Page 1


Â

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

34

92.2%

9

8.2%

3

6.3%

3

yes

6

5.0

4

$17.62

0

$2,202

7

66

13

Fort Meade

New Service

Flex

High

22

12.1%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

no

0

9.1

4

$9.74

7

$1,063

7

40

33

Frostproof

New Service

Flex

High

22

2.6%

0

0.0%

0

2.3%

0

no

0

16.0

7

$5.53

7

$1,075

7

43

31

Crooked Lake Park/Hillcrest Heights

New Service

Flex

High

22

5.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

no

0

9.6

4

$9.17

7

$1,220

7

40

33

Poinciana

New Service

Flex

High

22

3.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

no

0

8.5

4

$10.36

7

$1,479

7

40

33

Lake Davenport

New Service

Flex

High

22

46.4%

3

0.0%

0

56.1%

9

no

0

11.5

4

$7.66

7

$640

7

52

22

Winter Haven Logistics Center

New Service

Flex

High

22

12.7%

0

0.0%

0

8.8%

3

no

0

5.1

4

$17.21

0

$1,015

7

36

37

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

B-2


Appendix C Funding Assessment

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

C-1


FUNDING ASSESSMENT A review of existing and potential local transit funding options was conducted to determine viable funding options that could be implemented by the Polk Transit Authority on a countywide and subarea basis. The exercise is significant in light of the recently-published 2010 Census population estimates for the Lakeland Urbanized Area and the Winter Haven Urbanized Area. Those estimates indicate that both urbanized areas exceed the population threshold (200,000 persons) for use of FTA 5307 formula grant funds for operations. For the past several years, both the County and LAMTD have been budgeting their entire 5307 allocation to operations. MAP-21 legislation will provide some relief from the impact of the Census estimates. Included in the legislation is a provision to allow small transit agencies operating fewer than 100 vehicles during their respective peak period of operation to use a portion of their 5307 allocation for operations. Despite the legislation provision, the anticipated revenue from the 5307 grant would only be enough to maintain existing service and provide marginal service improvements. To leverage more state and federal revenue sources, expand public transportation services, and meet the demand for public transportation in the county, additional dedicated local funding sources need to be identified and secured. FUNDING OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

This section includes an analysis of potential local funding sources for the Polk Transit Authority. Table C-1 provides a summary matrix of those funding sources and provides information on how the funding source may be used, what the source currently funds (if applicable), the primary parties contributing to the revenue generation, and the pros and cons for each source relative to funding transit. The primary sources of revenue for the Polk Transit Authority detailed in this section include ad valorem and sales taxes. Although those two funding sources are considered to be the sources that will provide the largest levels of funding from among all possible sources, several other funding opportunities will be available to the Polk Transit Authority including the development of public-private partnerships, potential revenue generated through county and/or municipal multi-modal fees, and contributions from local jurisdictions. An analysis of each of these funding sources is included in this section. In addition, a brief section on gas taxes is also included. Other minor funding sources, such as fare revenues, revenues from advertising, and bond issuance, are excluded from this analysis. Following the revenue source summary, Table C-2 includes current and 10-year projected budgeted revenues for both LAMTD and PCTS/WHAT, as well as 10-year projections for potential sales tax and ad valorem revenues. A supplementary Figure C-4 is also included that compares annual revenue estimates for several ad valorem and sales tax scenarios.

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

C-2


Ad Valorem Tax

An ad valorem tax is an assessment on the value of real or personal property imposed by local governments to fund a wide range of public services and infrastructure. Ad valorem taxes are imposed in the form of a millage, where 1 mill is equal to $1 assessed per $1,000 of property value. Ad valorem taxes can be assessed in the form of a dedicated millage rate, where revenue generated from a specific millage rate is dedicated to funding a particular need, such as transit service. An example of such an arrangement is the current countywide assessment made for transportation. Since FY 2006, Polk County has levied a 1 mill assessment for transportation improvements in the county. Revenues collected in 2011 from that levy totaled $24.5 million. While the amount of ad valorem generated by a dedicated millage may fluctuate based on property values, a benefit is that it is separate from the general fund millage and does not have to “compete” with other funding needs for a portion of the general fund revenue. Since general fund expenditures are budgeted each year based on the projected revenues and expenses, the amount available for transit may fluctuate depending on other funding needs. Local governments are constitutionally limited to 10 mills for either capital or operating purposes; however, local voters may authorize additional mills for other purposes by referendum. In addition to a countywide millage, ad valorem revenue can be generated through one of several special taxing districts, such as an Independent Special District. Independent Special District

