staff Input     

3.0

STAFF INPUT 

RTS Staff Input  The community participation approach began with RTS staff input. Staff identified local issues and priorities  as  well  as  key  areas  of  concern  for  inclusions  in  the  public  outreach  process  throughout  the  plan  development.  Key  RTS  groups  engaged  in  the  COA  process  included  the  following:  Management  and  Planning,  Bus  Operators,  Transit  Supervisors  and  Customer  Service  personnel.  The  following  is  a  brief  description of the staff level outreach activities conducted as part of the COA Study. Comments received by  each of these groups are documented in Appendix B.  

3.1 

Management and Planning 

A  series  of  meetings  were  held  with  management  and  planning  staff  throughout  the  course  of  the  COA  Study.  The  Project  Management  Team  consisted  of  Eustache  Mine,  Project  Manager,  Jesus  Gomez  RTS  Executive  Director  and  Matthew  Muller,  RTS  Transit  Planner.  Meeting  with  this  team  focused  on  project  schedule, key milestones and products, outstanding issues and specific focus areas to be addressed during  the study, as well as collecting desired outcomes, perspectives and insight from RTS staff that would assist  the  Consultant  Team  in  completing  the  study.  More  specifically,  the  Consultant  team  conducted  the  following  meetings  with  the  Project  Management  Team  over  the  course  of  the  COA  Study:  initial  Project  kick‐off  meeting,  study  coordination  and  status  meetings,  Workshop  #1  on  Task  4  –  Service  Evaluation,  Workshop #2 on Task 6/7 – Service Recommendations, TSC and Public Meeting preparation meetings, and  coordination meetings between the COA and Transit Development Plan (TDP) Study efforts.    

3.2 

Transit Bus Operators 

The  staff  that  comes  in  contact  with  the  customers  each  day  can  provide  important  insight  on  the  customers’ experience. As ambassadors of the transit agency, transit operators have the most opportunity  for  and  the  greatest  depth  of  contact  with  RTS’  existing  patrons.    This  fact  makes  them  a  valuable  asset  both for vetting rider input on surveys and through other media, and for providing important insights into  route‐level and system network issues related to operations, safety, scheduling, etc.  The Consultant team  made use of this asset by spending time in the operator break room at RTS on September 30, 2013 (10:00  a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), as well as onboard buses and at end‐of‐line locations informally interviewing operators  about RTS services, potential enhancements, and often‐heard rider needs and complaints.. 

3.3 

Transit Supervisors and Customer Service 

Transit  Supervisors  and  customer  service  representatives  interact  with  the  RTS  customers  each  day  to  resolve complaints, answer service inquiries, and respond to other operational issues.  Meetings were held  to get insights on this interaction on on December 9th and 10th 2013 in the administrative office conference  room of RTS.     

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Page 8 

Stakeholder Input   4.0

STAKEHOLDER INPUT 

4.1 

Transit Steering Committee (TSC)  

At the inception of the COA Study, RTS established a TSC consisting of representatives from organizations  like the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, and UF. Table 4.1 lists the TSC members for this study effort.  Table 4.1: COA Study Transit Steering Committee (TSC)  First 

Last 

Title 

Organization ‐ Department 

Email 

Naima 

Brown 

Sociology Department 

Santa Fe College 

[email protected] 

(352) 395‐5300 

Michael 

Fay 

Development Program  Manager 

Alachua County 

[email protected] 

(352) 374‐5245 

Scott 

Fox 

Director Transportation  and Parking Services 

University of Florida ‐ Transportation &  Parking 

[email protected] 

 (352) 392‐8048 

Jesus 

Gomez 

Transit Director 

City of Gainesville ‐ RTS 

[email protected]

Jeffrey 

Hays 

Transportation Planning  Manager 

Alachua County 

[email protected] 

(352) 374‐5249 

Debbie  

Leistner 

PW Planning Manager 

City of Gainesville 

[email protected] 

(352) 393‐8412 

Bob 

Miller 

University of Florida ‐  Business Affairs 

[email protected]

(352) 392‐1336 

Eustache 

Mine 

RTS 

[email protected] 

(352) 393‐7852 

Matthew 

Muller 

Transit Planner 

RTS 

[email protected] 

(352) 393‐7890 

David 

Price 

History Department 

Santa Fe College 

[email protected] 

(352) 395‐5300 

Bill 

Reese 

Associate Vice President  for Facilities  

Santa Fe College 

[email protected]

(352) 395‐5521 

Kim 

Tesch‐Vaught 

Executive Director 

FloridaWorks 

ktesch‐[email protected] 

Associate Vice President  for Finance and  Administration  Transit Operations  Manager 

Phone 

 

 

 

(352) 334‐2609 

(352) 244‐5148 

  As  stated  above,  the  TSC  was  established  to  assist  the  COA  Study  Team  and  RTS  with  review  of  analyses  results, provide input and perspective based on the entities they represented, provide review and comment  of  draft  and  final  COA  service  plan  recommendations,  and  lastly  assist  in  the  prioritization  of  future  year  service  improvements.  The  TSC  met  three  times  throughout  the  COA  Study,  with  the  last  two  meetings  being held jointly with the TDP Consultant Team (Tindale Oliver & Associates).  TSC Meetings were held on  the following dates and times:  The following TSC meetings were held through the course of the COA Study:    

TSC  Meeting  #1:  October  22,  2013,  10:00  a.m.‐12:00  p.m.  at  Gainesville  Regional  Utilities  (GRU)  Multi‐purpose Room  TSC Meeting #2: February 3, 2014, 10:00 a.m.‐12:00 p.m. at GRU (Joint COA / TDP Meeting)  TSC Meeting #3: May 21, 2014, 10:30 a.m.‐12:00 p.m. at GRU (Joint COA/TDP Meeting) 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Page 9 

Stakeholder Input   Appendix  C  contains  the  PowerPoint  Presentations  for  each  meeting,  including  copies  of  any  additional  materials presented. 

4.2 

Key Stakeholder Input 

To get a better understanding of the perceptions and attitudes of community, the Study Team offered one‐ on‐one interviews with City Commission members. The Consultant team developed an interview script and  reviewed  it  with  RTS  staff  prior  to  conducting  these  interviews.  The  Consultant  contacted  the  City  of  Gainesville  Commission  members  through  their  staff  representatives  to  schedule  these  one‐on‐one  meetings.  The  following  three  methods  of  interaction  where  offered  to  the  Commission  to  gather  their  input:    

E‐mailed surveys (sent to all Commissioners on March 9, 2014),  Personal face‐to‐face, and   Phone interview meetings  

Two of the City Commission members chose to participate in this input collection process, Commissioner  Hinson‐Rawls  and  Commissioner  Hawkins.  The  remaining  Commissioners  did  not  respond  to  the  offer.  Commissioner Hinson‐Rawls was interviewed on March 18th at 1:30 p.m. and Commissioner Hawkins was  interviewed on March 18th at 2:30 p.m. Additionally, Commissioner Hawkins completed the survey e‐mailed  to all Commissioners on March 9, 2014, and is attached in Appendix D.           

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Page 10 

Public and Transit Rider Input   5.0

PUBLIC AND TRANSIT RIDER INPUT 

5.1  

Public Involvement 

Community engagement meetings were held on October 1, 2013 and on May 1, 2014. The format for both  public information meetings was similar. The consultant team met with passengers at RTS stations during  the  day  and  held  an  open  house  workshop  in  the  evening.  The  same  materials  were  presented  to  both  groups.   The  October  1,  2013  meeting  was  duly  advertised  in  the  Gainesville  Sun  and  the  Florida  Administrative  Register,  as  required  by  Florida  Statutes.  Notices  were  also  posted  using  bus  cards  on  buses.  Flyers  announcing  the  meetings  were  distributed  to  the  UF  Campus,  SFC  Campus,  downtown  Gainesville  businesses, social media, and a broad email list of community organizations. The Consultant team met with  passengers  at  the  Oaks  Mall  in  the  morning  and  afternoon,  at  the  Rosa  Parks  Downtown  Station  in  the  morning  and  afternoon,  and  at  the  Historic  Gainesville  Depot  (across  from  Rosa  Parks)  in  the  evening.  Altogether, the Consultant team interacted with 73 members of the community on October 1, 2013. The  open house/workshop attendance included nine persons who signed in. Those who attended the workshop  stayed  for  about  45  minutes  on  average  and  conducted  all  workshop  activities.  Some  stayed  to  ask  additional  questions  or  offer  personal  insights.  Meeting  materials  and  photographs  are  included  in  Appendix D. A Survey was conducted of the participants of this meeting, asking them to prioritize spending  priorities as well as types of services.  The survey was also conducted with the Transit Steering Committee  (TSC) at its first meeting. Table 5.1 summarizes the results of these survey efforts. 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Page 11 

Public and Transit Rider Input   Table 5.1: Public Meeting #1 (October 1, 2013) and Transit Steering Committee Meeting #1   Service Prioritization Survey Results   

Public Meeting Results Spending Priorities with $17 to spend ($10, $5 and $2) Improvement Type Frequency Better Connections Passenger Amenities Operating Hours More/Different Routes Weekend Service Safety Improvements

Investment Priority $            65.00 1 $            51.00 2 $            19.00 3 $            14.00 4 $            12.00 5 $               9.00 6 $                 ‐ NR $          170.00 10 voters

Service Type Fixed Routes Limited Stop Routes Express Routes Flexible Routes Demand Response Circulators

Investment $            64.00 $            49.00 $            42.00 $               9.00 $               6.00 $                 ‐

Priority 1 2 3 4 5 NR

$          170.00 10 voters

Transit Steering Committee Meeting Results Spending Priorities with $17 to spend ($10, $5 and $2) Improvement Type Better Connections Frequency Passenger Amenities Operating Hours More/Different Routes Weekend Service Safety Improvements

Investment $            26.00 $            25.00 $            22.00 $            15.00 $            12.00 $               2.00 $                 ‐ $          102.00

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Priority (2.2) 1 (2.4) 2 (3.5) 3 (3.5) 4 (4.2) 5 (5.3) 6 (5.4) 7 6 voters

Service Type Fixed Routes Circulators Express Routes Limited Stop Routes Demand Response Flexible Routes

Page 12 

Investment $            40.00 $            20.00 $            24.00 $            16.00 $               2.00 $                 ‐

Priority (2.2) 1 (2.4) 2 (2.7) 3 (2.8) 4 (5.2) 5 (5.4) 6

$            62.00

6 voters

Public and Transit Rider Input   The  May  1,  2014  meeting  was  duly  advertised  in  the  Gainesville  Sun,  as  required  by  Florida  Statutes.  Notices  were  also  posted  using  bus  cards  on  buses.  Flyers  announcing  the  meetings  were  distributed  electronically and posted manually around Gainesville in the same locations outlined above. The Consultant  team met with passengers at the Oaks Mall in the  morning, at  Butler Plaza in the afternoon, at the Rosa  Parks Downtown Station in the morning and afternoon, and at the GRU Multipurpose Room (across from  Rosa Parks) in the evening. Altogether, the Consultant team interacted with 62 members of the community  on May 1, 2014. The open house/ workshop attendance included seven persons who signed in. Those who  attended the workshop stayed for about 25 minutes on average and conducted all workshop activities. A  few stayed to ask additional questions or offer personal insights until the end of the meeting at 8:00 p.m.   

 

 

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Page 13 

Public and Transit Rider Input   5.2 

Transit Rider Input 

Transit Rider input was received through a number of methods. Below is a list of ways the Consultant team  interacted with the transit riders throughout the COA Study.          

On‐Board Passenger Survey – September 16 ‐20, 2013  1st Public Meeting – October 1, 2013  Rosa Parks Transit Center – October 1, 2013 (7:30 a.m.‐9:30 a.m., and 2:30 p.m.‐4:30 p.m.)  Oaks Mall Transit Stop – October 1, 2013 (7:30 a.m.‐9:30 a.m., and 2:30 p.m.‐4:30 p.m.)  Field Analysis and bus tours – September 16‐20, 2013 and November 17 – 19, 2013  2nd Public Meeting – May 1, 2014  Rosa Parks Transit Center – May 1, 2014 (7:30 a.m.‐9:30 a.m., and 2:30 p.m.‐4:30 p.m.)  Oaks Mall Transit Stop – May 1, 2014 (7:30 a.m.‐9:30 a.m.)  Butler Plaza Transit Center ‐ May 1, 2014 (2:30 p.m.‐4:30 p.m.) 

Input sessions held at Oaks Mall, Butler Plaza and Rosa Parks Transit Center allowed the Consultant team  the  opportunity  to  distribute  and  discuss  the  same  materials  and  handouts  presented  at  the  Public  meetings held on October 1, 2013 and May 1, 2014. Meeting materials and comment card responses from  these events are included in Appendix D. 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Page 14 

Appendix A                        

Appendix A  Project Involvement  Saved as separate document   

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page A‐1 

Appendix B                        

Appendix B  Staff Input  Saved as separate document 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐1 

Appendix C                        

Appendix C  Stakeholder Input  Saved as separate document 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 1 

Appendix D  

            Appendix D  Stakeholder Questionnaire and Responses  Saved as separate document 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 1 

Appendix E                        

Appendix E  Public & Transit Rider Input  Saved as separate document 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐ 1 

   

 

 

 

Table of COne             Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA)

   

 

           

                             

     

Technical Memorandum #1 – Appendices   July 22, 2014 

Submitted by: 

In Association With: 

Table of Contents    

APPENDICIES  Appendix A: Project Involvement  Appendix B: Staff Input  Appendix C: Stakeholder Input  Appendix D: Stakeholder Questionaire and Responses  Appendix E: Public & Transit Rider Input     

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A                        

Appendix A  Project Involvement  (Transit Steering Committee, Mailing Lists)

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page A‐1 

Appendix A   COA Study Transit Steering Committee (TSC)  First 

Last 

Title 

Organization ‐ Department 

Email 

Naima 

Brown 

Sociology Department 

Santa Fe College 

[email protected] 

(352) 395‐5300 

Michael 

Fay 

Development Program  Manager 

Alachua County 

[email protected] 

(352) 374‐5245 

Scott 

Fox 

Director Transportation  and Parking Services 

University of Florida ‐ Transportation &  Parking 

[email protected] 

 (352) 392‐8048 

Jesus 

Gomez 

Transit Director 

City of Gainesville ‐ RTS 

[email protected]

Jeffrey 

Hays 

Transportation Planning  Manager 

Alachua County 

[email protected] 

(352) 374‐5249 

Debbie  

Leistner 

PW Planning Manager 

City of Gainesville 

[email protected] 

(352) 393‐8412 

Bob 

Miller 

University of Florida ‐  Business Affairs 

[email protected]

(352) 392‐1336 

Eustache 

Mine 

RTS 

[email protected] 

(352) 393‐7852 

Matthew 

Muller 

Transit Planner 

RTS 

[email protected] 

(352) 393‐7890 

David 

Price 

History Department 

Santa Fe College 

[email protected] 

(352) 395‐5300 

Bill 

Reese 

Associate Vice President  for Facilities  

Santa Fe College 

[email protected]

(352) 395‐5521 

Kim 

Tesch‐Vaught 

Executive Director 

FloridaWorks 

ktesch‐[email protected] 

Associate Vice President  for Finance and  Administration  Transit Operations  Manager 

Phone 

 

 

 

(352) 334‐2609 

(352) 244‐5148 

  City Commission First

Last

Title

Organization - Department

Address

City

Todd Lauren Thomas Yvonne Ed Susan Randy

Chase Poe Hawkins Hinson-Rawls Braddy Bottcher Wells

Entire City Commission Email Address City Commissioner, District II City Commissioner, At-Large City Commissioner, At-Large City Commissioner, District 1 City Commissioner, Mayor City Commissioner, District III City Commissioner, District IV

City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission City of Gainesville Commission

200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue 200 E. University Avenue

Gainesville FL Gainesville FL Gainesville FL Gainesville FL Gainesville FL Gainesville FL Gainesville FL Gainesville FL

32601-0490 32601-0490 32601-0490 32601-0490 32601-0490 32601-0490 32601-0490 32601-0490

Russ Robert

Blackburn Hunzinger

City Manager General Manager for Utilities

City of Gainesville - City Manager City of Gainesville - GRU

P.O. Box 490 Station 6

Gainesville FL Gainesville FL

32602-0490 [email protected] 32602-0491 [email protected]

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page A‐2 

State Zip

Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] [email protected]

Phone (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5015 (352) 334-5010 (352) 334-3400 ext. 1007

 

Appendix B                        

Appendix B  Staff Input   

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐1 

Appendix B  

Management and Planning Comments     Gainesville RTS COA  Recommendations Workshop   January 28, 2014  7:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.  Meeting Notes:  Campus Routes         

Concern over left turn from Gale Lemerand Drive  west on Stadium Road – There is a left turn lane  but traffic volumes are high  Need for a stop on Buckman Drive closer to University Avenue? The proposed loop eliminates  service to this segment (eliminates Route 118 and 122)  Route 127 run time with two buses? Is it enough time given it would now serve the proposed  common loop?  RTS proposal to combine Route 117 & 118.  Is there enough capacity to handle loads?  RTS proposal to eliminate Route 119 and transfer frequency to Route 125 – increase to five buses  Operate both the Route 118 and 125 out of Park‐N‐Ride Lot 1, Route 118 serves Hull Road to  Museum Drive to the proposed Campus Loop, Route 125 serves Bledsoe Drive to Radio Road to  Museum Drive to the proposed Campus Loop  RTS proposal to add third bus to Route 117 to increase frequency, anticipated demand exceeds  capacity at 15 minute frequency  Combine Routes 121 and 122, travel along Mowry Road to Gale Lemerand Drive to Proposed  Campus Loop (discussion ensued concerning too frequent service to the Veterinary School) 

  Southwest Routes       

Leave Route 5 on SW 2nd Avenue, it serves the Center for Independent Living located just west of  SW 34th Street  Put Route 43 back on University Avenue to NW 43rd Street to NW 23rd Street to SFC  Make sure future plans reflect new Wal Mart Transit Center off SW 42nd Street, northwest of Butler  Plaza, all routes currently serving Butler Plaza would serve the new Transit Center  New Route 28 suggestion is good, but run it on new road that cuts between SW 20th Avenue and  SW 43rd Street once it is built.  Also terminate the new SW Transit Center / Wal Mart once  completed.  Make connection on Route 75 through from Holly Heights to Linton Oaks once it is complete.   Question purpose of Route 76, other than serving Linton Oaks without a left turn out onto SW 20th  Avenue  

      Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐2 

Appendix B   Northside Routes      

Route 8 and 41 need to continue to operate to UF because there are students and faculty living in  these areas that take one bus to campus now, it performs well.  Concern over Route 6 being removed from segment along NW 1st Street, there is a Senior Housing  Tower that would not be served.  The Route 40 should go to UF not the Oaks Mall, UF is more of a destination for this route.  Route 39 should stay on 39th Avenue.   Magnolia Parke (39th Avenue & 51st Street) needs to be served by Route 40? 

  Eastside Routes        

Like the new Route 2, but maybe it should stay on 4th Street to Rosa Parks (little to no ridership?)  Do not like the large loop on the Route 11  Route 24, question need to continue to serve Robinson Heights, look for possible short turn for half  of trips  Consider service to 6th Street between 16th Avenue and Depot Avenue.  Need to maintain service to Triangle Club? (4th Ave. & 11th St.)   

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐3 

Appendix B  

Bus Operator Comments  Systemwide                       

Service does not start early enough for riders who must be at work by 6 am  Not enough recovery time on routes  Restroom access is poor  Lack of variable (peak/off‐peak) running times  Intercity service (bus, vanpool, carpool, etc.) between High Springs, Alachua, Waldo, Archer  Need a park & ride near I‐75  Monthly pass is unaffordable to most riders; need weekly pass  Customer Service hours are too limited  Need better timed transfer connections  Poor connection north of downtown  Southwest to northwest to downtown – out of direction travel  City needs to fund more service and new routes connecting new places  Extend express regional services to: Newberry, Archer, Hawthorne, Waldo and Alachua (Industrial  Center – Wal‐Mart, Cisco)  Put TV monitors on buses to provide more information  Safety Department needs to listen to Safety Suggestions  TransLoc – needs to show when it’s the last bus is running – riders still think the bus is running  when it goes out of service  Drivers and Management need to enforce fare policy  Some morale issues – should promote better management/labor relations – encourage positive  work morale through mutual respect  Route schedules are changing too much  Padding some routes for some drivers  Fix and clean the RTS restrooms at Rosa Parks transit center  Try to ensure timed transfers to 60 minute frequency routes 

University of Florida Campus      

Need clockwise service on UF Campus  Need saw‐toothed bus bays at Reitz Union with bus routes assigned to each bus bay  Need to increase bus capacity at Reitz Union  Buses blocking other buses at Reitz Union causing delays  Need pedestrian crossing at Reitz Union to alleviate delays 

Route Group Comments    

Routes 1, 12 and 35 not enough running time during peak hours – bus bunching occurring  Archer road routes need more time between 6:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m., and between 4:30 p.m. – 6:00  p.m.  People walking from 53rd Avenue and 43rd Street to catch the Route 8 & 41 

    Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐4 

Appendix B    

Individual Route Comments    Route 1   Recently rescheduled   12th Street is narrow, slow‐moving, accident‐prone but the University wants this alignment  maintained   Traffic queuing delays at 34th   Long light at Archer & 37th   Merging difficulty from Archer toward Center   IB 845 a.m. trip run behind, not enough run time  Route 2   Some riders on Robinson Heights   Should not go into Lincoln Estates deviation (i.e., 19th Terrace), riders are all at stops near SE 15th  Street   Turn at 12th onto 19th is tough turn   SE 15th / SE 41st turnaround is unsafe  Route 5   Too much running time between Oaks Mall and Westgate   An express service on Link 5 should be offered   Often held at Rosa Parks at night, then misses connections elsewhere along route, specifically at  Oaks Mall with Route 75  Route 6   Route is too long and forces out‐of‐direction travel   Need transfer center in the vicinity of 13th & 23rd   Reverse the direction of the loops   Roads are difficult to maneuver north of University   City Housing along the route is expected to close soon   Poor connections between Route 6 and Route 8 to downtown   This route should operate in the reverse direction so riders can travel each way versus around a  loop   Extend route to Wal‐Mart  (would require 3 buses, 1.5 hours)     Route 7   Route is too long and served Health Department in both directions  Route 8   1, 8, 13, 16, 17 and 43 transfers are difficult and confusing (opposite sides of the road)   First stop on 23rd Avenue need to stage and is unsafe    Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐5 

Appendix B   Route 9   No restroom except for Reitz Union    Running times are set for peak hours/loading; risk of running hot if loads are light   Mid‐loop layover is problematic for riders   End route at midnight, very low ridership afterwards  Route 10   Route is too long   Not enough running time or recovery  Route 11   Shouldn’t go into 12th Avenue deviation (children playing in street, low ridership, etc.)   Former City Commissioner lives in this area  Route 12   On‐time performance problems   Route is a victim of its own success after being extended to Butler Plaza  Route 13   U‐turn at end of line is on a curve with limited visibility   Move U‐turn to next median south   Suggest turn‐around at Rocky Point or Prairie View Apartments   Running time during pm peak is insufficient   Buses tend to bunch   1st of month to Meridian   This route could end earlier, as well as be turned back short of Florida Works earlier in the evening  Route 15   Route is crowded and does not operate frequently enough   Needs earlier and later service   Stay off of 6th Street and instead, turn‐around at Sam’s Club   Elderly /handicapped apartments on 2nd St.   Need to serve Greyhound   Constantly running behind schedule (12‐20 minutes) due to wheelchair passengers (10‐73’s) –  mostly around first of month   EOL stop layover is unsafe, blocks street, should go into parking lot  Route 16   Shorten Sugar Hill loop  Route 17   Always runs late  Route 20   Buses are always full   Schedule during off‐school times is inadequate  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐6 

Appendix B   Route 23   Important for connectivity  Route 24   Route is too long and zigzags (indirect travel)   Food stamp office on 16th Ave.   Family services on 15th St.   Route can get very busy  Route 25   Always late   Should serve Rosa Parks Station in both directions   Campus traffic slows the route down  Route 28   Generally runs on time  Route 34   Difficult turn from Old Archer onto 34th St.   Merging issues southbound  Route 38   Needs another bus to address passenger loads; bus fills at Gainesville Place   Tripper already on route (when available) bus still needs more help   Run later in the evenings  Route 39   Needs to run all day  Route 41   Not enough running time   Should follow Route 8 back to Glen Spring   Needs earlier service on weekends  Route 43   Shouldn’t go downtown; riders can use Route 17 instead   Route runs late in the afternoon   Light post at Santa Fe College makes turning difficult   Needs more running time during peak periods  Route 46   Route was recently changed   10th Street is too narrow  Route 62   Needs later service 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐7 

