Issuu on Google+


 

Polk Transit My Ride: Polk Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

Prepared For:

Polk Transportation Planning Organization 330 West Church Street Bartow, FL 33830 www.polktpo.com

Prepared by:

Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 545 North Broadway Avenue Bartow, FL 33830 Phone: (863) 533-8454

August 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. State of Florida Public Transit Block Grant Program ....................................................... Organization of Report ....................................................................................................

1-1 1-2 1-4

Section 2: SITUATION APPRAISAL .............................................................................................. Service Area Description ................................................................................................ Population Profile ........................................................................................................... Demographic and Journey-To-Work Characteristics ...................................................... Transit Supportive Land Uses .........................................................................................

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-11 2-22

Section 3: EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE LEVELS ...................................................................... Existing Service ............................................................................................................. Performance Evaluation and Trends .............................................................................. Peer Review Analysis ....................................................................................................

3-1 3-1 3-10 3-37

Section 4: TRANSIT DEMAND AND MOBILITY NEEDS ............................................................... Market Assessment ........................................................................................................ 2022 Transit Alternatives TBEST Modeling ...................................................................

4-1 4-1 4-3

Section 5: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................... Community Workshops and Meetings ............................................................................ Transit Needs Forum ..................................................................................................... My Ride Rollout .............................................................................................................. Project Brochures and Newsletters ................................................................................. Polk Government TV and Videos .................................................................................... Website/Internet ..............................................................................................................

5-1 5-1 5-3 5-4 5-4 5-6 5-6

Section 6: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ............................................... Needs Plan Alternatives Development ........................................................................... Alternatives Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................

6-1 6-1 6-4

Section 7: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... Goal Statement ..............................................................................................................

7-1 7-1

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

i


Section 8: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................... Ten-Year My Ride Plan Priorities ................................................................................... Ten-Year TDP My Ride Plan Costs ................................................................................ Ten-Year TDP My Ride Plan Revenues .........................................................................

8-1 8-1 8-3 8-8

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

Transportation Service Provider Survey .................................................................. Needs Plan Alternatives Evaluation Scoring Details ................................................ Funding Assessment ............................................................................................... Polk Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study ............................................................ Park-and-Ride Facility Study .................................................................................... Polk Consolidation and Transition Plan .................................................................... Performance Monitoring Program ............................................................................. Annual Farebox Recovery Ratio Report ...................................................................

A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 H-1

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 2-9: Table 2-10: Table 2-11: 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 3-9:

TDP Checklist ........................................................................................................... Population Characteristics ........................................................................................ Polk County Population Trends for Cities, Towns, and Unincorporated Area ........... Polk County Potential Transportation Disadvantaged Population ............................. Minority and Non-Minority Population within Polk County......................................... Population and Age Distribution, 2010 ..................................................................... Household Income Distribution, 2010 ....................................................................... Distribution of Vehicle Availability by Household, 2010 ............................................ Labor Force Participation, 2010................................................................................ County of Work for Workers Residing in Polk County, 2008 and 2009 ..................... Commuting from Neighboring Counties to Polk County, 2008 and 2009 .................. Journey-to-Work Mode Split 2010 ............................................................................ LAMTD Fixed-Route Performance Statistics, FY 2011 ............................................. WHAT Fixed-Route Performance Statistics, FY 2011 .............................................. WHAT Fixed-Route Ridership by Fiscal Year ........................................................... Polk County Private Transportation Service Providers ............................................. Fixed-Route Performance Review Measures Trend Analysis (2006–2010) ............. 2006–2010 Performance Indicators, PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis ...... 2006–2010 Performance Indicators, LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis............... 2006–2010 Effectiveness Measures, PCTS/WHAT Trend Analysis ......................... 2006–2010 Effectiveness Measure, LAMTD Trend Analysis ....................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

1-3 2-3 2-3 2-11 2-12 2-12 2-16 2-16 2-18 2-18 2-19 2-19 3-4 3-6 3-7 3-9 3-11 3-12 3-14 3-16 3-19 ii


Table 3-10: Table 3-11: Table 3-12: Table 3-13: Table 3-14: Table 3-15: Table 3-16: Table 3-17: Table 3-18: Table 3-19: Table 3-20: Table 3-21: Table 3-22: Table 3-23: Table 4-1: Table 4-2: Table 5-1: Table 6-1: Table 6-2: Table 6-3: Table 6-4: Table 6-5: Table 6-6: Table 7-1: Table 8-1: Table 8-2: Table 8-3: Table 8-4: Table 8-5:

Efficiency Measures, PCTS/WHAT Trend Analysis .................................................. Efficiency Measures, LAMTD Trend Analysis ........................................................... Summary of Trend Analysis – PCTS/WHAT (2006–2010) ....................................... Summary of Trend Analysis – LAMTD (2006–2010) ................................................ ADA Performance Review Measures Trend Analysis (2006–2010).......................... 2006-2010 Performance Indicators, PCTS/WHAT ADA Service Trend Analysis ...... 2006-2010 Performance Indicators, LAMTD ADA Service Trend Analysis............... Selected Peer Systems Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis ..................................... Performance Indicators Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis (2010) .......................... Effectiveness Measures Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis (2010) ......................... Efficiency Measures Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis (2010) ............................... Polk Transit Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis Summary (2010) ........................... ADA Peer Review - Performance Indicators (2010).................................................. ADA Peer Review – Financial and Operational Measures........................................ Transit Service Density Threshold ............................................................................ Average Annual Ridership and Growth Rates .......................................................... My Ride Public Involvement Activities, Input Solicitation, and Comments Address .. Transit Service Hierarchy ......................................................................................... Needs Plan Alternatives Summary ........................................................................... Alternatives Evaluation Measures ............................................................................ Criteria and Threshold Summary .............................................................................. TDP Needs Plan Alternatives – Improvements to Existing Service .......................... TDP Needs Plan Alternatives – Service Expansions ................................................ Summary of Performance Standards ....................................................................... Cost Assumptions..................................................................................................... Vehicle Replacement Plan........................................................................................ Ten-Year Service Implementation Plan .................................................................... Ten-Year Operating Revenues and Costs ................................................................ Ten-Year Capital Revenues and Costs ....................................................................

3-22 3-25 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-31 3-34 3-38 3-39 3-43 3-44 3-48 3-49 3-51 4-2 4-9 5-2 6-2 6-5 6-9 6-12 6-13 6-14 7-2 8-4 8-8 8-11 8-13 8-14

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

Study Area ................................................................................................................ Polk County 2010 Population Density ...................................................................... Polk County 2010 Employment Density.................................................................... Polk County 2025 Population Density ...................................................................... Polk County 2025 Employment Density.................................................................... Polk County 2010 Dwelling Unit Density................................................................... Polk County 2025 Dwelling Unit Density...................................................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-2 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10

iii


Map 2-8: Map 2-9: Map 2-10: Map 2-11: Map 2-12: Map 2-13: Map 2-14: Map 2-15: Map 2-16: Map 3-1: Map 4-1: Map 4-2: Map 4-3: Map 6-1: Map 6-2: Map 6-3: Map 8-1: Map 8-2: Map 8-3:

Percent Minority Population by Census Tract (2010) ............................................... Percent of Population Under Age 16 (2010) ............................................................. Percent of Population Over Age 60 (2010) ............................................................... Percent of Households with Zero Vehicle Availability (2010) .................................... Polk County 2012 Peak-Hour Roadway Level-of-Service......................................... Polk County 2017 Peak-Hour Roadway Level-of-Service......................................... Major Trip Generators and Attractors ....................................................................... Polk County Transit Corridors and Centers .............................................................. Lakeland 2020 Transit Oriented Corridor.................................................................. Polk County Existing Fixed-Route Service ............................................................... Polk County 2025 Density Threshold Assessment ................................................... Polk County 2010 Transit Orientation Index ............................................................. 2013-2022 Ridership Growth .................................................................................... Routes with Frequency and Service Span Improvements ........................................ Routes with Frequency, Service Span, and Sunday Service Improvements ............ Needs Plan Proposed New Services ........................................................................ Routes with Frequency and Service Span Improvements ........................................ Routes with Frequency, Service Span, and Sunday Service Improvements ............ My Ride Proposed New Services .............................................................................

2-13 2-14 2-15 2-17 2-20 2-21 2-28 2-29 2-30 3-3 4-4 4-5 4-10 6-6 6-7 6-8 8-5 8-6 8-7

LIST OF FIGURES 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:

LAMTD ADA Service Ridership, 2001–2010 ............................................................ PCTS/WHAT Paratransit Service Ridership, FY 2001–FY 2010 .............................. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips .................................... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Miles .................................... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles ......................................... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Miles ....................................... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Total Operating Expense ....................... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicles Operating in Maximum Service LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips ............................................. LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Miles ............................................. LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles .................................................. LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Miles ................................................ LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Total Operating Expense ................................ LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicles Operating in Maximum Service ........ PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles Per Capita........................ PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Capita ................... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile .......

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-5 3-9 3-12 3-12 3-12 3-12 3-13 3-13 3-14 3-14 3-14 3-14 3-15 3-15 3-16 3-16 3-17

iv


Figure 3-18: 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 3-33: Figure 3-34: Figure 3-35: Figure 3-36: Figure 3-37: Figure 3-38: Figure 3-39: Figure 3-40: Figure 3-41: Figure 3-42: Figure 3-43: Figure 3-44: Figure 3-45: Figure 3-46: Figure 3-47: Figure 3-48: Figure 3-49: Figure 3-50: Figure 3-51: Figure 3-52: Figure 3-53: Figure 3-54: Figure 3-55: Figure 3-56:

PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ...... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Average Age of Fleet ............................. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Average Headway (in Minutes).............. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Number of Vehicle System Failures ...... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Miles between Failures ........... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Weekday Span of Service ..................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles per Capita ................................. LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Capita ............................ LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ................ LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ............... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Average Age of Fleet ...................................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Average Headway (in Minutes)....................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Number of Vehicle System Failures ............... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Miles between Failures.................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Weekday Span of Service .............................. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Capita .............. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Trip. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Mile PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Mile PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Hour .. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Farebox Recovery ................................. PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile ............ PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE)..... PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles per Gallon (VMG) ............ PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Average Fare ......................................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Capita ....................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ......... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Mile ......... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ............ LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ........... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Farebox Recovery .......................................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile ..................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE) ............. LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles per Gallon (VMG) ..................... LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Average Fare .................................................. PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Passenger Trips................................................. PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Revenue Miles ................................................... PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles ..................................................... PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Revenue Miles ...................................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-19 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-22 3-23 3-23 3-23 3-23 3-23 3-23 3-24 3-24 3-25 3-25 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-27 3-27 3-32 3-32 3-32 3-32

v


Figure 3-57: Figure 3-58: Figure 3-59: Figure 3-60: Figure 3-61: Figure 3-62: Figure 3-63: Figure 3-64: Figure 3-65: Figure 3-66: Figure 3-67: Figure 3-68: Figure 3-69: Figure 3-70: Figure 3-71: Figure 3-72: Figure 3-73: Figure 3-74: Figure 3-75: Figure 3-76: Figure 3-77: Figure 3-78: Figure 3-79: Figure 3-80: Figure 3-81: Figure 3-82: Figure 3-83: Figure 3-84: Figure 3-85: Figure 3-86: Figure 3-87: Figure 3-88: Figure 3-89: Figure 3-90: Figure 3-91: Figure 3-92: Figure 3-93: Figure 3-94: Figure 3-95:

PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense ............................................ PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile.................... PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour .................. PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Trip............. PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ............... PCTS/WHAT ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Hour .............. LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Passenger Trips ......................................................... LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Revenue Miles ............................................................ LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Vehicle Miles .............................................................. LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Revenue Hours........................................................... LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense ..................................................... LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ............................ LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ........................... LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Trip...................... LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ........................ LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Passenger Mile ..................... LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ....................... Service Area Population ........................................................................................... Service Area Population Density (persons/square mile) ........................................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Passenger Trips ............................................................. Fixed-Route Peer Review Revenue Miles ................................................................ Fixed-Route Peer Review Operating Expense ......................................................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Fare Revenue ................................................................. Fixed-Route Peer Review Vehicles Operating in Maximum Service......................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Vehicle Miles per Capita ................................................. Fixed-Route Peer Review Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ................................. Fixed-Route Peer Review Average Age of Fleet (in years) ...................................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Operating Expense per Capita ........................................ Fixed-Route Peer Review Operating Expense per Passenger Trip .......................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ............................ Fixed-Route Peer Review Farebox Recovery........................................................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile ...................................... Fixed-Route Peer Review Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE) .............................. Fixed-Route Peer Review Average Fare .................................................................. ADA Peer Review Passenger Trips .......................................................................... ADA Peer Review Revenue Miles ............................................................................ ADA Peer Review Revenue Hours ........................................................................... ADA Peer Review Operating Expense .................................................................... ADA Peer Review Operating Expense per Revenue Hour .......................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-32 3-32 3-33 3-33 3-33 3-33 3-34 3-34 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-36 3-36 3-36 3-40 3-40 3-40 3-41 3-41 3-41 3-42 3-43 3-43 3-44 3-45 3-45 3-45 3-46 3-46 3-46 3-47 3-49 3-50 3-50 3-50 3-51

vi


Figure 3-96: Figure 3-97: Figure 3-98: Figure 3-99: Figure 5-1: Figure 5-2:

ADA Peer Review Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ........................................ ADA Peer Review Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ...................................... ADA Peer Review Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ............................................. ADA Peer Review Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ............................................ Service Improvements Citied as Added Incentives to Use Public Transportation ..... Sample My Ride Brochure ........................................................................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-51 3-52 3-52 3-52 5-3 5-5

vii


SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION My Ride is the Consolidated Transit Development Plan (TDP) for Polk County. The My Ride plan serves as the strategic guide for public transportation in Polk County over the next 10 years. Development of the TDP includes a number of activities. Those activities include a documentation of study area conditions and demographic characteristics, an evaluation of existing transit services in Polk County, market research and public involvement efforts, the development of a situation appraisal and needs assessment, and the preparation of a 10-year TDP that provides guidance during the 10-year planning horizon of the plan. Unlike other traditional TDPs that are developed for a single transit agency within a jurisdiction, this TDP effort is being performed and will be submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on behalf of the two transit agencies that administer and operate the three transit services operating in Polk County: Polk County Transit Services (PCTS), Citrus Connection, and Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT). The two transit agencies include Polk County/WHAT, which administers and operates the PCTS system and WHAT, and the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD), which administers and operates Citrus Connection. Polk County/WHAT and LAMTD are the designated recipients of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant funding and State of Florida PTBG program funding. The consolidated approach for this TDP is designed to address three major factors: 

Consolidation – Transit services in Polk County are currently provided by three separate systems. The fragmented approach limits the continued development of an effective and efficient countywide transit system. It has resulted in the potential for redundant administrative and operational functions, a tangled web of transit roles and responsibilities for local government bodies, and transit services that are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and funding sources for each of the three system. The consolidated approach aims at identifying opportunities and strategies to improve overall transit service efficiency in Polk County.

Funding Solutions – 2010 U.S. Census population figures for the Lakeland Urbanized Area and the Winter Haven Urbanized Area indicate that each are now over 200,000. Those population levels impact the amount of FTA Section 5307 funds that can be used for transit operations in both areas. The consolidated TDP addresses the expected capitalization of operation and maintenance costs relative to the use of FTA Section 5307 funds and provides a strategy and recommendation for the pursuit of a new dedicated local funding source for public transportation services in Polk County.

Customized Transit Services – Polk County is a large county consisting of both urban and rural areas. Traditional fixed-route transit services that operate primarily in urban areas are not the most efficient services for rural parts of the county. As a result, the My Ride plan identifies a host of

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

1-1


urban and rural public transportation modes customized and scaled to the needs of each individual community in the county. This ensures that all county residents and visitors have access to public transportation options and allows the governing agency to provide those options in a cost-effective and fiscally-responsible manner. STATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The My Ride plan is consistent with the State of Florida Public Transit Block Grant (PTBG) Program, a program enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a stable source of funding for public transit. The Block Grant Program requires public transit service providers to develop and adopt a 10-Year TDP. The TDP must be submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Office on or before September 1st of each year. Major updates are due every five years with more substantial reporting requirements. In the interim years, the TDP takes the form of a progress report, which has less intense reporting requirements. The TDP is the guiding document for the Polk County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as well as the FDOT Five-Year Work Program concerning public transportation in Polk County. The TDP must be consistent with the approved local government comprehensive plans and the TPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan. My Ride meets the requirement for a major TDP update in accordance with Rule Chapter 14-73, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) for both recipients of State PTBG funding in Polk County, the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD), and Polk County/WHAT. Identification of Submitting Entities Agency: Telephone Number: Mailing Address: Authorizing Agency Representative:

Polk TPO 863-534-6454 330 W. Church Street, Bartow, FL 33830 Thomas Deardorff

For further information about this plan, please contact:

Mr. Thomas Deardorff, Executive Director, Polk TPO, 330 W. Church Street Bartow, FL 33830

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

1-2


Table 1-1 TDP Checklist Public Involvement Process √ Public Involvement Plan (PIP) drafted √ PIP approved by FDOT √ TDP includes description of Public Involvement Process √ Provide notification to FDOT √ Provide notification to Regional Workforce Board √ Provide notification to MPO Situation Appraisal √ Land use √ State and local transportation plans √ 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 √ Calculate farebox recovery Mission and Goals √ Provider's goals √ Provider's objectives Alternative Courses of Action √ Develop and evaluate alternative strategies and actions √ Benefits and costs of each alternative √ Financial alternatives examined Implementation Program √ 10-year implementation program √ 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 √ TDP shall be consistent with Florida Transportation Plan √ TDP shall be consistent with local government comprehensive plan √ TDP shall be consistent with MPO long-range transportation plan √ TDP shall be consistent with regional transportation goals and objectives Submission √ Adopted by Polk County BOCC √ Adopted by the LAMTD Board √ Adopted by the PT Board √ Submitted to FDOT by September 1, 2012

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

Related Section Section 5 Section 5 Section 5 Section 5 Section 5 Section 5 Section 2 Section 2 Section 2 Section 2 Section 3/Appendix F Section 3 Section 4 Section 2 Appendix H Section 7 Section 7 Section 6 Section 8 Section 8 Section 8 Section 8 Section 8 Appendix G Section 8 Section 8 Section 8 Section 2 Section 2 Section 2 Section 2

1-3


ORGANIZATION OF REPORT In addition to this introduction, this TDP document includes the following sections: Section 2: The Situation Appraisal section includes background information needed to understand the conditions under which transit services are operated in Polk County. The situation appraisal also helps determine future public transportation needs in the county. Section 3: The Existing Transit Service Levels section summarizes the operating performance of all the transit services in Polk County and includes an inventory of transit facilities. A trend analysis and a peer review analysis are also included in this section. Section 4: The Public Involvement section includes a summary of public outreach activities conducted during the process of developing this TDP Major Update. A description of each activity and results from public feedback received at those activities are included. Section 5: Transit Demand and Mobility Needs are presented in this section. A description of various transit market assessment and ridership forecasting tools used to determine mobility needs in the county is included. Section 6: The Alternatives Development and Evaluation section described the process used to develop, evaluate, and program service improvement alternatives. A framework for the evaluation is presented. Section 7: The TDP Goals and Objectives are presented in this section. Goals and objectives are outlined to guide service policies and the development of future transit service. Section 8: The Implementation and Financial Plan is presented in this section. A schedule for implementation of improvements in the My Ride service plan is presented along with a strategy for financing those improvements.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

1-4


Section 2 SITUATION APPRAISAL This section summarizes existing conditions and demographic characteristics within the transit service area. The situation appraisal establishes the context, or baseline conditions, for the delivery of transit services in Polk County and provides background information needed to help understand Polk County’s transit service operating environment. A service area description, demographic characteristics, land use information, commuting patterns data, and roadway conditions are presented. Information and data presented reflect the most recent data available at the time of preparation of this Plan. SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION Polk County is located in central Florida and is bordered on the north by Lake and Sumter Counties, on the south by Hardee and Highland Counties, on the west by Hillsborough and Pasco Counties, and on the east by Osceola County. Approximately 25 percent of the population in Polk County resides in 17 incorporated municipalities. Among these incorporated municipalities, the largest city, Lakeland, has over 97,000 residents and is located in the western edge of the county. The other central city, Winter Haven, is located in the eastern part of the county. Bartow is located southeast of Lakeland and southwest of Winter Haven. Map 2-1 presents a physical representation of the county and its municipal areas. To better understand the study area conditions and demographic characteristics of Polk County, a review of pertinent information was conducted as part of the TDP update process. The sources for this information include the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida, FDOT, Polk County TPO, PCTS, LAMTD, and WHAT. POPULATION PROFILE According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the total population of Polk County was 602,905. There are 17 incorporated municipalities in Polk County. Cities with a population of more than 10,000 in 2010 include Lakeland, Winter Haven, Bartow, Haines City, Lake Wales, and Auburndale. Table 2-1 shows the population levels for Polk County and Florida. The county population increased from 483,924 in 2000 to 602,905 in 2010, a growth of 24.4 percent over the 10-year period. Of note is that this growth outpaces the population growth of Florida. A similar trend is true for growth in the number of households and the number of workers. Although Polk County surpasses Florida in terms of population density growth, the 2010 Polk County population density is still 9 percent less than that of the state. Table 2-2 presents the population and population change between 1990, 2000, and 2010 for incorporated and unincorporated areas in Polk County. Davenport, Haines City, and Dundee experienced the top three population changes between 1990 and 2010, with 88.9 percent, 75.8 percent, and 59.2 percent, respectively. From 1990 to 2010, the population growth rate of incorporated municipalities (38.8%) exhibits a slower increase than the population growth rate of the unincorporated area (55.4%). Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-1


4

Municipality Auburndale Bartow Davenport Dundee Eagle Lake Fort Meade Frostproof Haines City Highland Park Hillcrest Heights Lake Alfred Lake Hamilton Lake Wales Lakeland Mulberry Polk City Winter Haven Incorporated Unincorporated Total

SR 471

US 27 CR 5

US 27

4 (R ONA LD R 4 EG A N PK TE W Y) A ST

60

US 98

37

17 US

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

PARK CUTO FF

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

27

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Legend

PCTS Routes WHAT Routes LAMTD Routes Municipality

AUBURNDALE BARTOW DAVENPORT DUNDEE EAGLE LAKE FORT MEADE FROSTPROOF HAINES CITY HIGHLAND PARK HILLCREST HEIGHTS LAKE ALFRED LAKE HAMILTON LAKE WALES LAKELAND MULBERRY POLK CITY WINTER HAVEN

Major Road Local Road

US

SR

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

60

ALTURAS- BABSON

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

WALK-IN-WATER RD

SR

US 98

SR 674

/9 2

US 27

HELENA RD

17 S

WAVERLY RD

US

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

SR

US 17 /98

CR 640

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

D ER

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

US 17/98

60

EY UCK

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

B

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

17

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

98

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

92

U S

US 17/92

RD)

US SR

SR 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

OLD HIGHWAY 37

U

BAT ES RO AD

THIRTIETH ST

SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SHEPHERD RD

17 US

SR 33 ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SR 37 (CHURCH AVE N)

COUNTY LINE RD

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

ODOM ROAD

US 98

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

US 98

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

SR 540 (WINTE R-L AKE

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

US

LAKE LOWERY RD

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

BRIDGERS AVE

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

ARIANA ST

27

US 92

) HWY LIME STREET

CR 557/PO MELO ST

2 (N

EY RD)

US 9

A AM P EW T

33

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

(BERKL

98 TENTH ST W SWINDELL RD

S

SR

4

RD) SR 659 (COM BEE

US

CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)

IN

R TE

TE TA

CR 65 5

BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

ER

US

T IN

2010 Population 13,507 17,298 2,888 3,717 2,255 5,626 2,992 20,535 230 254 5,105 1,213 14,225 97,422 3,817 1,562 33,874 226,520 376,385 602,905

27 /9 8

Map 2-1 0 1 2

4 Miles

Study Area


Table 2-1 Population Characteristics 2000 Population Data Persons Households Number of Workers (employed) Land Area (square miles) Water Area (square miles) Persons per Household Workers per Household Person per Sq. Mile of Land Area Workers per Sq. Mile of Land Area

Polk County 483,924 187,233 194,695 1,874.9 135.3 2.58 1.04 258.1 103.8

2010

Florida 15,982,824 6,337,929 7,221,000 53,926.8 11,827.8 2.52 1.14 296.4 133.9

Polk County 602,095 227,485 240,903 1,874.9 135.3 2.65 1.06 321.1 128.5

Florida 18,801,310 7,420,802 8,159,000 53,926.8 12,132.9 2.53 1.10 350.6 152.1

% Change (2000–2010) Polk Florida County 24.42% 17.63% 21.50% 17.09% 23.73% 12.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.58% 2.71% 0.40% 1.92% -3.51% 24.41% 18.29% 23.80% 13.59%

Source: 2000 and 2010 Census

Table 2-2 Polk County Population Trends for Cities, Towns, and Unincorporated Area Municipality Auburndale Bartow Davenport Dundee Eagle Lake Fort Meade Frostproof Haines City Highland Park Hillcrest Heights Lake Alfred Lake Hamilton Lake Wales Lakeland Mulberry Polk City Winter Haven Incorporated Unincorporated Total

1990

2000

2010

8,858 14,716 1,529 2,335 1,758 4,976 2,808 11,683 155 221 3,622 1,128 9,670 70,576 2,988 1,439 24,725 163,187 242,195 405,382

11,032 15,340 1,924 2,912 2,496 5,691 2,975 13,174 244 266 3,890 1,304 10,194 78,452 3,230 1,516 26,487 181,127 302,797 483,924

13,507 17,298 2,888 3,717 2,255 5,626 2,992 20,535 230 254 5,105 1,213 14,225 97,422 3,817 1,562 33,874 226,520 376,385 602,905

% Change % Change % Change (1990–2000) (2000–2010) (1990–2010) 24.5% 22.4% 52.5% 4.2% 12.8% 17.5% n/a 50.1% 88.9% 24.7% 27.6% 59.2% 42.0% -9.7% 28.3% 14.4% -1.1% 13.1% 5.9% 0.6% 6.6% 12.8% 55.9% 75.8% n/a -5.7% n/a n/a -4.5% n/a 7.4% 31.2% 40.9% 15.6% -7.0% 7.5% 5.4% 39.5% 47.1% 11.2% 24.2% 38.0% 8.1% 18.2% 27.7% 5.4% 3.0% 8.5% 7.1% 27.9% 37.0% 11.0% 25.1% 38.8% 25.0% 24.3% 55.4% 19.4% 24.6% 48.7%

Source: 1990, 2000, and 2010 U.S. Census

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-3


Maps 2-2 and 2-3 illustrate 2010 population density and employment density by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for Polk County. TAZs are geographic units in the transportation planning process used to assist in forecasting travel demand. Maps 2-4 and 2-5 illustrate the 2025 population density and employment density by TAZ for Polk County. The highest growth in employment density between 2010 and 2025 is anticipated to occur along the Polk Parkway between Airport Road and Bartow Road and in neighborhoods along US 27 between Bronson Memorial Highway and Deen Still Road. Maps 2-6 and 2-7 display total existing (2010) and future (2025) dwelling unit densities in the county. The highest dwelling unit densities in 2010 were found in Downtown Lakeland and in neighborhoods along US Highway 17 within Winter Haven. Other areas with high dwelling unit densities include neighborhoods along US Highway 27 between Bronson Memorial Highway and Deen Still Road. The highest growth in dwelling unit density between 2010 and 2025 is expected to occur along the Polk Parkway between Airport Road and Bartow Road and in Downtown Lakeland.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-4


US 98

US

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST

Major Road

PARK CUTO FF

Water

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 27

HELENA RD

17

US 98

Interstate

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

US

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

US 17/98

37

US 98

> 6,000

60

ALTURAS- BABSON

4,501- 6,000

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

SR

60

US

OLD HIG HWAY

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR

1,501 - 3,000

SR

CR 640

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US

SR 60

SR 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 674

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 60

0 - 1500

D

SHEPHERD RD

98

17

WAVERLY RD

S

S

17

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

ROA

U

S

Population Density (per square mile)