An independent special district is a special district that must submit financial reports separately from municipalities and counties. The classification as either dependent or independent exists primarily for the state and local financial reporting purposes. Additionally, if the independent special district levies an ad valorem tax, the millage is not added to the rate set by the County or municipality and does not count against a set millage cap. LAMTD is a special taxing district creating by County ordinance with a taxing authority approved through voter referendum. Ad valorem taxes, in the form of a dedicated millage rate from properties within the independent taxing district, are currently used to fund a portion of the LAMTD budget. The current millage rate is 0.5 mills, collected from properties within the district boundaries. As an independent taxing district, this millage does not count towards Polk County’s millage cap. Under the current millage, LAMTD is projected to receive approximately $3.2 million in FY 2012. LAMTD has the authority to increase its millage rate to 1 mill through referendum. The Polk Transit Authority enabling legislation authorizes the Polk Transit Authority Board to levy and assess an ad valorem tax of up to 3 mills, subject to approval by voter referendum. Figure C-1 notes

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

C-3


estimated revenues for two countywide ad valorem based assessment scenarios. If the current LAMTD millage rate for transit of 0.5 mills was assessed countywide, the Polk Transit Authority could potentially receive an estimated $12 million annually. If the millage was increased to 1.0 mill and assessed countywide, the revenue yields are estimated to be approximately $25 million, based on the countywide ad valorem revenue generated per mill in FY 2011. Figure C-1 Annual Countywide Property Tax Revenue (in millions) $30 $25

$24.5

$20 $15 $10

$12.2

$5 $0 1/2 Mill

1 Mill Countywide Millage  Rate

Source: Based on value of 1 mill generated countywide in Polk County for FY 2011

As property values appreciate and growth and redevelopment occurs, the County’s tax base will increase over time, with higher property values at an equivalent millage rate generating additional ad valorem revenue. The Polk County BoCC can make a policy decision to dedicate a percentage of the incremental growth in ad valorem revenues and dedicate to funding transit capital or operations. Depending on the transit funding needs, the dedicated percentage can be applied to the overall incremental growth in the tax base, the portion of the growth attributed to the existing tax base appreciation, or the portion of the tax base growth attributed to new growth and development. Sales Tax

There are two types of sales taxes that can be used to fund transit.  

Charter County and Regional Transportation System Surtax Local Government Infrastructure Surtax

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

C-4


Charter County and Regional Transportation System Surtax The Charter County Transit System Surtax was first authorized in 1976 by §212.055(1) F.S., as a means to aid in funding the Dade Area Rapid Transit (DART) system. Originally named the Charter County Transit System Surtax, it was made available at a rate of up to 1 percent by charter counties that adopted a charter prior to January 1, 1984, as well as by a county government that consolidates with one or more municipalities. Effective July 1, 2009, by Chapter 2009-146, Laws of Florida, the sales tax was renamed the Charter County Transportation System Surtax and eligibility was extended to 13 additional charter counties. Subsequently, effective July 1, 2010, the sales tax was once again renamed to the Charter County and Regional Transportation System Surtax, reflecting eligibility to each county that is within or under an interlocal agreement with a regional transportation or transit authority created under Chapters 343 or 349, Florida Statutes. Expenditures allowed under this sales tax include the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of fixed guideway rapid transit systems, bus systems, on-demand transportations services, roads and bridges, and supporting bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For charter counties, such as Polk County, the tax must be approved through a voter referendum authorized by the BoCC. The proceeds must be placed in a County trust fund or provided by the county’s governing body to an expressway or transportation authority. Generally, the proceeds may be used for the planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of fixed guideway rapid transit systems, bus systems, roads, and bridges. Local Government Infrastructure Surtax A Local Government Infrastructure Surtax may be levied at the rate of one-half percent or one percent pursuant to an ordinance enacted by a majority vote of a county’s governing body and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. Generally, the proceeds must be used to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure; to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or natural resources; or to finance the closure of local government-owned solid waste landfills that are already closed or are required to close. Infrastructure is defined as any fixed capital expenditure or fixed capital outlay associated with the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of public facilities that have a life expectancy of five or more years, and any related land acquisition, land improvement, design, and engineering costs. Proceeds are to be distributed to the County and its associated municipalities according to an interlocal agreement and cannot be used to fund the operational expenditures of infrastructure. Up to 15 percent of the proceeds may be allocated for the purpose of funding County economic development projects of a general public purpose targeted to improve local economies, including the funding of operational costs and incentives related to economic development. The referendum ballot must state this intention in order to have a valid use of the proceeds. All counties are eligible to levy this surtax.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