Appendix B   Route 75   Needs more service   Trips take too long   Bus runs late in the afternoon   Linton Oaks needs a connection to 34th Street for grocery, etc.   Needs evening service for employees who work late   Need Sunday service and better Saturday frequency   Restroom access is poor (too far away)   Suggest splitting Route 75 into two routes with a new station on the west side   Run on Sundays  ‐ Neighborhoods optional   Extend to Cabana Beach Apartments via SW 20th Avenue on Saturday and Sunday to make  connections   Run service later in the evening   Run north side of route (north of SW 24th Avenue) earlier in the morning   This route has six school zones – needs more running time during peak periods   Run two large loops on weekends to reduce out of direction travel  Route 76   Route was a good idea   Need to add another bus to route  Route 117   Problem bus stop at Hull Road across from Family Housing  Route 119   Route should be reversed   Village Drive turn is problematic  Route 126   9th and 10th Streets are too narrow  Later Gator A   Later Gator – need to run one Route A reverse direction, i.e., 2 counterclockwise, 1 clockwise, or all  counterclockwise    Later Gator C   Reverse loop to mimic Route 12  Later Gator F   Needs more service       

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐8 

Appendix B  

Supervisor and Customer Service Input – December 9 & 10, 2013                                   

Routes could benefit from interlining  Crosstown movement is difficult  Consider interlining Routes 5, 75 and 1  Move Route 13 turnaround further south where there’s a turning lane.  The current location is unsafe.  The right turn from Main Street onto 16th Avenue it too tight  Buses shouldn’t go into so many neighborhoods  RTS needs to acquire property at Oaks Mall for a transit center  Route 5 should operate on University Avenue in both directions  Fleetnet produces bad reports and is cumbersome to use  The congestion at Reitz Union is terrible  Routes 1, 5, and 15 have a lot of wheelchair passengers which delays the schedule  A lot of the routes have irregular headways which makes it hard for the customer to remember the  schedule  Recovery time needs to be improved  Routes 1, 5, 9, 12, 34 and 43 need peak hour schedule adjustments  Many drivers would not accept interlining because it’s confusing under the current documentation (no  paddles, run cards, etc.).  It might work if similar routes were matched.  The introduction of the UF flash pass has created tremendous growth  Running times have not kept pace with growth, particularly at Rosa Parks Station.  The schedule are  written “one size fits all”.  There’s not enough running time on Route 5  Construction at Reitz Union has created additional pedestrian congestion  Buses are not allowed to stage at Rawlings Hall.  It seems like this space could be better utilized.  RTS must function in a unique operating environment (school vs. non‐school schedules)  Route 75 is too long.  Suggest splitting at Linton Oaks.  Suggest an express route along 75th Street  Route 2 is improving frequency this spring  Route 27 doesn’t run long enough  Route 27’s left turn from 2nd Street onto 23rd Avenue is bad in the peak  Route 9 jumps the curb off of 35th Place.  Suggest reversing the loop.  Route 15 is always late in the afternoon  Wheelchairs have a big impact on the schedules.  Route 15 is the worst.  Boardings regularly occur at  the Publix on Main and 2nd Avenue at Pine Grove Apartments.  Need a route to help with Route 15.  Lots of ADA people on 23rd Avenue.  McCarty Drive and The Hub are too congested  UF needs a centralized transit hub so that buses aren’t competing with pedestrians on campus  Need more interlining  Make Rosa Parks reliefs using Route 17 

    Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page B‐9 

Appendix C                        

Appendix C  Stakeholder Input    

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 1 

Appendix C  

          Transit Steering Committee #1  October 22, 2013 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 2 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 3 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 4 

Appendix C  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 5 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 6 

Appendix C    

          Transit Steering Committee #2  February 3, 2014   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 7 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 8 

Appendix C  

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 9 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 10 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 11 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 12 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 13 

Appendix C                   TSC Member Comments on Draft Service Plan Presented at the 2nd TSC  Meeting (below) 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 14 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 15 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 16 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 17 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 18 

Appendix C    

          Transit Steering Committee #3  May 21, 2014 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 19 

 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 20 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 21 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 22 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 23 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 24 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 25 

Appendix C  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page C‐ 26 

Appendix D  

            Appendix D  Stakeholder Questionnaire and Responses 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 1 

Appendix D  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 2 

Appendix D  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 3 

Appendix D   Commissioner Hawkins Survey Response

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 4 

Appendix D  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 5 

Appendix D  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 6 

Appendix D  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page D‐ 7 

Appendix E                        

Appendix E  Public & Transit Rider Input  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐1 

Appendix E                    

Public Meeting #1  Presentation   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐2 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐3 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐4 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐5 

Appendix E                  

Public Meeting #1  Meeting Materials / Advertisements / Notices 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐6 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐7 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐8 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐9 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐10 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐11 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐12 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐13 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐14 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐15 

Appendix E  

      Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐16 

Appendix E  

Invitations 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐17 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐18 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐19 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐20 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐21 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐22 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐23 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐24 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐25 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐26 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐27 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐28 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐29 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐30 

Appendix E  

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐31 

Appendix E  

                Proof of Publication 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐32 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐33 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐34 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐35 

Appendix E                    

Public Meeting #1  Meeting Results 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐36 

 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐37 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐38 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐39 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐40 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐41 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐42 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐43 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐44 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐45 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐46 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐47 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐48 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐49 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐50 

Appendix E   Summary Results of Comment Card Responses by Question   

 

1. How did you  Newspaper  hear about this  0  meeting  2. Was the  meeting  location  convenient for  you? 

 

 

 

Social Media 

Signs 





Transloc/Gator  Word of  Mouth  Locator  6 

Yes 

No 

27 



 

3. If no, Please  n/a  suggest a more  convenient  location  4. Was the  time  convenient for  you to attend? 

Yes 

No 

23 



 

5. If no, please  Throughout the day  suggest a more  convenient  time  6. Were your  questions  answered? 

Yes 

No 

16 



Yes  7. Do you  understand the  18  project after  attending this  meeting? 

No 

 

 



8. Please share  Noted on comment cards below  your  suggestions on  improving the  way we  conduct  meetings?   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐51 

 

16 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐52 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐53 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐54 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐55 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐56 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐57 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐58 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐59 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐60 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐61 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐62 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐63 

Appendix E            

Comment Cards collected at Bus Stops included after this page 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐64 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐65 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐66 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐67 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐68 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐69 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐70 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐71 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐72 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐73 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐74 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐75 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐76 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐77 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐78 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐79 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐80 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐81 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐82 

Appendix E                      

Public Meeting #2  Presentation   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐83 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐84 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐85 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐86 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐87 

Appendix E                  

Public Meeting #2  Meeting Materials / Advertisements / Notices      

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐88 

Appendix E   May 1, 2014 Meeting #2 – Bus Cards English 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐89 

Appendix E   May 1, 2014 Meeting #2 – Bus Cards Spanish 

    Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐90 

 

Appendix E   Website Graphic 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐91 

Appendix E   Meeting Notices Posted 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐92 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐93 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐94 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐95 

 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐96 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐97 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐98 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐99 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐100 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐101 

Appendix E    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐102 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐103 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐104 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐105 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐106 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐107 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐108 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐109 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐110 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐111 

Appendix E    

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐112 

Appendix E  

  Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐113 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐114 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐115 

Appendix E  

 

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐116 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐117 

Appendix E    

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐118 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐119 

Appendix E    

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐120 

 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐121 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐122 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐123 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐124 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐125 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐126 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐127 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐128 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐129 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐130 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐131 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐132 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐133 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐134 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐135 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐136 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐137 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐138 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐139 

Appendix E    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐140 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐141 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐142 

Appendix E    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐143 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐144 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐145 

Appendix E  

 

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐146 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐147 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐148 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐149 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐150 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐151 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐152 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐153 

Appendix E    

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐154 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐155 

Appendix E    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐156 

Appendix E    

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐157 

Appendix E  

   

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐158 

Appendix E  

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐159 

Appendix E  

 

Technical Memorandum #1  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page E‐160 

   

 

 

 

Table of COne             Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA)

   

 

           

                             

     

Draft Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis July 23, 2014  Submitted by: 

In Association With: 

Table of Contents   TABLE OF CONTENTS   

1.0 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 

2.0 

Review of Existing, Planned and Future Conditions ....................................................... 2 

3.0 

Field Observations ........................................................................................................ 4 

4.0 

On‐board survey ......................................................................................................... 19 

2.1  2.2  2.2.1  2.2.2  2.3  2.4 

5.0 

Survey Schedule, Instrument and Implementation .............................................................. 19  Survey Processing ............................................................................................................... 23  Expansion Factors ........................................................................................................... 25  Geocoding Process .......................................................................................................... 25  Survey Response Rates by Question .................................................................................... 27  Trip Origin‐Destination Analysis .......................................................................................... 31 

Ridership Data ............................................................................................................ 43 

     

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

 

 

 

Introduction   1.0

INTRODUCTION 

This  Technical  Memorandum  summarizes  the  following  four  general  areas  of  data  collection  and  analysis  conducted as part of the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA):  



 

Review of Existing, Planned and Future Conditions – gathering and reviewing existing documents  and data sets pertaining to existing, planned and future conditions as related to or impacting the  use and design of transit services.   Field Observations – driving and riding existing bus routes, driving unserved areas, identifying key  transfer connections and potential transit center locations, and observing existing riders using the  transit system.  On‐Board Rider Survey – developing and administering an on‐board survey of existing RTS riders  Ridership Data – collection and analysis of ridership information at a stop level utilizing automatic  passenger counter (APC) data. 

The  following  sections  provide  a  summary  of  the  Consultant  Team  data  collection,  analysis  and  documented results.          

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 1 

Existing, Planned and Future Conditions   2.0

REVIEW OF EXISTING, PLANNED AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 

Prior to the start of the COA service planning efforts, the consultant team collected and reviewed previous  planning  studies  to  gain  an  understanding  of  previous  and  on‐going  plans.    These  studies  and  reports  pertain  to  the  existing  and  envisioned  transit  system,  as  well  as  current  and  planned  transportation  and  land use conditions that could affect transit service.  Following is a list of relevant studies by the Gainesville  RTS, the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council / MTPO,  University of Florida and others that were reviewed:  City of Gainesville RTS Documents       

City of Gainesville RTS 2010‐2019 Transit Development Plan (TDP)  A Review of Farebox Structure, Media & Distribution  Full Bus Analysis  Meridian Behavioral Healthcare, Inc. – Summary of RTS Survey Results  Transportation  Needs  (RTS‐Surtax)  PowerPoint  Presentation,  City  of  Gainesville  Needs  List,  Auto/Bike/Ped/Transit, Public Works Department/RTS, September 19, 2013  RTS System‐wide Service Standards and Policies, defined in Appendix H of the RTS Title VI Program  for 2013 

MTPO Documents         

Alachua/Marion County Regional Transportation Plan, February 1, 2007  Annual Transit Ridership Monitoring Report, Fiscal Year 2010‐11, February 16, 2012  Transportation  Improvement  Program  (TIP),  Fiscal  Years  2013/14  –  2017/18,  June  3,  2013,  Amended August 5, 2013  List of Priority Projects, Fiscal Year 2014/15 to 2018/19, June 3, 2013  2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update, Livable Community Reinvestment Plan, Final  Report, April 2011, Adopted October 27, 2010  Development  of  the  Cost  Feasible  Plan,  Technical  Report  No.  7,  April  2011,  Adopted  October  27,  2010  Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), Fiscal Years 2012‐13 and 2013‐14, April 2, 2012  Plan East Gainesville – Final Report, MTPO, February 2003 

University of Florida (UF) Documents  

University of Florida Campus Master Plan, 2010 – 2020: Year 2020 Transit System Analysis 

Alachua County Documents  

Alachua  County  Comprehensive  Plan,  2011‐2030,  Transportation  Mobility  Element,  Effective  July  22, 2011 (Amendments effective through 12‐8‐12) 

  Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce Documents  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 2 

Existing, Planned and Future Conditions   

Transportation Task Force Report, Planning for the Future 2012, updated September 2012 

Miscellaneous Documents     

Santa Fe College (SFC) Student Rider Origins Map, prepared by RTS  Petition  PB‐12‐132  CPA,  “City  Plan  Board”,  Amend  the  City  of  Gainesville  Comprehensive  Plan  Transportation Mobility Element for the Evaluation and Appraisal process, December 3, 2012  Community Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Community Redevelopment Area, no adoption  date available  Final Master Plan Depot Park (031710) 

Go‐Enhance RTS Study Project Documents (Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis)     

Existing / Future Conditions Report, December 2012  Project Briefing Document, February 21, 2013  Initial Screening Evaluation Report, March 2013  Detailed Definition / Evaluation of Alternatives, November 2013 Revised 

The consultant team also reviewed all available data and reports that pertain to the existing transit service,  for both APC ride check and service evaluation purposes.  Following is a list of the data sources provided by  RTS to the consultant team:              

GFI Farebox Reports  Operating Statistics  RTS Budget and UF/SFC Service Cost Estimation Spreadsheet  National Transit Database (NTD) Reports  Vehicle Inventory  Vehicle Requirements  Public Schedules and System Map  Route Interval Sheets  Interlining Combinations  Route Ridership Statistics   Proposed route and service level changes for Spring 2014 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 3 

Field Observations   3.0

FIELD OBSERVATIONS 

Effective  route  service  planning  requires  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  Gainesville  RTS  transit  system.   To supplement the data collected and reviewed as described above, members of the consultant team spent  time  “in  the  field”  driving  the  study  area  and  RTS  routes,  watching  transit  operations,  and  documenting  their observations. Field observation is clearly one of the most critical components to the process of fully  understanding RTS’s transit services, operating environment, local geography and customer mobility needs.     The purpose of this in‐field investigation was threefold: (1) to gain firsthand knowledge and understanding  of  the  markets  that  each  route  serves,  observing  major  trip  attractors  (hospitals,  shopping  centers,  apartment  complexes,  schools  and  colleges,  social  service  agencies,  etc.)  and  general  socioeconomic  characteristics,  (2)  to  review  and  evaluate  suggestions  made  by  staff,  and  (3)  to  investigate  possible  new  routes, route extensions, and route modifications.    Following are observations for each route.  Route 1 – Downtown Station to Butler Plaza  

 

 

SW 2nd Avenue has seen a resurgence of development as well as new streetscaping that includes  roundabouts.  Traffic appears to move well through this area and provides a speedier alternative to  University Avenue.  SW  12th  Street  is  a  two‐lane  neighborhood  street  that  features  student  housing.    While  more  constrained than 13th Street, this alignment is less prone to traffic congestion.  Museum  Road  provides  excellent  access  to  UF  and  its  surrounding  transit  services.    However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.   The inbound pull‐out bay at The Bartram Apartments leaves little room for buses to merge left into  the center through lane of Archer Road.  16th Avenue to Shealy Drive may be a safer alternative.   End of line buses stage on Windmeadows Boulevard, just east of 35th Boulevard.  Restrooms are  available  at  a  nearby  Publix.    Passengers  with  destinations  further  east  along  the  Windmeadows  Boulevard  loop  must  either  wait  through  this  layover  (typically  scheduled  for  two  minutes)  or  continue their trip on foot. 

Route 2 – Downtown Station to Walmart Supercenter  

  

Route 2 is somewhat indirect for riders traveling from Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station to Lincoln  Estates,  Alachua  County  Health  Department  and  the  Waldo  Road  Walmart  as  the  route  travels  southeast to Robinson Heights before making its trip northbound.   This route is one of two routes that serve the RTS administrative offices and maintenance facility.  Robinson  Heights  is  only  served  in  the  outbound  direction.    Riders  in  the  inbound  direction  must  travel to Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station first before completing their trip to this area.   The  turnaround  in  Robinson  Heights  makes  use  of  a  right  turn  branch  at  15th  Street  and  4th  Avenue.  This movement is unusual but effective. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 4 

Field Observations    

 



 

The left turn from SE 12th Avenue onto SE 15th Street does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the north or south.   The Lincoln Estates deviation travels along neighborhood streets.  Speed humps are in place along  much  of  the  alignment,  suggesting  that  the  neighborhood  may  have  issues  with  speeding  and/or  cut‐through traffic.   The left turn from SE 19th Terrace onto SE 8th Avenue does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the east or west.   The  Alachua  County  Health  Department  is  served  street‐side  by  Route  2  while  Routes  7  and  11  board and alight at the door.  It may be beneficial to have all routes serve this facility in a consistent  manner.  The left turn from NE 25th Street onto NE 8th Avenue does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the east or west. (New Route 2 pattern  eliminates but still valid to other routing analysis)   The  Waldo  Road  Walmart  Supercenter  provides  an  excellent  transfer  facility  for  Route  2  and  its  connecting routes.    The left turn from NE 19th Terrace onto NE 8th Avenue does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement  may  be  difficult  when  traffic  approaches  from  the  east  or  west  (New  Route  2  pattern  eliminates but still valid to other routing analysis).  

Route 5 – Downtown Station to Oaks Mall  

 

Route 5 is one of RTS’ most direct routes, serving University Avenue from SE 3rd Street to SW 62nd  Boulevard.  Inbound trips operate via 2nd SW Avenue.  An inbound alignment along University  Avenue may prove more beneficial to complement outbound trips in this area.  Travel along SE 3rd Street moves slowly through Arlington Square due to the series of 4‐way stops.   An alignment along Main Street may be more expeditious.  The facility at Oaks Mall is undersized and underdeveloped for the amount of passenger activity  that occurs here.  There is no separation between bus traffic, pedestrian traffic and general  vehicular traffic, creating a potential safety hazard.  Restroom access for operator breaks is poor.  

Route 6 – Downtown Station to Plaza Verde  





Route 6 operates from Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station via Main Street and then diverts over to  6th Street via NW 1st Avenue, presumably to provide front‐door service to the Gainesville Housing  Authority.  Operation along the entire length of 6th Street from Depot Avenue north should be  considered.  After serving NW 1st Avenue, Route 6 operates along a narrow portion of NW 5th Street.  This  segment is narrow; features some poorly aligned turning movements and are only separated from  6th Street by a grass median.  Service may operate more effectively if a 6th Street alignment is  maintained.  The one‐way figure‐eight alignment is problematic for riders who origin and destination both fall  within this segment.  Depending on the pairing, riders may be forced to ride through the entire  route for a portion of their trip. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 5 

Field Observations   



The left turn from NW 45th Avenue onto NW 13th Street is problematic.  There is no traffic control to  support this movement across four lanes of fast‐moving traffic.  This movement may be dictated by  the desire to serve Oak Ridge Apartments with a right‐hand pick‐up and drop‐off as it has been  reported a large number of elderly and disabled riders reside at this complex.  A pull‐out bay on NW 23rd Avenue near Plaza Verde supports end‐of‐line layover and staging.  This  falls in the middle of the figure eight; thus, passengers may have to wait at this location to  complete their trip. 

Route 7 – Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows    





  

The left turn from SE 7th Avenue onto SE 15th Street does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the north or south.  The left turn from SE 24th Street onto E University Avenue is not signalized.  Thus, this movement  may be difficult when traffic approaches from the east or west.  The Alachua County Health Department is served street‐side by Route 2 while Routes 7 and 11  board and alight at the door.  It may be beneficial to have all routes serve this facility in a consistent  manner.  The left turn from the Alachua County Health Department onto SE 24th Street does not have the  right‐of‐way.  Thus, this movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the north or  south.  SE 21st Avenue is a narrow residential street connecting SE 27th Street and SE 35th Street.  By design,  this road is not conducive to transit traffic but is the only means of provide service penetration to  this neighborhood.  The left turn from SE 21st Avenue onto SE 35th Street does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the north or south.  The end‐of‐line at Eastwood Meadows is within a public housing project.  Thus, it may not be ideal  for any extended layover periods.  There does not appear to be any available restroom access.  The left turn from Eastwood Meadows onto SE 43rd Street does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus,  this movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the north or south 

Route 8 – Shands Hospital to N. Walmart Supercenter  







Both the northern and southern termini of Route 8 consist of large one‐way loops.  Travel through  these loops may be troublesome for riders whose origin and destination are both contained within  the loop.  The loop also forces passengers to potentially wait through any end‐of‐line layover.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  13th Street is a major north‐south corridor in Gainesville.  However, transit service is segmented  with Route 8 only serving portions between SW 16th Avenue and NW 23rd Avenue.  A more  continuous service on 13th Street should be considered.  The neighborhood deviation through NW 21st Street and NW 36th Avenue seems counterintuitive to  a route that serves major thoroughfares such as 13th Street and 39th Avenue. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 6 

Field Observations    

The left turn from NW 21st Street onto NW 23rd Boulevard does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus,  this movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the east or west.  Service to the Senior Recreation Center is provided by an internal stop near the entry to the  building.  While convenient to seniors, this out‐of‐direction movement may seem time consuming  for riders whose trips are beyond this point. 

Route 9 – Reitz Union to Hunters Run  





Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Reitz Union  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  Route 9’s southern terminus consists of a large one‐way loop.  This loop may be inconvenient for  riders who board or alight in the segment as they are forced to sit through the layover at Hunters  Run.  The layover location at Hunters Run provides a pull‐out bay that removes the bus from traffic.   However, this location does not feature any amenities such as restrooms.  In addition, this site is  somewhat isolated and may pose safety issues in the evening hours. 

 Route 10 – Downtown Station to Santa Fe  



Route 10 provides very direct service between Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station and Santa Fe  College.  There may be a benefit to operating via 6th Street to provide connectivity between Santa  Fe’s main campus and downtown campus.   Congestion on the Santa Fe College campus can be problematic, particularly when exiting the  campus.  Traffic on the southern driveway makes it difficult for buses to exit. 

Route 11 – Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows  

   

Service is fragmented on NE 9th Street between Routes 11 and 24 as well as East University Avenue  between Routes 7 and 11.  There may be an opportunity to provide more consistent corridor‐ oriented service in these areas.  The Waldo Road Walmart Supercenter provides an excellent transfer facility for Route 11 and its  connecting routes.  The deviation to NE 12th Avenue provides little benefit for the amount of time invested.  This  segment should be considered for possible elimination.  The deviation to Alachua County Health Center is duplicative with Routes 2 and 7.    The end‐of‐line at Eastwood Meadows is within a public housing project.  Thus, it may not be ideal  for any extended layover periods.  There does not appear to be any available restroom access. 

Route 12 – Reitz Union to Butler Plaza  

  

Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Reitz Union  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  End of line buses stage on the shopping center drive aisle adjacent to Publix.   

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 7 

Field Observations   Route 13 – Beaty Towers to FloridaWorks   





The northern terminus at Beaty Towers features a pull‐out bay with no restroom facilities.   Similarly, the southern portion of the route is also without facilities.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  Route 13 provides excellent access to Shands Hospital and the VA Medical Center.  However,  service is only provided in the southbound direction.  Thus, passengers riding northbound must  either wait through the layover at Beaty Towers or walk to their final destination.  The southern turnaround is problematic as it features a U‐turn on a busy four‐lane highway with  limited visibility 

Route 15 – Downtown Station to NW 13th Street   

 

Service is fragmented on Main Street between Routes 6, 15 and 27.  There may be an opportunity  to provide more consistent corridor‐oriented service in this area.  The routing segments north of 23rd Avenue are circuitous.  This structure may provide benefit for  riders seeking east‐west travel but creates a long ride for passengers traveling from downtown  Gainesville to the Plaza Verde area.  The route’s northern terminus consists of a large one‐way loop.  Loops such as these can be  problematic for riders whose origin and destination both fall within this segment.  The end‐of‐line at Plaza Verde provides excellent restroom access.  However, there is no pull‐out  bay or staging area.  Thus, the bus must wait in a travel lane if there is time to be spent here.  Possible options include a mini‐transfer facility at the vacant former Walmart Store parking lot near  the Crystal Burger restaurant. 