3,001- 4,501

AN E

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

RD) U

Legend

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

ER L

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

E

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

KEY

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

RD

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

SR 54

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

SR 60

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

EWELL ROAD

92

US 92 SKYVIEW DR

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

ARIANA ST

US

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

BRIDGERS AVE

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

98

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

S

E AT ST

U

W 2 (NE

ER

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

T IN

4

3 SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

Map 2-2 0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2010 Population Density


US 98

US

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST PARK CUTO FF

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 27

HELENA RD

17

US 98

Major Road

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

Water

)

US

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

US 17/98

37

US 98

Interstate

60

ALTURAS- BABSON

> 1,500

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

SR

60

US

OLD HIG HWAY

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR

100 - 500

1,001 - 1,500

SR

CR 640

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US

SR 60

SR 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 674

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 60

< 100

D

SHEPHERD RD

98

17

WAVERLY RD

S

S

17

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

ROA

U

S

Employment Density (per square mile)

501 - 1,000

AN E

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

RD) U

Legend

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

ER L

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

E

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

KEY

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

RD

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

SR 54

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

SR 60

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

EWELL ROAD

92

US 92 SKYVIEW DR

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

ARIANA ST

US

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

BRIDGERS AVE

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 -2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

98

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

S

E AT ST

U

W 2 (NE

ER

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

T IN

4

3 SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

Map 2-3 0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2010 Employment Density


US 98

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST US 27

HELENA RD

17

US 98

US

PARK CUTO FF

Water

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 17/98

37

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

US

SR

US 98

Major Road

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

ALTURAS- BABSON

Interstate

60

CR 640

60

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

SR 60

SR 60

> 6,000

SR

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

17 US SR 60

WAVERLY RD

D

SHEPHERD RD

17

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

17

US

US 27 SR 559 S

S

1,501 - 3,000

4,501- 6,000

ROA

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

U

RD) U

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

AN E

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

E

0 - 1500

3,001- 4,501

ER L

SPIRIT LAKE RD

0 (W IN TER

KEY

Population Density (per square mile)

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

TIM B

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

SR 60

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 54

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

EWELL ROAD

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

RD

Legend

98

US 92

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

S

ARIANA ST

92

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM

US

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

BRIDGERS AVE

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

S

4

3

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

U

W 2 (NE

E AT ST

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

IN

R TE

SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

Map 2-4 0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2025 Population Density


US 98

US

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

US 27

HELENA RD

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST PARK CUTO FF

Major Road

WALK-IN-WATER RD

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

17

US 98

Interstate

> 1,500

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

Water

US

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

37

US 98

1,001 - 1,500

60

ALTURAS- BABSON

501 - 1,000

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

SR

60

US

OLD HIG HWAY

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR

100 - 500

SR

CR 640

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US US 17/98

SR 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 674

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 60

SR 60

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

D

SHEPHERD RD

98

17

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

WAVERLY RD

S

S

17

< 100

ROA

U

S

Employment Density (per square mile)

AN E

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

RD) U

Legend

ER L

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

D ER

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

KEY

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

SR 54

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

SR 60

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

92

US 92 SKYVIEW DR

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

ARIANA ST

US

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

BRIDGERS AVE

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

S

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

Y) LIME STREET A HW AM P EW T

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

U

2 (N

ER

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

T IN

E AT ST

4

3 SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

Map 2-5 0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2025 Employment Density


US 98

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

WALK-IN-WATER RD

PARK CUTO FF

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

17 US

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST US 27

HELENA RD

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US US 17/98

37

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

Interstate

> 1,500

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

Major Road

)

Water

US

SR

US 98

1,001 - 1,500

60

US 98

501 - 1,000

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

ALTURAS- BABSON

100 - 500

SR

CR 640

60

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

/9 2

SR 33

33 SR

ODOM ROAD

US 98

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR

98

SR 60

SR 60

S

SR 60

< 100

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

D

SHEPHERD RD

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

WAVERLY RD

U

S

17

Dwelling Unit Density (per square mile)

ROA

U

S

Legend

AN E

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

17

RD) U

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

ER L

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

D ER

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

KEY

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

SR 54

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

SR 60

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

US 17/92

92

US 92

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

EWELL ROAD

US

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

BRIDGERS AVE

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

IN WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM W E 2 (N US 9 ARIANA ST

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

S

4

3

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

U

E AT ST

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98

US

S

R TE

SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

Map 2-6 0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2010 Dwelling Unit Density


US 98

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

Major Road

WALK-IN-WATER RD

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

17 US

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST US 27

HELENA RD

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

/9 2

SR 33

33 SR

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US 17/98

37

PARK CUTO FF

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

Water

US

SR

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

Interstate

60

US 98

> 1,500

SR

US 98

1,001 - 1,500

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

ALTURAS- BABSON

100 - 500 501 - 1,000

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

CR 640

60

98

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR

S

SR 60

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

WAVERLY RD

U

SR 60

SR 60

S

< 100

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

D

SHEPHERD RD

U

Dwelling Unit Density (per square mile)

ROA

U

17

17

Legend

AN E

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

S

RD)

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

ER L

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

D ER

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

KEY

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

SR 54

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

SR 60

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

US 17/92

2 S9

US 92

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

EWELL ROAD

U

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

BRIDGERS AVE

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

) HWY LIME STREET M PA W TA 2 (NE US 9 ARIANA ST

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

3

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

S

S

U

ER

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98

US

S

T IN

TE TA

4

SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

Map 2-7 0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2025 Dwelling Unit Density


Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Population Estimates As shown in Table 2-3, TD population estimates are split into two categories. Category I refers to the entire TD population and includes persons with disabilities (Disabled), older adults (Elderly), low-income persons, and “high-risk” or “at-risk” children. Category II is a subset of Category I and includes only those who are not able to transport themselves or cannot afford transportation. Table 2-3 Polk County Potential Transportation Disadvantaged Population Population Estimates (2010)

TD Segments

Percent of Total

Category I Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income Disabled, Elderly, Low Income Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income Non-Disabled, Elderly, Low Income Non-Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income Non-Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income Total (Category I)

4,275 27,146 4,690 34,350 9,049 75,048 52,676 207,234

2.1% 13.1% 2.3% 16.6% 4.4% 36.2% 25.4% 100.0%

1,602 9,734 3,037 24,186 7,881 46,440

3.4% 21.0% 6.5% 52.1% 17.0% 100.0%

Category II Transportation Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income, No Transport Transportation Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income, No Transport Transportation Disabled, Elderly, Low Income, No Transport Transportation Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income, No Transport Non-Transportation Disabled, Low Income, No Auto, No Fixed-Route Transit Total (Category II) Source: Polk County 2011 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan

DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOURNEY-TO-WORK CHARACTERSITICS Minority Population Table 2-4 displays the percent distribution of minority populations within Polk County compared to Florida. The proportion of Polk County’s non-minority population, approximately 75 percent, is nearly the same as that of Florida. Table 2-4 Minority and Non-Minority Population within Polk County Geographic Location

Minority Population

Polk County State of Florida

% of Total Population

Non-Minority Population

% of Total Population

150,129

24.9%

452,776

75.1%

4,692,148

25.0%

14,109,162

75.0%

Source: 2010 U.S. Census

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-11


As illustrated in Map 2-8, the heaviest concentrations of minorities occur near Downtown Lakeland, Downtown Winter Haven, Haines City, and just south of Bartow. Age Distribution The age distribution of Polk County is similar to the age distribution of Florida as a whole. The transitdependent population cohortâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;persons under age 18 and persons age 65 and overâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;represents 41.6 percent of the total population in Polk County. Table 2-5 Population and Age Distribution, 2010 Age Area Polk County % of total population Florida % of total population

Under 18

18 to 24

141,492 23.5%

52,984 8.8%

25 to 44 144,503 24.0%

45 to 64 154,136 25.6%

65 years and over 108,979 18.1%

4,512,990 1,228,758 4,720,799 5,082,161 3,259,602 24.0% 6.5% 25.1% 27.0% 17.3%

Source: 2010 U.S. Census

As indicated, young people and older adults are more likely to use public transportation. These populations include youth age 15 and younger who cannot legally operate a motor vehicle and, therefore, typically have a higher propensity for using transit, as well as older adults, who often are no longer able to drive due to impairments from aging. At the time of development of this TDP, ESRI provided more detailed population age data than the 2010 U.S. Census. ESRI population age data are available at a census block group level and are provided in different age cohorts than the Census data. Therefore, Maps 2-9 and 2-10 were developed based on ESRI data to illustrate the concentrations of residents age 15 and under and those who are age 60 and over within the county.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2-12


US 98

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

WALK-IN-WATER RD

PARK CUTO FF

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

17 US

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST US 27

HELENA RD

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US 17/98

37

US 98

Major Road

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

Water

)

US

SR

US 98

Interstate

60

ALTURAS- BABSON

> 70%

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

60

10% - 30%

51% - 70%

SR

CR 640

SR

US

OLD HIG HWAY

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 674

/9 2

SR 33

33 SR

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US

SR 60

SR 60

98

SR 60

< 10%

D

SHEPHERD RD

WAVERLY RD

S

17

17

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

ROA

S

S

Percent of Minority Population

31% - 50%

AN E

U

RD) U

Legend

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

ER L

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

-L AKE

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

RD

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

YE C KE

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

SR 54

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SR 60

BU

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

2 S9

US 92

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

ARIANA ST

U

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

BRIDGERS AVE

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

98

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

Y) LIME STREET A HW AM P EW T

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

S

S

U

2 (N

ER

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

T IN

TE TA

4

3 SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: American Community Survey 2006-2010 5-Year Estimate

Map 2-8 0 1 2

4 Miles

Percent of Minority Population by Census Tract (2010)


US 98

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 27

HELENA RD

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

17

US 98

US

PARK CUTO FF

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

US 17/98

37

US 98

Water

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

US

SR

ALTURAS- BABSON

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

60

Major Road

60

CR 640

SR

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

WAVERLY RD

SR

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

SR 60

SR 60

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US SR 60

S

Interstate

D

SHEPHERD RD

U

> 30%

ROA

17

17

10% - 20% 21% - 30%

AN E

U

S

RD)

D ER

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

< 10%

ER L

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

-L AKE

KEY

Percent of Population Under Age 16

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SR 60

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 54

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

Legend

98

US 92 SKYVIEW DR

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

S

ARIANA ST

92

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM

US

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

BRIDGERS AVE

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

S

4

3

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

U

W 2 (NE

E AT ST

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

IN

R TE

SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: 2010 ESRI

Map 2-9 0 1 2

4 Miles

Percent of Population Under Age 16 by Census Block Group (2010)


US 98

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST US 27

HELENA RD

Water WALK-IN-WATER RD

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

17 US

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

37

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

Major Road

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

60

US 98

Interstate

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

PARK CUTO FF ALTURAS- BABSON

US 98

> 70%

)

US

SR

60

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR

51% - 70%

SR

CR 640

WAVERLY RD

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

US

US 27 SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US US 17/98

SR 60

SR 60

SR 60

S

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

D

SHEPHERD RD

U

10% - 30%

ROA

17

17

D ER

< 10%

31% - 50%

AN E

S

RD)

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

ER L

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

U

-L AKE

KEY

Percent of Population Over Age 60

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SR 60

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 54

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

BU C

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

Legend

98

US 92 SKYVIEW DR

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

S

ARIANA ST

92

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM

US

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

BRIDGERS AVE

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

S

4

3

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

U

W 2 (NE

E AT ST

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

IN

R TE

SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: 2010 ESRI

Map 2-10 0 1 2

4 Miles

Percent of Population Over Age 60 by Census Block Group (2010)


Income As shown in Table 2-6, the distribution of household incomes for Polk County is similar to that of Florida. The biggest difference between Polk County and the state are in the “$50,000 and Over” household income category, with Florida at 44.8 percent and Polk County at 39.9 percent. Table 2-6 Household Income Distribution, 2010 Household Income Area

$0 to $9,999

$10,000 to $14,999

$15,000 to $24,999

$25,000 to $34,999

$35,000 to $49,999

$50,000 and Over

Polk County

16,417

13,513

34,211

29,597

39,132

88,203

% of total households

7.43%

6.11%

15.47%

13.39%

17.70%

39.90%

587,347

442,863

889,272

859,410

1,107,501

3,148,675

8.35%

6.30%

12.64%

12.22%

15.74%

44.76%

Florida % of total households

Source: 2010 ACS 1-Year Estimate

Household Vehicle Availability Table 2-7 shows the number of vehicles available by household within Polk County and Florida. As shown, the county’s distribution of household vehicle availability is similar to that for Florida. Approximately half of the households in the county have at least two vehicles available to them. Household vehicle availability plays an important role in determining public transit needs. Zero vehicle households are traditionally considered transit-dependent as they rely heavily upon transit to fulfill their transportation needs. Map 2-11 illustrates the geographic distribution of those zero-vehicle households within the county by census tract. Table 2-7 Distribution of Vehicle Availability by Household, 2010 Area

Number of Vehicles Available Three or Zero One Two More

Polk County

13,742

94,066

80,464

32,801

% of total households

6.22%

42.55%

36.40%

14.84%

489,134 2,919,712 2,662,771

963,451

Florida % of total households

6.95%

41.50%

37.85%

13.69%

Source: 2010 ACS 1-Year Estimate

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-16


US 98

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

17

THIRTIETH ST

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 27

HELENA RD

17

US 98

US

PARK CUTO FF

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

US 17/98

37

US 98

Water

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

US

SR

ALTURAS- BABSON

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

60

Major Road

60

CR 640

SR

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

SR 60

SR 60

Interstate

SR

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

17 US SR 60

US

US 27 SR 559

SHEPHERD RD

WAVERLY RD

D

SPIRIT LAKE RD

17

17

10% - 20%

> 30%

ROA

S

S

< 10%

AN E

U

RD) U

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

Percent of Zero Vehicle Households

21% - 30%

ER L

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

-L AKE

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

RD

Legend

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SR 60

/9 2

SR 33

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

SR

SR 54

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

BU

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

YE C KE

98

US 92

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

S

ARIANA ST

2 S9

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

U

Y) LIME STREET A HW AM P EW T

U

US 17/92

PARKER STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

BRIDGERS AVE

BAT ES RO AD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

S AVENUE

) WAY

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2012 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

SUCCES

K PAR

EY RD)

98

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

3

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

S

S

U

2 (N

ER

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98 US 9

US

S

T IN

TE TA

4

SR 3

SWINDELL RD

AN P KW Y )

ROBSON ST

FIFTH STREET

CHESTNUT RD N

D RE G

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

US 27

N AL

4

98

TENTH ST W 4 (R O

U BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

4

E AT ST

S

US 27 CR 5

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: American Community Survey 2006-2010 5-Year Estimate

Map 2-11

0 1 2

4 Miles

Percent of Households with Zero Vehicle Availability by Census Tract (2010)


Labor Force Table 2-8 displays the percentage of population age 16 and older in the labor force and the percent of those laborers who were employed in 2010. Polk County statistics shown are in line with the corresponding indicators for Florida. Table 2-8 Labor Force Participation, 2010 % of Population in Labor Force*

% of Labor Force Employed*

Unemployment Rate (2010)

Polk County

58.2%

85.7%

14.3%

Florida

60.4%

86.1%

13.9%

Area

*Represents the percent of the population (age 16 and older only) in the labor force. Source: 2010 ACS 1-Year Estimates (Selected Economic Characteristics)

Commuting Patterns Table 2-9 summarizes commuter flows for workers living in Polk County. The analysis of 2009 American Community Survey data indicates that fewer than 50 percent of the workers residing in Polk County also work in Polk County. Approximately 51 percent of Polk County workers commute to neighboring counties. Orange County is the most common destination for workers commuting to destinations outside Polk County (12.7%). Compared with 2008, the total number of workers who both resided and worked in Polk County in 2009 experienced an 18 percent decrease. Table 2-9 County of Work for Workers Residing in Polk County, 2008 and 2009 County of Work County of Residence

Polk County

Orange County

Hillsborough County

Osceola County

Duval County

Pinellas County

Other

Total

# of Workers

106,897

27,594

20,768

6,497

6,035

5,688

43,052

216,531

% Distribution

49.4%

12.7%

9.6%

3.0%

2.8%

2.6%

19.9%

100.0%

# of Workers

130,977

29,054

22,173

6,355

5,541

6,136

41,937

242,173

% Distribution Percent Change (2008â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2009)

54.1%

12.0%

9.2%

2.6%

2.3%

2.5%

17.3%

100.0%

-18.4%

-5.0%

-6.3%

2.2%

8.9%

-7.3%

2.7%

-10.6%

Polk (2009) Polk (2008)

Source: "On the Map" online application, all jobs

Table 2-10 reflects commuting flows for persons living outside the county and commuting into Polk County for work. Over 40 percent of the work trips terminating in Polk County originate outside the county. Hillsborough County makes up the largest (8.3%) trip origin for workers commuting to Polk County from other counties.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2-18


Table 2-10 Commuting from Neighboring Counties to Polk County, 2008 and 2009 County of Residence County of Work

Polk County

Hillsborough County

Orange County

Pinellas County

Pasco County

Osceola County

Other

Total

# of Workers

106,897

14,832

6,195

4,188

4,094

3,454

40,034

179,694

% Distribution

59.5%

8.3%

3.4%

2.3%

2.3%

1.9%

22.3%

100.0%

# of Workers

130,977

15,366

6,829

4,701

4,329

3,993

40,840

207,035

% Distribution Percent Change (2008â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2009)

63.3%

7.4%

3.3%

2.3%

2.1%

1.9%

19.7%

100.0%

-18.4%

-3.5%

-9.3%

-10.9%

-5.4%

-13.5%

-2.0%

-13.2%

Polk (2009) Polk (2008)

Source: "On the Map" online application, all jobs

Means of Travel to Work Table 2-11 conveys the distribution of the primary modes of transportation used in Polk County and Florida. Almost 82 percent of the workers in Polk County drive alone to work, which is slightly higher than the journey-to-work mode split for the state as a whole. Compared to the overall state distribution, a smaller proportion of people in Polk County use public transit to access work (0.8%) and a higher percentage uses carpool (11.8%). Table 2-11 Journey-to-Work Mode Split, 2010 Area

Drive Alone

Carpool

Polk County

81.6%

11.8%

Florida

79.9%

9.6%

Travel Mode Public Transit

Other(1)

Walk or Work at Home

0.8%

1.3%

4.6%

2.0%

2.1%

6.3%

(1) Includes motorcycle, bicycle, and other means of transportation. Source: 2010 ACS 1-Year Estimate

Roadway Conditions Maps 2-12 and 2-13 illustrate the peak-hour level-of-service information for major roadways within Polk County for 2012 and 2017, respectively. The comparison between these two maps indicates the most notable level-of-service deterioration occurs along US 98 north of Interstate 4.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2-19


US 27

SR 471

US 27

7 /9

A

MARIGOLD AVENUE

US 17/92

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD)

B C D

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROA D)

S U

17

E F

WAVERLY RD

Water

SR 60

SR 6 0

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

CR 640

US 27

SR 37 RD) CR 630 (BREWSTER

CR 630 (INDI

60

CR 640

SR

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 1

SR 60

US 17/98

SR 60

SR 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

TOFF) AN LAKES CU

US 98

US 17

SR 674

US 1

BATES ROAD

7

LUNN ROAD OLD HIGHWAY 37

2

Level-of-Service

NORTH BLVD

US 27

98

BAILEY ROAD

CR 17

HELENA RD

S U

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

9 US

SPIRIT LAKE RD

US 92

) HWY

THORN HILL R OAD

98

MPA W TA 2 (NE US 9

Legend

2 9

US 98

US 27

5 SR 5

3 SR 3

O ST CR 557/POMEL

KLEY RD) CR 655 (BER

DUFF RD

US

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98

SR 33

S U

4 ATE RST INTE

TENTH ST W

COUNTY LINE RD

Polk County 2012 Transit Development Plan

2 US 7 /9 8 Source: Polk TPO

Map 2-12

0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2012 Peak-Hour Roadway Level-of-Service


US 27

SR 471

US 27

7 /9

A

MARIGOLD AVENUE

US 17/92

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD)

B C D

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROA D)

S U

17

E F

WAVERLY RD

Water

SR 60

SR 6 0

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

CR 640

US 27

SR 37 RD) CR 630 (BREWSTER

CR 630 (INDI

60

CR 640

SR

WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 1

SR 60

US 17/98

SR 60

SR 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

TOFF) AN LAKES CU

US 98

US 17

SR 674

US 1

BATES ROAD

7

LUNN ROAD OLD HIGHWAY 37

2

Level-of-Service

NORTH BLVD

US 27

98

BAILEY ROAD

CR 17

HELENA RD

S U

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

9 US

SPIRIT LAKE RD

US 92

) HWY

THORN HILL R OAD

98

MPA W TA 2 (NE US 9

Legend

2 9

US 98

US 27

5 SR 5

3 SR 3

O ST CR 557/POMEL

KLEY RD) CR 655 (BER

DUFF RD

US

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98

SR 33

S U

4 ATE RST INTE

TENTH ST W

COUNTY LINE RD

Polk County 2012 Transit Development Plan

2 US 7 /9 8 Source: Polk TPO

Map 2-13

0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County 2017 Peak-Hour Roadway Level-of-Service


Additional Polk County Characteristics Tourism is an important aspect of the economy in Polk County. According to the Central Florida Development Council, annual visitors to Polk County totaled more than 1.5 million in each year from 2006 to 2011. TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USES Local plans were reviewed to identify existing land use data or policies that support transit development within Polk County. These plans primarily include:   

Polk TPO 2060 Transportation Vision Plan Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan

The compilation of land use data and policies can assist in understanding the extent to which local land use plans are supportive of efficient provision of transit service within Polk County, identify existing and potential transit ridership generators, and ensure the development of this TDP update is consistent with those local plans. Polk TPO 2060 Transportation Vision Plan The Polk County TPO managed a study to prepare a Transportation Vision Plan for the 2060 planning horizon. The purpose of the Transportation Vision Plan was to prepare and refine land use forecasts to identify multimodal transportation corridors and to identify strategies, policies, and specific land use changes necessary to support the Vision Plan. Chapter 4 of the Vision Plan identifies key trip generators and attractors within Polk County based on the 2060 Centers forecast. These activity centers serve as potential destinations for future transit service expansion in Polk County. Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 of the Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan addresses the future land use element. It includes several policies concerning mixed-land use and transit centers and corridors. The following information is drawn from that plan: 

Policy 2.104-A6: General Incentives – Polk County shall encourage and promote compact, mixed-use by allowing a. increased densities and intensities within the Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay District subject to Policy 2.104-A7; and b. increased densities for affordable or workforce housing subject to Policy 2.104-A7.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-22


Policy 2.104-A7: Densities and Intensities – To promote energy efficient land use patterns and compact mixed-use development, the Transit Supportive Development Area (TSDA) and the Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay (TCC Overlay) within the TSDA shall include higher densities and intensities of development. The maximum densities and intensities listed in Table 2.104.1 exceed those listed in Policy 2.109-A1 and Policy 2.119-A1 and the policies that include the description for each of the referenced land use category as provided for within this Element. The Mixed Use category within Tables 2.104.1 and 2.104.2 is for those nonresidential land use categories that permit residential as provided for in this Element or the Appendices for the Selected Area Plans (SAP). The Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay include three separate components that expand the residential density of selected Future Land Use Districts. These three components include: a. Transit Corridor – an area within ¼ mile of fixed route transit service; b. Transit Center – an area within a one mile radius of the point of access for transit services; and c. Transit Center Core – an area within ¼ mile of the point of access for transit services. The following minimum and maximum densities are established within the TSDA and the respective components of the Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay. The listed maximum densities are not guaranteed within the respective land use categories and shall only be permitted subject to the requirements established in Policy 2.104-A5 Development Criteria and Policy 2.124A3 Design Principles. Residential projects may include less than the required minimum density due to site constraints or as part of project phasing.

Within the TSDA and Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay portion of the TSDA, non-residential uses may be approved at the listed intensities. The Floor Area Ratios (FAR) listed in Table 2.104.2 exceed those listed in Policy 2.109-A1 and Policy 2.119-A1 and policies that include the description for each of the

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-23


referenced land use category as provided for within this Element. The FARs listed in Table 2.104.2 for RL, RM and RH are for non residential uses when permitted per this Comprehensive Plan. The Mixed Use category within Table 2.104.2 is for those land use categories that permit non-residential and residential uses as provided for in this Element or the Appendices for the Selected Area Plans (SAP). The listed FARs are not guaranteed within the respective land use categories and shall only be permitted subject to the requirements established in Policy 2.104-A5 Development Criteria and Policy 2.124-A3 Design Principles. Projects may include less than the required minimum FAR due to site constraints or as part of project phasing.

Source: Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan

To support the development of compact, mixed land uses and to ensure mobility within the Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay, Polk County shall implement the development incentives and standards enumerated in Policy 2.124-A6.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2-24


Source: Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan

City of Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Plan The Future Land Use Element of the City of Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Plan includes a specific objective related to transit-oriented corridors and identifies specific policies to achieve this objective. The objective indicates the delineation of a Transit-Oriented Corridors (TOC) Overlay to address existing and planned key fixed transit routes and to promote a wide range of uses within ¼ mile of these key transit corridors and ½ mile from transit activity centers including passenger rail stations. It also allows creation of incentives and minimum requirements for new or re-development projects within these corridors. Specific policies include: 

Policy 3A: Transit-Oriented Corridors shall encourage a mix of complementary land uses with medium to high residential densities along key designated existing or planned fixed route transit corridors. All new or redevelopment within a TOC shall be designed with pedestrian, bike and transit friendly site design. The City shall promote the following land uses in vertical or horizontal mixes within a TOC: o Non-residential future land uses with residential uses above the first floor where appropriate, including Activity Center uses.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-25


o Public & Institutional, PI Uses, including but not limited to government, place of worship, community, educational, daycare, recreational &/or medical/clinic uses; o Residential Medium (RM) & Residential High (RH) uses; o Recreational and open/green space appropriate for an urban setting. 

Policy 3B: Minimum densities of new residential subdivisions and multi-family residential development within residential land use designations and located in the TOC shall be 7 du/acre within the 1/8-mile TOC buffer area and 5 du/acre within the ¼-mile TOC buffer area. Minimum densities are not intended for infill development within primarily single family neighborhoods nor do they apply to platted subdivisions. Maximum residential densities within such land use designations shall be allowed up to 22 dwelling units per acre within 1/8 mile of the TOC and 16 du/acre within ¼ mile of the TOC. Maximum densities are not guaranteed; they may be limited by site features, land use compatibility issues including those relating to scale and mass, other requirements of this Plan and/or other City regulations. To qualify for the density increase, transit service must be operational within the designated corridor or have committed funding in the first 3 years of an adopted CIP or work program. Corridor depth shall be approximate and measured from centerline of the applicable roadways. TOC density increases shall not apply to any Conservation or Preservation land use areas or in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Owners with parcels that are located partially within a TOC and/or its density buffer area shall be subject to a determination by the Community Development Director or his designee as to whether a majority of the developable parcel (excludes jurisdictional wetlands) is located within the corridor(s) in which case the entire developable parcel may be deemed within the applicable corridor(s).

Policy 3C: Wherever possible the City’s TOCs shall align and connect with the Polk County Transit Corridors & Centers Overlay.

Policy 3D: The City shall adopt and implement Land Development Regulations that include elements of a form-based code which emphasizes design standards including maximum building setbacks, open/green space requirements, street shading treatments, maximum block lengths, relationship of development to the street, and provisions that require “complete streets” and intermodal connectivity as based upon the adopted roadway typologies in the Transportation Element of this Plan. Within the TOCs, compatibility of land uses shall be ensured primarily through appropriate building and site design standards which reflect a transit-oriented, urban form as well as other limits which may need to be imposed such as transitioning of building mass and/or density/intensity of uses or other limits as appropriately applied through zoning and/or development plan review.