C-5


Figure C-2 displays the potential annual revenue, estimated in 2012 dollars, which could be realized by implementing a sales tax in Polk County dedicated to funding transit-related expenditures. Figure C-2 Potential Annual Local Sales Tax Revenue (in millions) $70 $60 $50

$60.4

$40 $30

$30.2

$20 $10

$15.1

$0 100%

50%

25%

Sales Tax  Rate

Source: “Local Government Financial Information Handbook” (2011); FY 2012 estimated local sales tax revenue collections for Polk County; 100% = Full Penny, 50% = Half Penny, 25% = Quarter Penny

Public/Private Partnerships

The opportunity for public/private partnerships as a funding option is beginning to emerge as a viable alternative for many transit agencies. These partnerships can be arranged with urban and rural employers as well as with universities and colleges in the area. Partnerships can take many different forms as arrangements need to be tailored to address different employers with varying service needs. For example, many universities/colleges coordinate with their local transit agency to provide free or reduced fares for students. Florida State University in Tallahassee, the University of Florida in Gainesville, and recently, Polk State College in Polk County all work together with their respective public transportation providers to improve access to their campuses. Another opportunity that falls under this category of funding exists with employers based in rural, less populated areas that may not support a cost-effective fixed-route public transportation service. Reaching out to those employers with vanpool, carpool, or even period specific service options may open doors for partnering. Those employers may find it beneficial to negotiate terms for transportation services that Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

C-6


improve job access. In addition, funding from partnerships such as these could be used for both capital and operations as the stipulation guiding the use of any revenues could be negotiated by the parties involved. Contributions from Local Municipalities

Municipalities within Polk County that would like to receive the benefit of transit service could contribute local funds through an interlocal agreement between the municipality and the respective county-wide transit governing body. A similar arrangement is in place between Polk County and several municipalities in Polk County. The municipalities provide funding to Polk County for a portion of WHAT services operating in their community. The proportion of local contribution would most effectively be assessed using revenue miles and would be specified as part of an interlocal agreement. For example, the cost per revenue mile for the transit agency would be multiplied against the total number of revenue miles of service in the service area. A full cost allocation model using one variable, revenue miles, would be appropriate unless the municipality or community shares the responsibility of other activities related to the provision of the service, i.e., maintenance, shared parking facilities, shared administrative staff. Multimodal Fee

Historically, many counties throughout Florida have imposed road impact fees, a one-time payment by new development to help fund the capital cost of replacing roadway capacity consumed by the new development. In recent years, as more emphasis is being placed on providing alternative modes of transportation, local governments have started replacing road impact fees with multimodal fees. A multimodal fee is the same concept as a road impact fee, but it charges new government for not only road capacity it consumes, but capacity related to the cost of providing sidewalks, bicycles, and public transportation. Following current impact fee case law, a multimodal fee is used to fund the capital expansion of infrastructure (e.g., buses, bus stops/shelters, transit maintenance facilities, etc.), and is not used to fund transit operations. Converting from a road impact fee to a multimodal fee does not change the magnitude of the overall fee collected significantly (typically, less than a 5% percent increase over the road impact fee amount); however, converting to a multimodal fee does allow the flexibility to spend revenues on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, in addition to road capacity. While Polk County has had a countywide road impact fee program in place since 1989, it is currently suspended. In 2010, the Polk County BoCC imposed a moratorium on the road impact fee that is scheduled to end on January 31, 2014. To transition from the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s road impact fee program to a

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

C-7


multimodal fee and be able to use a portion of the impact fee revenue for transit capital, a technical study is needed to determine the appropriate cost of new development’s impact to the multi-modal system. Fuel Tax

Taxes imposed on motor and diesel fuel vary between counties within Florida. There are three separate fuel taxes that counties have the option to levy; these taxes total up to 12 cents on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. One-Six Cents Local Option Fuel Tax Originally called the Local Option Gas Tax until 1996, the 1-6 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax, or First Local Option, is a tax of 1 to 6 cents on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. The tax is adopted through a majority vote of a county’s governing body or voter approval in a countywide referendum. This tax is automatically imposed on diesel fuel in all counties as a result of statewide equalization, with the County authorizing local option collections on motor fuel. The County distributes proceeds to municipalities according to an interlocal agreement. Counties and Cities are authorized to use the proceeds to fund numerous projects, including public transportation capital and/or operating costs. Polk County has adopted all six cents of this tax, so use of this revenue for transit would displace other needs currently funded with this revenue. One-Five Cents Local Option Fuel Tax The 1-5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax, or Second Local Option, is an additional tax of 1 to 5 cents on every net gallon of motor fuel sold within a county. Diesel fuel is not subject to this tax. The tax is adopted through a majority vote of a county’s governing body or voter approval in a countywide referendum. The County distributes proceeds to municipalities according to an interlocal agreement. Counties and Cities are authorized to use the proceeds for transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the capital improvements element or an adopted comprehensive plan, or for expenditures needed to meet the immediate local transportation problems and for other transportation-related expenditures critical for building comprehensive roadway networks by local governments. Only capital improvements identified in the local Comprehensive Plan are eligible for funding using the 1-5 Cents Local Option Fuel Tax. In addition to collecting the maximum six cents of the First Local Option Fuel Tax, Polk County has adopted all five cents of the Second Local Option Fuel Tax. Therefore, use of this revenue for transit would displace other needs currently funded with this revenue.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