Route 16 – Beaty Towers to Sugar Hill  

 



During the daytime hours, Route 16 is interlined with Route 17.  This is the only regularly scheduled  interline combination in the RTS system.  While interlines can provide significant cost savings and  scheduling benefits, they can also be problematic for riders if not managed consistently.  Riders  have complained that destination signs are inconsistently changed within the western loop of the  route; thus confusing passengers as to which route they are actually boarding once it resumes  eastbound travel.    The western terminus at Beaty Towers features a pull‐out bay with no restroom facilities.  Similarly,  the eastern portion of the route is also without facilities.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  Route 16 provides excellent access to Shands Hospital and the VA Medical Center.  However,  service is only provided in the eastbound direction.  Thus, passengers riding westbound must either  wait through the layover at Beaty Towers or walk to their final destination.  

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 8 

Field Observations   

The left turn from Sugar Hill onto 4th Street does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this movement  may be difficult when traffic approaches from the north or south. 

  Route 17 – Beaty Towers to Downtown Station  

 





During the daytime hours, Route 17 is interlined with Route 16.  This is the only regularly scheduled  interline combination in the RTS system.  While interlines can provide significant cost savings and  scheduling benefits, they can also be problematic for riders if not managed consistently.  Riders  have complained that destination signs are inconsistently changed within the western loop of the  route; thus confusing passengers as to which route they are actually boarding once it resumes  eastbound travel.    The western terminus at Beaty Towers features a pull‐out bay with no restroom facilities.  Similarly,  the eastern portion of the route is also without facilities.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  Route 17 provides excellent access to Shands Hospital and the VA Medical Center.  However,  service is only provided in the eastbound direction.  Thus, passengers riding westbound must either  wait through the layover at Beaty Towers or walk to their final destination.  The left turn from SE 10th Avenue onto Main Street is not signalized.  Thus, this movement may be  difficult when traffic approaches from the north or south 

Route 20 – Reitz Union to Oaks Mall   

 

Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Reitz Union  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  There is no traffic signal at Museum Drive & Radio Road.  Left turns when traveling eastbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from around the curve.  The facility at Oaks Mall is undersized and underdeveloped for the amount of passenger activity  that occurs here.  There is no separation between bus traffic, pedestrian traffic and general  vehicular traffic, creating a potential safety hazard.  Restroom access for operator breaks is poor.   

Route 21 – Reitz Union to Cabana Beach  

 

Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Reitz Union  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  There is no traffic signal at Museum Drive & Radio Road.  Left turns when traveling eastbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from around the curve.  The end‐of‐line at Cabana Beach features a pull‐out bay and shelter.  However, there does not  appear to be restroom facilities available for bus operator breaks. 

Route 23 – Oaks Mall to Santa Fe  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 Page 9 

Field Observations   



The facility at Oaks Mall is undersized and underdeveloped for the amount of passenger activity  that occurs here.  There is no separation between bus traffic, pedestrian traffic and general  vehicular traffic, creating a potential safety hazard.  Restroom access for operator breaks is poor.    Congestion on the Santa Fe College campus can be problematic, particularly when exiting the  campus.  Traffic on the southern driveway makes it difficult for buses to exit. 

Route 24 – Downtown Station to Job Corps   

  

Service is fragmented on NE 9th Street and Waldo Road.  There may be an opportunity to provide  more consistent corridor‐oriented service in these areas.  The routing segments north of NE 8th Avenue are circuitous.  This structure may provide benefit for  riders seeking east‐west travel but creates a long ride for passengers traveling from downtown  Gainesville to Job Corps.  The deviation to NE 9th Street causes Route 24 to miss the Waldo Road Walmart – a significant  activity center as well as connection point to other routes in the system.  Densities along the end‐of line loop appear to be minimal (mostly closed warehouses and light  industrial uses).  Potentially, Job Corps could be served by utilizing a smaller turnaround loop.  The end‐of‐line at Job Corps is an isolated sheltered stop.  There does not appear to be any readily  available restroom access. 

Route 25 – UF Commuter Lot to GNV Airport    

  

The western terminus at the UF Commuter Lot offers little in the way of amenities for operator  breaks (restrooms, etc.).  The routing out of the UF Commuter Lot is circuitous.  This may be done to eliminate a potential  unassisted left turn onto Gale Lemerand Drive.    Travel through the UF campus is time consuming due to the large amount of pedestrians and  uncontrolled crossings.  The need to operate via Newell Drive and Union Road should be closely  examined.  Service to the Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station is only offered in the eastbound direction on  weekends.  This makes access to airport employment difficult for city residents.  Route 25 passes the Waldo Road Walmart but does not serve the internal stop where connections  to other routes could be offered.  The stop at Gainesville Airport is conveniently located for passengers.  But due to TSA regulations,  buses are not permitted to be left unattended in this area.  Thus, restroom access for bus operators  is prohibited. 

Route 27 – Downtown Station to Walmart Supercenter via Santa Fe  



Route 27 is somewhat indirect for riders traveling from Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station to the  Waldo Road Walmart as the route travels north to the Greyhound Station before making its trip  eastbound.  The inbound deviation to serve Santa Fe College Downtown Campus seems excessive for the small  amount of walking saved.  Buses returning to NW 6th Street face an unassisted left turn to resume  southbound routing. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 10 

Field Observations   

 

The routing to Greyhound Station is out‐of‐direction with the majority of the route.  Operating via  Main Street and NE 2nd Street minimizes duplication of service but these two corridors are so close  together there is still little benefit realized.  The left turn from NE 2nd Street onto NE 23rd Avenue does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus, this  movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the east or west.  The Waldo Road Walmart Supercenter provides an excellent transfer facility for Route 2 and its  connecting routes. 

Route 28 – The Hub to Forest Park  

   

The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  The eastern end‐of‐line turnaround (around the stadium) is time consuming and provides little  benefit to the ridership.  There is no traffic signal at Fraternity Row & Village Drive.  Left turns when turning southbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.  There is no traffic signal at Museum Drive & Radio Road.  Left turns when traveling eastbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from around the curve.  The western end‐of‐line is located within Forest Park (presumably).  Restroom access in this area  may be limited, particularly during evening hours. 

Route 34 – The Hub to Lexington Crossing  

     

The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  The eastern end‐of‐line turnaround (around the stadium) is time consuming and provides little  benefit to the ridership.  There is no traffic signal at Fraternity Drive & Woodlawn Drive.  Left turns when traveling  eastbound may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.   There is no traffic signal at SW 23rd Street & SW 2nd Avenue.  Left turns when traveling westbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.  Northbound buses must make a left turn from SW 27th Street onto SW 35th Place without the  benefit of traffic control.  This movement may be difficult during peak periods.  The southern end‐of‐line is located within Lexington Crossing where there does not appear to be  off‐street layover or restroom facilities.  Ridgemar Commons, Rocky Point and Casablanca are only served in the southbound direction while  Gainesville Place and Enclave are only served in the northbound direction.  This can be problematic  for riders who rely on the bus for service both to and from the UF campus. 

Route 35 – Reitz Union to SW 35th Place 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 11 

Field Observations   



Route 35’s southern terminus consists of a large one‐way loop.  This loop may be inconvenient for  riders who board or alight in the segment as they are forced to sit through any layover at Ridgemar  Commons.  The end‐of‐line location at Ridgemar Commons provides a pull‐out bay that removes the bus from  traffic.  However, this location does not feature any amenities such as restrooms. 

Route 36 – The Hub to Williston Plaza – Park Meadows  



  

The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  Newell Drive provides excellent access to the heart of the UF campus.  However, congestion on this  road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Turlington Plaza crosswalk,  leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  The stop at Reitz Union is only served in the southbound direction where northbound buses board  and alight at the traffic light.  This may be confusing to riders who are new to the route.  The southern end‐of‐line is located in a makeshift pull‐out bay along SW 47th Avenue.  Restroom  access appears to be limited.  The northbound deviation along SW 42nd Place, SW 31st Drive and SW 41st Place seems to offer very  little benefit compared to the time required to divert off of SW 34th Street.  If ridership does  warrant these stops, this routing should be provided in both directions. 

Route 38 – The Hub to Gainesville Place  



   

The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  Newell Drive provides excellent access to the heart of the UF campus.  However, congestion on this  road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Turlington Plaza crosswalk,  leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  The stop at Reitz Union is only served in the southbound direction where northbound buses board  and alight at the traffic light.  This may be confusing to riders who are new to the route.  Routing through The Enclave apartments is challenging for large vehicles, including buses.  Drive  aisles are narrow and feature angled parking which conflicts with passing vehicles.  The southern end‐of‐line is located within the apartment complex with no formal location to park.   Restroom access appears to be limited.   The inbound pull‐out bay at The Bartram Apartments leaves little room for buses to merge left into  the center through lane of Archer Road.  16th Avenue to Shealy Drive may be a safer alternative. 

Route 39 – Santa Fe to GNV Airport   

Congestion on the Santa Fe College campus can be problematic, particularly when exiting the  campus.  Traffic on the southern driveway makes it difficult for buses to exit.  Service to Gainesville Airport is only offered in the westbound direction.  This can be problematic  for riders who are destined for the airport from 39th Avenue. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 12 

Field Observations   



The bus stop at FDOT is located just outside of the gate along the property’s drive aisle.   Presumably, operators enter the driveway loop and circle the retention pond.  The turnaround is  located behind a secured gate that is closed after business hours.  Thus, expanded service hours  may prove problematic.  The left turn from FDOT onto NE 39th Avenue does not provide the benefit of traffic control and  may be a safety hazard. 

Route 41 – Beaty Towers to North Walmart Supercenter  



  

The southern terminus of Route 41 consists of a large one‐way loop.  Travel through these loops  may be troublesome for riders whose origin and destination are both contained within the loop.   The loop also forces passengers to potentially wait through any end‐of‐line layover.  Newell Drive and Museum Road provide excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.   However, congestion on these roads is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the  Turlington Plaza and Beaty Towers crosswalks, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a  break in pedestrian movement.  The neighborhood deviation through NW 21st Street and NW 31st Place seems counterintuitive to a  route that serves a major thoroughfares such as 13th Street.  The left turn from NW 21st Street onto NW 23rd Boulevard does not have the right‐of‐way.  Thus,  this movement may be difficult when traffic approaches from the east or west.  Bus stops on NW 53rd Avenue are only provided in the eastbound direction.  This limits access to  riders who may be destined to Walmart. 

Route 43 – Downtown Station to Santa Fe  







Route 43 provides very direct service between Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station and Shands  Hospital.  However, this also creates a more circuitous trip for riders at Rosa Parks Station who are  destined for Santa Fe College.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  Route 43 serves University Avenue from NW 13th Street to NW 43rd Street.  Inbound trips operate  via SW 2nd Avenue.  An outbound alignment along SW 2nd Avenue may prove more beneficial to  complement inbound trips in this area.  Congestion on the Santa Fe College campus can be problematic, particularly when classes let out in  the afternoon or during early morning class start times. 

Route 46 – UF – Downtown Circulator  



Route 46 operates as a one‐way loop between UF and Downtown Gainesville.  As with any loop,  riders may be forced to ride through much of the entire 30‐minute circuit if their destination is not  within walking distance of a bus stop in the direction of travel.   Museum Road and Newell Drive both provide excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit  services.  However, congestion on these roads is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 13 

Field Observations  

  

uncontrolled at the Turlington Plaza and Beaty Towers crosswalks, leaving vehicular traffic to pass  whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  SW 10th Street is a two‐lane neighborhood street that features student housing.  While more  constrained than 13th Street, this alignment is less prone to traffic congestion.  New routing to the Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station has been recently added to improve  systemwide connectivity.  SW 2nd Avenue has seen a resurgence of development as well as new streetscaping that includes  roundabouts.  Traffic appears to move well through this area and provides a speedier alternative to  University Avenue. 

Route 62 – Oaks Mall to Lexington Crossing  

 

The facility at Oaks Mall is undersized and underdeveloped for the amount of passenger activity  that occurs here.  There is no separation between bus traffic, pedestrian traffic and general  vehicular traffic, creating a potential safety hazard.  Restroom access for operator breaks is poor.    Northbound buses must make a left turn from SW 27th Street onto SW 35th Place without the  benefit of traffic control.  This movement may be difficult during peak periods.  The southern end‐of‐line is located within Lexington Crossing where there does not appear to be  off‐street layover or restroom facilities. 

Route 75 – Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza  

 

 

The facility at Oaks Mall is undersized and underdeveloped for the amount of passenger activity  that occurs here.  There is no separation between bus traffic, pedestrian traffic and general  vehicular traffic, creating a potential safety hazard.  Restroom access for operator breaks is poor.    The deviations on Route 75 create a great deal of out‐of‐direction travel for through riders.  Service to Tower Center and the surrounding housing is only provided in the northbound direction.   This makes trip planning cumbersome for riders from this area who wishes to travel to points  south.  Both Holly Heights and Linton Oaks feature narrow, constrained road networks where buses must  travel very slowly and carefully.    End of line buses stage on Windmeadows Boulevard, just west of 35th Boulevard.  Restrooms are  available at a nearby Publix.  Passengers with destinations further west along the Windmeadows  Boulevard loop must either wait through this layover (typically scheduled for four minutes) or  continue their trip on foot. 

Route 76 – Santa  Haile Market Square   

Congestion on the Santa Fe College campus can be problematic, particularly when exiting the  campus.  Traffic on the southern driveway makes it difficult for buses to exit.  The facility at Oaks Mall is undersized and underdeveloped for the amount of passenger activity  that occurs here.  There is no separation between bus traffic, pedestrian traffic and general  vehicular traffic, creating a potential safety hazard.  Restroom access for operator breaks is poor.   

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 14 

Field Observations   

The streets in Haile Market Square in which Route 76 must travel are narrow and feature parallel  parking.  Bus Operators must take great care when driving through this area.  Also, there does not  appear to be a designated staging area for the bus to take any layover or break time. 

Route 117 – Park‐N‐Ride 2 (34th Street)   

There is no traffic signal at Hull Road & Mowry Road.  Left turns when traveling eastbound may be  problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from around the curve.  There are no restroom facilities at the western terminus of the route (Park & Ride Lot 2).  However,  given the length of trips, this may not be an operational concern. 

Route 118 – Park‐N‐Ride 1 (Cultural Plaza)  



The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  The eastern end‐of‐line turnaround (around the stadium) is time consuming and provides little  benefit to the ridership. 

Route 119 – Family Housing  

    

The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  The eastern end‐of‐line turnaround (around the stadium) is time consuming and provides little  benefit to the ridership.  There is no traffic signal at Fraternity Row & Village Drive.  Left turns when turning southbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.  There is no traffic signal at Radio Road & Museum Drive.  Left turns when turning northbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from the curve.  There is no traffic signal at University Village & Hull Road.  Left turns when turning eastbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.    There are no restroom facilities at the western terminus of the route (Family Housing).  However,  given the length of trips, this may not be an operational concern. 

Route 120 – West Circulator (Fraternity Row)  





Route 120 operates as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take longer than originating trips  (and vice versa).  However, given the short length of the route, this may not be an operational  concern.  The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  Newell Drive provides excellent access to the heart of the UF campus.  However, congestion on this  road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Turlington Plaza crosswalk,  leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 15 

Field Observations       Route 121 – Commuter Lot  







Route 121 operates as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take longer than originating trips  (and vice versa).  However, given the short length of the route, this may not be an operational  concern.  The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  The left turn from the Commuter Lot back onto Gale Lemerand Drive may be difficult, particularly  during peak hours as there is no traffic control giving the bus right‐of‐way. 

Route 122 – UF North/South Circulator  



The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  Operators reported difficulty navigating the streets within the northern loop of the route.  Narrow  roads and constrained turning movements were cited. 

Route 125 ‐ Lakeside  







Both ends of Route 125 operate as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take longer than  originating trips (and vice versa).  However, given the short length of the route, this may not be an  operational concern.  The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  Newell Drive provides excellent access to the heart of the UF campus.  However, congestion on this  road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Turlington Plaza crosswalk,  leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.  There is no traffic signal at Radio Road & Museum Drive.  Left turns when turning northbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from the curve. 

Route 126 – UF East/West Circulator  

Both ends of Route 126 operate as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take longer than  originating trips (and vice versa).  However, given the duplication of other on‐campus routes, this  may not be an operational concern. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 16 

Field Observations   

  



The Hub is a convenient centralized location for students using RTS.  Restrooms are readily  available; however, operators must keep moving as there is not enough space for the number of  buses servicing this location to stage simultaneously.  There is no traffic signal at SW 10th Street & SW 8th Avenue.  Left turns when turning eastbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.  There is no traffic signal at SW 11th Street & SW 8th Avenue.  Left turns when turning westbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement.   There is no traffic signal at Radio Road & Museum Drive.  Left turns when turning northbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles emerge from the curve. 

Route 127 – East Circulator (Sorority Row)    

Route 127 operates as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take longer than originating trips  (and vice versa).  However, given the length of the route, this may not be an operational concern.  There is no traffic signal at SW 11th Street & SW 8th Avenue.  Left turns when turning westbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach.  Museum Road provides excellent access to UF and its surrounding transit services.  However,  congestion on this road is problematic as pedestrian traffic flows uncontrolled at the Beaty Towers  crosswalk, leaving vehicular traffic to pass whenever there is a break in pedestrian movement. 

Route 300 – Later Gator A – Fraternity Row to Downtown Station  



Much of Later Gator A operates as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take longer than  originating trips (and vice versa).  However, given the length of the route, this may not be an  operational concern.  There is no traffic signal at Fraternity Drive & Museum Road.  Left turns when turning eastbound  may be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach. 

Route 301 – Later Gator B – SW Gainesville to Downtown Station  

The southern terminus of Later Gator B operates as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take  longer than originating trips (and vice versa).  However, given the length of the route, this may not  be an operational concern. 

Route 302 – Later Gator C – Oaks Mall to Downtown Station  

There is no traffic signal at Radio Road & Museum Road.  Left turns when turning eastbound may  be problematic as oncoming vehicles approach. 

Route 303 – Later Gator D – FloridaWorks to Downtown Station  

The southern turnaround is problematic as it features a U‐turn on a busy four‐lane highway with  limited visibility. 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 17 

Field Observations       Route 305 – Later Gator F – Butler Plaza to Downtown Station  

The western terminus of Later Gator F operates as a one‐way loop.  Thus, return trips may take  longer than originating trips (and vice versa).  However, given the length of the route, this may not  be an operational concern. 

           

 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 18 

On‐Board Survey   4.0

ON‐BOARD SURVEY 

This section of this Technical Memorandum presents the methodology and results from an on‐board survey  of RTS buses conducted in September 2013.   This survey was completed for purposes of obtaining existing  transit travel pattern information in the Gainesville area.  The on‐board survey effort was completed through the following steps:  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Define survey sample;  Design survey instrument;  Develop survey schedule;  Conduct survey;  Quality Control Procedures;  Geocoding; and  Perform OD Survey Expansion and Develop Summaries.    Tasks completed for each of these steps are described in the following sections.   The first section begins  with  a  description  of  survey  methodology  and  implementation.    Survey  processing  techniques  are  then  described, followed by a brief summary of survey results.   Survey records are contained in a separate Excel  spreadsheet file.   

2.1 

Survey Schedule, Instrument and Implementation 

The proposed goal of this survey effort was to obtain enough survey responses to obtain a 90% confidence  level,  plus/minus  10%  for  each  surveyed  route  (generally  45  to  65  completed  surveys  on  each  route,  depending on the route ridership).  It was initially estimated that 2,700 survey responses would be required  to  reach  this  target.    A  total  of  6,810  surveys  were  collected.    This  target  was  reached  on  35  of  RTS’  44  weekday routes.  The nine routes that did not meet this goal generally have less than 500 daily riders.    A survey schedule was conducted within a one week period (weekdays only). Generally, weekend service is  surveyed  but  given  budget  constraints  as  well  as  significant  reduction  of  weekend  transit  service,  it  was  decided  that  resources  would  be  better  spent  achieving  a  larger  sample  on  weekday  service.    The  actual  survey effort began on Monday, September 16th, and ran until Thursday, September 19th. Make‐ups were  conducted on October 1. Approximately 50 percent of the RTS service was surveyed, including University of  Florida and Later Gator late night routes.   The survey instrument was created with input from RTS staff.  The final survey instrument was a two‐sided  document  printed  on  card  stock  paper.    The  first  side  of  the  survey  contained  questions  regarding  the  current  trip  the  rider  was  on  (place  of  origin,  destination,  access  to  transit,  etc.).  The  second  side  of  the  survey  contained  questions  regarding  rider  demographics  and  opinions  regarding  RTS  service.    Surveys  were printed in English and Spanish.   The final survey instrument is shown in Figure 2‐1 (English version).  The  firm  Temp  Force  was  retained  to  recruit  surveyors  to  administer  surveys  on  RTS  buses.    A  training  session was held on Monday, September 16th in the morning. Surveyors were instructed on the questions 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 19 

On‐Board Survey   and rode a bus to practice administering the survey.   Approximately 30 surveyors were recruited for this  survey effort.  Surveyors  reported  to  the  Holiday  Inn  at  University  and  13th  Street  (where  survey  supervisor  staff  was  lodged).    Surveyors  were  then  transported  to  their  starting  location.    Depending  on  the  route,  starting  locations were the Rosa Parks RTS Transit Station, the Oaks Mall, Reitz Union, The Hub, or Beaty Towers.    Surveyors were given their scheduled report and end time prior to the survey day. Surveyors signed in with  a  supervisor  prior  to  their  assignment  and  given  a  packet  that  included  the  assigned  route  and  block  number, survey times, the location of the bus stop where surveyors board and alight the bus, blank survey  forms and pencils. Surveyors wore a name badge that gave them boarding access to their assigned route  and identified them as surveyors. Additionally, RTS was notified of the days routes were scheduled to be  surveyed.  Surveyors were instructed to record the route number and the time the survey was handed out.  Surveyors  returned  all  completed  surveys  and  supplies  daily  at  the  end  of  the  assignment.  A  supervisor  reviewed  each  assignment  to  look  for  obvious  errors.  Missed  assignments  or  assignments  that  were  not  complete  were  rescheduled.    Additional  assignments  were  added  for  routes  that  did  not  have  good  response  rates  or  if  other  circumstances  occurred  that  warranted  another  survey.  All  routes  received  a  minimum  of  fifty  percent  sampling  of  weekday  trips  operated.  Trips  receiving  poor  response  rates  were  either re‐surveyed or trip times adjacent where surveyed to maximize response. 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 20 

On‐Board Survey      Figure 2‐1: RTS On‐Board Survey From (First Page) 

   

 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 21

 

On‐Board Survey      Figure 2‐1: RTS On‐Board Survey Form (Second Page)   

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 22

 

On‐Board Survey   2.2 

Survey Processing 

Once  the  survey  was  complete,  all  of  the  survey  forms  were  returned  to  Connetics’  corporate  office  in  Roswell, Georgia and entered into a master database. For purposes of the COA, questions on only the front  side  of  the  survey  form  were  entered  into  the  master  database.    The  consultant  team  recently  hired  to  update the RTS Transit Development Plan will be entering responses on the back side of the survey form.   Survey  forms  that  lacked  any  coherent  information  were  discarded  (e.g.,  only  one  or  two  questions  completed).   Connetics contracted employees entered survey responses into an Excel spreadsheet form. A quality check  was then completed to ensure accurate data entry.  A total of 6,810 surveys were entered into the master  database. Thus, the response rate achieved during the survey effort well exceeded the targeted overall goal  of 2,700 surveys.  Surveyors were on just over 50% of scheduled bus‐hours.  Thus, approximately ½ of RTS’  average 60,000 daily riders were on surveyed buses.  The 6,810  completed surveys represent a response  rate of 22.7% of estimated riders that were on surveyed buses.  A total of eight surveys were completed on  the Spanish form.    Survey responses by route are depicted in Figure 2‐2.           

    

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

  Page 23 

On‐Board Survey 

  Figure 2‐2  Total Number of Responses by Route  800 700 Survey Responses

600 500 400 300 200

0

1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 34 35 36 38 39 41 43 46 62 75 76 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 126 127 300 301 302

100

Route

Technical Memorandum #2 –Data Collection & Analysis    RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis   

 

Page 24 

On‐Board Survey

 

2.2.1  Expansion Factors  A  critical  element  of  a  survey  effort  is  the  development  of  survey  expansion  factors.    The  expansion  factors are applied to obtain a representation of survey responses for the total population of RTS riders.   In any survey effort there will be biases due to uneven response rates.  The survey implementation plan,  described in the previous section, reflects an even distribution of surveys on routes (typically 1 of every  2 bus trips were surveyed on each route) and by time of day (bus trips were surveyed throughout the  entire  span  of  service  for  each  route).    Despite  those  efforts,  response  rates  varied.    Riders  on  one  particular route may be more apt to fill out a survey than riders on another route.  Riders during one  time  period  may  be  more  apt  to  fill  out  a  survey  more  than  riders  during  another  time  period.    The  proposed  survey  expansion  process  factors  surveys  results  to  represent  total  system  ridership,  in  a  manner that attempts to eliminate the survey response rate biases noted above.    A  daily  expansion  factor  for  each  route  was  calculated  by  dividing  daily  ridership  by  the  number  of  survey responses.  Expansion factors were not calculated by time of day because trips where surveyed  evenly across all time periods.  The factors appear on the following page in Table 2‐1. Ridership for the  month  of  September  was  provided  by  RTS  and  averaged  to  represent  a  typical  weekday  during  the  month. 