Policy 3E: All new and redevelopment within the TOC shall be designed with primary focus on safe, attractive and functional access for the pedestrian, with secondary focus on the vehicle. This

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-26


primary focus shall be reinforced by the City’s land development and building regulations which address urban form, energy efficiency and transportation including: flexible parking and parking maximums, limited driveway cuts, cross/shared access, green spaces, setbacks, block length, sun/rain pedestrian protection treatments, and bicycle and transit facilities. 

Policy 3F: Geographically variable impact fees shall also be considered as a means to encourage redevelopment and infill. Impact fee ordinance changes may include offering a discount for redevelopment in the Central City TSA outside of the Core Improvement Area and/or a discount in the Transit Oriented Corridors where a mix of uses is proposed in new or re-development.

Policy 3G: Where a new passenger rail service station stop is located within the City, a small area land use plan shall be required for an area approximately ½ mile or more around the proposed station site. The plan shall address the proposed mix of uses needed, expected maximum and minimum densities/intensities, parking areas and/or associated offsite park and ride or transfer facilities, general range of scale/mass of buildings, compatibility with surrounding uses, any required public services or infrastructure improvements, and connectivity with other modes of transportation including bus, bike and pedestrian modes. Development plans shall reflect a transit oriented, pedestrian friendly design. At least one noticed workshop is recommended for general public and surrounding landowner input; the final plan shall require City Commission approval.

Map 2-14 illustrates existing and future major transit trip generators and attractors within Polk County. The existing trip generators and attractors are categorized into five categories that include University/College, Hospital, Library, Community Center, and Civic Center. This information was obtained from the Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Other major activity centers include business, commercial, mixed-use, professional, logistics, and historical centers identified in the Polk TPO 2060 Transportation Vision Plan. Map 2-15 illustrates the transit corridors and centers within Polk County as described in the Future Land Use Element of Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Map 2-16 shows the transit-oriented corridors and activity centers within the Lakeland area identified in the City of Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2-27


Downtown Lakeland E

582 (GRIFFIN RD) 4 CR

GRANADA STREET

BELLA VISTA STREET

SR

T IN

TE TA RS

53 9

US 27

H AT (K EN

US 98

LE

TENTH ST W

US 27 SR

60

CHESTNUT RD N WALK-IN-WATER RD

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S)

LINCOLN AVENUE S/OPPITZ LANE

SR 563 (HARDEN BLVD)

INGRAHAM AVENUE

LAMTD Routes SR 544 (HA VENDAL E

BLV D NW )

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)

E RIV DD

ER

/9 8

HW

Y)

17

Source: Polk County and 2060 Polk Transportation Vision Plan

US

COOLEY ROAD

U

S

17

Major Road Local Road

HELENA RD

27

CK

WA R

US

5( RE

HO

65

KE

SR

LA

17

CR 542 (AVE G NW)

BUCKEYE RD

SIXTH STREET SE

)

SR 549 (FIRST ST N)

US

WHAT Routes

60

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

PCTS Routes

Downtown Winter Haven

27

37

Business Commerce Commercial (Regional) Community Mixed Use (Local) Community Mixed Use (Regional) Historic Town Center Integrated Logistics Center Professional (Regional) Urban Center

US

4 Miles

Hospital

Other Major Activity Centers

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

University/College

Civic Center

SR

US 17 /98

CR 640

Legend

Library

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

PARK CUTO FF ALTURAS- BABSON

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Community Center

AVENUE O SW

0 1 2

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

WAVERLY RD

US 98

SR

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

17

D ER

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR 674

WABASH AVE S

/9 2 17 CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

HELENA RD

S U S

KEY

SYLVESTER ROAD

US 17/98

U

MARIGOLD AVENUE

SR 559

17

BU C

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

98

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

OLD HIGHWAY 37

92

CR 542 (AVE G NW)

SPIRIT LAKE RD

US SR 60

SR 60

US 17/92

D

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

FISH HATCHERY RD

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

THO RNHILL ROA

WARING ROAD

US

SR 33 SR

33

ODOM ROAD

US 98

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

COUNTY LINE RD

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SHEPHERD RD

BAT ES RO AD

W BLVD

ALAMO DRIVE LAKE MIRIAM DR

EWELL ROAD

CR 17

US

ARIANA ST

NORTH BLVD

LAKE LOWERY RD

LIME STREET

OLIVE STREET

LONGFELLO

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

Y)

98

US 92

AN P KW

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

98 ARIANA ST

D RE G

CR 542 (MAIN ST E)

S

EY RD)

US TENTH ST W SWINDELL RD

N AL

PARKER STREET

U

E4

CR 557/PO MELO ST

S TAT

(BERKL

DUFF RD

INTER

CR 65 5

BANANA ROAD

4

)

T IN

ER

E AT ST

4 (R O

D

SR 471

R

US 27

CR 5

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

Map 2-14 Major Trip Generators and Attractors


CHESTNUT RD N

SR

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

NEW JERSEY ROAD

WABASH AVE S

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

/9 2

Major Road Local Road

WALK-IN-WATER RD

PARK CUTO FF

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

17 US

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

US 27

HELENA RD

17 S

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

U

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

US 17/98 CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

THIRTIETH ST

SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

SR 37 (CHURCH AVE N)

OLD HIGHWAY 37

37

Core

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

)

US

SR

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

Center

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

27

US 98

Transit Corridor

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

US

US 98

Legend

60

ALTURAS- BABSON

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

SR

US 17 /98

CR 640

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR 674

17 US

SR 33 CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US 98

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

COUNTY LINE RD

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

60

REET W MAIN ST LIME STREET OLIVE STREET

Corridor

WAVERLY RD

SR

PARKER STREET

98

98 60

)

S

US SR

D

U

17

R

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE

S AVENUE

RD)

EN

SUCCES

S

D ER

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

LE

98

D)

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

U

KEY

(K AT H

ROBSON ST

4

S

EN R

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SR 60

BU C

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

9

TE TA

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

H LE

SR 540 (WINTE R-L AKE

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

SHEPHERD RD

92

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

US

BAT ES RO AD

US 17/92

53

RS

D

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

Y) A HW AM P EW T

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

US 92 SKYVIEW DR

27

ARIANA ST

US

WY) LIME STREET PA H TAM

BRIDGERS AVE

2 (N US 9

ROA

(KAT

SR 471

35 A

US 27

W 2 (NE

CR 557/PO MELO ST

US 9

EY RD)

98 TENTH ST W SWINDELL RD

E AT ST

SWINDELL RD

NORTH BLVD

LAKE LOWERY RD

SR

TE IN

TENTH ST W

4 (R ONA LD R 4 EG A N PK TE W Y) A ST

CR 17

(BERKL

ER

US

CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)

T IN

4

33

RD) SR 659 (COM BEE

DUFF RD

SR

CR 65 5

BANANA ROAD

R

ILL PY H

US 98

CR

US 27 CR 5

TE IN

S LE E

33

Downtown Lakeland

27 /9 8

Source: Polk 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Map 2-15

0 1 2

4 Miles

Polk County Transit Corridors and Centers


TO MKOW

ODOM ROAD

WALT WILLIAMS ROAD NEW JERSEY ROAD

HOLLINGSWORTH ROAD

INGRAHAM AVENUE

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS BLVD

FITZGERALD ROAD

HALLAM DRIVE

LAKE MIRIAM DR

US 92 CR 542 (MAIN ST E/K-VILLE AVE)

Major Road Local Road Water

PO INT DR MAINE AVE

CR 37B (LAKELAND HIGHLANDS RD)

OLD HIGHWAY 37

CR 37A (SCOTT LAKE RD)

PIPKIN RD WEST

LUNN ROAD

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

US 98

SR 563 (HARDEN BLVD)

HARDEN BLVD

ALAMO DRIVE

HIGHLANDS DRIVE

SKYVIEW DR

1/4-mile Buffer

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

Source: Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Plan

98

WARING ROAD

CE COMM ER

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

PIPKIN ROAD SOUTH

SOUTH BLVD

CHESTNUT RD N

US 92 (WABASH AVE N)

SR 572 (AIRPORT RD)

CRYSTAL LAKE DR S

Future

US

YATES ROAD

98

W BLVD

S

WABASH AVE S

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD N)

CR 542 (MAIN ST E)

U

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

S AVENUE

MEDULLA ROAD

SUCCES

ARIANA STREET

ARIANA ST

BEACON ROAD

SR 572 (DRANE FIELD RD)

LIME STREET

Current

MINEOLA DR

GARY ROAD N/GARY ROAD E

LO NG FELLO

OLIVE STREET

)

DRANE FIELD RD

D S BLV

CR 542 (OLD TAMPA HWY)

IKE 6 3 (S

2

WY) PA H TAM

PARKER STREET

SR 5

US 9

W (NE

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W)

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S)

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

PROVIDENCE ROAD

FIFTH STREET

CRUTCHFIELD RD

SWINDELL RD

Activity Centers

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

PARKVIEW PLACE

TENTH STREET

TENTH ST W

Long-Term Potential Transit Oriented Corridor

FISH HATCHERY RD

VE

ROBSON ST 4 TE TA CR 582 (GRIFFIN RD)

Transit Oriented Corridor

REYNOLDS RD

RI S ER

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

LD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

IL T IN

LAKE PARKER DRIVE EAST

LH

CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Legend

SR 33

US 98

L MA

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

INTERSTATE 4

OLD POLK CITY RD

OLD COM BEE ROA D

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

GIBSONIA-GALLOWAY ROAD

DEESON ROAD

AY) R KW K PA

DAUGHTERY ROAD EAST

OL 7 0 (P

MARCUM RD/SOCRUM LOOP RD N

SR 5

GREEN ROAD

DUFF RD

4 ATE RS T

WALT LOOP ROAD

US 98

PARK BYRD RD

CAMPBELL RD N

INTE

RO AD

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

BANANA ROAD

COLBERT ROAD

CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

Map 2-16 0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Lakeland 2020 Transit Oriented Corridor


Section 3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE LEVELS This section includes a review of existing transit service levels in Polk County and is divided into three subsections: Existing Service, Performance Evaluation and Trends, and Peer Review. The review of existing service includes a general description of the structure of the three transit service providers in Polk County and their system characteristics. The Performance Evaluation and Trends sub-sections present a detailed examination of route-by-route operating performance. The Peer Review section is presented for fixed-route and ADA service and provides an opportunity for Polk County to compare its system-wide effectiveness and efficiency indicators with other peer transit systems to determine how well transit service in Polk County is performing compared to similar transit agencies. EXISTING SERVICE Three separate transit systems operate in Polk County: Citrus Connection, WHAT, and PCTS. LAMTD administers and operates Citrus Connection and was created through companion ordinances by the Polk County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) and the City of Lakeland City Commission. WHAT was formed by interlocal agreement between the BoCC and the City of Winter Haven, with the BoCC acting as the managing entity, administering grants, authorizing contracts, and implementing transit services. PCTS has day-to-day responsibilities for WHAT services under the BoCC as well as the services it operates within Polk County. In 2007, the Polk Transit Authority (PTA) was created to oversee the consolidation of the three transit services. Through interlocal agreements, the PTA approves and adopts the county-wide Polk Consolidated Transit Development Plan (TDP) for all services/agencies identified above. Map 3-1 illustrates all the fixedroute services within Polk County. Also illustrated on the map are the ¼-mile and ¾-mile buffer service areas. The ¼-mile buffer represents the maximum distance that riders typically are willing to walk to get to a bus stop. The ¾-mile buffer indicates the service area in which complementary ADA paratransit service must be provided. The following section provides a description of fixed-route service, paratransit service, and other related information for each transit system in Polk County. In addition, a description of the TD program administered by PCTS is included. Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (Citrus Connection) LAMTD was created in 1980 by County Ordinance along with a matching City of Lakeland ordinance. Funding was subsequently approved by public referendum with the purpose of providing transit services in the greater Lakeland urbanized area. Services were initiated in 1982. A special taxing district with authority to levy up to a half mil, or 50¢ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, was also established. That

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-1


assessment primarily funds transit services and administration within the district. The LAMTD taxing district includes most of the city of Lakeland and some areas just outside the city boundary. The city of Lakeland, which has continued to annex new territories, includes some areas which are not in the transit district. Likewise, the portion of Lakeland urban area residents which reside outside the corporate limits of the city may be within the transit district service area. In fact, as LAMTD expands to the south, west, and east and, as it adds links to countywide services, its services will become more regional in nature. Fixed-Route Bus Service Citrus Connection currently provides fixed-route services to portions of Lakeland with connections to Auburndale and Bartow. It also extends service to other areas that include Pierce, Bradley, Pinedale, and Mulberry. Citrus Connection operates 14 fixed-route services with a weekday service span from 6:05 a.m. to 7:05 p.m. and Saturday service span from 7:15 a.m. to 5:25 p.m. Only Routes 32/33 and 57 do not provide service on Saturdays. Service frequencies are typically between 30 and 60 minutes. Citrus Connection currently manages a fleet of 44 buses as part of its fixed-route service. Of the 14 fixed routes, Route 10 serves as a downtown trolley circulator. Route 12 serves as a connector between Lakeland and Winter Haven and includes stops in Auburndale. Route 12 also connects Citrus Connection with WHAT. Route 22XL provides express service between Lakeland and Bartow and also connects Citrus Connection to WHAT. The regular one-way bus fare is $1.50. Half-fares are available to students. Seniors (persons age 65 and older) and persons with disabilities pay 80 cents. Children under age 5 ride free if accompanied by an adult. The agency recently began offering day passes, thereby eliminating free transfers. A major service change was performed by Citrus Connection in July 2011. This service change included a reduction of the number of routes from 20 to 14 and the realignment for many of the remaining routes. Only Routes 12 and 22XL remain unchanged. The system overhaul was implemented primarily to maximize service efficiency. Table 3-1 includes FY 2011 route-by-route performance statistics for all Citrus Connection routes. As shown in Table 3-1, total passenger trips per revenue hour and total passenger trips per revenue mile for “New Routes” reflect a decrease when compared with “Old Routes.” The reasons for this fact may include:

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-2


US 98

CHESTNUT RD N

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

INGRAHAM AVENUE

WABASH AVE S

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

/9 2

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

US 27

HELENA RD

11

15 22 30

40/44 50

LAMTD Routes 1 3

10

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

12 14 22XL 33

HW

Y)

57 58

BUCKEYE RD

Source: PCTS, LAMTD, and WHAT

SIXTH STREET SE

ER

47 FIRST STREET SOUTH SR 549 (FIRST ST N)

CK

46

Map 3-1

17

/9 8

5( RE

U

S

17

HELENA RD

US

27

65

COOLEY ROAD

US

CR 542 (AVE G NW)

SR

45

BLV D NW )

US 17 (SIXTH ST NW)

SR 544 (HA VENDAL E

39

US 17 (EIG HTH ST NW)

92

) LAK ES CUTOFF

FORTY-SECOND ST NW

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

CR 630 (INDIAN

15

Downtown Winter Haven US

SPIRIT LAKE RD

US 98

PARK CUTO FF

WALK-IN-WATER RD

ALTURAS- BABSON

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

17 S U

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

60

17 US

WHAT Routes

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

35

60

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

SR

3/4-Mile Buffer

25

WAVERLY RD

US

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

US 98

4 Miles

PCTS Routes

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

SR

US 17 /98

CR 640

THIRTIETH ST

SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

US 17/98

60

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR

17 US

SR 33 CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

ODOM ROAD

US 98

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

US 98

SR 37 (CHURCH AVE N)

98

OLD HIGHWAY 37

S

D ER

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

COUNTY LINE RD

B

EY UCK

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

Legend

Transit Center 1/4-Mile Buffer 98

92

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

S

U

17

BAT ES RO AD

US 17/92

RD)

US SR

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 674

REET W MAIN ST E STREET OLIVE STREET LIM

U

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SR 60

PARKER STREET

S AVENUE

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

SHEPHERD RD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

SUCCES

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

US

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE FIFTH STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

SR 540 (WINTE R-L AKE

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

27

BRIDGERS AVE

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

ARIANA ST

US

EY RD)

98

US 92

) HWY LIME STREET

CR 557/PO MELO ST

33

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

(BERKL

US

2 (N

A AM P EW T

S

SR

4

RD) SR 659 (COM BEE

IN

R TE

TE TA

ER

SWINDELL RD

ROBSON ST

4

98

US 27

4 (R ONA LD R 4 EG A N PK TE W Y) A ST

E AT ST

S

US 27 T IN

CR 65 5

BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

TENTH ST W SWINDELL RD

0 1 2

4 TENTH ST W

CR 5

CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)

US 9

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

Polk County Existing Fixed-Route Services


Table 3-1 LAMTD Fixed-Route Performance Statistics (FY 2011)1 Route #

Passenger Trips

1 3 10 14 15 32/33 39 45 46 47 57 58 Total

47,713 20,137 13,096 18,925 26,254 7,179 975 13,582 6,927 10,418 3,550 8,458 177,214

12 22XL Total

98,368 98,523 196,891

10 11 20 21 30 31 32 33 37 40 41 42 50 51 52 53 56 57 Total

29,570 65,511 76,115 25,724 22,779 167,420 3,903 39,417 7,061 17,364 69,434 96,584 61,005 149,262 139,728 38,971 59,631 9,883 1,079,362

Revenue Hours

Revenue Miles New Routes12 1,581 15,731 791 9,810 663 16,976 1,530 21,243 1,500 19,560 704 6,532 280 6,573 791 13,291 1,294 12,580 765 5,691 584 12,913 1,365 18,520 11,849 159,418 Routes Unchanged3 3,520 68,123 4,732 139,904 8,253 208,027 Old Routes4 1,399 12,587 3,020 45,595 2,998 44,666 1,910 30,362 2,028 30,676 6,403 65,313 862 6,375 2,633 22,643 2,040 48,548 1,399 20,139 3,063 50,841 5,887 111,268 3,063 40,428 5,832 83,636 5,832 86,319 2,814 32,924 3,060 46,811 1,205 25,182 55,445 804,314

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

30.18 25.45 19.75 12.37 17.50 10.20 3.49 17.17 5.35 13.62 6.08 6.20 14.96

3.03 2.05 0.77 0.89 1.34 1.10 0.15 1.02 0.55 1.83 0.27 0.46 1.11

27.94 20.82 23.86

1.44 0.70 0.95

21.14 21.70 25.39 13.47 11.23 26.15 4.53 14.97 3.46 12.42 22.67 16.41 19.92 25.59 23.96 13.85 19.49 8.20 19.47

2.35 1.44 1.70 0.85 0.74 2.56 0.61 1.74 0.15 0.86 1.37 0.87 1.51 1.78 1.62 1.18 1.27 0.39 1.34

1Source:

LAMTD started operation in July 2011. Statistics from July 2011 to September 2011. 3Routes remain unchanged in July 2011. Statistics from October 2010 to September 2011. 4Routes ended operation in July 2011. Statistics from October 2010 to July 2011. 2Routes

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

3-4


The operating characteristics summary for “New Routes” includes only the statistics for three months, while for the “Old Routes” it includes the statistics for nine months. Seasonal ridership variations may contribute to the differences in service effectiveness.

A new transit system undergoes a maturation period before it can reach stable ridership levels. This is due to several different reasons, including fine-tuning of schedules, bus rider education, and the completion of extensive marketing efforts. A rule-of-thumb in the transit industry suggests the average time for a new transit system to mature is three years. Low effectiveness levels can be partially attributed to this reason.

Paratransit Service In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Handy bus service is provided to persons with disabilities who are unable to ride the fixed-route buses in the LAMTD service area. ADA service is available with service spans consistent with LAMTD fixed-route service. A one-way fare is $2.00. LAMTD maintains a fleet of 20 Handy bus vehicles. Figure 3-1 presents the Handy bus ridership from year 2001 to 2010. Annual ADA ridership remained relatively stable during the 10-year period. Figure 3-1 LAMTD ADA Service Ridership, 2001–2010 140,000

124,134

126,839

131,616 121,887

120,000

118,696

116,397

111,515

105,126

105,417

2008

2009

112,920

100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2010

Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT) Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT) currently operates six fixed routes in Winter Haven and surrounding areas, including Lake Wales, Lake Alfred, and Haines City. The system is a joint effort between the Polk County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Winter Haven. The County serves as the administrative agent for WHAT. Staff support for the WHAT system is provided by Citrus Connection, the Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-5


Polk TPO, and PCTS. Polk TPO staff provide service planning support, and PCTS staff provide WHAT with project management services, ADA paratransit scheduling and services, grant writing and administration functions, fiscal administration, and National Transit Database (NTD) reporting. The following is a summary of WHAT fixed-route service characteristics. WHAT paratransit service are summarized under the PCTS service summary since PCTS provides paratransit service for WHAT. Fixed-Route Bus Service WHAT fixed-route service is available on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Service frequencies are 60 minutes or more. Table 3-2 presents FY 2011 route-byroute fixed-route performance statistics. Passenger trips for Route 11 only reflect the August and September ridership information as that route began service in August 2011. As can be seen in Table 3-2, Route 12 experiences the highest ridership levels among all of the WHAT fixed bus routes. Table 3-2 WHAT Fixed-Route Performance Statistics, FY 2011 Route # 11 12 15 22XW 30 40/44 50 Total

Passenger Revenue Trips Hours 3,850 183,028 66,474 68,125 124,255 36,509 43,928 526,169

341.10 7,365 3,541 3,520 7,061 3,068 3,068 27,965

Revenue Miles 3,784.00 140,398 88,525 90,296 137,821 53,918 57,378 572,120

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour 11.29 24.85 18.77 19.35 17.60 11.90 14.32 18.82

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile 1.02 1.30 0.75 0.75 0.90 0.68 0.77 0.92

Source: WHAT

Polk County Transit Services (PCTS) Polk County first implemented public transportation services in 1975 to provide transportation to Polk General Hospital in Bartow for residents who were unable to obtain transportation to the facility. In 2000, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transformation of the system to provide public transportation to underserved areas of Polk County. Fixed-Route Bus Service PCTS operates two fixed routes that serve two satellite communities, Fort Meade and Frostproof. Both routes offer deviated fixed-route service where the bus can deviate up to ž of a mile from its service routing for scheduled pick-ups and drop-offs. Fixed-route service is provided on weekdays from 6:10 a.m. to 7:00 Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

3-6


p.m. and Saturdays from 6:10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PCTS buses serve customers waiting at designated bus stops with a limited number of trips at a service frequency ranging from 45 minutes to 120 minutes. Currently, Route 25 provides service between Fort Meade and Bartow via US 98, while Route 35 provides service from Frostproof to Eagle Ridge Mall through Lake Wales and Bobson Park. Route 25 connects to Citrus Connection Route 22XL and WHAT Route 22XW at the Polk County Courthouse in Downtown Bartow. Route 35 connects to WHAT Route 30 at Eagle Ridge Mall in Lake Wales. One-way cash fares are the same on PCTS, Citrus Connection, and WHAT. Table 3-3 notes FY 2011 PCTS route-by-route performance statistics and indicates the ridership change between FY 2011 and FY 2010. Annual ridership increased by 11.6 percent and 24.1 percent for Route 25 and Route 35, respectively, between FY 2010 and FY 2011. Table 3-3 WHAT Fixed-Route Ridership by Fiscal Year Route #

Passenger Trips

Revenue Hours

Revenue Miles

25 35 Total

26,281 37,473 63,754

3,761 3,842 7,602

83,702 88,390 172,092

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour 6.99 9.75 8.39

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile 0.31 0.42 0.37

Passenger Trips % Change (2010-2011) 11.6% 24.1% 18.6%

Source: PCTS

Call-and-Ride Service Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) provides NeighborLink service with the purpose of offering neighborhood transportation choices for people living in less-populated areas. The NeighborLink is a service of 9 routes that primarily operates from 5:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. 7 days of a week. Each route serves its designated area, and residents in the designated area need to call at least two hours in advance to schedule a pickup time before they would like to make their trip. The NeighborLink operator will provide transportation anywhere within that designated area or to a LYNX local bus stop. In March 2010, PCTS contracted with LYNX to initiate NeighborLink 603, providing service to Southwest Poinciana from 6:05 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday. This route connects Link 26, Link 306, Link 426, and NeighborLink 601 at Poinciana Walmart Center. The FY 2011 total ridership, revenue hours, and passenger trips per revenue hour for NeighborLink 603 were 13,123, 4,467, and 2.94, respectively. Transit Center LAMTD and WHAT provide bus riders with opportunities to transfer within each system and between systems through the provision of two major transit centers. The WHAT transit center was completed in 2007 and is located at 555 Ave E NW in Downtown Winter Haven. The LAMTD transit center was completed 21 years ago and is located at 200 N. Florida Avenue in Downtown Lakeland. The service Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

3-7


network for both agencies reflects a radial-pattern where all fixed routes converge at their respective transit terminal. Map 3-1 notes the location of the two transit centers. Transportation Disadvantaged Program In the early 1980s, PCTS became involved in the statewide coordinated TD service program. In the early 1990s, PCTS became the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Polk County’s TD population, providing transportation services for qualified citizens. Service is provided Monday through Saturday from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday service is available on a pre-arranged case-by-case basis only. Reservations are required to be made a minimum of 72 hours in advance and may be made up to 7 days in advance. Door-to-door TD service is provided for ambulatory, wheelchair, and stretcher clients. The CTC maintains a partial brokerage system, using a network of transportation operators to provide the actual transportation service. The CTC contracts for transportation services and coordinates, arranges, and dispatches passenger trips. The service is provided by a combination of PCTS, Citrus Connection, WHAT, private-for-profit providers, and non-profit agencies. The following is a list of contracted transportation operators for coordinated transit service:   

Independent Community Transport Southeast Christian Assembly Transportation Peace River Center

A number of agencies also assist PCTS in coordinating trips. Those agencies include the following:       

Alliance for Independence. Polk Training Center for Handicapped Citizens, Inc. ElderPoint Ministries of Greater Lakeland, Inc. Faith in Action North Lakeland, Inc. Quality of Life Community Services Reese Group Home Sunrise Community of Polk County, Inc.

Oversight of the TD program is provided through the Polk County BoCC. The Polk County Local Coordinating Board is charged with the responsibility of providing direct guidance to PCTS regarding transportation disadvantaged services.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-8


Total paratransit trips, including TD and complementary ADA service trips, are shown in Figure 3-2 for FY 2001 to FY 2011. Total paratransit trips increased from 53,491 in FY 2001 to 107,252 in FY 2011, an increase of 100 percent. Figure 3-2 PCTS Paratransit Ridership, FY 2001–FY 2011 140,000 120,123

120,000

111,158

116,606 104,278 104,885

100,000

99,537

105,356

107,796

103,390 107,252

80,000 60,000

53,491

40,000 20,000 0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Private Transportation Service Providers This section includes an inventory of existing private transportation service providers in Polk County. Each provider was contacted by mail to obtain information about its transportation services. A short questionnaire was prepared for each provider to complete. A copy of that questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. Table 3-4 includes information for agencies that completed the questionnaire. Of the 15 questionnaires distributed, only one provider returned a completed form. Table 3-4 Polk County Private Transportation Service Providers Name

Address

Type

P.O. Box 2934 Lakeland, FL

Private Taxicab

Service Area

Service Period

Polk County, primarily Lakeland

7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 365 days/yr

Annual Ridership

Regular Fare

$10 for 3 miles or less; $3 for each additional mile Source: Information collected through questionnaire distributed to each private transportation service provider in Polk County. Charly’s Taxi

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

700 to 900 riders/yr

# of Vehicles

Coordinate with Polk County?

