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
5
2
Transloc/Gator Word of Mouth Locator 6
Yes
No
27
0
3. If no, Please n/a suggest a more convenient location 4. Was the time convenient for you to attend?
Yes
No
23
2
5. If no, please Throughout the day suggest a more convenient time 6. Were your questions answered?
Yes
No
16
4
Yes 7. Do you understand the 18 project after attending this meeting?
No
0
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