2.2.2  Geocoding Process  The boarding, alighting, origin and destination addresses included in each record were geocoded using  the  online  geocoding  website  www.batchgeocode.com.    Significant  manual  work  was  included  in  the  geocoding process.  This work included rationalizing addresses and converting landmark information to  geocodable  addresses.    The  geocoding  process  inserted  the  appropriate  latitudes  and  longitudes  into  each  record.    Geocoded  points  that  were  obtained  from  the  website  www.batchgeocode.com  were  imported into the software program Google Earth to visually verify if the geocoded location was indeed  an  appropriate  match.    Of  the  6,810  surveys  that  were  entered  into  the  survey  database,  geocodable  locations were obtained for the following number or records:    

Records with Trip Origin Locations – 6,244 records (91.7% of total)  Records with Trip Destination Locations – 6,009 records (88.2%)  Records with both Trip Origin & Destination Locations – 5,707 (83.8%) 

   

 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 25 

On‐Board Survey

  Table 2‐1  Survey Expansion Factors by Route  Route #

# of Surveys

1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 34 35 36 38 39 41 43 46 62 75 76 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 126 127 300 301 302 TOTAL

261 13 229 33 42 242 517 126 102 473 180 94 72 157 698 418 92 33 71 4 65 89 477 116 236 55 106 142 177 23 89 89 178 211 80 180 109 134 154 17 75 23 21 107 6,810

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

Sept. Daily  Exp. Factor Ridership 2,877 11.022 435 33.496 2,088 9.119 414 12.559 462 11.000 1,671 6.906 3,908 7.558 866 6.876 800 7.843 4,207 8.894 2,199 12.218 1,218 12.959 827 11.486 820 5.221 5,898 8.449 2,846 6.809 1,032 11.220 450 13.636 310 4.363 34 8.613 882 13.573 2,031 22.816 3,852 8.076 988 8.519 3,384 14.340 134 2.445 400 3.769 1,185 8.343 792 4.473 125 5.439 1,108 12.447 341 3.828 920 5.167 2,027 9.605 414 5.175 1,884 10.466 609 5.591 305 2.278 1,911 12.410 411 24.174 1,659 22.123 514 22.328 325 15.490 447 4.176 60,010   

‐  Page 26 

 

On‐Board Survey

 

2.3 

Survey Response Rates by Question 

Response rates can vary by question based on the how well the survey taker understands the questions  as well as the amount of time available to answer each question.  Table 2‐2 lists the response rates by  question for those questions that were tabulated for the COA.     Table 2‐2: Response Rates by Question  Question Number 

 

Responses

Percent of total 

1. Where are you coming from now?

6,688

98.2% 

2. What is the address you are coming from now?

6,244

93.3% 

3a. How did you get to the bus stop for this trip?

6,698

98.4% 

3b. If you transferred, what route(s)?

1,091*

97.8% 

4.  Where are you going to now?

6,674

98.0% 

5.  What is the address you are going to?

6,009

88.2% 

6a. How will you get to your final destination?

6,635

97.4% 

6b. If you are transferring, what route(s)?

906*

94.4% 

7.  How often do you make this particular trip?

6,661

97.8% 

8.  How many days a week do you ride?

6,656

97.7% 

TOTAL SURVEYS  

6,810

100% 

Note: Questions 3b and 6b reflect response rates from respondents that indicated they had or will be transferring. 

For the combined questions 1 and 4 (where are you coming from and where are you going to), 6,594  (96.8%) of the surveys provided a response to both questions. Tables 2‐3 and 2‐4 show a matrix of Origin  and  Destination  response  totals  (actual  numbers  and  percentages).    Approximately  1/3  of  trip  origins  and 1/3 of trip destinations were college‐related. Some trip Origin‐Destination pairs are untypical (e.g.,  home to home trips); however these types of trips are minimal in relation to overall trip volumes.  Table 2‐3  Trip Origin‐Destination Matrix – Actual Responses  Origin/Destination Matrix Work Medical Social/Personal Schook (K‐12) College/Tech Recreation Shopping/Errands Home Other Total

Work 39 4 14 6 51 3 11 305 28 461

Medical 7 2 7 3 3 0 4 42 6 74

Social/Personal 7 3 47 8 27 3 18 97 10 220

School (K‐12) 13 1 6 44 18 3 3 216 12 316

College/Tech 40 7 45 4 248 24 39 1,630 96 2,133

Recreation 4 0 7 0 10 6 4 52 2 85

        Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 27 

Shopping/Errands 13 5 6 3 23 3 18 119 8 198

Home 393 50 150 157 1,842 65 113 66 112 2,948

Other 11 2 10 5 31 2 3 72 23 159

Total 527 74 292 230 2,253 109 213 2,599 297 6,594

On‐Board Survey

   

Table 2‐4  Trip Origin‐Destination Matrix – Percentages  Origin/Destination Matrix Work Medical Social/Personal Schook (K‐12) College/Tech Recreation Shopping/Errands Home Other Total

Work 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 4.6% 0.4% 7.0%

Medical 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 1.1%

Social/Personal 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.5% 0.2% 3.3%

School (K‐12) 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.2% 4.8%

College/Tech 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 3.8% 0.4% 0.6% 24.7% 1.5% 32.3%

Recreation 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 1.3%

Shopping/Errands 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 1.8% 0.1% 3.0%

Home 6.0% 0.8% 2.3% 2.4% 27.9% 1.0% 1.7% 1.0% 1.7% 44.7%

Other 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 2.4%

Total 8.0% 1.1% 4.4% 3.5% 34.2% 1.7% 3.2% 39.4% 4.5% 100.0%

 

  Following  are  response  rates  for  each  question  that  was  on  the  first  page  of  the  survey  form.  Route‐ specific response rates are provided in the Excel survey data file.     

Question 1. Where are you coming from now?   The first question asks respondents where they began their trip (Work, home, etc.), with 98.2 percent of  the surveys providing a response, as shown in Table 2‐5, nearly 75% were starting their trip from home  or from college.  Table 2‐5: Place of Origin 

Place of Origin No Response Work Medical Social/Personal Schook (K‐12) College/Tech Recreation Shopping/Errands Home Other TOTALS

Total Responses Total % of Total 122 1.8% 476 7.0% 77 1.1% 227 3.3% 320 4.7% 2156 31.7% 85 1.2% 204 3.0% 2983 43.8% 160 2.3% 6,810 100.0%  

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 28 

Expanded Responses Total % of Total 1,145 1.9% 4,168 6.9% 785 1.3% 2,163 3.6% 2,830 4.7% 18,944 31.6% 768 1.3% 1,876 3.1% 25,826 43.0% 1,503 2.5% 60,010 100.0%

 

On‐Board Survey

  Question 3a. How did you get to the bus for this trip?   This  question  had  a  98.4%  response  rate,  as  shown  in  Table  2‐6.  Nearly  74%  accessed  the  bus  by  walking. Another 16.7% accessed their trip by transferring from another route.  Table 2‐6: Mode of Access to Bus  

Origin Access to Transit No Response Walked Bicycled Drove & Parked Was dropped off Rode with Someone who Parked Transferred from Other Route Other TOTALS

Total Responses Total % of Total 112 1.6% 5037 74.0% 134 2.0% 296 4.3% 75 1.1% 13 0.2% 1113 16.3% 30 0.4% 6,810 100.0%

Expanded Responses Total % of Total 1,036 1.7% 44,300 73.8% 1,129 1.9% 2,521 4.2% 648 1.1% 86 0.1% 10,043 16.7% 247 0.4% 60,010 100.0%  

  Question 4. Where are you going to now?   This  question  had  a  98.0%  response  rate,  as  shown  in  Table  2‐7.  Over  70%  were  destined  to  either  college or home.    Table 2‐7: Place of Destination                   

Place of Destination No Response Work Medical Social/Personal Schook (K‐12) College/Tech Recreation Shopping/Errands Home Other TOTALS

Total Responses Total % of Total 136 2.0% 541 7.9% 77 1.1% 294 4.3% 234 3.4% 2282 33.5% 109 1.6% 218 3.2% 2619 38.5% 300 4.4% 6,810 100.0%

     

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 29 

Expanded Responses Total % of Total 1,265 2.1% 4,631 7.7% 717 1.2% 2,761 4.6% 2,090 3.5% 19,349 32.2% 923 1.5% 2,071 3.5% 23,523 39.2% 2,681 4.5% 60,010 100.0%

Land

 

On‐Board Survey

    Question 6a.   After getting off this bus, how will you get to your final destination?   This question had a 97.4% response rate, as shown in Table 2‐8. Over 77% were planning to walk to their  destination, with another 14.3% transferring to another route.   Table 2‐8: Mode of Access to Destination 

Destination Access to Transit No Response Walked Bicycled Drove & Parked Was Dropped Off Rode w/ Someone Who Parked Transferred from Other Route Other TOTALS

Total Responses Total % of Total 175 2.6% 5252 77.1% 141 2.1% 179 2.6% 37 0.5% 19 0.3% 959 14.1% 48 0.7% 6,810 100.0%

Expanded Responses Total % of Total 1,526 2.5% 46,313 77.2% 1,213 2.0% 1,478 2.5% 318 0.5% 145 0.2% 8,592 14.3% 425 0.7% 60,010 100.0%

               

  Question 7.   During a typical week, how often do you make this particular one‐way bus trip?   This question had a 97.8% response rate, as shown in Table 2‐9.  Almost 70% make the trip they are on  at least 4 days a week.   Table 2‐9: Frequency of Making This Bus Trip                 

Frequency of Making THIS Bus Trip No Response Less than Once a Week 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days TOTALS

Total Responses Total % of Total 149 2.2% 341 5.0% 326 4.8% 406 6.0% 856 12.6% 711 10.4% 3046 44.7% 480 7.0% 495 7.3% 6,810 100.0%

    Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 30 

Expanded Responses Total % of Total 1,326 2.2% 3,000 5.0% 2,911 4.9% 3,506 5.8% 7,325 12.2% 6,280 10.5% 26,782 44.6% 4,402 7.3% 4,478 7.5% 60,010 100.0%

Land

 

On‐Board Survey

  Question 8.   How many days a week do you ride the bus?   This question had a 97.7% response rate, as shown in Table 2‐10.  Almost 75% utilize RTS at least 4 days  a week.   Table 2‐10: Frequency of Using RTS                   

Frequency of Using RTS No Response Once a month or less Once every 1‐2 weeks 1 day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 days TOTALS

Total Responses Total % of Total 154 2.3% 88 1.3% 31 0.5% 108 1.6% 215 3.2% 517 7.6% 631 9.3% 3312 48.6% 891 13.1% 863 12.7% 6,810 100.0%

Expanded Responses Total % of Total 1,413 2.4% 811 1.4% 247 0.4% 960 1.6% 1,812 3.0% 4,535 7.6% 5,528 9.2% 28,963 48.3% 7,927 13.2% 7,815 13.0% 60,010 100.0%

 

2.4 

Trip Origin‐Destination Analysis  

Arc‐GIS were used to determine spatial transit trip patterns. Trip origins and destinations were mapped  by  traffic  analysis  zone  (TAZ),  as  shown  in  Figure  2‐3.    Trips  were  normalized  by  acre  to  account  for  differences in TAZ size.  This figure shows large concentrations of trips in the southwest quadrant of the  Gainesville  area  (south  of  University  Avenue/Newberry  Road)  and  west  of  13th  Street),  in  addition  to  significant transit trip activity in the zone containing Santa Fe College.  Additionally,  significant  trip  attractors  and  generators  were  established  by  grouping  TAZs  into  Mega‐ TAZs,  that  collectively  make  up  these  areas  and  comparing  trip  interactions  between  these  areas  and  the rest of the Gainesville region. Trip origin‐destination pairs were analyzed for the following specific  geographic areas in the RTS service area:  Trip Attraction Areas  University  of  Florida  –  Campus  area  defined  by  those  areas  encompassing  classroom  activity  but  minimizing campus housing (e.g., family housing, fraternity row, etc.). As depicted in Figure 2‐4, the UF  Campus Mega TAZ Origin‐Destination trip interaction is strongest with the southwest Gainesville student  housing area, Fraternity Row, Family Housing and the student apartment housing along SW 20th Avenue.  Santa  Fe  College  –  Campus  area  only  which  is  contained  within  one  TAZ.  Santa  Fe  College  Origin‐ Destination  trip  interactions  are  dispersed  throughout  the  community,  however  exhibit  the  strongest 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 31 

Land

 

On‐Board Survey

flows  between  the  apartment  housing  areas  along  SW  62nd  Boulevard,  SW  20th  Avenue  and  the  southwest Gainesville student housing area (Figure 2‐5).  Downtown Gainesville – TAZs comprising the Downtown Gainesville area generally defined by NW 2nd /  NW 3rd Avenue, SW/NW 10th Street, SW/SE 4th Avenue and NE Boulevard.  Much like Santa Fe College,  the Downtown Gainesville Mega TAZ Origin‐Destination trip interactions are dispersed throughout the  community (Figure 2‐6). The strongest Origin‐Destination inaction with the Downtown Gainesville Mega  TAZ occurs with the University of Florida Campus and the Shands / Veterans Hospital areas.  Oaks  Mall/North  Florida  Regional  Medical  Center  Area  –  Specific  TAZs  comprising  the  Oaks  Mall  and  the  North  Florida  Regional  Medical  Center  and  surrounding  medical  buildings.  The  Origin‐Destination  Survey  reflects  this  Mega  TAZ  having  the  strongest  trip  interactions  with  Santa  Fe  College  and  the  University of Florida Campus (Figure 2‐7). This is not surprising given the strong transfer activity at the  Oaks Mall with routes connecting to these two activity centers.   Shands/Veterans  Hospital  –  Specific  TAZs  comprising  Shands  Hospital  and  the  Veterans  Hospital  only  (Figure  2‐8).    This  Mega  TAZ  has  the  strongest  Origin‐Destination  trip  interaction  with  Downtown  Gainesville, the University of Florida Campus and the student housing area in southwest Gainesville.   Trip Production Areas  East Gainesville Area – Specific TAZs comprising what is known as East Gainesville including Sugar Hill,  Robinson  Heights,  Lincoln  Estates,  Eastwood  Meadows  and  the  Alachua  County  Health  Department  (Figure 2‐9).  This area specifically does not include the TAZ in which the Walmart Supercenter is located.   This  TAZ  is  not  included  as  it  is  a  significant  destination  for  not  only  East  Gainesville  but  surrounding  areas.  Including  this  TAZ  would  influence  the  nature  of  the  analysis  potentially  masking  the  trip  interaction of the East Gainesville Community with the rest of the region. Although Origin‐Destination  trip interaction is very dispersed across the Gainesville region, the strongest interaction occurs with the  Rosa  Parks  Downtown  Terminal,  the  University  of  Florida  Campus,  Shands  Hospital  and  the  Santa  Fe  Collage Campus.  West Gainesville Area – Specific TAZs comprising areas served by existing RTS fixed routes operating on  the  west  side  of  Interstate  75  (Figure  2‐10).  The  Origin‐Destination  Survey  reveals  the  strongest  trip  interactions  occur  between  west  Gainesville  and  Oaks  Mall,  Butler  Plaza,  Santa  Fe  College,  Shands  Hospital and the University of Florida Campus.  Southwest  Gainesville  Area  –  Specific  TAZs  comprising  the  high  concentration  of  student  housing  apartments/townhomes/condos which are located south of Archer Road, east of Interstate 75, north of  SW Williston  Road and west of SW 23rd Terrace/Street (Figure 2.11). Consistent with  the  University of  Florida Campus Mega TAZ, Origin‐Destination trip interaction for the Southwest Gainesville Mega TAZ is  strongest  with  the  University  of  Florida  Campus.  Other  significant  trip  interactions  occur  with  Butler  Plaza and Santa Fe College.   Figures  2‐4  through  2‐11  present  trip  origins  and  destinations  for  each  of  these  trip  attraction  and  production  areas.    Each  of  these  figures  illustrates  a  group  of  TAZs  (highlighted  in  yellow)  which  have  been identified to represent a significant regional trip attraction or production (e.g., UF Campus). Origin‐

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 32 

Land

 

On‐Board Survey

Destination  trip  densities  for  surveyed  trips  which  possess  either  an  origin  or  destination  have  been  plotted for the remaining TAZs within the study area.     Table 2‐11 identifies the number of Origin – Destination pairs or interaction with each of the Mega‐TAZ  areas  identified  above.  The  University  of  Florida  Campus  produces  the  greatest  number  of  Origin‐ Destination  interaction  of  all  of  the  Mega‐TAZs.  The  Southwest  Gainesville  Mega  TAZ  produces  the  second highest interaction. Additionally, these two Mega TAZs have the strongest Origin – Destination  pair interaction of any Mega TAZ combination.  Table 2‐11: Origin‐Destination Interaction with Trip Production/Attraction Areas (Mega‐TAZs)   

Survey Points 

Total Destinations 

6,009

Total Origins 

6,244

Total Origin and Destination Pairs 

5,707

 

Origins and Destinations that Interact with Mega‐TAZ

University of Florida Mega TAZ 

3,829

Santa Fe College Mega TAZ 

393

Downtown Mega TAZ 

333

Oaks Mall / N. Florida Reg. Medical Ctr Mega TAZ

181

Shands / Veterans Hospital Mega TAZ 

661

East Gainesville Mega TAZ 

141

West Gainesville Mega TAZ 

228

Southwest Gainesville Mega TAZ 

1,685

Total Origins and Destinations in a Mega TAZ

7,451

 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 33 

Land

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

 

Figure 2‐3  Total Trip Origins & Destinations by TAZ 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 34

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐4  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – University of Florida 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 35

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

    Figure 2‐5  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – Santa Fe College    

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 36

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐6  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – Downtown Gainesville 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 37

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐7  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – Oaks Mall / North Florida Regional Medical Center Area 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 38

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐8  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – Shands Hospital / Veterans Hospital  

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 39

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐9  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – East Gainesville Area 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 40

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐10  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – West Gainesville Area 

  Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 41

Landscape Section Name  On‐Board Survey

   

Figure 2‐11  Total Trip Origins & Destinations – Southwest Gainesville Area (Student Housing) 

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

 

Page 42

 

Ridership Data

 

5.0

RIDERSHIP DATA 

An  important  aspect  of  a  detailed  transit  service  analysis  is  an  accurate  ride  check  database  that  provides stop level boarding and alighting information and on‐time performance information in a format  that is easily understandable to operational planners.  RTS through UTA has provided the CTG Team with  ridership data collected through the use of Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs).  The following reports  have been made available for Fall 2012, Spring 2013 and Summer 2013.  Additional limited APC sample  has been provided for the month of September 2013.     

System level and route level schedule adherence  Stop level boarding and alighting volumes by stop by trip by route  Daily ridership volume summary by stop by route  System level and route level boarding and alighting volumes by day of week 

This APC Data has been utilized in the development of route level performance reports and profiles as  well  as  GIS  based  mapping  depicting  ridership  volumes  by  stop,  historical  trend  analysis,  and  on‐time  performance and schedule running time evaluation.  Analysis results are depicted in route profiles and  other performance analyses which are presented in Technical Memorandum #4 – System, Route Level  and Scheduling Analysis.   

Technical Memorandum #2 – Data Collection & Analysis  RTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis 

‐  Page 43 

Land

Appendix D Stakeholder Responses

Appendix

D

Gainesville RTS

Commissioner Baird 2/24/14 RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General 

Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) Students – by far, low-income people that don’t own a vehicle, and no one else.



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) School, followed by errands that low-income, non-vehicle-owning people have to do like shopping, medical, etc.



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? No. I’m a single working mom and a bus is just not practical. Buses are too inconvenient.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? For those that use it, the impression is very good, especially for those that ride the “popular” routes. For automobile users (like me) it is very frustrating because we see so many empty buses driving around.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? RTS needs to re-assess the routes in downtown Gainesville because when I’m down here I see so many buses driving around empty. Some routes need to be ended earlier because there are no riders. Some routes need more buses because full buses drive away with people still waiting.

Commissioner Baird 2/24/14 

Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? The #23 and #76 routes are redundant and silly. The #75 route needs more buses. It is well used, but it is a long and inefficient route.



Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? RTS should work on using smaller buses for low-demand routes because they have lower operational costs. They should work on better headways and longer hours including weekends and holidays. We need to fix our roads first. The city is too small but spread out for transit to really work. We don’t have the density. BRT is too far into the future for cost-effective use. It shouldn’t take away lanes, either. Fixed rail is silly. It’s too expensive and there’s no flexibility. There need to be better park & ride options, like: Alachua to Oaks Mall to Shands; Newberry to Oaks Mall to Shands; Archer to Butler Plaza to Shands; and Hawthorne to Shands.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? They should make smarter routes with little hubs in the outer municipalities.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? Yes, but only to park & ride locations. No other stops on the route.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? RTS spends too much on advertising.



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? Create good park & ride locations for hard-to-park areas like UF and Shands. Buses (and bikes and pedestrians) just create more congestion for us in cars. When I’m Queen of the Road, every two-lane road will be four lanes and every bus stop will have a bus pull-out to get the buses out of the way of cars.

Commissioner Baird 2/24/14 Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. Regional Transit Authority. Anything that has the name “Regional” should be that way. The same goes for GRU. The Gainesville City Commission shouldn’t be making the decisions for other cities’ transit needs. An RTA would make the system more collaborative.



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? Not the gas tax. We should be spending all of the gas tax money on roads, not on buses. Property taxes are already too high, but money from the property taxes should be going to fund roads before we spend it on buses.



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? No, not until we improve the efficiency of the system we have and the cost/benefit ratio gets better. When I don’t see any more empty buses, I’d consider it. We need to fix our roads first.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) $1.00 per trip.



Where do you see RTS ten years from now? More efficient, with some smaller buses, more frequent headways. More riders? Only if they want to. I call my car my “Freedom Mobile.” People want to drive everywhere. No one wants to take the bus if they don’t have to.

Russ Blackburn, City Manager, 3/10/14 RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General



Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) All of the above – obviously a much higher proportion of students, but also working people.



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) Most riders are students, so most trips are for school.



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? No. I live in far NW Gainesville and I have a tough schedule as City Manager, so it just wouldn’t work for me from a time perspective.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? My opinion is that RTS is an outstanding system, and I think the public thinks it is very good overall. They are a major service provider for our city. There is a small but vocal element of the public that gets upset if they see a bus that isn’t completely full.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? Yes. We can improve weekend and holiday service. It comes to a chicken & egg question: We don’t have the riders to justify the extra routes,, but we can’t get more riders if we don’t improve service.



Is there a need for additional transit service in the County?

Russ Blackburn, City Manager, 3/10/14 Yes. There are many in some of the urbanized unincorporated areas that are transitdependent, and some choice riders. We need to improve frequency in areas like Tower Road and others. 

Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? We should improve existing service first with better frequency and more holiday and weekend service. Then we should continue with the premium services like BRT and Streetcar as they become justified.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? I think we could use express service to the major employment area. Most are already covered with transit service, but there is a portion of the NW section of the city that needs some transit options.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? That’s a great question for the municipalities. If they would like transit service, they will need to find a way to fund it.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? Yes. The bus is an advertisement unto itself. It is awkward though when the attorney advertising on the bus is bringing an action against the City….



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? In the metro area outside the city limits, that question will have to be answered by the BOCC and the commissioners in the other municipalities. RTS does a great job now of analyzing the production and ridership of each route. We would have to survey the citizens and start with some data. The next question would of course be funding.

Russ Blackburn, City Manager, 3/10/14 Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. Not right now. If the county believes that there is a substantial increase in need for service in the unincorporated area, we may have to pursue the regional model in order to find broader funding sources. As long as the county is not asking for greatly expanded service outside the city limits, it should remain with the City. It also depends on where the service is.