1

No

3-9


The following is a list of existing Polk County private transportation service providers that did not respond to the survey for various reasons:             

Independent Community Transport, Inc., 318 Commerce Ct., Winter Haven, FL 33880 SE Christian Assembly Transportation, 1400 E Georgia St., Bartow, FL 33830 Peace River Center, 1239 East Main St., Bartow, FL 33830 Imperial Cab, 2111 34th St. NW, Winter Haven, FL 33881 Checker Cab, 2101 E Main St., Lakeland, FL 33801 Need-a-Ride, 446 Waterview Dr., Polk City, FL 33868 Yellow Cab, 2101 E Main St., Lakeland, FL 33801 Luxury Cab, 185 Lee Jackson Rd., Lake Alfred, FL 33850 Affordable Transport, 1290 E Gilbert St., Bartow, FL 33830 Burd’s Handi-Van, 2822 Vousden Ln., Lakeland, FL 33801 H & H Transport, 1119 Hammock Shade Dr., Lakeland, FL 33809 Hughes’ Transportation, 1515 Briders St., Auburndale, FL 33823 Handy Bus, 1212 George Jenkins Blvd., Lakeland, FL 33815

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND TRENDS A trend analysis of critical performance indicators was conducted to examine the performance of PCTS/WHAT and LAMTD fixed-route services over time. Data were compiled from NTD reports for fiscal years 2006 to 2010. This analysis includes statistics and tables that present selected performance indicators and effectiveness and efficiency measures for the selected time period. Highlights of the trend analysis are presented below, and summary results are provided at the conclusion of this section. Three categories of indicators were analyzed for the performance evaluation and trend analysis:   

Performance Indicators – show quantity of service supply, passenger and fare revenue generation, and resource input. Effectiveness Measures – indicate the extent to which the service is effectively provided. Efficiency Measures – indicate the extent to which cost efficiency is achieved.

Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Table 3-5 lists the measures used in the performance trend analysis conducted for PCTS/WHAT and LAMTD fixed-route bus services. Highlights of the trend analysis are presented in the remainder of this section.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-10


Table 3-5 Fixed-Route Performance Review Measures Trend Analysis (2006–2010) General Performance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Passenger Trips

Vehicle Miles per Capita

Oper. Exp. per Capita

Passenger Miles

Passenger Trips per Capita

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Trip

Vehicle Miles

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Mile

Revenue Miles

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Mile

Total Operating Expense

Average Age of Fleet

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Hour

Vehicles Operated in Max. Service

Average Headway (in minutes)

Farebox Recovery (%)

Number of Vehicle System Failures

Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile

Revenue Miles Between Failures

Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE)

Weekday Span of Service (in hours)

Vehicle Miles per Gallon Average Fare

FTE = Full-Time Equivalent

Performance Indicators Performance indicators are used to gauge the overall system operating performance. Tables 3-6 and Figures 3-3 through 3-8 present the selected performance indicators from FY 2006 to FY 2010 for PCTS/WHAT. The following is a summary of the trends for PCTS/WHAT that are evident among the performance indicators shown in Table 3-5 and Figures 3-3 through 3-8. 

Passenger trips for PCTS/WHAT increased from 156,396 in 2006 to 473,353 in 2010, an increase of nearly 203 percent. In addition, passenger miles also increased from 760,000 to 2.37 million during the same period, an increase of more than 211 percent.

Total vehicle miles of service increased from 470,000 in 2006 to 760,000 in 2010, more than 64 percent. Revenue miles of service increased by more than 115 percent during this time period. This growth relationship is positive, as it suggests that the proportion of deadhead has declined considerably over time and consumption has grown at a greater rate than service supply.

Total operating expense (in current dollars) increased from $0.79 million in 2006 to $2.40 million in 2010, an increase of more than 204 percent.

While passenger trips, passenger miles, and revenue miles increased from 2006 to 2010, the total number of vehicles needed to operate peak service increased from 11 in 2006 to the peak 21 in 2009, but returned to a level of 10 vehicles in 2010.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-11


Table 3-6 2006–2010 Performance Indicators, PCTS/WHAT Fixed-Route Trend Analysis General Performance Indicator

% Change (2006– 2010)

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

156,396

557,078

641,008

466,008

473,353

202.7%

760

1,363

3,209

2,334

2,371

211.9%

Vehicle Miles

465,433

865,750

844,573

777,849

764,769

64.3%

Revenue Miles

336,820

626,919

766,956

738,793

725,738

115.5%

Total Operating Expense ($000)

$787

$1,787

$2,321

$2,470

$2,399

204.8%

Total Operating Expense ($000) (in 2006$)

$787

$1,726

$2,166

$2,227

$2,090

165.6%

11

19

19

21

10

-9.1%

Passenger Trips Passenger Miles (000)

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

Source: INTDAS component from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS), Directly Operated Motorbus

Figure 3-3 Passenger Trips (000)

Figure 3-4 Passenger Miles (000)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-5 Vehicle Miles (000) 1,000

800

800

600

600

400

400

200

200

0

0 2007

2008

2009

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-6 Revenue Miles (000)

1,000

2006

2007

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-12


Figure 3-7

Figure 3-8 Vehicles Operated in Max. Service

Total Operating Expense (000) $3,000

25

$2,500

20

$2,000

15

$1,500

10

$1,000 $500

Total Operating Ex pense (000) Total Operating Ex pense ($000) (in 2006$)

$0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

5 0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Tables 3-7 and Figures 3-9 through 3-14 present the selected performance indicators from FY 2006 to FY 2010 for LAMTD. The following is a summary of the trends for LAMTD that are evident among the performance indicators shown in Table 3-7 and Figures 3-9 through 3-14. 

Passenger trips for LAMTD decreased from 1.55 million in 2006 to 1.46 million in 2010, a decline of 5.8 percent. In addition, passenger miles also fell from 8.32 million to 7.33 million during the same period, a decrease of more than 11 percent.

Total vehicle miles of service declined from 1.49 million miles in 2006 to 1.30 million miles in 2010, a decrease of 12.6 percent. Revenue miles of service decreased by 13.4 percent during this time period.

Total operating expense (in current dollars) increased from $5.56 million in 2006 to $7.71 million in 2010, an increase of 38.7 percent.

Similar to the trends for passenger trips, passenger miles, and revenue miles, the total number of vehicles needed to operate peak service experienced a slight decrease (8%) from 25 in 2006 to 23 in 2010.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-13


Table 3-7 2006–2010 Performance Indicators, LAMTD Fixed-Route Trend Analysis General Performance Indicator

2006

Passenger Trips

1,549,324

Passenger Miles (000)

8,320

2007

2008

2009

2010

1,515,914 1,602,322 1,450,988 1,459,429 8,140

8,041

7,292

7,336

% Change (2006– 2010) -5.8% -11.8%

Vehicle Miles

1,490,458

1,475,608 1,345,024 1,294,963 1,302,564

-12.6%

Revenue Miles

1,472,095

1,457,924 1,325,536 1,266,448 1,274,537

-13.4%

Total Operating Expense ($000)

$5,560

$6,108

$7,076

$7,064

$7,710

38.7%

Total Operating Expense ($000) (in 2006$)

$5,560

$5,901

$6,605

$6,370

$6,716

20.8%

25

25

24

24

23

-8.0%

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

Figure 3-9 Passenger Trips (000)

Figure 3-10 Passenger Miles (000)

2,000

10,000

1,500

8,000 6,000

1,000

4,000

500

2,000

0

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-11 Vehicle Miles (000)

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-12 Revenue Miles (000)

2,000

2,000

1,500

1,500

1,000

1,000

500

500

0

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-14


Figure 3-13

Figure 3-14 Vehicles Operated in Max. Service

Total Operating Expense (000) $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0

30 25 20 15 10

2006

Total Operating Ex pense (000)

5

Total Operating Ex pense ($000) (in 2006$)

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Effectiveness Measures Table 3-8 presents four categories of effectiveness measures that include service supply, service consumption, quality of service, and availability for PCTS/WHAT. Figures 3-15 through 3-23 present trends in effectiveness for PCTS/WHAT. The following is a summary of the trends for PCTS/WHAT that are evident among the effectiveness indicators shown in Table 3-7 and Figures 3-15 through 3-23. 

Vehicle miles per capita for PCTS/WHAT increased from 3.02 miles in 2006 to 4.97 miles in 2010, an increase of nearly 65 percent. For the same time period, passenger trips per capita increased by 202 percent, from 1.02 trips in 2006 to 3.08 trips in 2010. This fact indicates that ridership growth outpaces the overall growth in county population.

Passenger trips per revenue mile increased from 0.46 trips in 2006 to 0.65 trips in 2010, an increase of approximately 41 percent. Passenger trips per revenue hour also increased from 8.41 trips in 2006 to 13.59 trips in 2010, an increase of more than 61 percent. Between 2006 and 2010, the increased service supply has resulted in comparable trip growth.

Average age of fleet increased from 4.4 years in 2006 to 5.0 years in 2010, an increase of 0.6 years over a 5-year period. This suggests that PCTS/WHAT maintains a good vehicle replacement schedule.

Average headway decreased from 89.98 minutes in 2006 to 62.28 minutes in 2010, indicating an improved system-wide level of service.

The number of system failures experienced an increase from 10 in 2006 to 32 in 2010, which resulted in a decrease in revenue miles between failures of approximately 33 percent during this

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-15


time period. The increase in system failures can also be attributed to the increase in service supply over the same period. Table 3-8 2006–2010 Effectiveness Measures, PCTS/WHAT Trend Analysis 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% Change (2006– 2010)

3.02

5.62

5.49

5.05

4.97

64.6%

Passenger Trips per Capita

1.02

3.62

4.16

3.03

3.08

202.0%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

0.46

0.89

0.84

0.63

0.65

40.5%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

8.41

16.65

17.31

13.32

13.59

61.7%

Average Age of Fleet

4.42

5.74

5.62

5.90

5.00

13.1%

Average Headway (in minutes)

89.98

55.83

45.96

39.62

62.28

-30.8%

10

100

32

39

32

220.0%

33,682

6,269

23,967

18,943

22,679

-32.7%

13.00

13.25

13.25

13.25

13.25

1.9%

Effectiveness Measures Service Supply Vehicle Miles per Capita Service Consumption

Quality of Service

Number of Vehicle System Failures Revenue Miles Between Failures Availability Weekday Span of Service (in hours)

Source: INTDAS component from FTIS, Directly Operated Motorbus

Figure 3-15 Vehicle Miles per Capita

Figure 3-16 Passenger Trips per Capita

6.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00 0.00

0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-16


Figure 3-17 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Figure 3-18 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

1.00

20.00

0.80

15.00

0.60

10.00

0.40

5.00

0.20 0.00

0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-19 Average Age of Fleet

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-20 Average Headway (in minutes) 100.00

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2006

2010

Figure 3-21 Number of Vehicle System Failures

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-22 Revenue Miles Between Failures 40

120 100

30

80

20

60 40

10

20 0

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-17


Figure 3-23 Weekday Span of Service 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Table 3-9 exhibits four categories of effectiveness measures that include service supply, service consumption, quality of service, and availability for LAMTD. Figures 3-24 through 3-32 present trends in effectiveness for LAMTD. The following is a summary of the trends for LAMTD that are reflected among the effectiveness indicators shown in Table 3-9 and Figures 3-24 through 3-32. 

Vehicle miles per capita for LAMTD decreased from 13.55 miles in 2006 to 11.84 miles in 2010, a decrease of nearly 13 percent. For the same time period, passenger trips per capita decreased by 5.8 percent, from 14.08 trips in 2006 to 13.27 trips in 2010.

Passenger trips per revenue mile increased from 1.05 trips in 2006 to 1.15 trips in 2010, an increase of 8.8 percent. Passenger trips per revenue hour also increased from 17.12 trips in 2006 to 18.33 trips in 2010, an increase of more than 7 percent. Despite the ridership decrease between 2006 and 2010, LAMTD achieved better system effectiveness.

Average age of fleet increased from 5.5 years in 2006 to 10.0 years in 2010, an increase of 4.5 years over a 5-year period. This suggests that LAMTD’s fleet is aging and will require replacement of older vehicles in the near future.

The number of system failures experienced a dramatic decrease from 430 in 2006 to 214 in 2010, which resulted in an increase in revenue miles between failures of 74 percent during this time period.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-18


Table 3-9 2006–2010 Effectiveness Measures, LAMTD Trend Analysis 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% Change (2006–2010)

13.55

13.41

12.23

11.77

11.84

-12.6%

Passenger Trips per Capita

14.08

13.78

14.57

13.19

13.27

-5.8%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

1.05

1.04

1.21

1.15

1.15

8.8%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

17.12

16.92

20.00

18.31

18.33

7.1%

Average Age of Fleet

5.45

6.45

8.07

9.07

10.07

84.8%

Average Headway (in minutes)

44.20

44.18

42.31

34.39

41.57

-6.0%

430

443

253

164

214

-50.2%

3,423

3,291

5,239

7,722

5,956

74.0%

13.50

13.50

13.83

13.83

13.92

3.1%

Effectiveness Measures Service Supply Vehicle Miles per Capita Service Consumption

Quality of Service

Number of Vehicle System Failures Revenue Miles Between Failures Availability Weekday Span of Service (in hours)

Source: INTDAS component from FTIS, Directly Operated Motorbus

Figure 3-24 Vehicle Miles per Capita

Figure 3-25 Passenger Trips per Capita 20.00

15.00

15.00

10.00

10.00 5.00

5.00

0.00

0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-19


Figure 3-26 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

Figure 3-27 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-28 Average Age of Fleet

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-29 Average Headway (in minutes)

12.00

50.00

10.00

40.00

8.00

30.00

6.00

20.00

4.00

10.00

2.00 0.00

0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2006

2010

Figure 3-30 Number of Vehicle System Failures 10

400

8

300

6

200

4

100

2

0

0 2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-31 Revenue Miles Between Failures

500

2006

2007

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-20


Figure 3-32 Weekday Span of Service 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Efficiency Measures Table 3-10 presents six categories of efficiency measures for PCTS/WHAT: cost efficiency, operating ratios, vehicle utilization, labor productivity, energy utilization, and average fare. Figures 3-33 through 3-42 present trends in efficiency. The following is a summary of the trends for PCTS/WHAT that are evident among the efficiency measures presented in Table 3-10 and Figures 3-33 to 3-42. 

Operating expense per passenger trip increased from $5.03 in 2006 to $5.07 in 2010, an increase of only 0.7 percent. Operating expense per passenger mile decreased from $1.04 in 2006 to $1.01 in 2010, a decrease of more than 2 percent. However, when the effects of inflation are removed, operating expense per passenger trip and operating expenses per passenger mile experienced a decrease by 12.1 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively, between 2006 and 2010.

The average fare increased from $0.20 in 2006 to $0.53 in 2010, an increase of 165 percent. Farebox recovery increased by nearly 170 percent from 2006 to 2010.

Revenue miles per vehicle mile increased from 0.72 in 2006 to 0.95 in 2010, a considerable increase of 31.1 percent.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-21


Table 3-10 Efficiency Measures, PCTS/WHAT Trend Analysis 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% Change (2006-2010)

Operating Expense per Capita

$5.12

$11.61

$15.08

$15.54

$15.59

204.5%

Oper. Exp. per Capita (in 2006$)

$5.12

$11.22

$14.07

$14.01

$13.58

165.2%

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$5.03

$3.21

$3.62

$5.30

$5.07

0.7%

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Trip (in 2006$)

$5.03

$3.10

$3.38

$4.78

$4.42

-12.1%

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile

$1.04

$1.31

$0.72

$1.06

$1.01

-2.3%

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Mile (in 2006$)

$1.04

$1.27

$0.68

$0.95

$0.88

-15.4%

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

$2.34

$2.85

$3.03

$3.34

$3.31

41.4%

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Mile (in 2006$)

$2.34

$2.75

$2.82

$3.01

$2.88

23.1%

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

$42.32

$53.42

$62.70

$70.59

$68.89

62.8%

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Hour (in 2006$)

$42.32

$51.61

$58.52

$63.65

$60.02

41.8%

3.89%

6.85%

14.93%

10.41%

10.50%

169.9%

0.72

0.72

0.91

0.95

0.95

31.1%

985.32

716.78

597.12

748.82

830.10

-15.8%

8.68

8.33

8.04

7.56

6.27

-12.9%

$0.20

$0.22

$0.54

$0.53

$0.53

165.0%

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency

Operating Ratios Farebox Recovery (%) Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Labor Productivity Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE) Energy Utilization Vehicle Miles per Gallon Fare Average Fare

Source: INTDAS component from FTIS, Directly Operated Motorbus

Figure 3-33 $18.00 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00

Figure 3-34

Operating Expense per Capita

$6.00

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 Operating Ex pense per Capita Oper. Ex p. per Capita (in 2006$)

Operating Ex pense per Passenger Trip

$1.00

Oper. Ex p. per Passenger Trip (in 2006$)

$0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-22


Figure 3-35 $1.40

Figure 3-36

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile

$1.40

$1.20

$1.20

$1.00

$1.00

$0.80

$0.80

$0.60

$0.60

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile

$0.40

$0.40 Operating Ex pense per Passenger Mile

$0.20

Oper. Ex p. per Passenger Mile (in 2006$)

$0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

Operating Ex pense per Passenger Mile

$0.20

Oper. Ex p. per Passenger Mile (in 2006$)

$0.00 2006

2010

Figure 3-37

Oper. Ex p. per Rev enue Hour (in 2006$)

2007

2008

2009

2010

Farebox Recovery

Operating Ex pense per Rev enue Hour

2006

2008

Figure 3-38

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00

2007

2009

16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2006

2010

Figure 3-39

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-40

Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile

Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE)

1.00

1,200

0.80

1,000 800

0.60

600

0.40

400

0.20

200

0.00

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-23


Figure 3-41

Figure 3-42

Vehicle Miles per Gallon (VMG)

Average Fare 0.60

10.00

0.50

8.00

0.40

6.00

0.30

4.00

0.20

2.00

0.10

0.00

0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Table 3-11 presents six categories of efficiency measures for LAMTD that include cost efficiency, operating ratios, vehicle utilization, labor productivity, energy utilization, and average fare. Figures 3-43 through 3-52 present trends in efficiency. The following is a summary of the trends for LAMTD that are manifested among the efficiency measures presented in Table 3-10 and Figures 3-43 to 3-52. 

Operating expense per passenger trip increased from $3.59 in 2006 to $5.28 in 2010, an increase of 47.2 percent.

Operating expense per revenue hour increased from $61.43 in 2006 to $96.82 in 2010, an increase of nearly 58 percent.

The average fare increased from $0.41 in 2006 to $0.79 in 2010, an increase of 92.7 percent. Farebox recovery increased by 30 percent from 2006 to 2010.

Vehicle miles per gallon increased from 3.43 miles in 2006 to 3.74 miles in 2010, an increase of 3.5 percent.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-24


Table 3-11 Efficiency Measures, LAMTD Trend Analysis 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% Change (2006â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2010)

Operating Expense per Capita

$50.55

$55.53

$64.33

$64.03

$70.09

38.7%

Oper. Exp. per Capita (in 2006$)

$50.55

$53.65

$60.04

$57.74

$61.06

20.8%

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$3.59

$4.03

$4.42

$4.87

$5.28

47.2%

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Trip (in 2006$)

$3.59

$3.89

$4.12

$4.39

$4.60

28.1%

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile

$0.67

$0.75

$0.88

$0.97

$1.05

57.2%

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Mile (in 2006$)

$0.67

$0.72

$0.82

$0.87

$0.92

37.3%

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

$3.78

$4.19

$5.34

$5.58

$6.05

60.1%

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Mile (in 2006$)

$3.78

$4.05

$4.98

$5.03

$5.27

39.4%

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

$61.43

$68.17

$88.31

$89.16

$96.82

57.6%

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Hour (in 2006$)

$61.43

$65.85

$82.43

$80.39

$84.35

37.3%

11.42%

13.04%

14.33%

16.72%

14.86%

30.1%

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.98

0.98

-0.9%

965.27

943.35

910.55

884.59

861.68

-10.7%

3.43

3.40

3.18

3.55

3.74

3.5%

$0.41

$0.53

$0.63

$0.81

$0.79

92.7%

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency

Operating Ratios Farebox Recovery (%) Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Labor Productivity Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE) Energy Utilization Vehicle Miles per Gallon Fare Average Fare

Source: INTDAS component from FTIS, Directly Operated Motorbus

Figure 3-43

Figure 3-44

Operating Expense per Capita $80.00

$6.00

$70.00

$5.00

$60.00

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$4.00

$50.00

$3.00

$40.00 $30.00

$2.00

$20.00

Operating Ex pense per Capita Oper. Ex p. per Capita (in 2006$)

$10.00 $0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

Operating Ex pense per Passenger Trip Oper. Ex p. per Passenger Trip (in 2006$)

$1.00 $0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-25


Figure 3-45 $1.20

Figure 3-46

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $7.00

$1.00

$6.00

$0.80

$5.00 $4.00

$0.60

$3.00

$0.40

$2.00 Operating Ex pense per Passenger Mile

$0.20

Oper. Ex p. per Passenger Mile (in 2006$)

$0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

Operating Ex pense per Rev enue Mile

$1.00

Oper. Ex p. per Rev enue Mile (in 2006$)

$0.00

2010

2006

Figure 3-47

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-48

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour $120.00

Farebox Recovery 20.00%

$100.00 15.00%

$80.00

10.00%

$60.00 $40.00

5.00% Operating Ex pense per Rev enue Hour

$20.00

Oper. Ex p. per Rev enue Hour (in 2006$)

0.00%

$0.00

2006 2006

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010

Figure 3-49

Figure 3-50

Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile

Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE)

1.20

1,200

1.00

1,000

0.80

800

0.60

600

0.40

400

0.20

200

0.00

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-26


Figure 3-51

Figure 3-52

Vehicle Miles per Gallon (VMG)

Average Fare 1.00

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Summary Results of Fixed-Route Trend Analysis

The trend analysis is only one aspect of transit performance evaluation. However, when combined with the peer review analysis, the results provide a starting point for understanding the trends in a transit system’s performance over time and compared to other systems with similar characteristics. This section identifies the performance trends based on the trend analysis. Some of the key trends are described below. PCTS/WHAT trends were introduced first, followed by the trends for LAMTD. 

Service Consumption (PCTS/WHAT) – Passenger trips per capita, passenger trips per revenue mile, and passenger trips per revenue hour have shown positive trends. This shows that there are more people accessing the system in comparison to the amount of service being supplied.

Service Supply and Availability (PCTS/WHAT) – Vehicle miles per capita (service supply measure) has shown a positive trend from 2006 to 2010. Service availability in terms of service span increased slightly.

Quality of Service (PCTS/WHAT) – Of the four quality of service measures, the number of vehicle system failures has shown a negative trend, resulting in a negative trend for revenue miles between failures. Average headway has decreased considerably.

Cost Efficiency (PCTS/WHAT) – Operating expense per passenger trip and operating expense per passenger mile decreased from 2006 to 2010, while operating expense per revenue mile and operating expense per revenue hour increased from 2006 to 2010.

Operating Ratio and Fare (PCTS/WHAT) – From 2006 to 2010, farebox recovery experienced an increase of approximately 170 percent, while average fare increased 165 percent. This indicates that these two indicators have shown strong positive trends from 2006 to 2010.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-27


Service Consumption (LAMTD) – Passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per revenue hour have shown positive trends. Passenger trips per capita experienced a slight decrease.

Service Supply and Availability (LAMTD) – Vehicle miles per capita (service supply measure) has shown a negative trend from 2006 to 2010. This shows the amount of service being supplied has decreased. Service availability in terms of service span slightly increased.

Quality of Service (LAMTD) – The measures in this category have indicated primarily positive trends from 2006 to 2010. Of the four quality of service measures, only average age of fleet reflects a negative trend, as the average age of the LAMTD fleet increased by nearly 85 percent.

Cost Efficiency (LAMTD) – All the measures in this category experienced an increase in different magnitudes. However, farebox recovery and average fare have shown positive trends from 2006 to 2010.

Operating Ratio and Fare (LAMTD) – Farebox recovery and average fare increased by approximately 30 percent and 93 percent, respectively, from 2006 to 2010.

Tables 3-12 and 3-13 summarize the trend analysis, with positive and negative trends identified, for PCTS/WHAT and LAMTD, respectively.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-28


Table 3-12 Summary of Trend Analysis – PCTS/WHAT (2006–2010) Measure General Performance Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Total Operating Expense Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Service Supply Vehicle Miles per Capita Service Consumption Passenger Trips per Capita Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Quality of Service Average Age of Fleet Average Headway (in minutes) Number of Vehicle System Failures Revenue Miles Between Failures Availability Weekday Span of Service (in hours) Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Capita Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Passenger Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Operating Ratios Farebox Recovery (%) Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Labor Productivity Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE) Energy Utilization Vehicle Miles per Gallon Fare Average Fare

% Change (2006-2010)

Indicator*

202.7% 211.9% 64.3% 115.5% 204.8% -9.1%

+ +

64.6%

+

202.0% 40.5% 61.7%

+ + +

13.1% -30.8% 220.0% -32.7%

o + -

1.9%

o

204.5% 0.7% -2.3% 41.4% 62.8%

-

o

+ o

o o

-

169.9%

+

31.1%

+

-15.8%

-

-12.9%

-

165.0%

+

*Indicates a positive (+), negative (-), or neutral (o) trend

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-29


Table 3-13 Summary of Trend Analysis – LAMTD (2006–2010) % Change (2006-2010)

Measure

Indicator*

General Performance Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Total Operating Expense Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Service Supply Vehicle Miles per Capita Service Consumption Passenger Trips per Capita Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Quality of Service Average Age of Fleet Average Headway (in minutes) Number of Vehicle System Failures Revenue Miles Between Failures Availability Weekday Span of Service (in hours) Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Capita Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Passenger Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Operating Ratios Farebox Recovery (%) Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Labor Productivity Revenue Hours per Employee (FTE) Energy Utilization Vehicle Miles per Gallon Fare Average Fare

-5.8% -11.8% -12.6% -13.4% 38.7% -8.0%

o

-12.6%

-

-5.8% 8.8% 7.1%

+ +

84.8% -6.0% -50.2% 74.0%

o + +

3.1%

+

38.7% 47.2% 57.2% 60.1% 57.6%

-

30.1%

+

-0.9%

o

-10.7%

-

3.5%

o

92.7%

+

o

*Indicates a positive (+), negative (-), or neutral (o) trend

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-30


ADA Service Trend Analysis

Table 3-14 lists the measures used in the performance trend analysis conducted for PCTS/WHAT and LAMTD complementary ADA services. Highlights of the trend analysis are presented in the remainder of this section. Table 3-14 ADA Performance Review Measures Trend Analysis (2006–2010) General Performance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Passenger Trips

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Trip

Passenger Miles

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Mile

Vehicle Miles

Oper. Exp. per Passenger Mile

Revenue Hours

Oper. Exp. per Revenue Hour

Total Operating Expense

Table 3-15 includes the trend statistics for the ADA performance indicators for PCTS/WHAT. Performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures are included for the noted time period and percent changes are calculated based on the change between FY 2006 and FY 2010. Table 3-15 2006–2010 Performance Indicators, PCTS/WHAT ADA Service Trend Analysis Selected Performance Indicator

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% Change (2006–2010)

Performance Measures Passenger Trips

9,910

13,064

17,001

15,719

14,209

43.4%

Revenue Miles

78,872

104,760

118,222

115,420

105,963

34.3%

Vehicle Miles

85,211

112,035

126,439

123,594

113,223

32.9%

6,884

8,571

9,684

9,678

9,216

33.9%

$317,827

$262,679

$525,974

$558,249

$536,360

68.8%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

0.13

0.12

0.14

0.14

0.13

0.0%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

1.44

1.52

1.76

1.62

1.54

6.9%

Oper. Expense per Passenger Trip

$32.07

$20.11

$30.94

$35.51

$37.75

17.7%

Oper. Expense per Revenue Mile

$4.03

$2.51

$4.45

$4.84

$5.06

25.6%

Oper. Expense per Revenue Hour

$46.17

$30.65

$54.31

$57.68

$58.20

26.1%

Revenue Hours Total Operating Expense Effectiveness Measures

Efficiency Measures

Source: INTDAS component from FTIS, Directly Operated Demand Response.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-31


Based on this analysis, the largest percent change during the selected analysis period was in total operating expenses. Figures 3-53 through 3-63 illustrate the PCTS/WHAT ADA trends for the noted performance indicators in Table 3-14. Figure 3-53

Figure 3-54

Passenger Trips

Revenue Miles

140,000

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2006

2010

2007

2008

Figure 3-55

Figure 3-56

Vehicle Miles

Revenue Hours

140,000

12,000

120,000

10,000

100,000

8,000

80,000

2009

2010

2009

2010

6,000

60,000

4,000

40,000 20,000

2,000

0

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2006

2010

Figure 3-57

2007

2008

Figure 3-58 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Operating Expense $600,000

0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11

$500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-32


Figure 3-59

Figure 3-60

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

2.00

$40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-61

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-62

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour $70.00

$6.00

$60.00

$5.00

$50.00

$4.00

$40.00

$3.00

$30.00

$2.00

$20.00

$1.00

$10.00

$0.00

$0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Summary Results of PCTS ADA Trend Analysis

This section summarizes ADA performance trends for PCTS based on the trend analysis. Some of the key trends are described below. 