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? A transportation surtax is the most obvious. If there is a great extension of service into the unincorporated area, the MSTU is probably the smartest approach.



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? Yes.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) I think it depends on the length of the trip. $1.00 for a short trip and $2.00 for a longer trip is probably reasonable.



Where do you see RTS ten years from now? I think RTS will grow, but not as fast as it has grown over the last 10 years. We expect limited growth (1% +/-) in the county overall. Until we get a substantial population growth spurt, we probably won’t see a great increase in riders. If gasoline goes to $5 or $6 per gallon, that could significantly change the picture, though. Five years from now we will definitely have improved service. Premium services like BRT and Streetcar really depend on density. We have the density in some very limited areas, but probably not enough to support those services. A lot of the future for those services will depend on development in and around downtown and Innovation District.

Commissioner Byerly 2/24/14 RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General



Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) About 80% +/- are students, 20% +/- are others, mostly with no automobile access. Probably only about 1% are choice riders.



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) #1 – School, #2 Work, and for those without auto access, the work trips are probably combined with other trips like shopping and medical.



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? No. I live in Micanopy and there is no service there. When I lived in Gainesville I usually rode my bicycle.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? My perception is good, and I think the public’s is good also. We’ve had some issues with para-transit in the past, but we’ve got those taken care of and I think RTS provides good service.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? Yes. We should continue to add and improve routes as long as ridership is increasing. We should invest in transit until we reach the point of diminishing returns, and then figure out why. We’re not even close to that point now.

Commissioner Byerly 2/24/14 

Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? Currently there is some need in the urbanized unincorporated areas, but not a great need. There will, however, be a great need if and when the approved Transit Oriented Developments begin to build-out.



Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? RTS should focus first on improving existing service. They’ve got to be able to compete with the automobile for the choice rider by improving reliability and decreasing travel times in order to make BRT successful in the future.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? Not major destinations, but there are areas with heavy student population like SW 20th Avenue and the Hull Road area where buses are full and leave people waiting.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? If it makes sense. There needs to be a reasonable ROI and cost per rider. It wouldn’t make any sense to gain 10 or 20 riders from another municipality if, for the same cost we could pick up 100 riders with another Gainesville route.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? No opinion. I don’t own a TV.



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? Improve headways, travel times and reliability. Service hours should coincide with worker shifts at major employment centers like UF and Shands (there are a lot of workers that are likely transit riders that work 3 pm to 11 pm, and nurse shifts are 7 to 7).

Commissioner Byerly 2/24/14 I would like RTS to explore the option of universal access or at least a fare-free zone. There was a presentation made to MTPO in October 2005 regarding fare-free zones. The small amount of revenue they would lose from the fare box could be made up fairly easily, and the ridership would be much greater. The only risk is losing the funding from UF Students. They may not like paying through their student fee if they feel they are subsidizing residents. Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. I have no strong opinion. Transit is an urban service, so it should be a City function now. If the TODs (Celebration Pointe, Newberry Village, etc.) are successful and build out as they think they will, and those areas choose not to annex,(which it looks like they will not annex) it may make sense for it to be a Regional Transit Authority. Ask me again in a decade.



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? Right now they county funds their transit routes 100% from the gas tax. In my opinion, this should be funded through the MSTU. I’m cautious in advocating a local option sales tax, as that could expire and we’d be left trying to scramble suddenly to fund transit services if the surtax wasn’t renewed.



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? Yes, if it produces results.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) $0.00. A successful transit system benefits everyone, and it’s in everyone’s interest for transit to work well.

Commissioner Byerly 2/24/14 

Where do you see RTS ten years from now? Hopefully RTS will be well integrated into the County’s TOD network. The key will be getting those riders (especially choice riders) from west of I-75 to where they need to be quickly and reliably. There should be better coordination between the City and County on transit issues. I think there will be increasing ridership. RTS should continue to innovate in how it provides services.

Commissioner Chestnut 2/24/14 RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General 

Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) Generally students, the elderly, workers, and the unemployed use transit (in that order). Many workers in East Gainesville do not use transit because of near one-hour headways. Visitors do not generally use the transit system.



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) Most trips are for school (UF & Santa Fe), work, medical (senior citizens), and shopping.



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? No. I usually drive my truck, but if it is in the shop or I can’t use it for whatever reason, my business is close enough to everything that I can walk.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? Satisfactory. I hear some complaints about large, empty buses, and people want to know why, if there are not that many riders on a route, RTS can’t use a smaller (i.e. cheaper) vehicle.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? Yes, especially in East Gainesville. I wonder why many transit routes go through neighborhoods and don’t stay on the major corridors. In the larger cities I’ve visited, transit stays on the major corridors and riders have to get to that corridor.

Commissioner Chestnut 2/24/14



Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? Yes. There are unincorporated, urbanized areas that are underserved, like the Southwest Area. I know the smaller municipalities would like to see service extended to them, as well as the Jonesville unincorporated area.



Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? RTS should begin by improving existing services, including improving headways in East Gainesville, keeping service to certain areas longer through the day (some areas with a transit need discontinue service at 6 pm), and improving weekend service for more than just students. We need to keep a balanced approach between fixing our roads and adding new transit services like BRT and Streetcar. I’m ok with planning these things for the future, but it seems like BRT and Streetcar are too expensive for the immediate future.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? East Gainesville, Newberry/ Jonesville, Tower Road and the Southwest Area (possible as far west as Mentone neighborhood). When asked if he thought that people from Mentone would ride transit, Commissioner Chestnut said no, probably not.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? Yes. As mentioned before, especially the Newberry/Jonesville area, but also High Springs, Waldo, Alachua, and Archer. High Springs has a lot of residents that work at the Shands/UF complex. They would benefit a lot from this service. A major obstacle to Archer is the remaining two-lane section of SR 24 between the end of the existing fourlane section and the MTPO boundary.

Commissioner Chestnut 2/24/14



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? Yes and No. They could do better on the advertising that I’ve seen, but they should improve service before making a big advertising campaign. The only real advertising I’ve seen has been on Channel 12 (community access). They should target the advertising to reach more riders. When asked if there was a major employer that was underserved, and would workplace advertising work there, Comm. Chestnut thought the Oaks Mall, NFRMC, and Butler Plaza were places where that might be effective.



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? Improve existing services and improve advertising.

Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. If RTS was run as a Regional Transit Authority it would improve services to the smaller municipalities and unincorporated area. Right now there are some negative feelings towards RTS from the smaller municipalities towards Gainesville in general, and especially with regard to transportation and transit issues. If RTS was a regional authority, the smaller cities would have a bigger stake in the success of the system. Right now the County pays for routes or parts of routes in the unincorporated areas. A regional authority might allow for the opportunity of additional funding.



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? A sales tax would be a tough sell. This would be easier if the transit system was run as a regional authority. A special district for certain transit services like streetcar would be ok. The bottom line is we need more riders.

Commissioner Chestnut 2/24/14 

Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? Yes. An improved or expanded transit system would help a lot of people with transportation needs.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) I’m not sure what the policy is for transfers. I know it’s currently about $1.50 when you get on, but if you have to pay another $1.50 for a transfer, that’s $3.00 per trip. If you have to do that twice a day to get to and from work, that gets expensive, especially if you’re going to a minimum wage job. If there isn’t already, there should be a reduced fare for the transfer, like $0.50 or so. A frequent rider card should be about $15 or $20 per month.



Where do you see RTS ten years from now? In 10 years we will probably be implementing BRT, and maybe have a Streetcar or trolley system. Hopefully we’re not having this same conversation (RE: transit) and we will have addressed the issues of underserved areas and improved headways in East Gainesville.

Commissioner Hutchinson 2/24/14 RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General 

Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) 95% Students, 5% Others



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) School, Work



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? I do when I need to go on campus for a meeting or something.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? My perception is good, but I think the general public is either hot or cold, depending on their personal situation. People that use it and are satisfied are happy. People that don’t use it are often vehemently against it.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? Yes. Everywhere.



Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? Yes.

Commissioner Hutchinson 2/24/14 

Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? RTS should focus on improving existing service, including better frequency, longer service hours, weekends and holidays, and adding routes. There shouldn’t really be any more than a 10 minute wait for any bus, at any bus stop.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? No, not really, but all areas need better headways.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? Yes.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? They do a fair job, but they can always do better. The signage at stops is horrible. At most stops there is just a single sign with the route numbers, and if I wasn’t from here and didn’t have the ap on my phone, I would have no idea when the next bus was coming. It should be easier for a person who is not from here to walk up to a bus stop and be able to figure out how to get where they want to go and when the bus is coming.



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? More funding for better frequency / headways.

Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. A Regional Transit Authority makes sense to pull people from the outlying municipalities and unincorporated urbanized areas If RTS was a regional authority, it might make it easier to find revenue sources than it can as a City department.

Commissioner Hutchinson 2/24/14



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? Sales tax should be used to fund O&M. Impact fees could be used for capital expenditures.



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? Yes.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) I would like RTS to have at least a fare-free zone, at least from downtown to the airport. That would be a great way (a free bus) to get visitors downtown, and a free bus would also help to get the homeless from downtown to the new one-stop center (at the old GCI). The amount of revenue collected at the fare box is so small that it could easily be made up from another source (6% +/-). The issue with this would be maintaining student buyin. The UF administration has said they would not reduce funding if RTS went fare-free, but the funding seems to be controlled by the students. If there was a change in administration and the students decided to discontinue funding, there could be a big problem.



Where do you see RTS ten years from now? RTS will still be largely focused on campus with routes into the periphery, but with better headways in key corridors. RTS should have a Development Director. This person’s job should be to maintain the relationship with UF, and develop relationships with large employers to begin a corporate funding program. In exchange for an annual fee, a corporate entity could receive a number of transit passes for their employees at a discount. Forming and keeping those corporate relationships to establish funding would be important.

Commissioner Pinkoson, 3/3/14 RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General



Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) Students, mostly. Some workers, the unemployed and elderly. Some tourists also ride, but I believe mostly on game days.



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) School commute – both UF and Santa Fe.



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? No. There’s a huge convenience factor to driving. I just have too many time constraints to use the bus.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? I think the collaboration with UF has been spectacular. Otherwise all those people would be in cars, on scooters, or on bicycles. I think the public’s perception is good / adequate, which reflects the funding level.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? Yes. I think there is a need for reduced headways and extended routes.



Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? Yes. Route 75 in particular needs a reduction in headways.

Commissioner Pinkoson, 3/3/14 

Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? RTS should improve existing service first, including more frequency, longer service hours on some routes, and more weekend service. Bus stops also need improvement. We should work on any improvements that will make the system more efficient.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? I’m not sure. Some areas seem like it, like east Gainesville. My feeling is that once people have enough money to buy a car, they do, and then stop using the bus.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? It was tried for a while in Alachua with CATS, but that didn’t work for long. There needs to be some more analysis of the feasibility and costs before I would encourage it.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? Yes.



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? See response above RE: BRT, etc. RTS needs to make some operational improvements, as well as some capital improvements to increase transit use.

Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. There is a regional component to the transit system. We already work together through the MTPO. It can get complicated to change, and I don’t know how that would affect the

Commissioner Pinkoson, 3/3/14 funding. It would depend on how an RTA would be structured. The majority of transit riders today live in the Gainesville city limits. 

What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? Ad valorem tax, sales tax, gas tax, UF & Santa Fe student fees. We should explore a system of employer funding with the major employers, like what Google is doing where there is a certain density of Google employees in a given area. I wonder if something like this could be done in Gainesville.



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? Yes, if the transportation surtax is on the ballot. I don’t think it should include BRT in the first 8 years.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) I’m not sure. I know that in many larger cities you can buy an all-day pass fairly cheaply, but I don’t know what the right price is.



Where do you see RTS ten years from now? I think we will continue our collaboration with UF and Santa Fe. As density increases, we will have increased transit ridership. If the TODs planned for the unincorporated areas move forward with development, which will be a major boost to transit ridership. I think transit will be a continued, and maybe more significant part of our transportation system.

RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Naima Brown – Vice President of Student Affairs David Price – Acting Director of Student Life February 28, 2014 – 9:00 AM General



Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors)



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) The key objective for SFC through RTS is to “improve access to educational opportunities available at SFC.” Staff indicated this was true not only for the main campus but also the SFC Downtown Center (Blount Center).



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not?



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? The general perception is positive as a result of the “free” rides and the administration does feel that RTS staff is very responsive whenever issues come up. One specific example provided was an issue associated with holiday service based on competing campus school schedules (UF v. SFC) where RTS was quick to correct limited bus service on days SFC held class and UF did not.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? See response for bullet 4, this same section.



Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? See response for bullet 4, this same section.



Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? SFC indicated a desire to improve the existing local bus service through the implementation of later service, more frequent service, and possibly more weekend service. BRT and Streetcar are considered lower priorities.



Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? Specific service requests that are high on the SFC priority list include: o A direct connection between the main campus and the Blount Center o A more direct connection to Florida Works o A more direct connection to the growing southwest part of the Gainesville area (near Tower Road/Archer Road) o Later service – The Route 39 was mentioned specifically as service ends at 3:25 PM o More frequent service o There is a concentration of students now living in the area north of 39th Avenue and near the Walmart Supercenter near Northwood Village. o Staff indicated an expansion near the airport (Waldo Road/39th Avenue) that will require expanded service in the future. o Saturday classes will begin in 2015/16 but on a limited basis. If and when these class offerings grow, service levels will need to be evaluated.



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? SFC did indicate that there was a need to serve outlying areas but none were specified.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options?



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area?

Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why.



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? When asked about a sales tax, SFC staff indicated that it would be good for the bus service, but that the college was not at liberty to take a position on the topic. SFC staff did indicate that enrollment was down and that contributions for the SFC funded routes might be jeopardy. Cuts to the service would be difficult, particularly the Route 27, which currently serves a special mission and objective. Consequently, SFC may be looking for partnerships and assistance from others to continue the same level of service.



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service?



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other)



Where do you see RTS ten years from now?

Additional comments: There is a known issue with vehicles stacking at the current stop location on campus. In addition, a new building is being proposed to be built right next to the current shelter location which could further complicate the stacking issue. Several options were discussed including: o Relocating the stop out to a street location. o Identifying a different layover point where buses would only access the stop to pick up and drop off passengers o Relocating the stop to a new location on campus – just in front of Building H off of South Road. The site would require some parking area redesign and reconstruction. This potential change is a mid-term change (3-5 years). Summary SFC feels like they have a good working relationship with RTS and that the City has been fair in terms of services offered and working with them to improve those services. There is still a growing need and the reduction in enrollment levels threaten some of what has been gained. Although that does not seem to be the most critical issue, SFC does want to continue to partner with RTS to expand the accessibility of their educational offerings.

RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Bob Miller – Associate Vice President of Business Affairs Linda Dixon – Assistant Director, Facilities Planning & Construction Division Scott Fox – Director, Transportation and Parking Services General 

Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) Students are the primary users.



What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School)



Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? See answer below, bullet 4, this section.



What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)? Staff indicates a positive perception of RTS among employees. This positive perception is tempered by a stigma tied to student ridership, which is considered by and large the core ridership population. Many employees would prefer not to ride RTS so as to avoid students, much as they would avoid other entertainment venues that students frequent.

Service Needs 

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville?



Is there a need for additional transit service in the County?



Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service?

UF staff indicated that BRT and Streetcar are low priorities. Building for this level of service should be performed incrementally. Specifically stated by UF staff was the high cost BRT option that was originally presented and how such an option seemed unnecessary given other priorities throughout the Gainesville area. 

Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? Express bus service with park-and-ride facilities was a high priority for UF staff. They felt that student transportation needs were being met, but employee and faculty needs could use some improvement. Specifically, staff identified park-and-ride locations from the most recent LRTP update that are still valid today. One thing to note was the location of some of the park-and-rides which were considered too close. Why would anyone stop and catch a bus when they are already more than half way to work already?



Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? See answer above.



Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options?



What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area? A few ideas offered to help make service, express service specifically, more attractive included using better and more comfortable vehicles, making wi-fi and other technology available on-board buses. Possibly a guaranteed ride home program would encourage workers to try the express services knowing that there is an option for them to travel home in the event they have an emergency and need to get home right away. Staff felt that a combination of “carrots” and “sticks” could build more ridership as in the past they have attempted the stick approach – increased fees for parking decals – and were met with a substantial amount of grief.

Funding/Policy 

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why.



What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future?



Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? UF staff indicated that students have been consistently amenable to service expansions and increases to their transportation fee. They indicated that the lion’s share of the service is student focused and that is because they want it and are willing to pay for it. Although enrollment forecasts were also down, the outlook still remains positive as the University is taking measures to graduate as many students as possible within 4 years.



What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other)



Where do you see RTS ten years from now? Additional Comments: When prompted regarding an “on-campus” transfer hub, UF staff indicated that it would be difficult as all campus property was at a premium. The campus master plan update is currently underway and staff suggested that if a preferred site is identified by RTS, RTS will need to supply pros and cons, possibly some detailed costs and benefits, so that UF administration consider it against their own priorities. A discussion of some possible offcampus locations was held, but many were not considered ideal as the current location penetrates right into the heart of campus and provides a high level of direct service. Summary Campus service is saturated and that is directly related to the desire of the student body. There is an outstanding issue to address and that is how to capture employees and faculty. There are some options but those options will need to be combined with parking policies and partnerships with some of the major employers in the area.

Appendix E Stakeholder Questions

Appendix

E

Gainesville RTS

RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS General    

Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors) What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School) Do you use RTS? Why? Why not? What is your perception of RTS? What do you feel is the public’s perception of RTS (good, satisfactory, or poor)?

Service Needs   

   

Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville? Is there a need for additional transit service in the County? Do you think RTS should focus on adding new modes of service, like Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Deviated Fixed Route or focus on improving existing service like additional frequency, longer service spans, more weekend service? Are there major destinations within the area that are not receiving adequate transit service? Should express service to the outlying municipalities be added? Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options? What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area?

Funding/Policy     

In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit Authority? Please explain why. What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system or more transit service? What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other) Where do you see RTS ten years from now?

Appendix F TBEST Ridership Results

Appendix

F

Gainesville RTS

Table G-1 Baseline Average Weekday Daily Ridership and Growth Rates Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12 Route 13 Route 15 Route 16 Route 17 Route 20 Route 21 Route 23 Route 24 Route 25 Route 27 Route 28 Route 34 Route 35 Route 36 Route 38 Route 39 Route 41 Route 43 Route 46 Route 62 Route 75 Route 76 Route 117 Route 118 Route 119 Route 120 Route 121 Route 122 Route 125 Route 126 Route 127 Later Gator A Later Gator B Later Gator C Total

Average Weekday Daily Ridership, 2013 3,353 607 2,438 611 566 1,739 4,711 916 1,023 5,102 2,646 1,599 1,056 1,245 6,765 2,949 1,092 486 311 54 983 2,062 4,372 1,033 3,185 169 471 1,268 818 174 1,316 378 836 1,751 437 2,095 804 298 1,402 416 1,568 531 444 616 66,696

Average Weekday Daily Ridership, 2024 4,029 864 3,205 971 802 1,976 4,274 1,161 1,273 5,713 3,604 2,330 1,349 1,625 5,582 2,324 1,768 642 408 77 1,177 2,531 4,043 1,151 3,410 234 654 1,622 802 236 2,154 539 870 1,977 485 2,081 834 432 1,234 305 1,546 305 324 509 73,432

Absolute Weekday Change, 2013–2024 676 257 767 360 236 237 -437 245 250 611 958 731 293 380 -1,183 -625 676 156 97 23 194 469 -329 118 225 65 183 354 -16 62 838 161 34 226 48 -14 30 134 -168 -111 -22 -226 -120 -107 6,736

Average Weekday Growth Rate, 2013–2024 20.2% 42.3% 31.5% 58.9% 41.7% 13.6% -9.3% 26.7% 24.4% 12.0% 36.2% 45.7% 27.7% 30.5% -17.5% -21.2% 61.9% 32.1% 31.2% 42.6% 19.7% 22.7% -7.5% 11.4% 7.1% 38.5% 38.9% 27.9% -2.0% 35.6% 63.7% 42.6% 4.1% 12.9% 11.0% -0.7% 3.7% 45.0% -12.0% -26.7% -1.4% -42.6% -27.0% -17.4% 10.1%

Table G-2 Baseline Average Saturday Daily Ridership and Growth Rates Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 5 Route 6 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12 Route 13 Route 15 Route 16 Route 20 Route 25B Route 35 Route 75 Route 126 Later Gator A Later Gator B Later Gator C Later Gator D Later Gator E Total

Average Saturday Daily Ridership, 2013 990 261 1,276 125 299 382 127 399 1,020 272 609 242 2,270 120 419 493 440 536 700 739 171 487 12,377

Average Saturday Daily Ridership, 2024 1,385 344 1,979 195 440 414 175 474 1,412 430 990 365 2,472 166 472 821 545 654 830 917 246 671 16,397

Absolute Saturday Change, 2013 – 2024 395 83 703 70 141 32 48 75 392 158 381 123 202 46 53 328 105 118 130 178 75 184 4,020

Saturday Growth Rate, 2013 – 2024 39.9% 31.8% 55.1% 56.0% 47.2% 8.4% 37.8% 18.8% 38.4% 58.1% 62.6% 50.8% 8.9% 38.3% 12.6% 66.5% 23.9% 22.0% 18.6% 24.1% 43.9% 37.8% 32.5%

Table G-3 Baseline Average Sunday Daily Ridership and Growth Rates Route Route 1 Route 5 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 13 Route 15 Route 16 Route 20 Route 25B Route 35 Route 126 Total

Average Sunday Daily Ridership, 2013 545 318 142 202 242 386 145 329 163 843 78 259 562 4,214

Average Sunday Daily Ridership, 2024 965 644 270 222 395 619 263 675 262 1,073 141 309 725 6,563

Absolute Sunday Change, 2013–2024 420 326 128 20 153 233 118 346 99 230 63 50 163 2,349

Sunday Growth Rate, 2013–2024 77.1% 102.5% 90.1% 9.9% 63.2% 60.4% 81.4% 105.2% 60.7% 27.3% 80.8% 19.3% 29.0% 55.7%

Table G-4 2024 Needs Plan Average Weekday Ridership Route Name Route 1 Route 2 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12 Route 13 Route 15 Route 16 Route 17 Route 20 Route 21 Route 23 Route 24 Route 25 Route 27 Route 28 Route 34 Route 35 Route 36 Route 38 Route 39 Route 41 Route 43 Route 46 Route 62 Route 75 Route 76 Route 117 Route 118 Route 119 Route 120 Route 121 Route 122 Route 125 Route 126 Route 127

Baseline 2013 Average Daily Ridership 3,353 607 2,438 611 566 1,739 4,711 916 1,023 5,102 2,646 1,599 1,056 1,245 6,765 2,949 1,092 486 311 54 983 2,062 4,372 1,033 3,185 169 471 1,268 818 174 1,316 378 836 1,751 437 2,095 804 298 1,402 416 1,568

Baseline 2024 Average Daily Ridership 4,029 864 3,205 971 802 1,976 4,274 1,161 1,273 5,713 3,604 2,330 1,349 1,625 5,582 2,324 1,768 642 408 77 1,177 2,531 4,043 1,151 3,410 234 654 1,622 802 236 2,154 539 870 1,977 485 2,081 834 432 1,234 305 1,546

Needs Plan 2024 Average Daily Ridership 4,148 800 2,780 1,310 0 1,989 4,774 1,120 1,032 5,695 5,721 3,064 1,800 2,045 5,368 1,984 585 542 544 94 1,453 1,854 3,913 1,107 2,623 960 617 1,435 892 1,845 3,792 0 1,194 2,185 0 1,910 372 509 1,169 0 2,400

Needs Plan vs. Baseline Difference 3.0% -8.0% -13.3% 34.9% N/A 0.7% 11.7% -3.5% -18.9% -0.3% 58.7% 31.5% 34.8% 25.8% -3.8% -14.6% -66.9% -15.6%A 33.3% 22.1% 23.4% -26.7% -3.2% -3.8% -23.1% 310.3% -5.7% -11.5% 11.2% 681.8% 76.0% N/A 37.2% 10.5% N/A -8.2% -55.4% 17.8% -5.3% N/A 55.2%