The number of total ADA trips has increased from 9,910 trips in 2006 to 14,209 trips in 2010, an increase of nearly 44 percent.

Overall service supply experienced increases of approximately one-third in terms of revenue miles, vehicle miles, and revenue hours. Despite the increase in total ADA trips between 2006 and 2010, the increase in service supply resulted in no change in passenger trips per revenue mile and a small increase (6.9%) in passenger trips per revenue hour.

ADA operating costs increased by approximately 69 percent over the trend analysis period. This increase resulted in increases of three efficiency measures-operating expense per passenger trip, operating expense per revenue mile, and operating expense per revenue hour.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-33


Table 3-16 includes the trend statistics for the ADA performance indicators for LAMTD. Performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures are included for the noted time period and percent changes are calculated based on the change between 2006 and 2010. Figures 3-64 through 3-74 illustrate each performance indicator presented in Table 3-16. Table 3-16 2006–2010 Performance Indicators, LAMTD ADA Service Trend Analysis 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% Change (2006–2010)

Passenger Trips

116,397

111,515

105,126

105,417

112,920

-3.0%

Revenue Miles

466,154

456,837

407,177

421,473

426,267

-8.6%

Vehicle Miles

508,712

509,092

473,640

470,963

469,685

-7.7%

Revenue Hours

32,159

33,331

31,409

32,093

32,102

-0.2%

$1,822,288

$2,004,216

$2,516,994

$2,467,371

$2,530,897

38.9%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

0.25

0.24

0.26

0.25

0.26

4.0%

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

3.62

3.35

3.35

3.28

3.52

-2.8%

Oper. Expense per Passenger Trip

$15.66

$17.97

$23.94

$23.41

$22.41

43.1%

Oper. Expense per Revenue Mile

$3.91

$4.39

$6.18

$5.85

$5.94

51.9%

Oper. Expense per Passenger Mile

$1.58

$1.81

$3.00

$3.18

$3.03

91.8%

Oper. Expense per Revenue Hour

$56.66

$60.13

$80.14

$76.88

$78.84

39.1%

Selected Performance Indicator Performance Measures

Total Operating Expense Effectiveness Measures

Efficiency Measures

Source: INTDAS component from FTIS, Directly Operated Demand Response

Figure 3-63

Figure 3-64

Passenger Trips

Revenue Miles 500,000

140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-34


Figure 3-65

Figure 3-66

Vehicle Miles

Revenue Hours

600,000

35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-67

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-68

Operating Expense

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

$3,000,000

0.27

$2,500,000 $2,000,000

0.26

$1,500,000

0.25

$1,000,000 0.24

$500,000 $0

0.23

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

Figure 3-69

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-70 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

$30.00

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

$25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3-35


Figure 3-71

Figure 3-72

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile

$7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00

$3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 3-73 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Summary Results of LAMTD ADA Trend Analysis

This section summarizes ADA performance trends for LAMTD based on the trend analysis. Some of the key trends are described below. 

The number of total ADA trips has decreased 3 percent since 2006. ADA passenger trips decreased to their lowest level in 2008, 105,126 trips. After that, the ADA passenger trips rose to 112,920 in 2010.

Overall supply of ADA services has declined a little during the trend analysis period. Overall, revenue miles decreased 8.6 percent, vehicle miles decreased 7.7 percent, and revenue hours decreased 0.2 percent between 2006 and 2010. Passenger trips per revenue mile experienced an increase of 4 percent.

ADA operating costs increased by approximately 39 percent over the trend analysis period. The increase in the ADA operating costs has led to an increase of 43.1 percent in the cost per passenger trip.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-36


PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS

Since each of the three transit providers in Polk County represents a part of the overall characteristics of transit services in Polk County, it is more meaningful to treat them as a whole when comparing their services with other transit systems having similar operating characteristics. The peer review for consolidated services (Polk Transit) can also be helpful to examine the operating and administrative inefficiencies resulting from the institutional redundancies. Therefore, the first peer review was performed for all the fixed-route bus services provided in Polk County, and the second peer review was performed for all the ADA (demand response) services. The fixed-route peer review and the ADA service peer review were conducted using 2010 NTD information for all selected peers. Selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are provided throughout this section in tabular and graphical formats to illustrate the performance of Polk Transit relative to its various peers. For each selected indicator and measure, the tables provide the Polk Transit value, the minimum value among the peer group, the maximum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent that Polk Transit’s values are away from the mean. Fixed-Route Service Peer Review

The fixed-route peer selection was conducted using the 2011 Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) with validated 2010 NTD data. Once the peers were selected, 2010 NTD data were collected for the peer review analyses. Peers were identified through an objective assessment of nine standard variables in the NTD:         

Geography (southeastern United States) Service Area Population Service Area Size (square miles) Service Area Population Density Operating Expense Revenue Miles Passenger Trips Average Speed Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

First, the peer group selection was based on geographic location; the states included were Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Fixed-route systems operating in these southeastern states were identified. The systems meeting this criterion then were analyzed based on the eight remaining variables. The only exception is Mountain Metropolitan Transit (MMT) in Colorado; this transit agency was added to the final selected peer group according to the input from LAMTD and PCTS/WHAT staff.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-37


A potential peer received 1 point for each measure for which its value was within ±10 percent of Polk Transit’s performance value. One-half point was given for each measure that fell within ±20 percent of Polk Transit’s value. Three of the measures, however, were considered to be primary measures of comparison. These included service area population density, revenue miles, and vehicles operated in maximum service (VOMS). To give weight to systems that are close to Polk Transit’s value for these three variables, one-half point extra was awarded to peers falling within plus or minus 10 percent of Polk Transit’s value. After the total scores were determined, the potential peers were ranked in descending order. Based on the total scores each system received and additional input from LAMTD and PCTS/WHAT staff, seven peer systems were selected. Table 3-17 presents the transit systems selected for the consolidated peer review analysis. Table 3-17 Selected Peer Systems, Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis System

Location

Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA)

Chattanooga, TN

Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT)

Pensacola, FL

Laredo Transit Management, Inc. (El Metro)

Laredo, TX

Mountain Metropolitan Transit (MMT)

Colorado Springs, CO

Shreveport Area Transit System (SporTran)

Bossier City and Shreveport, LA

Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK)

Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties, Downtown Cincinnati, OH

Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA)

Winston-Salem, NC

Polk Transit

Polk County, FL

The peer review analysis was conducted using 2010 NTD data available in the 2011 FTIS and at FTA’s NTD database website at http://www.ntdprogram.gov. Selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are summarized below. Where possible, figures for Polk Transit are based on consolidated information for both LAMTD and PCTS/WHAT. However, the peer review presents data separately for LAMTD and PCTS/WHAT for average age of fleet. This is because this variable is unable to be combined.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-38


Performance Indicators

Selected performance indicators for the Polk Transit fixed-route bus service are presented in this section. Categories of performance indicators include population, population density, ridership, revenue miles, and vehicles. Table 3-18 and Figure 3-75 through 3-81 present the performance indicators for Polk Transit’s peer review analysis. The following is a summary of the peer review analysis performance indicators, based on the information presented in Table 3-18 and Figures 3-75 through 3-81. 

Service area population and population density for Polk Transit are 2.1 percent and 5.2 percent above the peer group mean, respectively.

Passenger trips for Polk Transit are nearly 26 percent below the peer group mean, indicating that although the service area population and population densities for Polk Transit are comparable to the peer group average, Polk Transit did not achieve comparable ridership levels with other selected peers.

Revenue miles for Polk Transit are consistent with the peer group mean (-0.2%), while operating expenses were lower than the peer group average by approximately 10 percent.

Passenger fare revenues for Polk Transit are considerably lower than the peer group average by 37.6 percent.

Polk Transit’s number of vehicles operated in maximum service is approximately 23 percent lower than the peer group average. Table 3-18 Performance Indicators, Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis (2010) Indicator

Service Area Population (000) Service Area Pop. Density Passenger Trips (000) Revenue Miles (000) Total Operating Expense (000) Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Vehicles Operated in Max. Service

Polk Transit*

Peer Group Minimum

264 2,111 1,933 2,000 $10,109 $1,398 33

156 538 1,152 1,389 $6,755 $1,217 32

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

438 4,207 3,431 2,915 $16,821 $3,827 84

258 2,007 2,614 2,004 $11,155 $2,239 43

Polk Transit % from Mean 2.1% 5.2% -26.1% -0.2% -9.4% -37.6% -23.3%

*Polk Transit – Consolidated NTD statistics for LAMTD and PCTS

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-39


Figure 3-74 Service Area Population (000) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

100

200

300

400

500

Figure 3-75 Service Area Population Density (persons/square mile) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Figure 3-76 Passenger Trips (000) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

1,000

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

2,000

3,000

4,000

3-40


Figure 3-77 Revenue Miles (000) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

$15,000

$20,000

$3,000

$4,000

Figure 3-78 Operating Expense (000) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0

$5,000

$10,000

Figure 3-79 Fare Revenue (000) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0

$1,000

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

$2,000

3-41


Figure 3-80 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Effectiveness Measures

Effectiveness measures include service supply, service consumption, and quality of service. These categories are represented by one variable each: vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per revenue mile, and average age of fleet, respectively. Table 3-19 and Figures 3-82 through 3-84 present the effectiveness measures for Polk Transit’s peer review analysis. Due to the nature of the “average age of fleet” variable, separate figures for LAMTD and PCTS are provided, rather than a single figure for Polk Transit. The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures for the peer review analysis for Polk Transit. 

Vehicle miles per capita for Polk Transit are nearly 12 percent below the peer group mean. This indicates the service supply of Polk Transit is less compared with average peer group number.

Passenger trips per revenue mile for Polk Transit are approximately 27 percent below the peer group mean.

LAMTD’s average age of fleet in years is about 25 percent above, or approximately 2 years older than, the peer group mean. PCTS’s average age of fleet in years is about 38 percent lower than, or approximately 3 years younger than, the peer group mean.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-42


Table 3-19 Effectiveness Measures, Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis (2010) Measure Vehicle Miles per Capita Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Average Age of Fleet (in years)

Polk Transit

LAMTD

PCTS

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

Polk Transit % from Mean

7.83

--

--

4.62

13.66

8.93

-12.3%

0.97

--

--

0.83

1.94

1.32

-26.8%

--

10.07

5.00

4.30

11.58

8.05

--

LAMTD/ PCTS % from Mean --25.1%/ -37.9%

Figure 3-81 Vehicle Miles per Capita Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 3-82 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0.0

0.5

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3-43


Figure 3-83

Average Age of Fleet (yrs) PCTS LAMTD

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Efficiency Measures

Categories of efficiency measures include cost efficiency and operating ratios. Table 3-20 and Figures 385 through 3-91 present the efficiency measures for Polk Transit’s peer review analysis. The following is a summary of salient issues from the efficiency measures peer review presented previously. 

Polk Transit’s average fare is lower than the peer group mean by approximately 16 percent.

Operating expense per capita and operating expense per revenue mile for Polk Transit are approximately 20 percent and 9 percent less than the peer group mean, respectively, while operating expense per passenger trip is 17.7 percent higher than the peer group mean. Table 3-20 Efficiency Measures, Polk Transit Peer Review Analysis (2010) Polk Transit

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

Polk Transit % from Mean

Operating Expense per Capita

$38.30

$21.99

$85.24

$48.02

-20.2%

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$5.23

$3.19

$5.86

$4.44

17.7%

Operating Expense per Revenue Mile

$5.05

$4.87

$6.24

$5.56

-9.1%

13.83%

13.11%

29.20%

20.75%

-30.4%

Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile

0.97

0.81

1.00

0.95

2.2%

Revenue Hours per Employee FTE

852

851.78

1,263.96

1,106.92

-23.0%

Average Fare

0.72

$0.61

$1.12

$0.86

-15.5%

Measure

Farebox Recovery

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-44


Figure 3-84 Operating Expense per Capita Polk Transit

Mea

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90$100

Figure 3-85 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

Figure 3-86 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0

$1

$2

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

3-45


Figure 3-87 Farebox Recovery Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Figure 3-88 Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Figure 3-89 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE Polk Transit Winston-Salem, NC

Mean

Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA

Data not available

Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

200

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

3-46


Figure 3-90 Average Fare Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

Summary Results of Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis

Table 3-21 provides a summary of the fixed-route peer review analysis for Polk Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fixed-route system. The summary indicates the percent that Polk Transit is away from the peer group mean for each performance measure.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

3-47


Table 3-21 Polk Transit Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis Summary (2010) Performance Indicators/Measures

Percent Away From Mean Indicators Service area population 2.1% Service area population density 5.2% Passenger trips -26.1% Revenue miles -0.2% Total operating expense -9.4% Passenger fare revenue -37.6% Vehicles operated in maximum service -23.3% Service Supply Vehicle miles per capita -12.3% Service Consumption Passenger trips per revenue mile -26.8% Quality of Service Average age of fleet (in years) – 25.1% Average age of fleet (in years) – PCTS -37.9% Cost Efficiency Operating expense per capita -20.2% Operating expense per passenger trip 17.7% Operating expense per revenue mile -9.1% Operating Ratio Farebox recovery -30.4% Vehicle Utilization Revenue miles per vehicle mile 2.2% Labor Productivity Revenue hours per employee FTE -23.0% Fare Average Fare -15.5%

Indicator* N/A N/A − o + − N/A − − − + − − + − + − −

*Indicates a positive (+), negative (-), neutral (o), or not applicable (N/A) standing within the selected peer group.

ADA Service Peer Review

The ADA service peer review was conducted using the same peers selected for the fixed-route service peer review. Fiscal year 2010 NTD data were used to select performance indicators for each peer system’s demand-response service. Statistics for directly-operated demand-response services were compiled to conduct the analyses. Table 3-22 summarizes the ADA peer group analysis using 2010 performance indicators. Similar to the fixed-route peer analysis, for each measure, the table provides Polk Transit’s performance, the maximum value among the peer group, the minimum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent that Polk Transit’s values deviate from the mean value. Peer rankings for each performance indicator are illustrated in Figures 3-92 through 3-95.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-48


Table 3-22 ADA Peer Review – Performance Indicators (2010) Measure

Polk Transit

Passenger Trips Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Operating Expenses

166,037 62,785 948,291 $5,087,091

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

36,496 28,953 24,707 $991,885

258,806 1,512,459 870,458 $5,127,521

106,307 308,854 399,034 $2,569,288

Polk Transit: % from Mean 56.2% -79.7% 137.6% 98.0%

Figure 3-91 Passenger Trips Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

50,000

100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Figure 3-92 Revenue Miles Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN 0

500,000

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

3-49


Figure 3-93 Revenue Hours Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

Figure 3-94 Operating Expense (000) Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN 0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Table 3-23 summarizes the peer group analysis for the financial and operational measures selected to indicate overall system performance. Peer rankings for each financial and operational measure are illustrated in Figures 3-96 through 3-100.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

3-50


Table 3-23 ADA Peer Review â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Financial & Operational Measures Measure Financial Measures Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Operational Measures Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Polk Transit

Peer Group Minimum

Peer Group Maximum

Peer Group Mean

Polk Transit: % from Mean

$5.36 $81.02 $30.64

$2.38 $2.53 $16.28

$53.24 $81.02 $37.36

$19.38 $37.17 $25.59

-72.3% 118.0% 19.7%

2.64 0.18

0.09 0.11

2.87 2.28

1.42 0.83

86.2% -78.8%

Figure 3-95 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Figure 3-96 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

3-51


Figure 3-97 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

Figure 3-98 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

Figure 3-99 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Polk Transit

Mean

Winston-Salem, NC Northern Kentucky Shreveport, LA Colorado Springs, CO Laredo, TX Pensacola, FL Chattanooga, TN

0.0

0.5

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

1.0

1.5

2.0

3-52


Summary Results of ADA Service Peer Review Analysis

Highlights from the ADA service peer review analysis are summarized below. 

The number of ADA passenger trips provided by Polk Transit in FY 2010 was 166,037. This figure is considerably higher (approximately 56%) than the peer group mean of 106,307 trips. Total revenue miles for Polk Transit’s ADA service was lower than the peer group average by approximately 80 percent, while revenue hours of operation was higher than the peer group mean by 137.6 percent.

ADA passenger trips per revenue mile for Polk Transit exceeds the peer group mean by 86.2 percent. However, when referring to ADA passenger trips per revenue hours, Polk Transit fell below the peer group mean by approximately 79 percent.

Although Polk Transit ADA service had the second highest total operating cost at $5.1 million among all the peers, its operating expense per revenue hour is 78.8 percent less than the peer group average. Two other financial variables—operating expense per revenue mile and operating expense per passenger trip—were higher than the peer group average by 86.2 percent and 19.7 percent, respectively.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

3-53


Section 4 TRANSIT DEMAND AND MOBILITY NEEDS Transit demand and mobility needs were assessed for the study area using various analytical techniques. Two market assessment tools and ridership forecasting software were used to assess demand for public transportation services. This section includes the results of that demand analysis. MARKET ASSESSMENT

The transit market assessment for Polk County includes an evaluation from two different perspectives: the discretionary market and the traditional market, also referred to as transit dependent populations. Analysis tools for conducting each market analysis include a Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) and a Transit Orientation Index (TOI), respectively. The two analysis tools can be used to determine whether existing transit routes are serving areas of the county considered to be transit-supportive for the corresponding transit market. The transit markets and the corresponding market assessment tool used to measure each are described in detail below. Discretionary Market – Density Threshold Assessment (DTA)

The discretionary market refers to potential riders living in higher density areas of the county that may choose to use transit as a commuting or transportation alternative. A DTA was conducted based on industry standard relationships to identify those areas of Polk County that will experience transitsupportive residential and commercial density levels in 2025. TAZ data from the Polk County TPO were obtained to conduct the DTA. Three levels of density thresholds were developed to indicate whether or not an area contains sufficient densities to sustain efficient fixed-route transit operations. The levels include: 

Minimum – Reflects minimum population or employment densities to consider basic fixed-route transit services (i.e., fixed-route bus service).

High – Reflects high population or employment densities that may be able to support higher levels of transit investment than areas that meet only the minimum density threshold (i.e., increased frequencies).

Very High – Reflects very high population or employment densities that may be able to support higher levels of transit investment than areas that meet the minimum or high density thresholds (i.e., premium transit services, etc.).

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

4-1


Table 4-1 presents the density thresholds for each of the noted categories. Table 4-1 Transit Service Density Threshold

Minimum

Population Density Threshold1 4.5 – 5 dwelling units/acre

Employment Density Threshold2 4 employees/acre

High

6 – 7 dwelling units/acre

5 – 6 employees/acre

Very High

>=8 dwelling units/acre

>=7 employees/acre

Transit Mode

TRB, National Research Council, TCRP Report 16, Volume 1 (1996), Transit and Land Use Form, November 2002, MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy for Regional Transit Expansion Projects. 2 Based on a review of research on the relationship between transit technology and employment densities. 1

Transit Dependent Populations – Transit Orientation Index (TOI)

Transit dependent populations refer to population segments that historically have had a higher propensity to use transit and/or are dependent on public transit for their transportation needs. Transit dependent populations include older adults, youths, and households that are low income and/or have no vehicles. A TOI assists in identifying areas of the county where transit dependent populations exist. Since 2010 Census data were available only at the census tract level at the time of preparing this TDP update, 2010 ESRI demographic data estimates were compiled at the block group level and categorized according to each block group’s relative ability to support transit based on the prevalence of specific demographic characteristics. For this analysis, five population and demographic characteristics were used to develop the TOI; each is traditionally associated with the propensity to use transit:     

Population density (persons per square mile) Proportion of the population age 60 and over (older adults) Proportion of the population under age 16 (youths) Proportion of the population below the poverty level Proportion of households with no vehicles (zero-vehicle households)

ESRI data do not include zero-vehicle household information. As a surrogate measure, the number of households with an annual income equal to or less than $10,000 was used. It was assumed that households earning less than $10,000 were not able to afford vehicles or other costs associated with vehicle ownership. To validate this assumption, census block groups with a high proportion of households with an annual income of $10,000 or less were compared with the corresponding census tracts that have a high proportion of zero-vehicle households as indicated in the 2010 U.S. Census data. Census block groups with a high proportion of households with an annual income of $10,000 or less that are not Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

4-2


consistent with those census tracts with a high proportion of zero-vehicle households were eliminated from the final TOI. Block groups were then rated as “Very High,” “High,” “Medium,” or “Low” in their respective levels of transit orientation, where “Very High” reflects a very high transit orientation, i.e., a high proportion of transit dependent populations. Maps 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the 2025 DTA and the 2010 TOI, respectively. In addition, the maps include the existing Polk County transit service network in order to show how well Polk County transit services cover those areas of the county that are considered transit supportive in each market assessment. 2022 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES TBEST MODELING

Polk County ridership forecasts were prepared using the FDOT-approved transit demand forecasting tool, Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST). It has long been a desire of FDOT to have a standard modeling tool for transit demand that could be standardized across the state similar to the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) model used by MPOs in developing LRTPs. TBEST is 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. In producing model outputs, TBEST also considers the following factors: 

Transit network connectivity – the level of connectivity between routes within the bus network; the greater the connectivity between bus routes, the more efficient the bus service becomes.

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 utilization decreases.

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

Route competition and route complementarities – accounts for competition between routes; routes connecting to the same destinations or anchor points or that travel on common corridors, experience decreases in service utilization; conversely, routes that are synchronized and support each other in terms of schedule and service to major destinations or transfer locations benefit from that complementary relationship.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

4-3


4

Downtown Lakeland

US 27

SR 471

4

US 27

CR 5

4 (R O

N AL

D RE G

U

17

NUE

Major Road

NW )

/9 8

SR

65

5( RE

CK

ER

HW

Y)

BUCKEYE RD

SIXTH STREET SE

CR 542 (AVE G NW)

FIRST STREET SOUTH SR 549 (FIRST ST N)

US 17 (EI GH TH ST

)

US 17 (SIXTH ST NW)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

Source: Polk TPO 2007-2060 Population and Employment Projections

17

27

U

S

17

HELENA RD

4 Miles

US

US

17

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

Downtown Winter Haven

92

COOLEY ROAD

US 98

PARK CUTO FF

WALK-IN-WATER RD

ALTURAS- BABSON

US 98

US

MARIGO LD AVE

THIRTIETH ST

Interstate

SPIRIT LAKE RD

37 SR

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

US

0 1 2

LAMTD Routes

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

27

37

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

WHAT Routes

60

CR 640

60

US

OLD HIG HWAY

SR 674

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR

PCTS Routes

SR

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

US 17/98

SR 60

SR 60

SR 60

WAVERLY RD

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

SPIRIT LAKE RD

17 US SR 60

S

Minimum

D

SHEPHERD RD

U

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

High

ROA

U

17

17

Population Density Threshold

AN E

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

S

RD)

Minimum

ER L

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

-L AKE

High

TIM B

0 (W IN TER

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

RD

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

SR 54

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

EWELL ROAD

BU

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

YE C KE

US 27

US 92

Very High

BAT ES RO AD

US 17/92

HELENA RD

ARIANA ST

LAKE LOWERY RD

92

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

Y) LIME STREET A HW AM P EW T

US

US

US 27 SR 559

BRIDGERS AVE

Employment Density Threshold

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

Legend

/9 2

SR 33

33 SR

) WAY

ODOM ROAD

US 98

K PAR

EY RD)

98

COUNTY LINE RD

27

(BERKL

O LK 7 0 (P

3 SR 3

AN P KW Y )

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CR 557/PO MELO ST

SR 5

4

S

E AT ST

U

2 (N

R TE

CR 65 5

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

98

IN

US 9

US

S BANANA ROAD DUFF RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Map 4-1 Polk County 2025 Density Threshold Assessment


Downtown Lakeland

40 0

600

528

417

500

536

15

471

4

5 53 0 40 53 9

33

530

35

Polk County 2012 Transit Development Plan

15

35

700

4

70 0

700

563

546

517

0 70

600

Legend

700

33

600

0 5048 5

35

41

600

0 60

557

37

559

35

Interstate

15

0 70

570

55 9

659

559

39

Major Road 555

53 9

0 62 65 5

540

572

TOI

540

5 55

542

Very High

540

540

35

High

17

65 5

540

91

549

553

544

563

574

600

600

8 54

517

546

600

39

5 55

0 70

Medium

60

60A 60

Low

60A

60

35 700

Downtown Winter Haven

600

54 4

700

674

549

37

555

655

25

Source: 2006 -2010 American Community Survey

555

0 70

542

555

37

540

62 0

540

5 65

0 1 2

540

4 Miles

64

636

64

540

0 54

17

62

Map 4-2 Polk County 2010 Transit Orientation Index


The first task in updating the Polk County network in TBEST involved collecting service data from transit agency staff. Data required to update the Polk County 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

For TBEST modeling as part of the Polk County TDP, the most recent version of the modeling software, TBEST Version 4.0.5, was used. Model Inputs, Assumptions, and Limitations

TBEST uses various demographic and transit network data as model inputs. The inputs and the assumptions made in modeling the Polk County system in TBEST are presented below. It should be noted, however, that the model is not interactive with roadway network conditions. Therefore, ridership forecasts will not show direct sensitivity to changes in the roadway traffic conditions or speeds. Transit Network The transit route network for all Polk County routes was updated to reflect the most recent, existing schedules for routes currently operating in 2012, the validation year for the model. The transit network in TBEST required various steps to reflect the current route alignments and service characteristics in Polk County, including the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Download the Polk County transit system distribution file and loading it into the TBEST software. Create the Polk County validation scenario. Update InfoUSA data to 2010. Verify and update the correct location of bus stops and route alignments to match existing service. Match service span to existing service spans. Modify headways, i.e., the frequency with which a bus will arrive at a stop (e.g., one bus every 60 minutes or one bus every 30 minutes). Establish passenger travel times on board a bus. Enter observed average daily ridership.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

4-6


Demographic Data The demographics, including population and employment, used as the base input for the TBEST model were derived from the 2000 Census and 2010 InfoUSA spatial and tabular databases. The model uses a Census Block-level personal geodatabase as the format for spatial distribution of population data. Varying data sets were used for TBEST because demographic data in TBEST is hard-coded and cannot be modified by end-users. Population and Employment Growth Rates TBEST uses a socioeconomic data growth function to project population and employment data. A population growth rate and an employment growth rate were interpolated using 2035 TAZ forecasts developed for the Polk County LRTP. As indicated previously, population and employment data are hardcoded into the model and cannot be modified by end-users. As applied, the growth rates do not reflect fluctuating economic conditions as experienced in real time. Special Generators Special generators and transfer points in Polk County were determined to evaluate locations with opportunities for high ridership. Special generators include the following:       

Auburndale Civic Center Eagle Ridge Mall Florida Southern College Lakeland Linder Regional Airport Lakeland Square Mall Polk State College Legoland

Transfer stations include the following:  

Lakeland Downtown Terminal Winter Haven Terminal

TBEST Modeling Results

This section includes a description of the TBEST model run and summarizes the ridership forecasts produced by TBEST. It is important to keep in mind that while TBEST is an important tool for evaluating improvements to existing and future transit services, model outputs do not account for latent demand for