2013-2024 Needs Plan Growth Rate 23.7% 31.8% 14.0% 114.4% N/A 14.4% 1.3% 22.3% 0.9% 11.6% 116.2% 91.6% 72.2% 64.3% -20.7% -32.7% -46.4% 11.5% 74.9% 74.1% 47.8% -10.1% -10.5% 7.2% -17.6% 468.0% 31.0% 13.2% 9.0% 960.3% 188.1% N/A 42.8% 24.8% N/A -8.8% -53.7% 70.8% -16.6% N/A 53.1%

Table G-5(continued.) 2024 Needs Plan Average Weekday Ridership Route Name Later Gator A Later Gator B Later Gator C Route 116 Route 11A Route 11B Route 227 Route 40 Route 53 Total

Baseline 2013 Average Daily Ridership 531 444 616 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,696

Baseline 2024 Average Daily Ridership 305 324 509 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73,432

Needs Plan 2024 Average Daily Ridership 242 272 400 700 555 486 176 736 147 78,313

Needs Plan vs. Baseline Difference -20.7% -16.0% -21.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11,617

Table G-6 2024 Needs Plan Average Weekday Inter-city Ridership Route Name High Springs Inter-city

Needs Plan 2024 Average Daily Ridership 74

Newberry Inter-city

82

Alachua Inter-city

64

Waldo Inter-city

108

Archer Inter-city

38

Hawthorne Inter-city

40

2013-2024 Needs Plan Growth Rate -54.4% -38.7% -35.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.4%

Table G-7 2024 Needs Plan Average Saturday Ridership Route Name Route 1 Route 2 Route 5 Route 6 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12 Route 13 Route 15 Route 16 Route 20 Route 25B Route 35 Route 43 Route 75 Route 125 Route 126 Route 127 Route A Route B Route C Route D Route F Route 53 Total

Baseline 2013 Average Daily Ridership 990 261 1,276 125 299 382 127 399 1,020 272 609 242 2,270 120 419 0 493 0 440 0 536 700 739 171 487 0 12,377

Baseline 2024 Average Daily Ridership 1,385 344 1,979 195 440 414 175 474 1,412 430 990 365 2,472 166 472 N/A 821 N/A 545 N/A 654 830 917 246 671 N/A 16,397

Needs Plan 2024 Average Daily Ridership 1,668 349 1,757 356 2,976 0 0 668 1,591 2,666 2,584 915 2,433 110 1,224 527 2,217 128 0 306 558 717 741 244 576 130 25,441

Needs Plan vs. Baseline Difference 678 88 481 231 2,677 N/A N/A 40.9% 571 2,394 1,975 673 163 -10 805 527 1,724 128 N/A 306 22 17 2 73 89 130 13,064

2013-2024 Needs Plan Growth Rate 68.5% 33.7% 37.7% 184.8% 895.3% N/A N/A 67.4% 56.0% 880.1% 324.3% 278.1% 7.2% -8.3% 192.1% N/A 349.7% N/A N/A N/A 4.1% 2.4% 0.3% 42.7% 18.3% N/A 105.6%

Table G-8 2024 Needs Plan Average Sunday Ridership Route Name Route 1 Route 2 Route 5 Route 6 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 13 Route 15 Route 16 Route 20 Route 25B Route 35 Route 43 Route 75 Route 125 Route 126 Route 127 Total

Baseline 2013 Average Daily Ridership 545 0 318 0 142 202 242 386 145 329 163 843 78 259 0 0 0 562 0 4,214

Baseline 2024 Average Daily Ridership 965 N/A 644 N/A 270 222 395 619 263 675 262 1,073 141 309 N/A N/A N/A 725 N/A 6,563

Needs Plan 2024 Average Daily Ridership 1,479 194 1,897 222 2,207 0 763 888 1,800 2,329 589 1,997 98 883 149 1,250 41 0 200 16,986

Needs Plan vs. Baseline Difference 934 194 1,579 222 2,065 N/A 93.2% 502 1,655 2,000 426 1,154 20 624 149 1,250 41 N/A 200 12,772

2013-2024 Needs Plan Growth Rate 171.4% N/A 496.5% N/A 1454.2% N/A 215.3% 130.1% 1141.4% 607.9% 261.3% 136.9% 25.6% 240.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 303.1%

Appendix G Groups Contacted for Discussion Group

Appendix

G

Gainesville RTS

Appendix G Groups Contacted for Participation in Discussion Groups Organization/Department Gainesville Regional Airport Oaks Mall City of Gainesville Gainesville Chamber of Commerce Butler Plaza Peaceful Paths City of Gainesville Helping Hands Clinic Goodwill Industries of North Florida Publix Supermarkets Veterans Administration City of Gainesville - Office of Equal Opportunity North Central Florida YMCA Alachua County School Board Alachua County Social Services US Green Building Council Heart of Florida Chapter Meridian Behavioral Healthcare SF Displaced Homemaker Program Black on Black Crime Task Force Pace Center for Girls Alachua County Veterans Services (VA) Gainesville-Alachua Co. Assoc. of Realtors City of Gainesville Community Development Agency Builders Association of North Central Florida Walmart UF Development Corporation Salvation Army MycroSchool Nationwide Insurance Company Gator Dining Services Alachua County Housing Authority St. Francis House Gainesville Housing Authority United Way of North Central Florida North Florida Regional Medical Center Gainesville Downtown Owners and Tenants Association

Appendix H Brief Summary of Service Standard Report

Appendix

H

Gainesville RTS

Findings of Service Standards Analysis 2013 1 Introduction

To satisfy Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular 4702.1B, RTS adopted detailed service standards and evaluation methodology in June 2013. As outlined in that document, standards would be evaluated annually during the mandatory Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Transit Development Plan (TDP) update process. Of the 26 performance variables seventeen are calculated at both the system and route levels and nine are only calculated at the system level. 1 The findings presented below are derived from performance information gathered between spring 2013 and fall 2013 2; for system-level variables the most complete fiscal year information was used as appropriate.

2 System-level Performance 2.1 System-level Only Variables 2.1.1 High Performance Table 1 shows that RTS exceeded the standard for four of the nine variables that are calculated only at the system-level. They include: • • • •

Passenger Trips per Employee Full Time Equivalent Customer Service Complaints per 100,000 Trips Spatial Availability (Service Accessibility) Vehicle Assignment

High performance in these areas comes as no surprise. Customer service has long been a cornerstone of employee evaluations and a general focal point of City leadership with all departments held to a high standard of friendly and courtesy behavior. This has been achieved with a lean staff where most individuals have an ever growing list of responsibilities. Performance for the spatial availability variable reflects the desired balance of coverage and productivity.

1

Methodology for each measure can be found in the service standard document unless otherwise noted here. Fall and spring ridership is vastly different from summer ridership. Approximately 75% of all RTS trips are made by students which tend to leave Gainesville when school is not in session. Therefore, summer figures were not included into statistics that dealt directly with ridership averages.

2

Table 1. System Performance Variables (see separate tables for Bus Stop Amenities and Temporal Availability) Variable Revenue Miles between Vehicle Failures 3 Passenger Trips per Employee Full-time Equivalents 4 Preventable Accidents per 100,000 Hours 5 Customer Service Complaints per 100,000 Trips Spatial Availability 6 Demographic and Social Characteristics 7 Minority Vehicle Assignment (Years)

Standard 8,559 25,597 1.5 9.0 80% 100% 12

RTS 7,325 38,966 6.6 1.6 100% 88% 8.9

2.1.2 Low Performance RTS failed to meet the standard for five of the nine variables calculated only at the system-level. They include: • • • • •

Revenue Miles between Vehicle Failures 8 Preventable Accidents per 100,000 Hours 9 Demographic and Social Characteristics Bus Stop Amenities Temporal Availability

RTS has an aging fleet with an average fleet age of over 9 years. With changes in federal transit grants over the last decade it has become increasingly difficult for agencies the size of RTS to purchase more than several new or newer vehicles annually. In light of this, RTS implements a proactive maintenance schedule to prevent problems before they occur. Unfortunately, older fleets are more likely to fail regardless of maintenance schedule. RTS’s standard for preventable accidents was extremely aggressive and noted as such in the service document, but it is important to realize that RTS’s actual performance corresponds with national accident rates. Recognizing the large influence accidents have on insurance rates and area confidence in the transit system, RTS wanted a standard that would be aspirational. This goal was, perhaps, overly ambitious. Only 12% of the census blocks with transit-dependent social and demographic characteristics do not have their geographic center within a quarter mile of a transit stop. In some cases this simply has to do with the way in which the geographic center is calculated – the developed portion of the census block is in fact served by transit but the undeveloped portion is where the geographic center is identified. For

3

In FY2013 RTS had 278 full-time employees. In FY2013 RTS had 20 preventable accidents. 5 In FY2013 RTS had 172 customer service complaints 6 Service area Census Block Groups defined as those whose centroids are within a 0.75 mile buffer around active routes. These blocks were further refined to identify those that exceeded the service area average for zero-vehicle households, population ≥ 65 years old, or population below poverty. RTS service area intersects 119 of Alachua County’s 155 block groups. Of these, 74 meet the demographic and social characteristics previously mentioned. 7 It is important to note that RTS currently does not have an accurate way to calculate this measure. The figures presented here are based on the vehicle assignment log that is kept as part of RTS’s automatic vehicle location (AVL) software. Most but not all of the RTS fleet is equipped with this software and not timestamp is associated with the vehicle assignments so the amount of time that a vehicle is assigned to a route cannot be accounted for. 8 In the last fiscal year, 453 vehicle failures were reported over approximately 3 million miles. 9 In the last fiscal year, 85 accidents occurred, 20 of which were preventable. It is important to note that when looking at a slightly different metric “Revenue Miles between Safety Incidents” only five of Florida’s 27 other agencies performed better than RTS in FY2012. 4

those situations where this is not the case most of the areas will receive coverage based on projected route modifications occurring with the 2014 major TDP update. Most bus stops do not meet the amenity standard set for them; see Table 2. Lack of amenities has long been identified as a major reason why individuals do not use transit, especially due to weather conditions in Florida. Since 2013 improving this area of service has been a major focal point of RTS with grant money from FDOT and FTA being used to purchase bus shelters and make Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements. Achieving ADA compliance will be a long process with improvements ranging from $3,000 to $15,000 per stop. Table 2. Bus Stop Amenities Bus Stop Amenities Type I Type II (ridership >=15) Type III (ridership >=36) Type IV (ridership >80)

Stops Meeting Standard 1,154 390 223 125

Not At Standard 86% 24% 62% 75%

Like RTS’s standard for preventable accidents the standard for temporal availability represents performance thresholds that RTS hopes to achieve in future years. Moreover, span figures do not necessarily reflect service levels that are needed based on today’s level of development but rather anticipated growth rates. Table 3 shows current levels. It is important to note that service span figures were not rounded. So, for example, on Sunday a route that operates seven hours and fifty minutes was not considered as meeting the standard. Table 3. Temporal Availability (City/County Routes) Day of Week Weekday Saturday Sunday

Service Span (hours) 14 12 8

Routes with Span 49% 19% 8%

2.2 Other System Level Variables Seventeen variables were evaluated at both the system and route level by day of week. Performance levels were generally consistent across the week. The score for each variable was compared against the standard to determine whether RTS was exceeding the standard. 2.2.1

Weekdays

2.2.1.1 High Performance RTS exceeded the standard for 7 (41%) of the 17 variables. Some of the highest performance occurred for Farebox Recovery Ratio and Subsidy per Passenger Trip, two areas where RTS has long excelled due to their funding relationships with University of Florida (UF) and Santa Fe College (SFC). Other variables for which >90% of RTS’s routes exceed the standard threshold include Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour, Operating Expense per Passenger Trip, and Sidewalk Coverage. 10 Across all days of the week only 5 routes do not meet or exceed the standard for Passenger Trips per Hour. This includes the route 27 on weekdays, and routes 8, 10, 25, and 303 on weekends. Unsurprisingly, it is only 10

Calculation required the sidewalk geodatabase inventory from UF and City of Gainesville and Alachua County Public Works Departments. Analysis only considered the presence of sidewalk on one side of the road. Due to scale variations and roadway width fluctuations an 80’ buffer was placed around each route.

the routes 27, 10, 25, and 303 that do not also meet the operating expenses per passenger trip standard. Table 4 shows RTS performance across all the variables. Table 4. Weekdays - System Level Variables Variable Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Passenger Miles per Seat Miles Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Operating Expense per Passenger Mile On-time Performance Peak Frequency (minutes) Off-Peak Frequency (minutes) Vehicle Load Average Distance Between Stops (feet) Sidewalk Coverage 11 Route Directness 12 Operating Speed Ratio 13 Route Overlap

Performance 43.6 24% $2.00 68% $0.59 $6.86 $76.13 $0.92 57% 28.9 40.4 22% 1,040 92% 148% 37% 46%

Standard 19.0 25% $4.54 18% $4.40 $4.80 $75.26 $0.77 80% 20.0 30.0 125% 880 50% 175% 50% 33%

Relative to Standard Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Fails to Meet

2.2.1.2 Low Performance For two variables where RTS did not exceed the standard, the results may highlight the need to revise or reconsider the performance thresholds. The travel speed variable evaluates whether bus travel speeds are >50% of the average permissible travel speed for the roads upon which it operates. While RTS recently evaluated over 300 bus stops for removal due to low ridership and close proximity to one another in order to improve travel speeds the current standard would require buses to travel at an average of 17 miles per hour. This is only slightly less than what is typically expected for limited stop, express service. Importantly, the methodology compares travel speeds against posted speed limits not accounting for how fast automobiles are actually traveling in the corridor. Driving times for cars and buses were compared for a few routes in different parts of the service area and buses performed much better under this metric with bus travel speeds generally at 50% or above of car travel speeds. This variable and the average distance between stops variable also highlights the countervailing objectives agencies encounter. RTS’s current average stop spacing is over 1,000 feet and fails to meet the standard. Historically, in urban areas most transit agencies have aspired to place stops every 800 feet to increase access by reducing walking distances. Obviously, however, as the number of stops increase on a route travel speeds decrease. RTS did particularly poor regarding on-time performance. On-time performance for any day of the week did not exceed 65%. In working to address this, however, it became apparent that the data RTS was utilizing from its Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) vendor was incorrectly counting early departures. Preliminary corrective action improved on-time performance by as much as 15% which would only be slightly below the standard; this improvement is not reflected here. 11

Determined by dividing route length by Google Maps driving distance between route origin and destination. Roadway speeds based on Public Works road centerlines shapefile. A weighted average was calculated by multiplying posted speeds by the lengths of the route segments that operated on them. 13 Route Overlap was not calculated for Later Gator routes since they operate late at night after most routes have generally stopped running. A 10-foot buffer was placed around each route and then intersected individually with every other route. 12

Poor performance in other areas is simply a reflection of budgetary constraints and highlights the intertwined relationship amongst measures. Most routes overlap with at least one other route by more than 33%. While this standard was established to flag service duplication, route duplication is occurring in order to provide higher frequencies on popular corridors while branching to provide lower frequencies in less active areas. In 2014 a transportation surtax measure will be on the ballot that if passed will help RTS address shortcomings in frequency and temporal availability over an eight year period. Variables for which approximately <25% of RTS’s routes satisfy the performance standard include Operating Expense per Revenue Mile 14 , On-time Performance, Operating Speed Ratio, and Stop Spacing. 15 These areas of deficiency are all receiving extra attention as part of RTS’s Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) and major TDP update. It is important to remember, though, that most standard thresholds were set at either the 25th percentile (maximums not to be exceeded) or median (minimum acceptable performance) of all Florida agencies performances. Therefore, failing to meet the standard is generally a reflection of not performing in the top tier of a particular variable rather than poor performance. Given the close relationship between several of these variables, improving one will have positive impacts on other variables. 2.2.2 Saturday RTS performed similarly on Saturday as it did on weekdays. Table 5 shows that performance only changed for Route Overlap which went from failing to meet the standard to exceeding the standard. This should not be viewed as improvement since the outcome results from reduced weekend service. There are two variables on Saturday for which >90% of RTS’s routes exceed the standard threshold, including Subsidy per Passenger Trip and Sidewalk Coverage. Variables for which approximately <25% of RTS’s routes satisfy the performance standard include Operating Expense per Revenue Mile, On-time Performance, Operating Speed Ratio, Off-Peak Frequency, and Stop Spacing.

14

Low performance in this area is not surprising given that the average RTS route is only approximately five miles. Calculated using the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) file that indicates the spacing between stops for each route pattern. 15

Table 5. Saturday – System Level Variables Variable Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Passenger Miles per Seat Miles Operating Expense per Passenger Trip 16 Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Operating Expense per Passenger Mile On-time Performance Peak Frequency (minutes) 17 Off-Peak Frequency (minutes) Vehicle Load Average Distance Between Stops (feet) Sidewalk Coverage Route Directness Operating Speed Ratio Route Overlap

Performance 34.9 20% $2.65 25% $1.99 $6.34 $75.33 $0.98 59% 59.4 57.7 19% 1,023 93% 156% 34% 24%

Standard 19.0 25% $4.54 18% $4.40 $4.80 $75.26 $0.77 80% 30.0 30.0 125% 880 50% 175% 50% 33%

Relative to Standard Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds

2.2.3 Sunday If only considering the number of variables that exceeded the standard, RTS did the best of Sunday. This again, however, is not a reflection of better performance only a change in standard thresholds across the week. Frequency standards fall to 60 minutes on Sunday compared to the 20 or 30 minutes at other times of the week. Table 6 shows Sunday system wide performance. There are four variables on Sunday for which >90% of RTS’s routes exceed the standard threshold, including Farebox Recovery Ratio, Operating Subsidy per Passenger Trip, and Sidewalk Coverage. Variables for which approximately <25% of RTS’s routes satisfy the performance standard include Operating Expense per Revenue Mile, On-time Performance, Operating Speed Ratio, Off-Peak Frequency, Passenger Miles per Seat Miles, Peak Frequency, and Stop Spacing. Table 6. Sunday – System Level Variables Variable Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Passenger Miles per Seat Miles Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Operating Expense per Passenger Mile On-time Performance Peak Frequency (minutes) Off-Peak Frequency (minutes) Vehicle Load Average Distance Between Stops (feet) Sidewalk Coverage Route Directness Operating Speed Ratio Route Overlap

16

Performance 33.9 18% $2.70 96% $0.14 $6.37 $75.55 $1.03 65% 51.3 53.1 17% 1,020 93% 156% 35% 27%

Standard 19.0 25% $4.54 18% $4.40 $4.80 $75.26 $0.77 80% 60.0 60.0 125% 880 50% 175% 50% 33%

Relative to Standard Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds Exceeds Fails to Meet Exceeds

The nature in which hourly service is allocation by day of week explains the large difference in farebox recovery for Saturday as compared to the other days of the week. 17 Off-peak frequency is higher than peak frequency based on the low frequency Saturday routes that only operate during peak times.

3 Route Performance 18 The service standards document identifies seven specific measures to evaluate individual route performance to form a composite index to articulate those routes that require further evaluation and possible modification. After performing the analysis, it became apparent that one measure (subsidy per passenger trip) was having excessive impact of the composite score. The standardization process involved calculating the ratio of the individual route’s performance level against the established standard. Even though the standard for subsidy per passenger trip ($4.40) is on the low end of those observed elsewhere, this standard was greatly exceeded. Indeed, due to funding received from SFC and UF, the system-wide subsidy per passenger trip is only $0.59. While most standardized scores for each measure were typically between 0.5 and 1.5, the standardized scores for this measure were often above 10. For this reason, it was dropped from the analysis. 19 As a result, the composite index was revised to be calculated on Operating Expense per Passenger Trip, Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, On-Time Performance, Route Directness, Route Overlap, and Passenger Miles per Seat Miles. The results indicate what is reflected above. In the system, performance for a specific variable is essentially the same across all routes, i.e. (with a few exceptions) all the routes perform well or all the routes perform poorly. The composite is formed from six variables where three of which RTS performs incredibly well and three variables for which RTS performs poorly. For this reason, scores for all routes are positive. Therefore, rather than only consider modifications for those routes identified as low performing, RTS may want to consider modifications or further review of any route identified in the bottom five of performance.

3.1 High Performing 3.1.1 Weekdays Of the 44 weekday routes, 68% are identified as high performing. 20 The top five performing weekday routes are (descending from 1 to 5): 120, 38, 20, 12, and 9; see Table A-3 for the complete list. 3.1.2 Saturday Of the 22 Saturday routes, 73% are identified as high performing; note that the top two performing routes on weekdays do not operate on the weekend. The top five performing Saturday routes are (descending from 1 to 5): 20, 75, 5, 15, and 1; see Table A-6 for the complete list. 3.1.3 Sunday Of the 13 Sunday routes, 62% are identified as high performing. The top five performing Sunday routes are (descending from 1 to 5): 15, 20, 5, 12, and 11; see Table A-9 for the complete list.

18

Tables A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-7, and A-8 show operating characteristics for each route by day of week. There were still instances of a single variable having a large influence on the overlap rank of a route. For example, on Sundays the route 20 outperforms the route 15 for five of the six variables. However, the max overlap for the route 15 is only 7% Compared to the standard of 33% this leads to a score of almost 5. 20 High performance is defined as those routes with a standardized score of >=1.25 while low performance is defined as those routes with a standardized score of <=0.75. 19

3.2 Low Performing 3.2.1 Weekdays The route 27 is the only low performing route, though, the next two lowest routes also score under 1. The five lowest performing Weekday routes were (starting from the lowest scoring): 27, 41, 301, 62, and 126. 3.2.2 Saturday No Saturday routes are identified as low performing though the route 303 did have a composite score of 0.77; note that three of the five lowest performing weekday routes do not operate on the weekends. The five lowest performing Saturday routes are (starting from the lowest scoring): 303, 126, 25, 6, and 10. 3.2.3 Sunday The five lowest performing Sunday routes are (starting from the lowest scoring): 25, 9, 126, 8, and 35. It is interesting to note that one of the best performing routes on weekdays is also one of the worst performing routes on Sundays highlighting how ridership changes across the week. This route almost exclusively serves UF students with most switching to travel by car during the weekend.

4 Title VI Route Evaluation FTA Title VI guidance requires service standard documents to include the following six variables upon which differences between minority and non-minority routes most be calculated and analyzed: vehicle load, vehicle headway, on-time performance, service accessibility, vehicle assignment, and distribution of transit amenities. 21 As specified in the service standards document RTS noted that any difference of 10% or more would be considered problematic and requiring corrective action.

4.1 Vehicle Load 22 During certain times of the year, especially at the start of the fall and spring UF and SFC classes’ bus loads on particular routes can exceed the standards set for this parameter. It is routine on these days for over 100 full bus reports to be noted. Generally, however, the average trip length in the system is short (2.5 miles) with passengers boarding and alighting constantly. Table 7 shows that differences do exist in load values between minority and non-minority routes but both types are well below the standard. Table 7. Vehicle Load Day of Week Weekday Saturday Sunday

21

Standard 125% 125% 125%

Non-Minority Routes 27% 20% 22%

Minority Routes 21% 19% 17%

Percent Difference 25% 5% 26%

Minority/non-minority route designation based on FTA Circular 4702.1B definition. Standard distinguishes peak and off-peak loads. Current reporting functionality produces a single figure, however, across the day. While RTS acknowledges that at certain times of the day the standard is likely exceeded the average is far removed from even the off-peak standard of 125%. 22

4.2 Vehicle Headway 23 As stated above, vehicle headway is one area that RTS needs to universally improve. Table 8 shows that while peak weekday frequencies are relatively similar between minority and non-minority routes, at all other times non-minority routes have much lower frequencies than minority routes. The TDP has a stated objective to improve individual route frequency to 30 minutes or better regardless of designation. Table 8. Vehicle Headway Day of Week Weekday (Peak) Weekday (Off-Peak) Saturday Sunday

Standard 20 min. 30 min. 30 min. 60 min.

Non-Minority Routes 32 min. 57 min. 90 min. 75 min.

Minority Routes 28 min. 37 min. 50 min. 47 min.

Percent Difference 13% 43% 57% 46%

4.3 On-time Performance Table 8 shows that like vehicle headway, on-time performance is one area that RTS needs improvement. Table 8. On-Time Performance Day of Week Weekday Saturday Sunday

Standard >80% >80% >80%

Non-Minority Routes 60% 64% 73%

Minority Routes 57% 58% 63%

Percent Difference 6% 11% 14%

4.4 Service Accessibility The RTS standard for spatial accessibility (service accessibility) is “80% of the Census Block Groups with their geographic center completely within the RTS service area will be considered served if the geographic center of the Block Group is within ½ mile of a transit stop. 24” All census block groups that meet this definition are served by RTS. Therefore no distinction is made between minority and nonminority individuals.

4.5 Vehicle Assignment As discussed above, RTS currently does not have the framework in place to accurately calculate this measure. Using the methodology outlined above the average age of buses assigned to minority routes is 7.95 years while the average age of buses assigned to non-minority routes is 5.12 years. There is a stark difference, though, in the outcome when student-based routes are factored differently into the calculation. When only considering Gainesville’s Eastside routes (2, 6, 7, 11, 15, and 24) as minority routes the average age of buses serving minority areas is 6.85 years and the average age of buses serving non-minority areas is 7.54. This is not surprising. Given the elderly status of the population and the lack of curbs in East Gainesville RTS makes every effort to assign low-floor buses to these routes. RTS’s newest buses are low floor.

23

This does not include UF campus circulator service or late night campus service. This computation was achieved by first placing a 0.5 mile buffer around all bus stops and selecting the census block groups whose geographic center fell into this buffer. It should be noted that the performance difference between service accessibility and areas served by certain demographic and social characteristics is based on differences in buffer width defined for each standard. 24

4.6 Distribution of Transit Amenities The service standard for transit amenities sets ridership thresholds by which certain amenities will be placed at a stop. For example, all stops with over 15 boardings a day should have a bench and trashcan. For purposes of this analysis, RTS did not factor in whether amenities were at stops that should have them based on ridership. The only consideration in this calculation was how each amenity type was distributed between minority and non-minority routes; figures will not add to system-wide total since amenities are often at stops served by both a minority and non-minority routes. 4.6.1 Trashcans Of the 482 trashcans, 308 are at stops served by minority routes, 85 are at a stop served by nonminority routes, and the remainder are at stops served by both.. 4.6.2 Benches Of the 797 benches, 81% are located at a stop served by either minority and non-minority routes or strictly minority routes. 4.6.3 Shelters Of the 171 shelters, 79% are located at a stop served by either minority and non-minority routes or strictly minority routes.

Appendix A. Additional Tables

Table A-1. Weekday Route Characteristics

25

Route

Revenue Hours

NonRevenue Hours

Total Hours

Revenue Miles

NonRevenue Miles

Total Miles

OneWay Trips

Operating Speed 26

Maximum Buses in Service

Peak Buses

Monthly Boardings 27

Average Boardings

Operating Costs

Fare Revenues

Revenue Hours/ Total Hours

Revenue Miles/ Total Miles

Operating Cost/ Total Hour

Revenue / Total Hour

Revenue / Revenue Mile

Average Trip length

Passenger Miles

1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 34 35 36 38 39 41 43 46 62 75 76 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 126 127 300 301 302

56.4 13.9 52.5 13.9 13.9 47.3 76.6 25.6 24.8 76.1 40.8 28.8 25.4 25.4 93.2 62.1 24.7 13.9 11.6 3.9 29.1 44.2 72.3 22.2 45.5 8.0 16.5 40.8 18.0 8.0 33.6 10.0 22.9 43.9 10.5 22.8 22.4 10.1 31.0 13.4 22.7 18.4 18.8 18.7

1.7 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.4 4.0 4.2 1.0 0.6 6.2 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 6.2 4.6 2.5 0.4 0.7 0.3 2.0 2.3 5.8 2.2 4.5 0.7 2.0 3.8 0.5 0.5 4.0 1.0 2.3 4.7 1.2 1.9 1.5 0.5 3.3 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

58.0 14.3 54.2 14.3 14.3 51.3 80.8 26.6 25.5 82.3 43.3 29.5 26.0 26.0 99.4 66.7 27.2 14.3 12.3 4.2 31.1 46.5 78.1 24.4 50.0 8.7 18.5 44.6 18.5 8.5 37.6 11.0 25.2 48.6 11.6 24.6 23.9 10.6 34.3 14.1 23.6 20.0 20.4 20.3

540 214 636 148 169 556 784 370 313 811 480 386 264 223 1,088 656 299 235 166 50 316 469 846 274 391 193 279 554 130 100 541 166 212 374 105 167 158 68 286 119 285 222 253 234

10 1 11 1 1 37 44 4 3 37 22 3 1 1 58 34 30 2 3 1 41 24 49 23 55 12 40 14 3 8 43 20 25 36 10 12 14 6 18 6 8 4 4 4

550 216 647 149 171 593 828 374 315 848 502 389 264 224 1,146 689 329 238 169 51 357 493 895 296 445 205 319 568 132 108 583 186 237 410 115 179 172 73 304 124 293 226 257 238

107 28 101 28 28 63 209 44 50 178 164 54 91 89 186 142 68 28 21.5 8 78 93 176 54 106 16 33 46.5 72 16 38 20 86 166 42 152 90 27 125 36 114 74 38 30

9.6 15.4 12.1 10.6 12.2 11.7 10.2 14.4 12.6 10.7 11.8 13.4 10.4 8.8 11.7 10.6 12.1 16.9 14.3 12.7 10.9 10.6 11.7 12.4 8.6 24.1 16.9 13.6 7.2 12.6 16.1 16.7 9.3 8.5 10.0 7.3 7.1 6.7 9.2 8.8 12.5 12.1 13.5 12.5

4 1 3 1 1 3 5 3 2 5 3 2 2 1 6 5 2 1 1 1 3 3 5 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3

4 1 3 1 1 3 5 3 2 5 3 2 2 1 6 5 2 1 1 1 3 3 5 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 0 0 0

67,060 12,140 48,760 12,220 11,320 34,780 94,220 18,320 20,460 102,040 52,920 31,980 21,120 24,900 135,300 58,980 21,840 9,720 6,220 1,080 19,660 41,240 87,440 20,660 63,700 3,380 9,420 25,360 16,360 3,480 26,320 7,560 16,720 35,020 8,740 41,900 16,080 5,960 28,040 8,320 31,360 10,620 8,880 12,320

3,353 607 2,438 611 566 1,739 4,711 916 1,023 5,102 2,646 1,599 1,056 1,245 6,765 2,949 1,092 486 311 54 983 2,062 4,372 1,033 3,185 169 471 1,268 818 174 1,316 378 836 1,751 437 2,095 804 298 1,402 416 1,568 531 444 616

$4,142 $1,020 $3,864 $1,019 $1,019 $3,661 $5,765 $1,900 $1,817 $5,872 $3,091 $2,104 $1,857 $1,857 $7,090 $4,760 $1,941 $1,019 $878 $299 $2,216 $3,318 $5,575 $1,741 $3,570 $617 $1,320 $3,179 $1,323 $603 $2,681 $781 $1,798 $3,468 $831 $1,758 $1,708 $756 $2,444 $1,006 $1,681 $1,424 $1,452 $1,446

$1,542 $185 $2,116 $171 $168 $934 $4,322 $1,053 $317 $5,313 $2,168 $477 $1,363 $1,401 $4,994 $3,303 $1,138 $183 $816 $297 $1,960 $2,996 $2,729 $1,766 $3,188 $566 $1,330 $1,033 $1,197 $564 $584 $737 $1,587 $3,060 $736 $1,570 $1,528 $670 $2,151 $909 $1,485 $867 $883 $885

0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.93 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92

0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.88 0.94 0.87 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98

$71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4

$26.6 $12.9 $39.1 $12.0 $11.8 $18.2 $53.5 $39.5 $12.5 $64.6 $50.0 $16.2 $52.4 $53.8 $50.3 $49.5 $41.8 $12.8 $66.3 $70.9 $63.1 $64.4 $34.9 $72.4 $63.7 $65.4 $71.9 $23.2 $64.6 $66.7 $15.5 $67.3 $63.0 $63.0 $63.2 $63.7 $63.9 $63.2 $62.8 $64.5 $63.0 $43.5 $43.4 $43.7

$2.9 $0.9 $3.3 $1.2 $1.0 $1.7 $5.5 $2.8 $1.0 $6.5 $4.5 $1.2 $5.2 $6.3 $4.6 $5.0 $3.8 $0.8 $4.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $3.2 $6.4 $8.2 $2.9 $4.8 $1.9 $9.2 $5.6 $1.1 $4.4 $7.5 $8.2 $7.0 $9.4 $9.7 $9.9 $7.5 $7.7 $5.2 $3.9 $3.5 $3.8

2.5 3.7 3.7 2.8 3.2 3.6 2.2 6.0 3.3 2.6 1.5 2.8 1.3 1.3 2.7 2.4 3.7 3.9 2.3 3.4 2.3 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.6 6.8 2.8 6.0 1.0 3.6 5.9 5.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.5 0.6 1.4 3.0 3.6

8,517 2,228 8,947 1,680 1,811 6,278 10,129 5,533 3,366 13,010 3,943 4,429 1,331 1,619 18,130 7,078 4,029 1,900 712 181 2,251 6,392 9,968 2,820 8,345 1,148 1,328 7,595 834 621 7,817 1,962 1,162 2,767 612 1,383 627 477 1,710 641 925 754 1,336 2,187

25

Related numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. For example, total miles (revenue miles + non-revenue miles). Revenue miles / revenue hours 27 Daily boardings * 20 days 26

Table A-2. Weekday Route Performance Route

1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 34 35 36 38 39 41 43 46 62 75 76 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 126 127 300 301 302

28

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

Passenger Miles per Seat Miles

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Farebox Recovery Ratio

Subsidy per Passenger Trip

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

Operating Expense per Hour

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile 28

On-time Performance

Peak Frequency (minutes)

Off-Peak Frequency (minutes)

Vehicle Load

Average Distance Between Stops (feet)

Sidewalk Coverage

Route Directness

Operating Speed Ratio

Maximum Route Overlap

Route with Overlap

59.5 43.6 46.4 43.9 40.7 36.7 61.5 35.7 41.2 67.0 64.9 55.6 41.6 49.0 72.6 47.5 44.3 34.9 26.9 13.8 33.8 46.7 60.5 46.6 70.0 21.2 28.5 31.1 45.4 21.9 39.2 38.0 36.6 39.9 41.7 92.0 35.9 29.5 45.2 31.0 69.0 28.9 23.7 33.0

39% 26% 35% 28% 27% 28% 32% 37% 27% 40% 21% 29% 13% 18% 42% 27% 34% 20% 11% 9% 18% 34% 29% 26% 53% 15% 12% 34% 16% 16% 36% 30% 14% 19% 15% 21% 10% 18% 15% 13% 8% 8% 13% 23%

$1.24 $1.68 $1.58 $1.67 $1.80 $2.11 $1.22 $2.07 $1.78 $1.15 $1.17 $1.32 $1.76 $1.49 $1.05 $1.61 $1.78 $2.10 $2.82 $5.54 $2.25 $1.61 $1.28 $1.69 $1.12 $3.65 $2.80 $2.51 $1.62 $3.47 $2.04 $2.07 $2.15 $1.98 $1.90 $0.84 $2.12 $2.54 $1.74 $2.42 $1.07 $2.68 $3.27 $2.35

37.2% 18.1% 54.8% 16.8% 16.5% 25.5% 75.0% 55.4% 17.4% 90.5% 70.1% 22.7% 73.4% 75.5% 70.4% 69.4% 58.6% 18.0% 93.0% 99.3% 88.5% 90.3% 49.0% 101.4% 89.3% 91.7% 100.7% 32.5% 90.5% 93.5% 21.8% 94.3% 88.3% 88.2% 88.6% 89.3% 89.5% 88.6% 88.0% 90.3% 88.3% 60.9% 60.8% 61.2%

$0.78 $1.38 $0.72 $1.39 $1.50 $1.57 $0.31 $0.92 $1.47 $0.11 $0.35 $1.02 $0.47 $0.37 $0.31 $0.49 $0.74 $1.72 $0.20 $0.04 $0.26 $0.16 $0.65 -$0.02 $0.12 $0.30 -$0.02 $1.69 $0.15 $0.22 $1.59 $0.12 $0.25 $0.23 $0.22 $0.09 $0.22 $0.29 $0.21 $0.23 $0.13 $1.05 $1.28 $0.91

$7.66 $4.76 $6.07 $6.89 $6.02 $6.59 $7.35 $5.14 $5.81 $7.24 $6.44 $5.45 $7.04 $8.31 $6.52 $7.26 $6.49 $4.33 $5.30 $6.03 $7.01 $7.07 $6.59 $6.36 $9.14 $3.20 $4.74 $5.74 $10.21 $6.03 $4.96 $4.71 $8.47 $9.29 $7.91 $10.51 $10.81 $11.21 $8.55 $8.47 $5.90 $6.41 $5.75 $6.18

$73.47 $73.26 $73.56 $73.20 $73.20 $77.38 $75.24 $74.14 $73.17 $77.14 $75.77 $73.17 $73.13 $73.13 $76.11 $76.66 $78.68 $73.20 $75.80 $76.27 $76.27 $75.12 $77.08 $78.57 $78.41 $77.35 $80.01 $77.97 $73.50 $75.85 $79.91 $78.53 $78.63 $78.94 $79.33 $77.22 $76.23 $74.89 $78.84 $74.92 $73.96 $77.58 $77.45 $77.47

$0.49 $0.46 $0.43 $0.61 $0.56 $0.58 $0.57 $0.34 $0.54 $0.45 $0.78 $0.47 $1.40 $1.15 $0.39 $0.67 $0.48 $0.54 $1.23 $1.65 $0.98 $0.52 $0.56 $0.62 $0.43 $0.54 $0.99 $0.42 $1.59 $0.97 $0.34 $0.40 $1.55 $1.25 $1.36 $1.27 $2.72 $1.59 $1.43 $1.57 $1.82 $1.89 $1.09 $0.66

59% 57% 56% 64% 72% 56% 62% 64% 68% 58% 64% 57% 54% 57% 54% 57% 62% 46% 60% 62% 60% 65% 53% 53% 60% 40% 47% 52% 80% 67% 54% 62% 44% 42% 53% 61% 70% 57% 49% 56% 40% 65% 63% 49%

15 60 20 60 60 30 9 17 30 10 10 30 24 24 10 10 22 60 65 60 15 20 10 15 13 60 30 35 15 60 35 60 16 8 30 9 15 45 10 45 12 n/a n/a n/a

60 60 30 60 60 60 20 50 60 23 30 60 30 30 30 30 35 60 65 n/a n/a 50 23 n/a 50 n/a n/a 105 n/a n/a 40 n/a 32 30 n/a 18 30 n/a n/a 23 24 10 20 25

37% 25% 32% 27% 25% 26% 30% 34% 25% 40% 19% 27% 12% 17% 41% 26% 34% 17% 10% 9% 16% 31% 28% 24% 50% 14% 12% 31% 14% 15% 34% 28% 13% 17% 15% 18% 11% 12% 15% 12% 18% 9% 12% 22%

987 1,081 1,045 927 900 1,025 929 1,175 1,014 1,072 832 990 933 1,037 1,074 1,091 1,417 1,387 1,415 1,151 1,070 1,099 1,125 1,040 1,109 1,384 1,167 1,127 896 1,233 1,221 1,545 952 937 797 717 773 931 777 779 728 898 974 999

97% 96% 98% 96% 82% 88% 89% 100% 96% 99% 77% 100% 83% 87% 98% 100% 79% 72% 92% 96% 93% 83% 96% 94% 94% 75% 93% 80% 100% 74% 65% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 91% 99%

118% 287% 101% 162% 157% 229% 112% 100% 160% 161% 108% 140% 137% 172% 117% 109% 107% 164% 108% 260% 116% 150% 172% 130% 107% 100% 236% 120% 101% 132% 403% 165% 108% 110% 110% 126% 197% 144% 115% 176% 117% 118% 127% 143%

28% 44% 34% 31% 33% 34% 36% 38% 34% 30% 29% 36% 30% 26% 38% 35% 32% 43% 41% 36% 38% 31% 33% 45% 28% 57% 46% 38% 24% 34% 41% 44% 45% 41% 49% 37% 32% 24% 46% 40% 46% 41% 42% 40%

42% 20% 23% 25% 22% 45% 70% 24% 11% 36% 19% 27% 51% 51% 74% 94% 33% 33% 37% 26% 40% 27% 70% 52% 69% 32% 47% 34% 91% 34% 14% 24% 35% 53% 88% 100% 42% 39% 89% 61% 64%

38 7 43 41 2 41 36 76 24 1 16 39 17 16 21 20 75 25 24 15 119 28 36 9 1 43 8 39 1 20 76 10 36 125 28 125 1 121 126 125 126

Operating Costs / (Trip length * Daily Boardings)

Table A-3. Weekday Route Ranking Route

1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 34 35 36 38 39 41 43 46 62 75 76 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 126 127 300 301 302

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

Daily Passenger Miles Per Seat Miles

Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip

On-time Performance

Route Directness

Route Overlap

Score

Rank

3.13 2.30 2.44 2.31 2.14 1.93 3.24 1.88 2.17 3.53 3.41 2.93 2.19 2.58 3.82 2.50 2.33 1.84 1.41 0.73 1.78 2.46 3.18 2.45 3.68 1.11 1.50 1.64 2.39 1.15 2.06 2.00 1.92 2.10 2.20 4.84 1.89 1.55 2.38 1.63 3.63 1.52 1.25 1.74

1.58 1.04 1.41 1.14 1.07 1.13 1.29 1.50 1.08 1.60 0.82 1.15 0.50 0.72 1.67 1.08 1.35 0.81 0.43 0.37 0.71 1.36 1.17 1.03 2.14 0.60 0.48 1.37 0.64 0.62 1.45 1.18 0.55 0.74 0.58 0.83 0.40 0.71 0.60 0.54 0.32 0.34 0.53 0.93

3.68 2.70 2.86 2.72 2.52 2.16 3.71 2.19 2.56 3.94 3.89 3.45 2.58 3.04 4.33 2.81 2.55 2.17 1.61 0.82 2.01 2.82 3.56 2.69 4.05 1.24 1.62 1.81 2.81 1.31 2.23 2.20 2.11 2.29 2.39 5.41 2.14 1.79 2.60 1.88 4.23 1.69 1.39 1.93

0.74 0.71 0.70 0.79 0.89 0.69 0.77 0.80 0.85 0.73 0.80 0.71 0.67 0.71 0.68 0.71 0.77 0.58 0.75 0.78 0.75 0.81 0.66 0.67 0.74 0.50 0.58 0.65 1.00 0.84 0.67 0.78 0.54 0.52 0.66 0.77 0.87 0.71 0.61 0.70 0.50 0.81 0.79 0.62

1.48 0.61 1.73 1.08 1.11 0.76 1.56 1.87 1.09 1.09 1.61 1.25 1.28 1.02 1.49 1.61 1.64 1.07 1.62 0.67 1.50 1.16 1.02 1.35 1.64 1.84 0.74 1.46 1.73 1.33 0.43 1.06 1.62 1.60 1.59 1.39 0.89 1.22 1.52 0.99 1.49 1.49 1.38 1.22

0.79 1.64 1.45 1.34 1.49 0.73 0.47 1.40 2.89 0.92 1.75 1.20 0.65 0.65 0.44 0.35 1.00 0.99 0.89 1.27 0.82 1.22 0.47 0.64 0.48 1.05 0.70 0.96 0.36 0.98 2.29 1.35 0.95 0.63 0.37 0.33 0.79 0.85 0.37 0.54 0.51

1.90 1.50 1.76 1.56 1.54 1.23 1.84 1.61 1.77 1.97 2.05 1.78 1.31 1.45 2.07 1.51 1.61 1.24 1.12 0.77 1.26 1.64 1.68 1.47 2.12 1.06 0.94 1.31 1.49 1.04 1.52 1.43 1.28 1.31 1.30 2.26 1.16 1.14 1.35 1.05 1.78 1.17 1.07 1.29

6 20 11 16 17 34 7 14 10 5 4 9 27 23 3 19 15 33 38 44 32 13 12 22 2 40 43 26 21 42 18 24 31 28 29 1 36 37 25 41 8 35 39 30

Table A-4. Saturday Route Characteristics Route 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35 75 126 300 301 302 303 305

Revenue Hours 20.8 10.9 36.8 5.0 11.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 20.8 5.9 10.9 5.9 35.0 10.8 10.9 12.2 20.2 18.4 18.8 18.7 11.6 12.8

NonRevenue Hours 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 2.5 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.7 0.5

Total Hours

Revenue Miles

Non-Revenue Miles

Total Miles

21.4 11.2 37.6 5.2 12.8 11.4 11.2 11.2 21.8 6.3 11.2 6.3 37.5 11.8 11.8 13.4 21.0 20.0 20.4 20.3 12.3 13.4

212 179 466 55 160 104 101 141 246 66 157 69 410 153 138 200 178 222 253 234 120 147

6 1 3 1 4 6 1 1 9 5 1 5 13 5 7 10 6 4 4 4 3 3

218 181 469 56 164 110 102 142 255 71 159 74 423 158 146 210 184 226 257 238 123 150

OneWay Trips 42 30 74 10 16 31 12 22 56 24 22 23 70 20 30 14 54 74 38 30 23 26

Operating Speed

Maximum Buses in Service

Peak Buses

Monthly Boardings

Average Boardings

Operating Costs

Fare Revenues

10 16 13 11 13 10 9 13 12 11 14 12 12 14 13 16 9 12 13 13 10 11

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

3,960 1,044 5,104 500 1,196 1,528 508 1,596 4,080 1,088 2,436 968 9,080 480 1,676 1,972 1,760 2,144 2,800 2,956 684 1,948

990 261 1,276 125 299 382 127 399 1,020 272 609 242 2,270 120 419 493 440 536 700 739 171 487

$1,525 $799 $2,681 $373 $910 $815 $799 $799 $1,558 $447 $799 $447 $2,676 $842 $841 $953 $1,499 $1,424 $1,453 $1,446 $877 $954

$862 $91 $1,519 $31 $89 $40 $41 $122 $788 $52 $172 $58 $810 $544 $595 $208 $1,326 $11 $15 $46 $7 $7

Revenue Hours/ Total Hours 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.96

Revenue Miles/ Total Miles 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.99 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

Operating Cost/ Total Hour

Revenue / Total Hour

Revenue / Revenue Mile

Average Trip Length

Passenger Miles

$71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4

$40.3 $8.1 $40.4 $5.9 $7.0 $3.5 $3.7 $10.9 $36.1 $8.3 $15.4 $9.3 $21.6 $46.1 $50.5 $15.6 $63.1 $0.6 $0.7 $2.3 $0.6 $0.5

$4.1 $0.5 $3.3 $0.6 $0.6 $0.4 $0.4 $0.9 $3.2 $0.8 $1.1 $0.8 $2.0 $3.6 $4.3 $1.0 $7.4 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.0

3.0 3.7 3.9 2.8 4.3 2.1 6.3 3.3 2.5 1.3 2.8 1.2 2.7 3.9 2.4 6.2 1.5 1.4 3.2 3.5 2.6 2.5

2,950 972 5,032 346 1,293 807 801 1,317 2,562 354 1,707 292 6,125 471 999 3,036 668 758 2,249 2,611 436 1,204

Table A-5. Saturday Route Performance Route 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35 75 126 300 301 302 303 305

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour 47.5 23.9 34.6 25.2 25.1 35.0 11.6 36.5 49.0 46.2 55.8 41.1 64.9 11.1 38.5 40.5 21.8 29.2 37.3 39.6 14.7 37.9

Passenger Miles per Seat Miles 35% 14% 27% 16% 20% 19% 20% 23% 26% 13% 27% 11% 37% 8% 19% 38% 9% 9% 22% 28% 9% 20%

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $1.54 $3.06 $2.10 $2.99 $3.04 $2.13 $6.29 $2.00 $1.53 $1.64 $1.31 $1.85 $1.18 $7.02 $2.01 $1.93 $3.41 $2.66 $2.08 $1.96 $5.13 $1.96

Farebox Recovery Ratio 56.5% 11.4% 56.7% 8.3% 9.8% 4.9% 5.1% 15.3% 50.6% 11.6% 21.5% 13.0% 30.3% 64.6% 70.8% 21.8% 88.4% 0.8% 1.0% 3.2% 0.8% 0.7%

Subsidy per Passenger Trip $0.67 $2.71 $0.91 $2.74 $2.75 $2.03 $5.96 $1.70 $0.75 $1.45 $1.03 $1.61 $0.82 $2.48 $0.59 $1.51 $0.39 $2.64 $2.05 $1.90 $5.09 $1.94

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $7.19 $4.45 $5.75 $6.85 $5.69 $7.85 $7.92 $5.67 $6.32 $6.77 $5.08 $6.48 $6.53 $5.50 $6.08 $4.78 $8.41 $6.41 $5.75 $6.18 $7.30 $6.50