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

4-7


transit that could yield significantly higher ridership, and, correspondingly, model outputs may overestimate demand in isolated cases. In addition, TBEST cannot display sensitivities to external factors such as an improved marketing and advertising program, changes in pricing service for customers, and other local conditions. Furthermore, although TBEST provides ridership projections at the route and bus stop levels, its strength lies more in its ability to facilitate relative comparisons of ridership productivity. As a result, model outputs are not absolute ridership projections, but rather provide comparative evaluations for actual service implementation decisions. Using the inputs and assumptions described in this document, the model was successfully validated. The validation process uses observed ridership data and socioeconomic data to check for reasonableness and sensitivity within the model. Using the validated model, the 2013 and 2022 scenarios were created. Both scenarios represent the existing fixed-route system without any modifications. A model run was performed in each scenario, and the results are described in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 shows the projected number of average daily riders by route in 2022 and ridership growth rates from 2013 to 2022 derived from TBEST. According to TBEST, average daily weekday ridership is expected to increase 8.47 percent (from 5,312 to 5,762 average daily riders) by 2022. Ridership on three routes (Route 30, 40/44, and 45) is forecasted to grow by more than 20 percent. Three additional routes are forecasted to grow by more than 10 percent during the 10-year time period. Map 4-3 illustrates 2013-2022 ridership growth for fixed-route services in Polk County based on TBEST modeling outputs. Implications

Based on the TBEST results shown, maintaining the status quo will result in small increases in ridership. To increase the market share for transit, service expansion will need to occur.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

4-8


Table 4-2 Average Weekday Ridership and Growth Rates Polk County TBEST Ridership and Growth Rates (2013–2022) Route

Existing Average Daily Ridership

1 3 10 14 15 22XL 32/33 39 45 46 47 57 58 Subtotal

759 322 209 306 409 365 113 15 216 112 166 54 134 3,180

11 12 15 22XW 30 40/44 50 Subtotal

134 598 217 223 406 119 144 1,841

25 35 Subtotal Total

86 122 208 5,229

Average Daily Ridership (2013) Citrus Connection 775 328 211 311 418 371 115 15 220 114 168 55 136 3,237 WHAT 135 605 219 226 413 122 145 1,865 PCTS 87 123 210 5,312

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

Average Daily Ridership (2022)

Growth Rate (2013–2022)

817 348 217 323 471 386 123 16 265 120 177 59 140 3,462

5.4% 5.9% 2.6% 3.9% 12.9% 4.1% 6.6% 4.7% 20.4% 6.0% 5.8% 6.0% 2.8% 6.95%

136 638 248 237 504 150 163 2,076

0.4% 5.4% 13.1% 4.9% 22.1% 22.3% 11.8% 11.31%

90 134 224 5,753

2.9% 8.4% 6.67% 8.3%

4-9


US 98

CHESTNUT RD N

NUE MARIGO LD AVE

INGRAHAM AVENUE

WABASH AVE S

SR 37 (FLORIDA AVE S) SOUTH BLVD

/9 2

< 10%

Major Road

)

BLV D NW )

5( RE

CK

ER

HW

Y)

Source: TBEST Modeling Output

SIXTH STREET SE

/9 8

65

BUCKEYE RD

Map 4-3

17

27

SR

U

S

17

HELENA RD

US

US

CR 542 (AVE G NW)

FIRST STREET SOUTH SR 549 (FIRST ST N)

SR 544 (HA VENDAL E

US 17 (SIXTH ST NW)

LAK ES CUTOFF CR 630 (INDIAN

92

US 17 (EIG HTH ST NW)

US

FORTY-SECOND ST NW

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

Downtown Winter Haven

COOLEY ROAD

PARK CUTO FF

SPIRIT LAKE RD

US 98

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

WALK-IN-WATER RD

ALTURAS- BABSON

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

60

17 US

LAKE MABEL LOOP RD

US 27

HELENA RD

17 S

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

U

LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A

THIRTIETH ST

SR 559 SPIRIT LAKE RD

US 17/98

SR

27

37

10% - 20%

WAVERLY RD

US

CR 555 (AGRICOLA RD)

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD )

US 98

4 Miles

> 20%

60

CR 640

CR 630 (BREWSTER RD)

SR

17 US

SR 33 CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

ODOM ROAD

US 98

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

US 98

SR 37 (CHURCH AVE N)

17

Ridership Growth Rate

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

SR

US 17 /98

OLD HIGHWAY 37

S

PROVIDENCE ROAD

4 SR 471

COUNTY LINE RD

BU C

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD) WATER TANK ROAD

D ER KEY

Legend

Transit Center

98

92

ARIANA ST

IN ST E) CR 542 (MA

S

98 60

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 674

REET W MAIN ST E STREET OLIVE STREET LIM

U

U

BAT ES RO AD

US 17/92

RD)

US SR

SR 60

PARKER STREET

S AVENUE

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SHEPHERD RD

US 92/98 (MEMORIAL BLVD E)

SUCCES

ALAMO DRIVE PIPKIN ROAD WEST LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD) EWELL ROAD

US

LAKE LOWERY RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

PARKVIEW PLACE FIFTH STREET

POINCI ANA PARKWAY

SR 540 (WINTE R-L AKE

SR 570 (PO LK PARKWA Y)

27

BRIDGERS AVE

CR 542 (K-VILLE AVE)

SKYVIEW DR

E EDGEWOO D DRIVE

US

US 92

CR 557/PO MELO ST

98 ARIANA ST

4

EY RD)

US

2 (N

Y) LIME STREET A HW AM P EW T

E AT ST

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

(BERKL

IN

R TE

33

RD) SR 659 (COM BEE

DUFF RD

SR

ER

SWINDELL RD

ROBSON ST

4

98

US 27

4 (R ONA LD R 4 EG A N PK TE W Y) A ST

E AT ST

S

US 27 T IN

CR 65 5

BANANA ROAD

TENTH ST W SWINDELL RD

0 1 2

4 TENTH ST W

CR 5

CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)

US 9

IN

R TE

U

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

SLEEPY HILL ROAD

SR 33 (LAKELAND HILLS BLVD)

Downtown Lakeland

2013-2022 Ridership Growth


Section 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The update of the Polk Consolidated TDP included the “My Ride” branding effort. More than just a logo, it was the desire of the transit agencies that “My Ride” represent the true needs of the citizens throughout Polk County and their vision of what good, quality, public transportation would be in the year 2022. The Polk Transit Board endorsed a public involvement strategy that focused on community needs, community education, and a consolidated service plan. These were designed to better understand the community need for public transportation services and build support for the plan that is based on the community needs and vision. The following is a description of each public involvement activity and its implication to the development of the TDP. COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS AND MEETINGS

The public involvement efforts were extensive and included stakeholder outreach to member jurisdictions, social service agencies, employers, visitors, and residents. Between February 6 and June 13, 2012, a total of 31 listening sessions, 1 transit forum, and 1 TDP rollout event were held throughout Polk County using a varied approach. Some sessions were formally scheduled, some were informal sessions held at local libraries and coffee shops, and some were speaking engagements to a selected group of citizens including neighborhood associations and local civic clubs. The result of these efforts led to reaching out to over 1,000 citizens to garner public input into the development of the My Ride Needs Plan. By participating in these meetings, workshops, and events, Polk Transit staff were successful in soliciting input from diverse groups throughout Polk County. The feedback received was recorded and used to guide the development of the My Ride document. Table 5-1 shows the mechanism through which input was solicited and how comments were addressed in My Ride or through modification of the process.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

5-1


Table 5-1 My Ride Public Involvement Activities, Input Solicitation, and Comments Address Date of Event

Event

Event Description

February 6, 2012

Loughman Community Meeting

Informational Meeting: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 7, 2012

Eagle Lake

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 15, 2012

Winter Haven Library, Richard’s Coffee Shop

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 15, 2012

Winter Haven Chain of Lakes Complex

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 22, 2012

Bartow Civic Center Bartow BOCC Administration Building and Courthouse Park Auburndale Community Center

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 27, 2012 February 27, 2012

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 28, 2012

Auburndale Public Library

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 28, 2012

Lakeland Coleman Bush Building

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

February 29, 2012

Lakeland Mitchell’s Coffee Shop

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 1, 2012

Frostproof Council Chambers

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 5, 2012

Auburndale Winn Dixie

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 5, 2012

Haines City Lake Eva Hall

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 6, 2012

Eagle Lake Commission Chambers

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 8, 2012

Davenport Community Center

Informational Workshop: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 8, 2012

Eagle Ridge Mall

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 15, 2012

Lakeland Bus Terminal

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 19, 2012

Lakeland Public Library

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 20, 2012

Dundee Rotary

Informational Meeting: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 20, 2012

Diggs Neighborhood Association

Informational Meeting: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 21, 2012

Lake Wales Library

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 22, 2012

Ft. Meade Community Center

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 24, 2012

Eagle Lake Trunk & Treasure Sale

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 26, 2012

Polk City Library

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 28, 2012

Lakeland Square Mall

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 29, 2012

Ridge Career Center Open House

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

March 29, 2012

Bartow Rotary Club

Informational Meeting: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

April 2, 2012

Lake Alfred Library

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

April 6, 2012

Lakeland First Friday Event

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

April 12, 2012

Poinciana Community Meeting

Informational Meeting: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure

April 19, 2012

Traviss Career Center Open House Transit Forum – Nora Mayo Hall – Winter Haven

Informal Listening Session: Input sought through Public Survey – My Ride brochure Formal event with over 100 in attendance. Comments and feedback solicited regarding draft needs plan developed from all prior events and surveys collected. Formal event with over 100 in attendance. Comments and feedback solicited on draft TDP, My Ride. Feedback will be considered in final draft to be presented to Board for adoption in late summer 2012.

April 24, 2012 June 13, 2012

My Ride Rollout Event – Polk State College - Lakeland

During the course of holding those public involvement activities presented in Table 5-1, surveys were administered manually to the attendees and made available to the general public on the website at www.polktransit.org. A total of 679 respondents responded to the survey and the survey results were analyzed and incorporated into the development of the My Ride Needs Plan. Figure 5-1 illustrates the most

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

5-2


desirable service improvements cited as added incentives to use public transportation by survey respondents. The percentages of all service improvements do not add up to 100 percent because more than one service improvement was allowed to be selected by respondents. Figure 5-1 Service Improvements Cited as Added Incentives to Use Public Transportation More Destinations

45.39%

Expanded Service Hours

39.49%

Improved Service Frequency

38.73%

More Weekend Service

34.04%

Other Nicer Vehicles 0.00%

25.11% 6.35% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

TRANSIT NEEDS FORUM

On April 24, 2012, a Transit Needs Forum was held in Winter Haven with over 100 attendees. The purpose of this forum was to bring everyone together to help identify transit needs and barriers to accessing public transportation throughout Polk County and propose potential solutions. Two table exercises were facilitated by staff: “What’s My Ride” helped to identify opportunities, obstacles and solutions to public transportation services; and “Investment in Transit” prioritized the different types and levels of public transportation solutions. The results of the public feedback received at the Transit Needs Forum were incorporated in the development of the Needs Plan for the Consolidated TDP or “My Ride” document.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

5-3


MY RIDE ROLLLOUT

On June 13, 2012, the My Ride Rollout” took place in Lakeland to unveil the Needs Plan for the Polk Consolidated TDP (My Ride). There were over 100 attendees, including elected officials from all of the jurisdictions in Polk County, stakeholders, and interested citizens. In the promotion of this event, participants were invited to complete an electronic time capsule (survey) of what they envision transportation related issues to be in the year 2022, which is the planning horizon of the My Ride document. Two types of electronic time capsules were used, one for the elected officials of the 17 municipalities throughout Polk County, and one for citizens from a personal perspective. An electronic response was set to return each participant’s time capsule in the year 2022. In addition, 18 Community Transit Solutions brochures were created, one for each community in the county, that identified the existing and proposed transit solutions specific to their geographic location. After adoption of the My Ride plan by the respective authorities, these brochures will be distributed for educational purposes to various organizations, boards, and citizens to carry forward the message and purpose of the Polk Consolidated TDP. PROJECT BROCHURES AND NEWSLETTERS

As stated previously, a My Ride brochure was initially created to spread the word regarding the development of the Polk Consolidated TDP FY 2013–FY 2022. The brochure included solicitation for completion of an on-line survey on Polk Transit’s website, www.polktransit.org. These surveys were also manually administered over a two-month period leading up to the Transit Needs Forum. Also, the brochure included advertisements of the Transit Needs Forum event held on April 24, 2012, as well as the My Ride Rollout event held on June 13, 2012. In addition, there were 18 Community Transit Solutions brochures created to identify existing and proposed transit solutions that are specific to each community throughout Polk County. These can be used by the local jurisdictions to educate their citizens about public transportation services in their respective communities. Figure 5-2 shows a sample My Ride brochure.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

5-4


Figure 5-2 Sample My Ride Brochure

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

5-5


POLK GOVERNMENT TV AND VIDEOS

Polk Government Television (PGTV), which airs on Brighthouse Channel 622, Verizon Channel 20, and Comcast Channel 5, was used in the My Ride public involvement effort. Mr. Tom Phillips, Director of LAMTD and Polk Transit, along with Mr. Paul Simmons, Director of PCTS, appeared on the PGTV program “Polk Place” to educate citizens about public transportation options in Polk County and to solicit public involvement in the development of the My Ride document. The Transit Needs Forum and the My Ride Rollout event were both broadcast on PGTV. In addition, with the assistance of staff, PGTV also produced a My Ride Video, which was used at the My Ride Rollout event in June and presented the draft plan for public comment. The Needs Plan for My Ride was developed from the direct result of public comments received at these events, as well as the two survey instruments that were distributed during this time. PGTV staff are also developing 30-second public service announcements that will be used once the plan is formally adopted. These announcements are continuing efforts to educate and inform the citizens of Polk County of their public transportation options. WEBSITE / INTERNET

The following agency websites were utilized in the development of My Ride to advertise upcoming workshops and events, as well as to solicit public comment via the survey instruments used in this effort. These websites were: www.polktpo.com, www.polk-county.net, www.ridecitrus.com, and www.polktransit.org.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

5-6


Section 6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION This section presents the development and evaluation of transit service improvements for the 2013–2022 Polk TDP. Those proposed improvements, or alternatives, constitute the Needs Plan for the My Ride Plan. The Needs Plan was developed based on feedback received through the My Ride public outreach efforts, analysis of the transit demand and market assessments, and discussions with local agency staff. Alternatives consist of improvements to existing service and also improvements that expand service. Consequently, the alternatives reflect the desire of the community and have been designed to address public transportation needs throughout the county. In addition to presenting the Needs Plan, a methodology and analysis used for ranking, organizing, and programming service improvements in the My Ride financial plan is also presented in this section. NEEDS PLAN ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

As indicated, the Needs Plan alternatives were developed based on a number of different efforts, including public involvement, data analysis, and feedback received from local agency staff. Public outreach efforts are presented in Section 5 of this report and data analysis and market assessment tools are presented in Section 4. It is important to note that the data analysis resulted in a list of potential improvements, which were then evaluated against the feedback received during those public outreach efforts. This process ensures the final needs plan make sense from a technical perspective and also reflects the desires of the various communities in Polk County. Alternatives can be grouped into two major categories: 

Existing service improvements – improvements to service frequency, extended service hours, and/or more weekend service. In addition, some of the improvements include route realignments focused on either improving connectivity and/or improving the efficiency of the corresponding service.

Service expansion – new routes operating in areas of the county with no existing service. New service modes also fall under this category of service improvements.

Public Transportation Services Hierarchy

The My Ride service plan includes a variety of urban and rural public transportation services organized into a public transportation services hierarchy. The hierarchy allows for the customization of services based on community needs that will assist Polk Transit in matching the appropriate level of transit service to the right service area. Table 6-1 summarizes the hierarchy and denotes the corresponding service areas and

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-1


operating characteristics. The nine service categories in the table constitute a service hierarchy of transit services in descending order in terms of the level-of-service provided (e.g., service frequency, service span, and days of service). Table 6-1 Transit Service Hierarchy Service Area Urban

Rural CountyWide

Service Level Mode Premium (Bus Rapid Transit) Express Traditional Fixed-Route (Urban) Traditional Fixed-Route (Rural) Flex Call-and-Ride Community Transit Options Commuter Services/Vanpool Taxi-Access Program

Frequency

Service Span*

10–15 Min 30-Min Peak <=60 Min >= 60 Min Varies by service Varies by service N/A N/A N/A

14 Hours Peak Hour 14-16 Hours 14 Hours 14 Hours 14 Hours N/A N/A N/A

Days of Service 5 Days 5 Days 6–7 Days 6 Days 6 Days 6 Days 7 Days 5 Days 7 Days

*14 Hours = 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM; 16 Hours = 6:00 AM to 10PM.

Organization of Needs Plan services into these nine categories assists in determining a consistent service plan for each service category. A service plan consists of a specific service frequency, span of service, stop spacing, and days of service. The benefit of such a categorization and corresponding service plan is two-fold. First, for comparative purposes, creating a service plan benchmark allows for a fair evaluation between alternatives within the same category. Second, the service plan benchmarks reflect implementation guidelines to be used whenever Polk Transit is ready to roll out new service. Service categories are described below. 

Premium Bus Service (Bus Rapid Transit) – Premium bus service is the highest level of service in the Needs Plan. Premium bus service is considered more frequent, high quality transit service that incorporates a host of transit technologies that improve the speed and reliability of the bus service. Ideally, this service is targeted to operate in dense urban corridors. For the TDP evaluation, these services are proposed to operate on 10- to 15-minute service frequencies five days a week between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Express Service – Express services are characterized as peak-hour limited stop services primarily designed to meet the transportation needs of commuters. Express service ideally operates as a point-to-point service. For the TDP evaluation, express services are proposed to operate on 30minute service frequencies five days a week during AM and PM peak service periods.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-2


Traditional Fixed-Route Service (Urban, Frequency <= 60 min) – This kind of service refers to traditional fixed-route service operating in mixed traffic in urbanized areas of the county. Coverage of that urbanized service area is being provided by one or more of the existing transit agencies. A new proposed fixed-route service in the urbanized area also falls in this category.

Traditional Fixed-Route Service (Rural, Frequency >= 60 min) – New fixed-route services to operate in areas with rural characteristics fall into this category. They will generally have service frequencies of 60 minutes or more. In some instances, rural fixed-route service will warrant more frequent service depending on ridership and vehicle loads.

Flex Service – This proposed new service is designed to operate in rural areas and will provide connections between major city cores via major corridors. The noted service is proposed as a deviated fixed-route service with a maximum number of deviations per round trip. Each deviation will be limited to a maximum of ¾-mile distance away from the trunk line. Route deviation is a hybrid public transportation service with features of fixed-route, fixed-schedule transit service and demand–responsive, curb-to-curb service. Requests for route deviation must be made in advance. Another advantage of this service is that the route-deviated service is officially recognized as demand-responsive and, therefore, meets all requirements for complementary paratransit service required by ADA. No separate complementary ADA paratransit service is required. The service frequencies for this service will vary from 60 to 90 minutes, and service is generally provided on weekdays and Saturdays.

Call-and-Ride Service – This type of service is designed to offer neighborhood transportation choices for people living in rural areas. The service is provided in a designated area in which riders may call at least two hours prior to their desired pick-up time. A vehicle will pick up the riders in front of their homes and take them to catch Polk Transit fixed routes that provide services in the designated area, if necessary. Riders may also arrange a time for their return trips to have flex service bring them back home from any local bus stops within the designated area. Due to the nature of call-and-ride service, it has no pre-determined service frequency and generally operates on weekdays and Saturdays.

Community Transit Options – This consists of all demand-response, door-to-door services provided through the County’s TD, Medicaid, and community volunteer transportation programs. These programs are county-wide programs and are generally limited to qualifying program participants.

Commuter Services/Vanpools – The Polk County Commuter Services program would be implemented county-wide and is envisioned to complement and support the existing FDOT District 1 Commuter Services program. Commuter services programs work with local transportation

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-3


partners to help offer a wider range of transportation choices such as carpools and vanpools. Ridematching services for vanpools would be coordinated through the FDOT program and users of the program-provided vehicles would be responsible for paying for a portion of the operation and routine maintenance of those vehicles. 

Taxi-Access Program – The taxi access program is designed to meet the transportation needs of those who cannot access the fixed-route service network because of their work schedule or because they live or work outside of the fixed-route service area. A user would purchase a voucher from the transit agency, which would qualify him/her for a taxicab trip with a participating taxicab agency up to a pre-determined fare. Such a program would fill schedule and network gaps in the fixed-route system and would be implemented wherever taxi service is available in the county.

Table 6-2 presents all the Needs Plan alternatives, their corresponding service category, and a brief service improvement description. Alternatives were incorporated into two categories: existing service improvements and service expansions. Maps 6-1 and 6-2 were prepared to illustrate routes with service frequency and span improvements and routes with service frequency, service span, and Sunday service improvements, respectively. Maps 6-1 and 6-2 reflect existing service improvements. Map 6-3 illustrates proposed new services under the service expansion category ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

To program service improvements in the TDP financial plan, it is important to evaluate projects by the amount of benefit of each service improvement provides. By conducting an evaluation of the service improvements in the Needs Plan, Polk Transit can better rank projects and allocate funding using an objective service implementation process. This section identifies and defines the evaluation criteria utilized in evaluating the service improvements developed for the TDP Needs Plan and the methodology by which those criteria were applied. Three evaluation categories were identified for determining criteria for the evaluation: Public Outreach, Transit Markets, and Productivity and Efficiency. Table 6-3 lists the evaluation categories, each category’s corresponding criteria, the associated measure of effectiveness, and the assigned weighting for each criterion. A description of all the elements in the table follows.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-4


Table 6-2 Needs Plan Alternatives Summary Route Name 1

Description

Service Category

Map Reference

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-2

3

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-2

10

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-2

14

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

15 (Citrus Connection)

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

22XL

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

45

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-2

47

Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

N/A

11

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

12

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

15 (WHAT)

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-2

22XW

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

30

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-2

40/44

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

50

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-1

Downtown Lakeland Premium

New Service

Premium Bus Service

Map 6-3

Lakeland-Bartow Express

New Service

Express

Map 6-3

Lakeland-Winter Haven Express

New Service

Express

Map 6-3

Lakeland-Sunrail Terminal Express

New Service

Express

Map 6-3

I-4 Intercounty Express

New Service

Express

Map 6-3

Haines City-Eagle Ridge Mall

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-3

Mulberry Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-3

Bartow Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-3

Lake Wales Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-3

Haines City Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-3

Auburndale/Florida Polytechnic

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Map 6-3

Carter Rd Walmart-Bradley

Span Improvement

Flex

Map 6-3

Bartow-Fort Meade

Span Improvement

Flex

Map 6-3

Lake Wales-Frostproof

Frequency and Span Improvement

Flex

Map 6-3

Eagle Ridge-Lake Wales

Frequency and Span Improvement

Flex

Map 6-3

Lake Davenport-Haines City

New Service

Flex

Map 6-3

Haines City-Poinciana

New Service

Flex

Map 6-3

Fort Meade

New Service

Call & Ride

Map 6-3

Frostproof

New Service

Call & Ride

Map 6-3

Crooked Lake Park/Hillcrest Heights

New Service

Call & Ride

Map 6-3

Poinciana

New Service

Call & Ride

Map 6-3

Lake Davenport

New Service

Call & Ride

Map 6-3

Winter Haven Logistics Center

New Service

Call & Ride

Map 6-3

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

6-5


/92 US 1 7

POWERLINE ROAD/SOUTH BLVD E

THIRTIETH ST

DETOUR ROAD

22XW 50 40/44

D ROA DEE N U D

LAMTD SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

US 27

HELENA RD

11

WAVERLY RD

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

Lake Wales

SR 60

SR 6 0

12 14 15 22XL

Interstate Major Road Local Road

US 17/98

RD)

SIXTH STREET SE

17

US

SPIRIT LAKE RD

Routes >75% of 2022 system-wide trips/hour average are qualified for frequency and service span improvements.

7 US 2

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD

CR 5 55

(AGR ICOL A

CARTER ROAD

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

THORNHILL ROAD

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

REYNOLDS RD CR 640

NW)

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

US 98

S) AVE 7 (F LO R IDA SR 3

SR 37

OLD HIGHWAY 37

CR 557/POMELO ST

SR 559

3 SR 3

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US 98

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

IRPORT R D)

SR 572 (A BAILEY ROAD

4 Miles

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)

Legend

7 US 2

2

US 17/98

1

CRUMP RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

WHAT

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

0

IVE R DR SULA PENIN

0 SR 6

E RD KEY BUC

17

Bartow

8

SR 60

9 US

SR 60

US

2

NW)

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

Mulberry

D) SR

US 17 (SIXTH ST

8

SHEPHERD RD

9 US

EWELL ROAD

D

HALLAM DRIVE

BATES ROAD

Winter Haven

ROA COOLEY

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

)

2

Y) HW

K PARKWAY

ER CK (RE

98

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

BRIDGERS AVE

55

S U

BEACON ROAD

US 92

Haines City

PATTERSON ROAD

7/9 US 1

9 US

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CASS ROAD EVENHOUSE ROAD

6 SR

CR 542 (MAIN ST E) LIME STREET

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

HATCHER ROAD

AD

) WAY

MINEOLA DR

ARIANA ST

L HO NIC 6(

4

Lakeland CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W)

SR 570 (POL

K PAR OLK

RD)

TENTH ST W

4

0 (P

AD

SR 659 (COMBEE

CR 582 (GRIFFIN RD)

RS ) TE HWY IN MPA W TA E (N 2 US 9

7

3 SR 3

OLD BERKLEY RO

4 ATE RST INTE

7 SR 5

K

RD

DUFF RD

TE TA

6 CR

OL DP OL

BANANA ROAD

Y CIT

TOMKOW RO

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

Polk City

Map 6-1

Routes with Frequency and Service Span Improvements


/92 US 1 7

POWERLINE ROAD/SOUTH BLVD E

EENT H

VENT

DETOUR ROAD

HELENA RD

US 27

H.L. SMITH ROAD S

D ROA DEE DUN

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

SIXTH STREET SE

THIRTIETH ST

2 (SE

US 17 /9

NW)

17

US

15

US 27

SR 6 0

30

LAMTD 1 3 10 45

Interstate Major Road Local Road

SR 6 0

Routes >125% of 2022 system-wide trips/hour average are qualified for frequency, service span,and Sunday service improvements.