Operating Expense per Hour $73.17 $73.12 $72.77 $75.24 $76.33 $74.63 $73.12 $73.12 $74.78 $75.84 $73.12 $75.84 $76.46 $77.75 $77.26 $78.21 $74.29 $77.58 $77.44 $77.47 $75.34 $74.30

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $0.52 $0.82 $0.53 $1.08 $0.70 $1.01 $1.00 $0.61 $0.61 $1.26 $0.47 $1.53 $0.44 $1.79 $0.84 $0.31 $2.25 $1.88 $0.65 $0.55 $2.01 $0.79

On-time Performance 59% 57% 59% 62% 64% 63% 74% 60% 57% 65% 57% 70% 55% 72% 61% 50% 40% 71% 62% 50% 37% 54%

Peak Frequency (minutes) 30 60 30 120 90 40 120 60 22 60 60 60 20 65 45 105 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Off-Peak Frequency (minutes) 60 60 60 120 90 40 120 60 45 60 60 60 60 65 45 105 45 10 20 25 30 30

Vehicle Load 33% 14% 25% 16% 21% 16% 18% 23% 25% 12% 25% 11% 36% 7% 18% 36% 8% 9% 21% 26% 8% 20%

Average Distance Between Stops (feet) 987 1,081 1,045 927 1,025 929 1,175 1,014 1,072 832 990 933 1,074 1,415 1,125 1,221 779 898 974 999 986 1,016

Sidewalk Coverage

Route Directness

Operating Speed Ratio

Maximum Route Overlap

Route with Overlap

96.9% 96.4% 98.5% 96.3% 88.4% 89.4% 100.0% 96.2% 99.4% 77.4% 100.0% 83.2% 98.2% 92.2% 96.1% 64.9% 100.0% 99.8% 90.7% 98.6% 88.7% 96.6%

118% 287% 101% 162% 229% 112% 100% 160% 161% 108% 140% 137% 117% 108% 172% 403% 176% 118% 127% 143% 128% 123%

29% 46% 35% 30% 36% 32% 24% 34% 32% 26% 37% 32% 36% 37% 33% 38% 38% 38% 39% 37% 28% 32%

35% 6% 10% 18% 16% 62% 15% 8% 36% 19% 11% 20% 21% 22% 49% 5% 55%

25 11 15 15 10 35 8 25 1 16 6 13 126 1 9 5 20

Table A-6. Saturday Route Ranking Route

1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35 75 126 300 301 302 303 305

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

Daily Passenger Miles Per Seat Miles

Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip

On-time Performance

Route Directness

Route Overlap

Score

Rank

2.50 1.26 1.82 1.33 1.32 1.84 0.61 1.92 2.58 2.43 2.94 2.16 3.41 0.58 2.03 2.13 1.15 1.54 1.96 2.08 0.77 2.00

1.39 0.54 1.08 0.63 0.81 0.78 0.79 0.93 1.04 0.54 1.09 0.42 1.50 0.31 0.75 1.52 0.37 0.34 0.89 1.12 0.36 0.82

2.95 1.48 2.16 1.52 1.49 2.13 0.72 2.27 2.97 2.76 3.46 2.46 3.85 0.65 2.26 2.35 1.33 1.71 2.19 2.32 0.89 2.32

0.74 0.72 0.73 0.77 0.80 0.79 0.92 0.75 0.71 0.82 0.71 0.87 0.69 0.90 0.77 0.62 0.50 0.89 0.78 0.63 0.46 0.68

1.48 0.61 1.73 1.08 0.76 1.56 1.87 1.09 1.09 1.61 1.25 1.28 1.49 1.62 1.02 0.43 0.99 1.49 1.38 1.22 1.37 1.42

0.95 5.29 3.46 1.80 2.08 0.53 2.18 3.97 0.92 1.75 2.97 1.64 1.59 1.51 0.68 6.83 0.60

1.67 1.65 1.83 1.19 1.21 1.27 1.18 1.82 1.55 1.65 2.07 1.47 2.09 0.93 1.25 2.32 0.83 1.19 1.44 1.47 0.77 1.45

6 8 4 18 16 14 19 5 9 7 3 11 2 20 15 1 21 17 13 10 22 12

Table A-7. Sunday Route Characteristics Route

1 5 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35 126

Revenue Hours

NonRevenue Hours

Total Hours

Revenue Miles

Non-Revenue Miles

Total Miles

OneWay Trips

Operating Speed

Maximum Buses in Service

Peak Buses

Monthly Boardings

Average Boardings

Operating Costs

Fare Revenues

Revenue Hours/ Total Hours

Revenue Miles/ Total Miles

Operating Cost/ Total Hour

Revenue / Total Hour

Revenue / Revenue Mile

Average Trip Length

Passenger Miles

14.8 7.9 7.4 7.9 7.9 8.2 4.0 7.9 4.0 15.0 8.2 7.9 18.7

0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.8

15.4 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.2 8.7 4.2 8.2 4.2 16.0 8.8 8.5 19.5

152 101 100 89 102 97 43 115 48 176 115 100 161

3 1 6 4 1 1 7 1 5 9 8 7 6

154 102 106 93 104 98 50 116 53 184 123 108 167

30 16 10 24 16 22 16 16 16 30 15 22 50

10.2 12.7 13.5 11.2 12.9 11.8 10.8 14.5 12.1 11.7 14.1 12.7 8.6

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

2,690 1,525 700 1,010 1,150 1,930 720 1,545 815 4,215 400 1,310 2,810

538 305 140 202 230 386 144 309 163 843 80 262 562

$1,096 $584 $590 $602 $584 $619 $301 $587 $301 $1,142 $627 $603 $1,392

$1,067 $614 $556 $546 $576 $572 $298 $594 $296 $1,115 $570 $556 $1,238

0.97 0.97 0.90 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.96

0.98 0.99 0.94 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.85 0.99 0.91 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.97

$71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 $71.4

$69.5 $75.1 $67.2 $64.8 $70.3 $66.0 $70.6 $72.3 $70.1 $69.7 $64.8 $65.8 $63.5

$7.0 $6.1 $5.6 $6.1 $5.6 $5.9 $6.9 $5.2 $6.2 $6.4 $5.0 $5.5 $7.7

2.9 4.0 4.4 2.2 3.2 2.4 1.3 3.2 1.2 2.6 5.4 2.5 1.5

1,544 1,234 617 436 725 943 189 979 191 2,156 432 650 818

Table A-8. Sunday Route Performance Route 1 5 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35 126

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour 36.3 38.5 18.8 25.5 29.0 47.2 36.3 39.0 41.1 56.2 9.8 33.2 30.1

Passenger Miles per Seat Miles 26% 31% 15% 13% 18% 24% 11% 21% 10% 31% 9% 16% 13%

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $2.04 $1.91 $4.22 $2.98 $2.54 $1.60 $2.09 $1.90 $1.85 $1.35 $7.84 $2.30 $2.48

Farebox Recovery Ratio 97.3% 105.2% 94.2% 90.8% 98.6% 92.5% 99.0% 101.3% 98.3% 97.7% 90.9% 92.2% 88.9%

Subsidy per Passenger Trip $0.05 -$0.10 $0.24 $0.28 $0.04 $0.12 $0.02 -$0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.72 $0.18 $0.27

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $7.23 $5.79 $5.90 $6.77 $5.71 $6.39 $7.00 $5.11 $6.27 $6.51 $5.45 $6.02 $8.65

Operating Expense per Hour $73.91 $73.70 $79.43 $75.86 $73.79 $75.73 $75.85 $74.06 $75.85 $76.12 $76.77 $76.52 $74.53

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $0.71 $0.47 $0.96 $1.38 $0.81 $0.66 $1.60 $0.60 $1.58 $0.53 $1.45 $0.93 $1.70

On-time Performance 60% 72% 74% 60% 59% 67% 68% 54% 74% 63% 48% 82% 57%

Peak Frequency (minutes) 30 60 90 40 60 45 60 60 60 30 65 45 22

Off-Peak Frequency (minutes) 30 60 90 40 60 45 60 60 60 30 65 45 45

Vehicle Load 25% 28% 16% 12% 17% 23% 10% 20% 10% 30% 8% 15% 11%

Average Distance Between Stops (feet) 987 1,081 1,025 929 1,014 1,072 832 990 933 1,074 1,415 1,125 779

Route Length

Sidewalk Length

Sidewalk Coverage

Route Directness

Operating Speed Ratio

5.0 7.4 8.9 3.8 6.3 4.4 2.9 7.2 3.0 5.6 8.5 4.8 3.4

4.9 7.1 7.8 3.4 6.1 4.3 2.3 7.2 2.5 5.5 7.8 4.6 3.4

96.9% 96.4% 88.4% 89.4% 96.2% 99.4% 77.4% 100.0% 83.2% 98.2% 92.2% 96.1% 100.0%

118% 287% 229% 112% 160% 161% 108% 140% 137% 117% 108% 172% 176%

28% 44% 34% 36% 34% 30% 29% 36% 30% 38% 41% 33% 40%

Maximum Route Overlap 35% 10% 6% 62% 8% 36% 19% 9% 20% 21% 22% 49% 55%

Route with Overlap 25 15 1 35 25 1 16 5 13 126 1 9 20

Table A-9. Sunday Route Ranking Route

1 5 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 20 25 35 126

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

Passenger Miles Per Seat Miles

Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip

On-time Performance

Route Directness

Route Overlap

Score

Rank

1.91 2.03 0.99 1.34 1.53 2.49 1.91 2.05 2.16 2.96 0.52 1.75 1.58

1.02 1.23 0.62 0.51 0.71 0.97 0.44 0.85 0.40 1.23 0.38 0.65 0.52

2.23 2.37 1.08 1.52 1.79 2.83 2.17 2.39 2.46 3.35 0.58 1.97 1.83

0.75 0.90 0.92 0.75 0.74 0.84 0.85 0.68 0.93 0.79 0.60 1.02 0.72

1.48 0.61 0.76 1.56 1.09 1.09 1.61 1.25 1.28 1.49 1.62 1.02 0.99

0.95 3.46 5.64 0.53 3.97 0.92 1.75 3.47 1.64 1.59 1.51 0.68 0.60

1.39 1.76 1.67 1.04 1.64 1.52 1.46 1.78 1.48 1.90 0.87 1.18 1.04

9 3 4 12 5 6 8 2 7 1 13 10 11

Appendix I COA Proposed Changes in Service

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Table I-1 COA Proposed Service Hours and Frequencies (City Routes) WEEKDAY ROUTE ID

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

SATURDAY

Service Frequency (minutes) Early Morning

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

SUNDAY

Evening

Late Evening

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

Service Frequency (minutes)

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

Service Frequency (minutes)

City Routes 1

6:00a-12:30p

0

15

15

18

60

60

7:00a-8:00p

30

8:00a-6:30p

30

2

5:30a-10:30p

30

30

30

30

60

60

7:00a-7:30p

60

8:00a-6:30p

60

5

6:00a-2:00a

0

20

20

20

30

30

7:00a-2:00a

30

8:00a-6:30p

30

6

6:00a-9:30p

0

30

30

30

60

0

7:00a-7:30p

60

8:00a-6:30p

60

8

5:46a-11:20p

30

30

30

30

45

90

7:00a-8:00p

30

8:00a-6:30p

45

9

6:30a-1:50a

0

9

9

9

20

40

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

10

7:05a-7:00p

0

23

35

35

35

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11A

5:30a-11:30p

60

60

60

60

60

0

7:00a-8:00p

60

8:00a-6:30p

60

11B

6:00a-9:00p

0

60

60

60

60

0

7:30a-7:30p

60

8:00a-6:00p

60

12

6:20a-2:43a

0

10

10

12

23

45

7:20a-8:30p

23

9:00a-7:00p

45

13

6:30a-1:30a

0

15

15

15

35

35

7:00a-8:00p

30

9:00a-6:40p

45

15

6:00a-12:30a

0

30

30

30

45

45

7:00a-7:30p

30

8:00a-6:30p

30

16

6:30a-1:30a

0

24

24

24

30

60

7:00a-7:30p

40

9:00a-6:40p

60

17

6:45a-12:45a

0

24

24

24

30

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

20

6:00a-2:00a

0

10

10

10

15

30

7:00a-8:10p

20

8:00a-7:30p

30

21

8:00a-8:00p

0

10

10

10

25

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

23

7:15a-7:00p

0

40

40

40

40

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

24A

6:30a-8:30p

0

60

60

60

60

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

24B

7-10a,3-6p

0

60

60

60

60

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

25A

7:15a-6:35p

0

60

60

60

60

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

25B

no service

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

7:15a-5:50p

75

9:45a-5:50p

75

27

7:00a-6:00p

0

60

60

60

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Transit Development Plan

2

Gainesville RTS

Table I-1 (Cont…) COA Proposed Service Hours and Frequencies (City Routes) WEEKDAY ROUTE ID

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

SATURDAY

Service Frequency (minutes) Early Morning

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

SUNDAY

Evening

Late Evening

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

Service Frequency (minutes)

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

Service Frequency (minutes)

City Routes 28

7:45a-5:30p

0

20

20

20

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

34

6:45a-1:30a

0

25

25

25

38

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

35

6:30a-1:41a

0

10

10

10

23

45

7:05a-8:40p

23

9:00a-6:40p

23

36

6:55a-6:25p

0

30

30

30

30

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

38

6:55a-8:55p

0

13

13

13

50

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

39

7:30a-6:00p

0

35

35

35

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

40

6:30a-6:00p

0

30

30

30

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

41

7:00a-5:30p

0

60

60

60

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

43

6:05a-10:00p

0

30

30

30

30

0

7:00a-7:30p

40

9:00a-6:40p

60

46

7:00a-5:30p

0

15

15

30

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

8:00a-6:00p

0

60

60

60

0

0

8:00a-5:00p

60

n/a

n/a

62

7:30a-10:00p

0

20

20

20

20

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

6:00a-11:00p

0

30

30

30

45

45

7:00a-7:30p

45

8:00a-6:30p

45

227

8:10a-10:18a

0

33

33

0

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Transit Development Plan

3

Gainesville RTS

Table I-2 COA Proposed Service Hours and Frequencies (Campus and Later Gator Routes) WEEKDAY ROUTE ID

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

SATURDAY

Service Frequency (minutes) Early Morning

Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

SUNDAY

Evening

Late Evening

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

Service Frequency (minutes)

Estimated Start of First/Last Trips

Service Frequency (minutes)

Campus Routes 116

7:00a-6:00p

0

25

25

25

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

117

7:00a-7:00p

0

15

15

15

30

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

118

7:00a-7:00p

0

7.5

7.5

7.5

30

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

120

7:00a-7:30p

0

10

10

10

20

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

121

7:00a-7:00p

0

23

23

23

45

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

122

7:00a-6:00p

0

30

30

30

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

125

7:00a-1:00a

0

10

10

10

10

45

10:00a-9:00p

25

10:00a-10:00p

25

127

7:00a-1:00a

0

10

10

10

10

45

10:00a-9:00p

25

10:00a-10:00p

25

Later Gator 300

9:00p-2:45a

0

0

0

0

0

10

9:00p-2:45a

10

n/a

n/a

301

9:00p-2:55a

0

0

0

0

0

20

9:00p-2:55a

20

n/a

n/a

302

9:00p-3:05a

0

0

0

0

0

25

9:00p-3:05a

25

n/a

n/a

303

no service

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

9:00p-2:30a

30

n/a

n/a

305

no service

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

9:00p-3:00a

30

n/a

n/a

Transit Development Plan

4

Gainesville RTS

Table I-3 COA Proposed Service Hours and Frequencies (City Routes) Route ID 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11A 11B 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24A 24B 25A 25B 27 28

Transit Development Plan

Difference Between First / Last Trip Starts Weekday Saturday Sunday First Trip Start Last Trip Start First Trip Start Last Trip Start First Trip Start Last Trip Start 0:00:00 2:00:00 -0:03:00 2:00:00 -2:03:00 1:00:00 -0:02:00 2:58:00 -0:03:00 1:58:00 8:00:00 18:30:00 -0:03:00 0:00:00 -0:03:00 0:00:00 -2:03:00 1:00:00 0:20:00 1:50:00 -1:03:00 2:50:00 8:00:00 18:30:00 Combined with Route 11 0:00:00 1:00:00 0:25:00 2:14:00 -2:16:00 0:44:00 0:03:00 -1:00:00 -9:07:00 -19:07:00 -10:10:00 -17:47:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 -7:03:00 -17:30:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 1:00:00 -0:03:00 2:30:00 -2:03:00 1:00:00 Assumes Route 7 Alignment, New Route 2 Pattern 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 1:12:00 -0:58:00 1:12:00 0:02:00 -0:10:00 0:15:00 1:57:00 -1:03:00 0:55:00 0:30:00 2:00:00 -0:03:00 1:57:00 -2:03:00 0:57:00 0:00:00 -1:03:00 -0:15:00 1:15:00 -1:15:00 1:06:00 0:03:00 -1:01:00 0:00:00 0:30:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 -2:00:00 2:00:00 1:30:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 -3:00:00 0:27:00 1:00:00 1:40:00 1:30:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 -0:03:00 0:00:00 -0:03:00 0:00:00 -0:15:00 3:18:00 0:01:00 0:04:00

5

Gainesville RTS

Table I-3 (Cont…) COA Proposed Service Hours and Frequencies (City Routes) Route ID 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 43 46 53 62 75 76 77 227

Transit Development Plan

Difference Between First / Last Trip Starts Weekday Saturday Sunday First Trip Start Last Trip Start First Trip Start Last Trip Start First Trip Start Last Trip Start 0:00:00 -1:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 3:00:00 -1:02:00 1:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:03:00 3:00:00 New COA Service Plan Route -0:05:00 0:02:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 7:00:00 19:30:00 9:00:00 18:40:00 -0:10:00 -0:07:00 New COA Service Plan Route 0:00:00 7:00:00 0:00:00 3:30:00 0:20:00 1:25:00 8:00:00 18:30:00 Route Replaced with New Route 23 Route Replaced with enhanced Route 62 New COA Service Plan Route

6

Gainesville RTS

Table I-4 COA Proposed Service Hours and Frequencies (Campus and Later Gator Routes) Route ID

Difference Between First / Last Trip Starts Weekday Saturday Sunday First Trip Start Last Trip Start First Trip Start Last Trip Start First Trip Start Last Trip Start

Campus Routes New COA Service Plan Route

116 117 118

0:00:00 0:00:00

0:00:00 0:00:00 Route Replaced with New Route 125

119 120 121 122 125

0:00:00 0:00:00 -0:20:00 0:00:00

126 127

-0:05:00

128

0:00:00 -0:10:00 0:55:00 7:40:00

10:00:00 21:00:00 10:00:00 Route Replaced with Routes 125 & 127 5:45:00 10:00:00 21:00:00 10:00:00 -9:30:00 -17:00:00

22:00:00 22:00:00

Later Gator 300 301 302 303 305

Transit Development Plan

0:30:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

0:00:00 0:00:00 0:05:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

0:30:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 0:15:00 0:30:00

7

0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

Gainesville RTS

Table I-5 Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 Weekday RTS Schedule (City Routes) Route ID 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11A 11B 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 23 24A 24B 25A 27

Transit Development Plan

Weekday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Morning Peak 0 -30 0 -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 -60 0 0

0 0 0 -30 -60 0 0 0 30 60 0 5 0 0 0 0 -15 -5 0 0 -15 0

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

0 0 0 -30 -60 0 0 0 30 60 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 -15 0

0 0 -4 -30 -60 0 0 0 0 60 0 5 -5 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 -15 60

0 30 0 0 -60 0 0 0 0 60 0 5 -15 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 -15 0

0 60 0 0 0 45 20 0 -60 0 23 5 -15 30 30 0 0 -35 0 0 0 0

8

Gainesville RTS

Table I-5 (Cont…) Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 Weekday RTS Schedule (City Routes) Route ID 24B 25A 27 28 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 43 46 53 62 75 76 77

Transit Development Plan

Weekday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Morning Peak -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 -15 0 4 5 0 0 -13 -25 30 30 2 -15 60 -40 -5 -60 -45

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

0 -15 0 4 5 0 0 0 -25 30 0 2 0 60 -40 -23 -60 -45

0 -15 60 4 5 0 0 0 -25 30 30 2 0 60 -40 -5 -60 0

0 -15 0 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -50 0 0 20 10 0 0

0 0 0 0 66 33 0 0 0 0 0 -80 0 0 0 45 0 0

9

Gainesville RTS

Table I-6 Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 RTS Schedule (Campus and Later Gator Routes) Route ID

Weekday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Afternoon Midday Evening Morning Peak Peak

Late Night

Campus Routes 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 126 127

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 -1 -0.5 -30 1 8 -15 0 0 -2

25 -1 -0.5 -30 1 8 -15 0 0 -2

25 -1 -0.5 -30 1 8 -15 0 0 -2

0 -2 0 0 2 15 0 10 -23 -14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 -45 45

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Later Gator Routes 300 301 302

Transit Development Plan

0 0 0

10

Gainesville RTS

Table I-7 Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 Saturday RTS Schedule (City Routes) Route ID 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11A 11B 12 13 15 16 20 25B 35 43 53 75

Transit Development Plan

Saturday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Morning Peak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-30 0 0 -60 -60 0 -120 0 60 0 -30 -30 -20 0 10 -23 40 60 -60

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

0 0 0 -60 -60 -40 -120 0 60 0 -30 -30 -20 0 10 -23 40 60 -60

0 0 0 -60 -60 -40 -120 0 60 -23 -30 -30 -20 0 10 -23 40 60 -60

30 60 0 60 30 -40 0 60 60 -23 -30 30 0 0 0 23 60 0 -60

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11

Gainesville RTS

Table I-8 Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 Saturday RTS Schedule (Campus and Later Gator Routes) Route ID

Saturday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Morning Peak

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

Campus Routes 0 0 25 25 25 0 0 -45 -45 -23 126 0 0 25 25 25 127 0 0 -60 -60 0 128 Note: There are no changes to the Saturday Later Gator Routes. 125

Transit Development Plan

12

0 -45 0 0

Gainesville RTS

Table I-9 Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 Sunday RTS Schedule (City Routes) Route ID 1 2 5 6 8 9 11A 11B 12 13 15 16 20 25B 35 43 75 125 126 127 128

Transit Development Plan

Sunday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Morning Peak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 60 30 60 45 0 60 60 0 0 30 0 30 10 0 0 45 0 0 0 0

Midday

Afternoon Peak

Evening

Late Night

0 60 -30 60 -45 -40 0 60 0 -15 -30 0 0 10 -23 60 45 25 -45 25 0

0 60 -30 60 -45 -40 0 60 0 -15 -30 0 0 10 -23 60 45 25 -45 25 0

30 60 30 60 45 0 60 0 45 45 30 60 0 0 23 60 45 0 -23 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -45 0 0

13

Gainesville RTS

Table I-10 Difference Between COA Proposed Schedule and Spring 2014 Sunday RTS Schedule (Campus Routes) Sunday Frequency by Time Period Early Morning Afternoon Midday Evening Morning Peak Peak 0 0 25 25 0 125 0 0 -45 -45 -23 126 0 0 25 25 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 128 Note: There are no Later Gator Sunday Routes. Route ID

Transit Development Plan

14

Late Night 0 -45 0 0

Gainesville RTS

Appendix J Public Workshop Description and Presentation

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Notice of Meeting

OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

The City of Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) announces an open house/ public meeting to which all persons are invited. DATE AND TIME: Thursday, May 1, 2014, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. PLACE: Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) 301 SE 4th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32601 (Meeting Room) GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: The RTS is conducting a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of its transit route network in Alachua County and the City of Gainesville to develop a plan that meets the travel needs of the community. RTS is simultaneously preparing its major update to the Transit Development Plan (TDP) which prioritizes the investments that will be made to maintain, enhance and improve transit. The meeting purpose is to gather input from citizens and RTS riders on their preferred improvements. Please come to our Open House Meeting to review information boards and offer your thoughts.

A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting: Abra Horne at (407) 587-7814, [email protected]. Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities who require assistance to participate in the meetings are requested to notify the Equal Opportunity Office at (352) 334-5051, or call the TDD phone line at (352) 334-2069 at least (2) business days in advance.

All persons are advised that, if any person decides to appeal any decision made at any of these meetings, they will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, they need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS

Appendix

J

Gainesville RTS