7

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

US 2

RD)

WHAT

Lake Wales

SR 60

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Legend

WAVERLY RD

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

(AGR ICOL A CR 640

ST)

ORCHID DRIVE

TENTH STREET N

CR 557/POMELO ST

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

SPIRIT LAKE RD

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD

0 SR 6

CR 5 55 SR 37 OLD HIGHWAY 37

4 Miles

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

REYNOLDS RD

THORNHILL ROAD

US 98

SR 3

CARTER ROAD

7 (F LO R IDA

AVE

S)

SR 60

CRUMP RD

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)

17

Bartow

US 17/98

2

SR 559

3 SR 3

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US 98

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

IRPORT R D) SR 572 (A BAILEY ROAD

SR 60

US

E RD KEY BUC

NW)

Mulberry

US 17 (SIXTH ST

8 CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

D

HALLAM DRIVE

9 US

1

2

Winter Haven

ROA COOLEY

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

)

2

Y) HW

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

0

ER CK (RE

K PARKWAY

US 92

55

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

9 US

BRIDGERS AVE

6 SR

BEACON ROAD

) RD LS

7/9 US 1

IVE R DR SULA PENIN

) WAY

AD

K PAR OLK

ARIANA ST

SHEPHERD RD

Haines City

RD)

MINEOLA DR

CR 542 (MAIN ST E) LIME STREET

SR 570 (POL

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CASS ROAD EVENHOUSE ROAD

Lakeland CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W)

O CH (NI

0 (P

4

SR 659 (COMBEE

TENTH ST W

EWELL ROAD

676

3 SR 3

T IN CR 582 (GRIFFIN RD)

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

HATCHER ROAD

4 ATE RST INTE

OLD BERKLEY RO

K

AD

E AT ST ER

) HWY MPA W TA E (N 92

CR

L PO

DUFF RD

4

US

D OL

RD

7 SR 5

BANANA ROAD

Y CIT

TOMKOW RO

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

Polk City

Map 6-2

Routes with Frequency, Service Span, and Sunday Service Improvements


US 1

US

SR 60

2

ENUE MARIGOLD AV

7 /9

AVON PARK CUTOFF RD

US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W)

OLIVE STREET LIME STREET

ARIANA ST

BEACON ROAD

LVD OW B FELL LONG 98 S U

US 17

LYNX Routes

60

US 98

4

4 E AT T RS TE IN BELLA VISTA STREET S CUTOFF) KE LA AN DI CR 630 (IN TENTH ST W

98

Frostproof

D

SR

Fort Meade

L ROA

US

Bradley

Revised LAMTD and WHAT Services

Downtown Lakeland Inset Y HIL SLEEP

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

SR 37

SR 60 (HESPERIDES RD)

CR 640

US 98

Park-and-Ride

Lake Wales

CR 17A (BURNS AVE)

2 US 8

4 Miles

Transit Center

7

37

0 12

Call & Ride Service

WAVERLY RD

SR 6 0

Bartow

Flex Service

2 US

OLD HIGHWAY

SR 674

Service Expansion Rural Service

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROA D)

CR 640

RD) CR 630 (BREWSTER

Traditional Fixed-Route

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

SR 60

US 17/98

MulberrySR 60

SR 60

Traditional Fixed-Route

CR 546 (KOKOMO RD)

7

SHEPHERD RD

Express Service

33

8

EWELL ROAD CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

BRT

SR

17

TER-LAKE RD )

SPIRIT LAKE RD

98

HALLAM DRIVE

SR 540 (WIN

E

US 1

US 27

S U

EDGEWOOD DRIVE SR 570 (POLK PARKWAY)

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

2

Service Expansion Urban Service

Poinciana Walmart

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD) WALK-IN-WATER RD

US 92

Legend

Haines City

US 17/92

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Y)

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

LAKE LOWERY RD

9 US

PKW

THIRTIETH ST

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

TENTH ST W

9 US

Hillsborough County

CR 582 (GRIFFIN RD)

SunRail Terminal

US 27

3

SR 3

US 98

3 SR 3

Y) A HW TAMP W E 2 (N ARIANA ST US 9

COUNTY LINE RD

59

HELENA RD

BANANA ROAD

DUFF RD

4 O ST CR 557/POMEL

Y RD OLD POLK CIT 4 ATE RST E T IN

SR Polk 5 City 9 SR 55

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

E AT ST R TE IN

(R O NAL D RE GAN 4

7 /9

SR 471

SR 33

US 27 CR 5 4

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

Interstate

US 92

Major Road Map 6-3 Needs Plan Proposed New Services


Table 6-3 Alternatives Evaluation Measures Category Public Outreach

Criteria Public Outreach Activity Centers Traditional Market

Transit Markets Choice Market Regional Market Productivity Productivity & Efficiency

Cost Efficiency Cost

Measure of Effectiveness Level of interest in specific alternatives Percent of route length within Polk County transit corridors, centers, and cores Percent of route length in "High" or "Very High" TOI areas Percent of route length in areas that meet the "Minimum" tier for employment or residential density Connects two or more counties or major municipalities Trips per hour (TBEST generated trips and revenue hours of service) Cost per trip (including new trips) Net cost after subtracting farebox revenues*

Total

Overall Relative Category Weighting Weight 34%

34%

9% 9% 33% 9% 6% 11% 11%

33%

11% 100%

100%

*Farebox revenues = Average fare multiplied by ridership

Public Outreach

A variety of public outreach efforts were conducted by Polk Transit to ensure that the Needs Plan reflected a broad spectrum of perspectives, individuals, and organizations that will benefit from improved transit services. Public outreach activities conducted as part of this TDP are summarized in Section 5 and include:   

Transit Listening Sessions Public Outreach Survey Transit Needs Forum

The major purposes of these public involvement activities are twofold. First, public involvement is educational, as it provides an opportunity for the general public to familiarize themselves with what the Polk TDP is and why the associated public feedback is important. Second, public involvement provides an opportunity for Polk Transit to gather important public feedback regarding a broad range of topics about transit services in Polk County. In order to effectively solicit public feedback, surveys were distributed at

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-9


Transit Listening Sessions and group exercises were conducted at the Transit Needs Forum. The major topic covered by those surveys and exercises was the identification of transit service needs. Information collected at the various outreach events was collected, and an in-depth review was conducted. For the alternatives evaluation, a particular route or type of service was categorized as “Moderate interest,” “High interest,” or “Very high interest” based on the information summarized. The results assisted in determining a relative importance of each Needs Plan alternative. Transit Markets

The transit demand analysis is characterized as a market assessment. For the evaluation of alternatives, four transit markets have been identified including activity centers, the traditional market (which uses TOI data), the choice market (which uses DTA data), and the regional market. 

Activity Centers – The Polk County Comprehensive Plan identified a list of preferred transit corridors, centers, and cores that represent the transit supportive target areas in Polk County. Corridors represent major travel paths that connect centers and cores. Centers and cores refer to major employment centers, major commercial centers, major civic centers, major universities, and other centers that are considered transit trip generators. Consequently, alternatives within these transit corridors, centers, and cores were scored higher in the alternatives evaluation.

Traditional Market – The traditional transit market refers to population segments that historically have had a higher propensity to use transit and/or are dependent on public transit for their transportation needs. For the alternatives evaluation, the proportion of each corridor operating within a “High” or “Very high” TOI area was calculated.

Choice Market – The discretionary market refers to potential riders living in higher density areas of the county that may choose to use transit as a commuting or transportation alternative. The proportion of each corridor meeting the “minimum” residential or employment density threshold in the DTA was calculated and used for the alternatives evaluation.

Regional Market – Each potential route was assessed for potential regional connectivity. Intercounty routes having connections to surrounding counties and routes connecting two major municipalities within Polk County were scored higher than those whose service area was strictly limited to one municipality within Polk County.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-10


Productivity and Efficiency

Productivity is generally measured in terms of ridership. Service efficiency is used by transit agencies to gauge how well they are using their existing resources. Each is critical to the success of the agency and services performing well in terms of their productivity and efficiency should receive a higher priority than those services performing less efficiently. The FDOT approved TBEST transit modeling tool was used to forecast transit ridership and operational indicators for all proposed service alternatives. 

Productivity – Productivity was measured in terms of annual passenger trips per revenue hour of service. To provide for an equal comparison between alternatives, passenger trips and revenue hours of service were generated using TBEST software.

Cost Efficiency – The cost efficiency of each alternative was evaluated using a standard transit industry efficiency measure, operating cost per passenger trip. Operating costs were calculated using revenue hour information generated by TBEST. The 2010 Polk Transit operating cost per revenue hour ($88.32), obtained from the 2010 NTD report, was used to calculate operating costs for each alternative. The resulting operating cost was then divided by passenger trips to obtain operating cost per passenger trip for each service alternative.

Net Cost – In addition to cost efficiency, net cost was taken into account when assessing alternatives. Net cost is used to rank alternatives based on their financial feasibility. Each alternative’s net cost was determined by subtracting the farebox revenue projections from the annual operating cost projections. Farebox revenue projections were determined by multiplying Polk Transit average fare, $0.73 (2010 value), by the ridership forecasts generated by TBEST.

Evaluation and Analysis

As noted, each criterion was assigned a weight. Weighting the criteria affords the opportunity to measure the relative importance of each criterion among the group of criteria to be applied. For each transit alternative, a score was determined either through the computation of the selected measure of effectiveness or through the educated judgment of the analyst. Potential scores were assigned depending on the relative comparison of a given transit alternative with other transit alternatives as it relates to a given criterion. A higher score is consistent with a higher ranking for a given alternative for the criterion being evaluated. The highest score is equal to the total weight given to each of the criteria, as shown in Table 63. The thresholds for the computation-based criteria (traditional market, choice market, trips per hour, operating cost per trip, and net operating cost) were determined using the average of the entire data set and one standard deviation above or below the average. In the case that one standard deviation resulted in an unreasonable threshold (i.e., a negative cost) one-half of a standard deviation was used. Table 6-4

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

6-11


includes the thresholds and scoring for each criterion used in the alternatives evaluation. The last column explains how the threshold was developed for each criterion. Table 6-4 Criteria and Threshold Summary Score Guide

Range

Score

Moderate

11

High

22

Very High

34

BRT and express service (little attention to these services according to public involvement feedback) Service span improvement or service expansions to areas not specifically referenced in public involvement results Service frequency improvement or specific service expansions indicated in public involvement results

0.0%

0

N/A

20.1%

3

Average minus one standard deviation

55.2%

6

Average of entire data set

90.2%

9

Average plus one standard deviation

0.0%

0

N/A

8.1%

3

½ standard deviation

11.4%

6

Average of entire data set

27.6%

9

Average plus one standard deviation

0.0%

0

N/A

5.1%

3

Average minus one standard deviation

26.6%

6

Average of entire data set

48.1%

9

Average plus one standard deviation

No

0

Yes

6

Operates within a single municipality Connects/operates within two or more counties or major municipalities

0.0

0

N/A

1.4

4

Average minus one standard deviation

12.3

7

Average of entire data set

23.2

11

Average plus one standard deviation

$4.84

11

Average minus one standard deviation

$10.80

7

Average of entire data set

$16.76

4

Average plus one standard deviation

> $16.76

0

N/A

$606.63

11

Average minus one standard deviation

$2,216.92

7

Average of entire data set

$3,827.21

4

Average plus one standard deviation

> $3,827.21

0

N/A

Public Involvement

Transit Center (% within transit corridor)

Market Potential 1 (% serving traditional market)

Market Potential 2 (% serving choice market)

Regional Connectivity

Trips per Hour

Operating Cost per Trip

Daily Net Operating Cost

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

Note

6-12


Using the scoring thresholds shown in Table 6-4, each criterion for each individual route was assigned a score. Individual criteria scores were then summed for each service improvement to develop a total score for each. Improvements with higher scores possess more desirable attributes and will be programmed earlier in the My Ride financial plan. Tables 6-5 and 6-6 present the ranking for improvements to existing service and service expansions, respectively, found in the My Ride Needs Plan alternatives. Route-byroute supporting analysis detail (including passenger trips, revenue hours, operating cost, etc.) is included in Appendix B. It is important to outline that three additional new services were added by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Needs Plan after the alternatives evaluation was conducted. Those three services are noted at the bottom of Table 6-6. Two of those projects, the North Lakeland Circulator and the Lakeland/Florida Polytechnic Connector, were identified by the TAC as service needs to be programmed within the planning horizon of the My Ride plan. The third project, the Mulberry/Lake Wales Flex service, is included in the plan as an unfunded need that will be monitored as growth occurs in the SR 60 corridor. Table 6-5 TDP Needs Plan Alternatives â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Improvements to Existing Service Route Name

Description

Mode

10

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement Traditional fixed-route

15 (WHAT)

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement Traditional fixed-route

3

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement Traditional fixed-route

22XL

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

22XW

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

12

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

45

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement Traditional fixed-route

1

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement Traditional fixed-route

11

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

14

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

15 (Citrus Connection)

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

Eagle Ridge-Lake Wales

Frequency and span improvement

Flex

47

Span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

50

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

40/44

Frequency and span improvement

Traditional fixed-route

30

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement Traditional fixed-route

Bartow-Fort Meade

Span improvement

Flex

Lake Wales-Frostproof

Frequency and span improvement

Flex

Carter Rd Walmart-Bradley

Span improvement

Flex

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

6-13


Table 6-6 TDP Needs Plan Alternatives â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Service Expansions Route Name

Description

Mode

Haines City Circulator

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Lakeland-Bartow Express

New service

Express

Lake Davenport-Haines City

New service

Flex

Bartow Circulator

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Downtown Lakeland Premium

New service

Premium bus service

Haines City-Poinciana

New service

Flex

Lakeland-Winter Haven Express

New service

Express

Lake Davenport

New service

Call & ride

Mulberry Circulator

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Haines City-Eagle Ridge Mall

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Lake Wales Circulator

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Lakeland-Sunrail Terminal Express

New service

Express

Auburndale/Florida Polytechnic

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Frostproof

New service

Call & ride

Fort Meade

New service

Call & ride

Crooked Lake Park/Hillcrest Heights

New service

Call & ride

Poinciana

New service

Call & ride

I-4 Intercounty Express

New service

Express

Winter Haven Logistics Center

New service

Call & ride

North Lakeland Circulator

New service

Traditional fixed-route

Lakeland/Florida Polytechnic Connector New service

Traditional fixed-route

Mulberry/Lake Wales

Flex

New service

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

6-14


Section 7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This section presents the goals, objectives, and initiatives that are common to LAMTD and WHAT. The TPO reviewed the results of the public involvement process and situation appraisal contained within the My Ride document to ensure that community desires for transit and mobility are reflected in the Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives. The TPO also reviewed state, regional, and local plans to ensure consistency with community goals and objectives relating to transit and mobility, which included the adopted Vision, Mission, and Strategies of Polk Transit. GOAL STATEMENT

Provide safe, efficient, and accessible public transportation services to serve the travel needs of Polk County residents and visitors with access to jobs, education, medical care, community services, places, and events to support vibrant livable communities. Objectives and Initiatives

Community Needs – PT will solicit public and stakeholder comments to identify and understand the community need for public transportation services including the need for access to jobs, educational opportunities, medical care, and services. These outreach efforts will be all-inclusive to identify the needs of visitors and all segments of our population.

Community Education – PT will initiate and partner in programs to educate the community on the need for and the value of public transportation. These efforts will include community forums, e.g., transit summits or public meetings, and regular updates to local governments and other stakeholders.

Community Vision – PT will support Polk Vision, other local visioning efforts, and local government initiatives to include transit as an integral part of livable communities. It will coordinate with local governments to implement transit supportive land uses and transit oriented development.

Cost Efficiency – PT will make the best use of existing resources to provide cost-efficient services and be a good steward of public resources. Where cost-effective, PT will seek to consolidate services and reduce or eliminate the duplication of administrative services. As part of a continuing commitment to the safe and cost-effective delivery of service, PT will maintain a set of Performance Standards and evaluate said standards on an annual basis. (See Table 3-1 for Performance Standards.)

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

7-1


Consolidated Service Plan – PT will develop and implement a community-based and supported plan to provide countywide public transportation services and access to the regional transportation system including high speed rail. This plan, based on the identified community needs and vision, shall include an appropriate mix of urban and rural-based services to ensure mobility for all residents and visitors in a cost-effective manner.

Community and Financial Support – PT will build consensus and community support for dedicated, stable funding sources for countywide public transportation services. These efforts will be aimed at building a broad base of support ranging from individual transit users to community organizations, local governments and the business community. PT will seek the active support of the county’s government and community leaders to secure a dedicated funding source for PT in order to achieve its vision and fulfill its mission.

Coordination with Regional Entities – PT will coordinate with other regional entities including Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART), Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), and SunRail to ensure access to the larger region as part of a seamless transportation system.

Table 7-1 presents the summary of performance standards used to quantify how well the objectives have been achieved by different area of evaluation. Table 7-1 Summary of Performance Standards Area of Evaluation Ridership Ridership “On-Time” Performance

Performance Standard Achieve ridership of 15 passengers per hour on fixed-routes in operation more than 5 years. Achieve ridership of 10 passengers per hour on fixed-routes in operation less than 5 years. Achieve an “on-time” performance rating of 90% at the route and system level.

Accident Rate

Less than 2 accidents per 100,000 miles of revenue service.

Spare Ratio

Maintain a spare ratio of 20% for fixed-route service.

Administrative Cost Maintenance Costs

Hold administrative cost to less than 20% of total operating cost. Hold maintenance cost to less than 20% of total operating cost. Allocate at least 2% of total operating budget for advertising and promotion of My Ride and Initiatives. Achieve an operating ratio (farebox revenue/total operating expenses) of at least 20%. Where appropriate, consider potential to transition to alternative fuel vehicles for economic and environmental benefits and for reducing carbon emissions and fossil fuels. Reduce fuel consumption by 1% each year, as new sources to power vehicles are acquired, as funding allows.

Marketing Operating Ratio Implement Green Initiatives Implement Green Initiatives

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

7-2


Section 8 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN This section presents My Ride Plan costs and the TDP implementation and financial plan. Based on the work and analyses performed to prepare the previous sections of this report, a set of operations, capital, and infrastructure priorities are outlined for the 10-year planning horizon of the TDP. These priorities are consistent with goals, objectives, and initiatives presented in this report. In addition, capital and operating costs are presented that reflect the costs associated with implementation of all service improvements in the My Ride Plan. TEN-YEAR MY RIDE PLAN PRIORITIES

My Ride Plan priorities have been grouped into two major categories, operations priorities and capital and infrastructure priorities. Each category and its corresponding priorities are described below. Operations

Operations priorities refer specifically to transit service. For example, new bus routes and realignment of existing services are considered operational improvements. TDP operations priorities for the 2013 TDP include the following. 

Maximize existing service efficiency and resource utilization – Improving ridership levels for every unit of service provided (i.e., passenger trips per revenue hour) is a major goal for Polk Transit. New units of service have been difficult to deliver because of the economic conditions facing the county and nation over the last several years. Several new transit service modes are programmed in this plan that are designed to bolster the efficiency of existing fixed-route service. In addition, a number of service improvements will increase service frequency, service hours, and days of service on high demand, high productivity bus routes.

Implement premium bus services – Premium bus services include express bus and BRT services. Five express routes and one high-frequency premium (BRT) route are included in this plan. These services are designed to improve travel times and reliability and as a result make them more attractive to the choice rider market. Express bus service will enhance connections to the proposed Sunrail facility in Poinciana, Hillsborough County, and Orange County and would improve connectivity within the county. In addition, high frequency, premium bus service is programmed for a segment of the US 98 corridor near Downtown Lakeland.

Implement new rural services – Several new services are proposed in this plan that are designed and scaled to meet transportation needs in rural parts of the county. Those services include flex

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

8-1


and call-and-ride services. Six flex services and six call-and-ride routes are proposed that will improve public transportation service in rural areas and connect satellite communities to the core services in Winter Haven and Lakeland. 

Expand countywide public transportation options – Countywide public transportation options include services that are not considered traditional bus services such as the fixed-route services primarily operated by the three major agencies. Options include vanpool/carpool services, community transit options, and the taxi access program. The new taxi access program will provide an innovative approach for filling gaps in the system plan’s service hours and coverage.

Continue expansion of common transit marketing and branding – Marketing and public education are perhaps the most difficult tasks for public transportation systems, primarily due to the lack of available resources. The two agencies will continue working to integrate the common marketing and branding tools recently developed for the PT. This priority is consistent with the goal to unify the two transit agencies and the three fixed-route transit systems operating in the county.

Capital and Infrastructure

Capital and infrastructure priorities refer to improvements not related directly with service delivery. For example, rolling stock (i.e., vehicles) are treated as an upfront capital investment. Additional examples of capital needs include administrative functions such as planning studies. My Ride capital and infrastructure priorities for the 2012 TDP include the following. 

Replace aging vehicle fleet with vehicles that use environmentally-friendly propulsion technology – The average ages of the fixed-route fleet for LAMTD and PCTS are 10.2 and 6.2 years, respectively. Among 39 LAMTD fixed-route bus vehicles, 10 vehicles will be beyond their useful life (10 years) in 2012. Timely replacement of the aging fleet will ensure fewer breakdowns and save on maintenance costs.

Improve stop amenities and infrastructure – Feedback gathered through the public involvement effort indicates a strong desire on the part of system users to improve transit stop infrastructure and amenities. Because of the number of stops that may need improvement, it may be beneficial to prepare a Passenger Amenities Program that will inventory and prioritize bus stop enhancements. Improving stops and stop infrastructure will enhance the visibility of the service and possibly draw more users to the system.

Construct new satellite maintenance facilities – The My Ride Plan includes a number of new service improvements targeted to all parts of the county, both urban and rural. This expansion will

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

8-2


increase the peak vehicle requirement from in FY 2022. Four new light-duty maintenance facilities are programmed in the plan that will help minimize costs associated with vehicle storage, staging, and deadhead travel time.

ď&#x201A;ˇ Build new park-and-ride facilities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Park-and-ride facilities will be used primarily to support the proposed express bus services in the plan. Based on the number of express routes and their routing alignment, a total of six park-and-ride facilities are included in this plan. One of those facilities is under construction, and a second is in a planning stage. It is important to note that several of these facilities are being targeted for future expansion and possible development into larger intermodal facilities. These intermodal facility locations include the Posner Center, the Florida Polytechnic campus, and a possible intermodal facility in Bartow. TEN-YEAR TDP MY RIDE PLAN COSTS

This section of the My Ride Plan presents capital and operating costs associated with implementation of the 10-Year Needs Plan. Cost assumptions, a vehicle replacement plan, and a methodology for applying a marginal and full cost per revenue hour for operational costs is described. Cost estimates include complete cost estimates through FY 2022. Cost Assumptions

My Ride service improvements consist of two major categories: modifications to existing services and new service. New services include premium bus services and several of the new rural services, flex, and calland-ride services. Map 8-1 illustrates existing services with service frequency and span improvements. Map 8-2 illustrates existing services with service frequency, service span, and Sunday service improvements. Map 8-3 shows the proposed new services in the final My Ride Plan. A number of assumptions were made to develop service characteristics and forecast public transportation costs for the improvements in the My Ride Plan. Those assumptions, identified for operating and capital costs for fixed-route and ADA paratransit services, are based on a variety of factors, including NTD data, trend data, the 2008 TDP Major Update, and discussions with Polk Transit staff. These assumptions are summarized in Table 8-1.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

8-3


Table 8-1 Cost Assumptions Life Span (Years)

Cost (2012)

Operating Cost per Revenue Hour

n/a

$84.33

Bus Cost (Diesel Hybrid 40')

10

$690,159

Bus Cost (30'-35')

10

$429,935

Mini-Bus

5

$107,484

Van

4

$47,519

Support Vehicle Cost

4

$20,000

Simple Bus Stop

n/a

$12,000

Sheltered Bus Stop

n/a

$25,000

Park-and-Ride Facility

n/a

$1,200,000

BRT Infrastructure (per route mile)

n/a

$3,000,000

Satellite Maintenance Facility

n/a

$4,000,000

Spare Vehicle Ratio

n/a

20%

Operating Cost Inflation Rate

n/a

3.0%

Capital Cost Inflation Rate

n/a

2.5%

Average Fare

n/a

$0.77

Assumption

Cost per Revenue Hour

As shown in Table 8-1, the operating cost per revenue hour used was $84.33. That cost per revenue hour reflects a 10 percent reduction from the consolidated FY 2012 cost per revenue hour estimated for the two transit agencies ($93.70). It is anticipated that consolidation of the two agencies will yield efficiencies in the delivery of transit services. The peer review conducted for this TDP effort reveals that other agencies of similar size are operating at an average cost per revenue hour of $78.69 (2012 value). Consequently, the new cost per revenue hour used for this plan reflects a conservative expectation of service efficiencies to be gained from consolidation as the cost per revenue hour for Polk Transit would still be higher than the peer group average. A number of factors support this assumption:     

Coordinated vehicle replacement schedule Implementation of multiple light duty maintenance facilities throughout the county Shift of administrative staff to maintenance functions and other duties Economies of scale gained through consolidation of administrative and maintenance functions Coordinated contracting for fuel and maintenance supplies and activities

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

8-4


/92 US 1 7

POWERLINE ROAD/SOUTH BLVD E

THIRTIETH ST

DETOUR ROAD

22XW 50 40/44

D ROA DEE N U D

LAMTD SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

US 27

HELENA RD

11

WAVERLY RD

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

Lake Wales

SR 60

SR 6 0

12 14 15 22XL

Interstate Major Road Local Road

US 17/98

RD)

SIXTH STREET SE

17

US

SPIRIT LAKE RD

Routes >75% of 2022 system-wide trips/hour average are qualified for frequency and service span improvements.

7 US 2

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD

CR 5 55

(AGR ICOL A

CARTER ROAD

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

THORNHILL ROAD

SR 659 (COMBEE RD)

REYNOLDS RD CR 640

NW)

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

US 98

S) AVE 7 (F LO R IDA SR 3

SR 37

OLD HIGHWAY 37

CR 557/POMELO ST

SR 559

3 SR 3

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US 98

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

IRPORT R D)

SR 572 (A BAILEY ROAD

4 Miles

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)

Legend

7 US 2

2

US 17/98

1

CRUMP RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

WHAT

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

0

IVE R DR SULA PENIN

0 SR 6

E RD KEY BUC

17

Bartow

8

SR 60

9 US

SR 60

US

2

NW)

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

Mulberry

D) SR

US 17 (SIXTH ST

8

SHEPHERD RD

9 US

EWELL ROAD

D

HALLAM DRIVE

BATES ROAD

Winter Haven

ROA COOLEY

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

)

2

Y) HW

K PARKWAY

ER CK (RE

98

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

BRIDGERS AVE

55

S U

BEACON ROAD

US 92

Haines City

PATTERSON ROAD

7/9 US 1

9 US

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CASS ROAD EVENHOUSE ROAD

6 SR

CR 542 (MAIN ST E) LIME STREET

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

HATCHER ROAD

AD

) WAY

MINEOLA DR

ARIANA ST

L HO NIC 6(

4

Lakeland CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W)

SR 570 (POL

K PAR OLK

RD)

TENTH ST W

4

0 (P

AD

SR 659 (COMBEE

CR 582 (GRIFFIN RD)

RS ) TE HWY IN MPA W TA E (N 2 US 9

7

3 SR 3

OLD BERKLEY RO

4 ATE RST INTE

7 SR 5

K

RD

DUFF RD

TE TA

6 CR

OL DP OL

BANANA ROAD

Y CIT

TOMKOW RO

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

Polk City

Map 8-1

Routes with Frequency and Service Span Improvements


/92 US 1 7

POWERLINE ROAD/SOUTH BLVD E

EENT H

VENT

DETOUR ROAD

HELENA RD

US 27

H.L. SMITH ROAD S

D ROA DEE DUN

SR 17 (RIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY)

SIXTH STREET SE

THIRTIETH ST

2 (SE

US 17 /9

NW)

17

US

15

US 27

SR 6 0

30

LAMTD 1 3 10 45

Interstate Major Road Local Road

SR 6 0

Routes >125% of 2022 system-wide trips/hour average are qualified for frequency, service span,and Sunday service improvements.

7

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

US 2

RD)

WHAT

Lake Wales

SR 60

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Legend

WAVERLY RD

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

(AGR ICOL A CR 640

ST)

ORCHID DRIVE

TENTH STREET N

CR 557/POMELO ST

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

SPIRIT LAKE RD

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD

0 SR 6

CR 5 55 SR 37 OLD HIGHWAY 37

4 Miles

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

REYNOLDS RD

THORNHILL ROAD

US 98

SR 3

CARTER ROAD

7 (F LO R IDA

AVE

S)

SR 60

CRUMP RD

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)

17

Bartow

US 17/98

2

SR 559

3 SR 3

ODOM ROAD

US 98

US 98

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

IRPORT R D) SR 572 (A BAILEY ROAD

SR 60

US

E RD KEY BUC

NW)

Mulberry

US 17 (SIXTH ST

8 CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

D

HALLAM DRIVE

9 US

1

2

Winter Haven

ROA COOLEY

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

)

2

Y) HW

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

0

ER CK (RE

K PARKWAY

US 92

55

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

9 US

BRIDGERS AVE

6 SR

BEACON ROAD

) RD LS

7/9 US 1

IVE R DR SULA PENIN

) WAY

AD

K PAR OLK

ARIANA ST

SHEPHERD RD

Haines City

RD)

MINEOLA DR

CR 542 (MAIN ST E) LIME STREET

SR 570 (POL

NORTH BLVD

CR 17

CASS ROAD EVENHOUSE ROAD

Lakeland CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W)

O CH (NI

0 (P

4

SR 659 (COMBEE

TENTH ST W

EWELL ROAD

676

3 SR 3

T IN CR 582 (GRIFFIN RD)

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

HATCHER ROAD

4 ATE RST INTE

OLD BERKLEY RO

K

AD

E AT ST ER

) HWY MPA W TA E (N 92

CR

L PO

DUFF RD

4

US

D OL

RD

7 SR 5

BANANA ROAD

Y CIT

TOMKOW RO

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

Polk City

Map 8-2

Routes with Frequency, Service Span, and Sunday Service Improvements


Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022

8-1

Map 8-3 My Ride Proposed New Services


To support the development of capital costs, a vehicle replacement and expansion schedule was prepared. Vehicle replacement refers to vehicles needed to replace vehicles in the existing fleet. Vehicle expansion refers to additional vehicles beyond those in the existing fleet that are needed to implement new service. A vehicle replacement schedule was prepared using LAMTD and PCTS/WHAT existing fleet inventories and the assumed useful life span for vehicles shown in Table 8-1. The number of expansion vehicles was determined using route lengths, average speeds, and service frequencies. For new services, bus acquisition is assumed to take place in the year prior to service implementation. All new buses will also require automatic passenger counters (APCs), and farebox and other technology upgrades, which will be installed at the time of purchase. A 20-percent spare ratio is also factored into the existing vehicle replacement plan and vehicle expansion schedule. Table 8-2 summarizes vehicle replacement and expansion needs in each year within the 10-year planning horizon of the TDP. A total of 118 buses, including regular and hybrid buses, will need to be purchased through the 10-year planning horizon of the TDP. Table 8-2 Vehicle Replacement Plan Existing Service

New/Expanded Service

Year

Regular Buses

Hybrid Buses

Paratransit

Support Vehicles

Regular Buses

Hybrid Buses

Mini-Buses

2013

0

16

29

9

0

0

0

2014

13

0

11

5

0

0

0

2015

0

0

14

5

4

4

0

2016

1

0

0

0

1

10

0

2017

4

0

0

1

5

9

2

2018

9

0

29

9

4

2

2

2019

0

0

11

5

5

5

5

2020

3

0

14

5

1

0

7

2021

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

2022

9

0

0

1

0

0

2

Total

40

16

108

40

22

30

18

TEN-YEAR TDP MY RIDE PLAN REVENUES

The My Ride financial plan includes a recommended funding strategy for meeting public transportation needs in Polk County. Consistent with My Ride plan initiatives, the financial plan accounts for the impacts of the capitalization of Federal 5307 grant funding and addresses efficiencies being gained through the consolidation of LAMTD and Polk County/WHAT. Consolidation efforts currently being performed by both agencies will ensure that Polk Transit will function as the governing board for all public transportation services in Polk County in the future. It is important to emphasize that without an increase in dedicated Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

8-8


local funding, full implementation of the My Ride plan cannot be realized and alternative funding models will need to be pursued by Polk Transit. Polk Transit has legislative authority to levy ad valorem taxes. Based on feedback received through a number of public outreach efforts and from local stakeholders and leadership, a sales tax is considered a better option for funding public transportation services in the County. Sales tax benefits include spending flexibility, revenue generation shared across multiple groups, and the opportunity to offset existing millage rates being assessed for public transportation. Consequently, a half-penny sales tax is recommended as the funding source of choice for implementation of the My Ride plan. Revenue Assumptions

Implementation of the My Ride plan is predicated on a referendum seeking a half-penny sales tax occurring in November 2014. Sales tax revenues would replace existing ad valorem revenue in the county dedicated to transit, and no ad valorem revenue is assumed in the plan. The sales tax revenue would also replace other revenue sources, such as existing municipal contributions made to PCTS for transit service and other contracted service revenues received by LAMTD for operation of WHAT service routes. Revenues from the sales tax are assumed to be available in 2015. To move forward with the referendum, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners has to approve referendum language to be placed on the voting ballot. A plan for pursuit of that referendum is included in the My Ride Consolidation and Transition Plan. Sales tax projections are based on information provided through the Florida Department of Economic and Demographic Research and historical sales tax revenues. Those projections are shown in Appendix C. A summary of salient issues regarding the development of operating and capital revenues is provided below.  

Revenue sources other than sales tax are based on WHAT, PCTS, and LAMTD operating budgets. The recently approved MAP-21 legislation includes a provision to allow small transit agencies operating fewer than 100 vehicles during their peak period of operation to use between 50 percent and 75 percent of their 5307 allocation for operations. Application of 5307 grant funding has been applied based on the provision in the new legislation. Other federal and state revenue beyond FTA 5307 and the state PTBG grant includes the following: o Federal Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC) funding recently awarded to PCTS for two new flex services.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

8-9


ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

o FDOT Discretionary grant funding assumed for the start-up of two new express services in the My Ride Plan. o Federal discretionary funding for capital facilities associated with the high frequency premium bus service on US 98 in Downtown Lakeland Farebox recovery ratio for bus service is 15 percent. Revenue inflation factor ranges between 1.5 and 2.0 percent, depending on the revenue source.

Table 8-3 includes the implementation schedule developed for the My Ride plan service improvements. It is important to emphasize that the schedule shown does not preclude the opportunity to advance or delay projects. As priorities change and/or funding becomes available, project implementation should be adjusted. The information in the table is best utilized to convey the relationship between the programming of improvements, the level of service being proposed through the My Ride plan, and the funding levels to be yielded from the sales tax initiative. Using the implementation plan shown and the cost and revenue assumptions presented, a financial plan for the My Ride plan was developed.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

8-10


Table 8-3 Ten-Year Service Implementation Plan Operating Characteristics Service Type/Mode

Description

Frequency (Weekday)

Service Span (Weekday)

Days of Service

FY 2013 Implementation Citrus Connection - Route 1

Maintain existing fixed-route service

30 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 3

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 10

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

7:15 AM. - 6:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 14

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 15

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 6:30 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 22XL

Maintain existing fixed-route service

30â&#x20AC;&#x201C;90 mins

6:05 AM - 6:30 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 32/33

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:26 AM - 6:05 PM

Mon - Fri

Citrus Connection - Route 39

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:10 AM - 4:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 45

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 46

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

7:45 AM - 5:35 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 47

Maintain existing fixed-route service

30 mins

6:30 AM - 6:55 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 57

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 5:40 PM

Mon - Fri

Citrus Connection - Route 58

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

7:15 AM - 6:50 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 11

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:15 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 12

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:15 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 15

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:10 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 22XW

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:10 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 30

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:10 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 40/44

Maintain existing fixed-route service

90 mins

5:45 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 50

Maintain existing fixed-route service

90 mins

5:45 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

PCTS - Route 25

Maintain existing fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 6:45 PM

Mon - Sat

PCTS - Route 35

Maintain existing fixed-route service

120 mins

6:10 AM - 7:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Davenport/North Ridge

New flex service

90 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Poinciana/Haines City

New flex service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Poinciana

Maintain call-and-ride service

N/A

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sun Mon - Sun

FY 2016 Implementation 30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sun

Haines City Circulator

Frequency, span, and Sunday service iFrequency, span, t and Sunday service i t Frequency and span improvement Frequency, span, and Sunday service i t New fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

North Lakeland Circulator

New fixed-route service

30 mins

AM and PM "Peak"

Mon - Sat

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sun

WHAT - Route 12

Frequency, span, and Sunday service i t Frequency and span improvement

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 22XW

Frequency and span improvement

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Bartow Circulator

New fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Lakeland/Bartow Express

Enhanced express service

15 mins

AM and PM "Peak"

Mon - Fri

Lakeland/SunRail Terminal Express

New express service

30 mins

AM and PM "Peak"

Mon - Fri

Citrus Connection - Route 3 Citrus Connection - Route 10 Citrus Connection - Route 22XL WHAT - Route 15

FY 2017 Implementation Citrus Connection - Route 45

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

8-11


Table 8-3 Ten-Year Service Implementation Plan (continued) Service Type/Mode

Description

Operating Characteristics Frequency Service Span Days of (Weekday) (Weekday) Service

FY 2018 Implementation Citrus Connection - Route 1

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement

15 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sun

Citrus Connection - Route 14

Frequency and span improvement

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Citrus Connection - Route 15

Frequency and span improvement

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 11

Frequency and span improvement

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Eagle Ridge Mall/Lake Wales

New flex service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Lakeland/Winter Haven Express

Enhanced express service

15 mins

AM and PM "Peak"

Mon - Fri

Citrus Connection - Route 47

Span improvement

30 mins

6:30 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT -Route 30

Frequency, span, and Sunday service improvement

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sun

WHAT - Route 40/44

Frequency and span improvement

60 mins

5:45 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

WHAT - Route 50

Frequency and span improvement

60 mins

5:45 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Auburndale/Florida Polytechnic

New fixed-route service

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Davenport

New call-and-ride service

N/A

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

FY 2019 implementation

FY 2020 implementation Haines City/Eagle Ridge Mall

New fixed-route service

30 mins

6:15 AM - 10:00 PM

Mon - Sat

Lake Wales Circulator Lake Wales/Frostproof (PCPT Route 35) Lakeland to Downtown Tampa Express Lakeland to Downtown Orlando Express Downtown Lakeland Premium

New circulator service

30 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Frequency and span improvement (flex service)

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

New express service

45 mins

AM and PM "Peak"

Mon - Fri

New express service

45 mins

AM and PM "Peak"

Mon - Fri

New premium (BRT)

15 mins

6:15 AM - 8:00 PM

Mon - Fri

Frostproof

New call-and-ride service

N/A

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Ridge

New call-and-ride service

N/A

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

New fixed-route service

30 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Span improvement (flex service)

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Span improvement (flex service)

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

FY 2021 implementation Mulberry Circulator Carter Rd Walmart/Bradley (Citrus Connection Route 39) Bartow/Fort Meade (PCPT Route 25) Fort Meade

New call-and-ride service

N/A

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

Winter Haven Logistics Center

New call-and-ride service

N/A

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

60 mins

6:15 AM - 7:05 PM

Mon - Sat

FY 2022 implementation Lakeland/Florida Polytechnic

New fixed-route service

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

8-12


Table 8-4 summarizes the projected operating costs and revenues for the My Ride Needs Plan from FY 2013 through FY 2022. That table categorizes costs by service improvement category. Major categories include maintenance of existing service and new service. Based on the cost and revenue assumptions applied, an operating surplus of $25.6 million is anticipated over the 10-year planning horizon of the TDP. Table 8-5 summarizes the projected capital costs and revenues for the My Ride Needs Plan from FY 2013 through FY 2022. Similar to the operating summary shown in Table 8-4, Table 8-5 organizes costs into two major categories, maintenance of existing service and new service. Based on the costs and revenue assumptions applied, a balanced capital budget is anticipated over the 10-year planning horizon of the TDP.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022

8-13


Table 8-4 Ten-Year Operating Revenues and Costs Revenue Source

FY13 Proposed

FY14 Estimated

FY15 Estimated

FY16 Estimated

FY17 Estimated

FY18 Estimated

FY19 Estimated

FY20 Estimated

FY21 Estimated

FY22 Estimated

Total

Operating Costs Existing Fixed-Route Service Costs Existing Paratransit Service (ADA) Maintain Existing Service (Costs)

$8,506,226 $1,701,245 $10,207,471

$8,761,413 $1,752,283 $10,513,696

$9,024,256 $1,804,851 $10,829,107

$9,294,984 $1,858,997 $11,153,981

$9,573,835 $1,914,767 $11,488,602

$9,861,051 $1,972,210 $11,833,261

$10,156,883 $2,031,377 $12,188,260

$10,063,150 $2,012,630 $12,075,780

$9,817,416 $1,963,483 $11,780,899

$10,111,939 $2,022,388 $12,134,327

$95,171,153 $19,034,231 $114,205,384

$0 $0 $983,902 $0 $0 $354,327 $0 $0 $1,338,229

$0 $0 $1,013,419 $0 $0 $364,957 $0 $0 $1,378,376

$0 $0 $1,043,821 $0 $0 $375,905 $1,060,900 $0 $2,480,626

$1,384,257 $327,912 $1,128,656 $0 $0 $406,457 $1,092,727 $65,582 $4,405,591

$3,338,900 $644,463 $1,217,643 $588,644 $0 $438,503 $1,125,509 $128,893 $7,482,555

$8,195,547 $693,850 $1,832,575 $927,994 $0 $472,106 $1,159,274 $138,770 $13,420,116

$10,480,653 $1,252,575 $1,969,306 $997,234 $0 $731,733 $1,194,052 $250,515 $16,876,068

$10,564,814 $3,606,362 $3,080,014 $1,399,601 $678,405 $1,653,723 $1,229,874 $721,272 $22,934,065

$11,289,760 $4,373,561 $4,989,975 $1,495,640 $724,956 $2,572,494 $1,266,770 $874,712 $27,587,868

$11,628,453 $5,310,672 $5,139,674 $1,540,509 $746,705 $2,649,668 $1,304,773 $1,062,134 $29,382,588

$56,882,384 $16,209,395 $22,398,985 $6,949,622 $2,150,066 $10,019,873 $9,433,879 $3,241,878 $127,286,082

Total Operating Costs Operating Revenues Section 5307 - Federal Section 5311 - Federal Section 5317 - Federal Block Grants - State Discretionary Grants - State Fares Advertising Misc Revenue Developer Contributions (North LL Circ.) Property Taxes Local Municipalities Sales Tax (Potential) Fund Balance

$11,545,700

$11,892,072

$13,309,733

$15,559,572

$18,971,157

$25,253,377

$29,064,328

$35,009,845

$39,368,767

$41,516,915

$241,491,466

$2,908,124 $373,256 $1,429,428 $1,348,277 $0 $1,335,787 $48,626 $1,400,264 $0 $3,209,778 $358,935 $0 $1,718,196

$2,966,286 $385,450 $1,326,756 $1,375,242 $0 $1,346,987 $49,355 $1,483,299 $0 $3,290,023 $367,909 $0 $1,571,526

$3,025,612 $398,009 $1,326,756 $1,402,748 $0 $1,358,288 $50,096 $1,571,300 $0 $0 $377,105 $6,958,833 $427,557

$3,086,125 $409,950 $1,326,756 $1,430,802 $0 $1,369,694 $50,847 $1,664,567 $77,946 $0 $386,531 $17,899,818 $0

$3,147,847 $422,248 $1,326,756 $1,459,418 $189,207 $1,381,203 $51,610 $1,763,416 $84,092 $0 $396,192 $13,232,131 $0

$3,210,803 $434,916 $0 $1,488,606 $203,706 $1,392,818 $52,384 $1,868,179 $90,536 $0 $406,095 $17,902,286 $0

$2,183,347 $447,963 $0 $1,518,379 $218,905 $1,404,539 $53,170 $1,979,214 $97,291 $0 $416,246 $16,565,940 $0

$2,227,013 $461,402 $0 $1,548,747 $209,340 $1,416,369 $53,967 $2,096,894 $104,370 $0 $426,650 $24,705,308 $0

$2,271,554 $475,244 $0 $1,579,721 $223,705 $1,428,307 $54,777 $2,221,619 $0 $0 $437,314 $35,372,450 $0

$2,316,986 $489,501 $0 $1,611,316 $230,416 $1,440,354 $55,598 $2,353,811 $0 $0 $448,245 $32,549,822 $0

$27,343,697 $4,297,939 $6,736,452 $14,763,256 $1,275,279 $13,874,346 $520,430 $18,402,563 $454,235 $6,499,801 $4,021,222 $165,186,588 $3,717,279

Total Operating Budget

$14,130,671

$14,162,833

$16,896,304

$27,703,036

$23,454,120

$27,050,329

$24,884,994

$33,250,060

$44,064,691

$41,496,049

$267,093,087

Budget Surplus/Deficit Fund Balance

$2,584,971 $2,584,971

$2,270,761 $4,855,732

$3,586,571 $8,442,303

$12,143,464 $20,585,767

$4,482,963 $25,068,730

$1,796,952 $26,865,682

-$4,179,334 $22,686,348

-$1,759,785 $20,926,563

$4,695,924 $25,622,487

-$20,866 $25,601,621

$25,601,621

Expanded Local Service New Fixed-Route Service New Flex Service Express Service Premium Transit (BRT) Call-and-Ride Service Commuter Services/Taxi-Access Program Paratransit Service New Service (Costs)

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022

8-13


Table 8-5 Ten-Year Capital Revenues and Costs Revenue Source

FY13 Proposed

FY14 Estimated

FY15 Estimated

FY16 Estimated

FY17 Estimated

FY18 Estimated

FY19 Estimated

FY20 Estimated

FY21 Estimated

FY22 Estimated

Total

Capital Costs LAMTD - Regular Buses LAMTD - Hybrid Buses LAMTD - Paratransit LAMTD - Support Vehicles WHAT/PCTS - Regular Buses WHAT/PCTS - Paratransit Vehicle Replacement Existing Bus Shelter Program Maintain Existing Service (Costs) Expanded Local Service (Buses) New Fixed-Route Service (Buses) New Flex Service (Buses) New Express Service (Buses) New Premuim Transit - BRT (Buses) New Call-and-Ride Service (Buses) Spare Vehicles (20%) Premium Transit (BRT) Infrastructure Park-and-Ride Facilities Simple Bus Stop Sheltered Bus Stop Satellite Maintenance Facilities New Service (Costs) Total Capital Costs Capital Revenues Section 5307 - Federal Premium Transit (BRT) Funding Developer Contribution (North LL Circ.) Sales Tax Total Capital Budget Budget Surplus/Deficit Fund Balance

$0 $11,042,544 $475,190 $180,000 $0 $902,861 $12,600,595 $751,000 $13,351,595

$3,966,150 $0 $0 $102,500 $1,762,734 $535,777 $6,367,161 $769,775 $7,136,936

$0 $0 $299,548 $105,063 $0 $399,397 $804,008 $789,019 $1,593,027

$462,993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $462,993 $808,744 $1,271,737

$1,898,271 $0 $0 $22,076 $0 $0 $1,920,347 $828,963 $2,749,310

$2,432,160 $0 $537,634 $203,653 $1,945,728 $1,021,504 $6,140,679 $849,687 $6,990,366

$0 $0 $0 $115,969 $0 $606,182 $722,151 $870,929 $1,593,080

$0 $0 $338,911 $118,869 $1,533,173 $451,881 $2,442,834 $892,702 $3,335,536

$0 $0 $0 $0 $523,834 $0 $523,834 $915,020 $1,438,854

$2,147,720 $0 $0 $24,977 $2,684,650 $0 $4,857,347 $937,896 $5,795,243

$10,907,294 $11,042,544 $1,651,283 $873,107 $8,450,119 $3,917,602 $36,841,949 $8,413,735 $45,255,684

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$3,803,794 $903,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $903,401 $0 $0 $491,693 $341,453 $0 $6,443,741

$2,972,904 $462,993 $0 $4,459,355 $0 $0 $1,388,979 $0 $0 $568,598 $403,834 $4,307,563 $14,564,226

$5,420,066 $0 $237,284 $3,809,032 $0 $0 $1,898,271 $0 $2,649,151 $0 $0 $4,415,252 $18,429,056

$2,534,567 $972,864 $0 $0 $0 $243,216 $972,864 $10,095,649 $1,357,690 $950,383 $650,560 $0 $17,777,793

$0 $2,492,964 $373,945 $2,401,119 $1,600,746 $249,296 $1,495,778 $0 $1,391,632 $2,407,524 $1,681,555 $4,638,774 $18,733,333

$0 $511,058 $638,823 $0 $0 $255,530 $1,022,115 $0 $0 $1,426,423 $980,666 $4,754,743 $9,589,358

$0 $1,047,668 $0 $0 $0 $0 $523,834 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,571,502

$0 $0 $268,466 $0 $0 $0 $536,930 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $805,396

$14,731,331 $6,390,947 $1,518,518 $10,669,506 $1,600,746 $748,042 $8,742,172 $10,095,649 $5,398,473 $5,844,621 $4,058,068 $18,116,332 $87,914,405

$13,351,595

$7,136,936

$8,036,768

$15,835,963

$21,178,366

$24,768,159

$20,326,413

$12,924,894

$3,010,356

$6,600,639

$133,170,089

$969,374 $0 $0 $0 $969,374

$988,762 $0 $0 $0 $988,762

$1,008,537 $0 $451,700 $25,106,926 $26,567,163

$1,028,707 $0 $0 $14,807,256 $15,835,963

$1,049,282 $0 $0 $20,129,084 $21,178,366

$1,070,268 $7,571,737 $0 $16,126,154 $24,768,159

$2,183,345 $0 $0 $18,143,068 $20,326,413

$2,227,013 $0 $0 $10,697,881 $12,924,894

$2,271,554 $0 $0 $738,802 $3,010,356

$2,316,984 $0 $0 $4,283,655 $6,600,639

$15,113,826 $7,571,737 $451,700 $110,032,826 $133,170,089

-$12,382,221 ($12,382,221)

-$6,148,174 ($18,530,395)

$18,530,395 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022

8-14


Appendix A Transportation Service Provider Survey

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022

A-1


Transit Development Plan Update - Transportation Service Provider Survey The Polk Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is in the process of updating the 10-year Transit Development Plan (TDP) for the County. The 10-year TDP is a strategic guide for public transportation in the community over the next 10 years. As part of the TDP Update, the TPO is evaluating the type and amount of public transportation service provided by our partners in the private and non-profit sectors. Please take the time to fill out this survey and assist the TPO in providing better transportation coordination. 1. What type(s) of service(s) do you provide? (e.g., fixed route bus, vanpool, taxi, demand response, charter) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Is your agency part of the coordinated transportation system in Polk County? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Is the service you provide associated to a specific organization? Is yes, please indicate what organization ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Is the service you provide required by any formal agreement? ___________________________________________ 5. Please list the number of vehicles used in maximum service. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Please list the location(s) of your facilities. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. What are the geographic boundaries of your service area? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. What are your days/hours of operation? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

1


9. What is your annual ridership? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Does your service have any restrictions on clients, trip purposes, or destinations? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. What is your fare per trip? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. What are your primary destinations? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. If you are a medical or social service provider, what are your sources of funding? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. If you are a medical or social service provider, are you experiencing any service limitations due to funding, vehicles, etc? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Survey responses are being compiled by our planning consultant, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. Please return the completed survey to Ryan Suarez, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, FL 33602 or email rsuarez@tindaleoliver.com by February 17, 2012. Please contact Diane Slaybaugh, Polk TPO staff, at 863-534-6495 with any questions. All agencies that complete and send this form will be included in the Polk County TDP transportation provider inventory.

2


Appendix B Needs Plan Alternatives Route-by-Route Evaluation Scoring Detail

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022

B-1


Needs Plan Alternatives Route-by-Route Evaluation Scoring Detail Route Name

Description

Mode

Public Involvement Interest Score

Activity Centers % in Activity Cen Score

Traditional Market % in Trad. Score

Choice Market % in Choice Score

Reg. Connectivity Yes/No? Score

Trips per Hour Trip/Hr Score

Oper. Cost per Trip Cost /Trip Score

Daily Net Cost Cost Score

Composite Score

Rank

1

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

100.0%

9

25.4%

6

45.6%

6

no

0

11.4

4

$7.76

7

$8,650

0

66

13

3

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

67.3%

6

11.8%

6

32.6%

6

no

0

16.9

7

$5.22

7

$2,055

7

73

3

10

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

62.6%

6

33.5%

9

35.7%

6

no

0

13.1

7

$6.76

7

$1,972

7

76

1

14

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

56.7%

6

17.7%

6

34.5%

6

no

0

8.7

4

$10.17

7

$4,348

0

63

17 17

15 (Citrus Connection)

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

44.6%

3

37.5%

9

39.8%

6

no

0

10.3

4

$8.58

7

$4,368

0

63

22XL

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

100.0%

9

8.9%

3

23.5%

3

yes

6

14.3

7

$6.17

7

$2,885

4

73

3

45

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

80.1%

6

23.0%

6

19.6%

3

no

0

11.8

4

$7.46

7

$2,154

7

67

11

47

Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

High

22

100.0%

9

0.0%

0

33.6%

6

no

0

13.6

7

$6.51

7

$1,021

7

58

20

11

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

21.7%

3

28.7%

9

29.2%

6

no

0

6.0

4

$14.84

4

$2,689

4

64

15

12

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

71.0%

6

8.6%

3

35.0%

6

yes

6

15.5

7

$5.71

7

$4,783

0

69

9

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

100.0%

9

36.5%

9

15.7%

3

yes

6

10.7

4

$8.26

7

$2,337

4

76

1

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

100.0%

9

5.9%

0

27.9%

6

yes

6

9.3

4

$9.48

7

$2,856

4

70

7 24

15 (WHAT) 22XW

Frequency, Span, and Sunday Service Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

28.3%

3

3.7%

0

17.3%

3

no

0

10.6

4

$8.30

7

$4,677

0

51

40/44

30

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

17.6%

0

4.2%

0

12.0%

3

no

0

6.6

4

$13.47

4

$1,755

7

52

22

50

Frequency and Span Improvement

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

29.5%

3

10.7%

3

18.4%

3

no

0

7.9

4

$11.13

4

$1,734

7

58

20

Downtown Lakeland Premium

New Service

Premium

Moderate

11

100.0%

9

72.7%

9

100.0%

9

no

0

59.1

11

$1.50

11

$821

7

67

11

Lakeland-Bartow Express

New Service

Express

Moderate

11

100.0%

9

11.2%

3

51.8%

9

yes

6

40.2

11

$2.19

11

$592

11

71

6

Lakeland-Winter Haven Express

New Service

Express

Moderate

11

69.3%

6

9.3%

3

55.9%

9

yes

6

35.0

11

$2.53

11

$819

7

64

15

Lakeland-Sunrail Terminal Express

New Service

Express

Moderate

11

78.0%

6

3.2%

0

15.9%

3

yes

6

14.0

7

$6.30

7

$1,407

7

47

28

I-4 Intercounty Express

New Service

Express

Moderate

11

73.0%

6

0.0%

0

14.3%

3

yes

6

4.3

4

$20.68

0

$2,046

7

37

36

Haines City-Eagle Ridge Mall

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

90.7%

9

0.0%

0

12.7%

3

no

0

3.4

4

$25.90

0

$4,980

0

50

26

Mulberry Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

High

22

32.7%

3

33.1%

9

37.6%

6

no

0

4.8

4

$18.40

0

$1,358

7

51

24

Bartow Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

50.2%

3

0.0%

0

38.1%

6

no

0

21.7

7

$4.07

11

$871

7

68

10

Lake Wales Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

High

22

49.5%

3

0.0%

0

59.6%

9

no

0

8.1

4

$10.91

4

$1,072

7

49

27

Haines City Circulator

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

61.3%

6

35.5%

9

39.7%

6

no

0

10.9

4

$8.09

7

$885

7

73

3

Auburndale/Florida Polytechnic

New Service

Traditional Fixed-Route

Very High

34

11.5%

0

0.0%

0

2.3%

0

no

0

4.2

4

$21.28

0

$1,536

7

45

30

Carter Rd Walmart-Bradley

Span Improvement

Fixed-Route Service w/ Deviations

High

22

20.4%

3

2.6%

0

0.0%

0

no

0

4.9

4

$18.14

0

$2,290

4

33

38

Bartow-Fort Meade

Span Improvement

Fixed-Route Service w/ Deviations

High

22

4.7%

0

0.0%

0

11.6%

3

yes

6

6.2

4

$14.27

4

$2,180

7

46

29

Lake Wales-Frostproof

Frequency and Span Improvement

Fixed-Route Service w/ Deviations

Very High

34

14.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

no

0

4.1

4

$21.49

0

$2,731

4

42

32

Eagle Ridge-Lake Wales

Frequency and Span Improvement

Fixed-Route Service w/ Deviations

Very High

34

89.5%

6

0.0%

0

44.4%

6

no

0

8.0

4

$11.03

4

$1,651

7

61

19

Lake Davenport-Haines City

New Service

Fixed-Route Service w/ Deviations

Very High

34

97.1%

9

0.0%

0

32.0%

6

yes

6

5.4

4

$16.41

4

$2,026

7

70

7

Haines City-Poinciana

New Service

Fixed-Route Service w/ Deviations

Very High