C-8


Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax The Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax is a tax of one cent on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. The tax was first authorized in 1972 by §336.021, F.S. Diesel fuel was not added to the tax until 1990. The most recent change to the tax came in 1993 when the Florida Legislature removed a previous referendum requirement and stated that any County can impose the tax by extraordinary vote of its BoCC. The County may distribute tax proceeds to incorporated municipalities, but it is not required to do so. Among other authorized uses, the proceeds can go towards public transportation operations and maintenance. The Ninth-cent Fuel Tax has been adopted in Polk County, so use of this revenue for transit would displace other needs currently funded with this revenue.

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

C-9


Table C-1 Local Funding Summary Matrix Revenue Source

Who Pays

Ad Valorem (Countywide Millage)

Existing Residents (primarily) and New Development

Ad Valorem (Special Taxing District)

Charter County and Regional Transportation System Surtax

Local Government Infrastructure Sales Tax

Public/Private Partnerships

Contributions from Local Municipalities

County Multimodal Fee Program

Existing Residents (primarily) and New Development

Existing Residents, New Development, and Visitors

Existing Residents, New Development, and Visitors

Varies

Existing Residents (primarily)

New Development

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

Responsible Party

BoCC

Polk Transit Authority

BoCC and Voter Referendum

BoCC and Voter Referendum

Varies

Municipalities

BoCC

Funding Use Conditions

Current Status

Pros and Cons Pros:  Flexible funding source  Can be funded from current millage Cons:  Sensitivity to increasing taxes (if existing millage is raised)  Revenue generation primarily existing residents and new development; no contribution from visitors

Planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance

Currently, there is no dedicated countywide millage to transit

Planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance

0.5 mills is currently assessed to properties within the boundaries of LAMTD, an independent taxing district, as a dedicated funding source for transit

Pros:  Flexible funding source Cons:  Sensitivity to increasing taxes  Revenue generation primarily existing residents as well as new development; no contribution from visitors

Authorized but not currently levied

Pros:  Flexible funding source  Revenue generation shared across multiple groups  Could offset current LAMTD millage Cons:  Sensitivity to increasing taxes (Polk County currently has a 7% sales tax rate)

Authorized but not currently levied

Pros:  Revenue generation shared across multiple groups Cons:  Limited to capital; not able to fund transit operations  Sensitivity to taxes

Planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance

One major partnership in place with Polk State College

Pros:  Services can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the employer or partner entity  Possibility of using funds for both operations and capital Cons:  Needs in non-participating communities or for non-participating employers may remain unmet  Long-term funding stability is contingent on partnering entity

Planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance

Several municipalities contribute funds for WHAT services operating within their respective community

Pros:  Municipalities pay their fair share for services provided and/or desired  Possibility of using funds for both operations and capital Cons:  Needs in non-participating communities may remain unmet  Contribution are contingent on local budgetary process

Capital only (multimodal system)

Mobility fee not currently adopted; BoCC would need to lift impact fee moratorium and transition from a road impact fee program to a mobility fee program

Pros:  Fee level tied to new development’s impact to the multimodal transportation system Cons:  Limited to capital; not able to fund transit operations  Not a stable, reccurring revenue source (revenue generation tied to development levels)

Planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance

Capital only

C-10


Revenue Source

County Road Impact Fee Program

First Local Option Fuel Tax

Who Pays

New Development

Existing Residents,, New Development, and Visitors

Second Local Option Fuel Tax

Existing Residents, New Development, and Visitors

Ninth-Cent Local Option Fuel Tax

Existing Residents, New Development, and Visitors

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

Responsible Party

BoCC

BoCC or Voter Referendum

BoCC or Voter Referendum

BoCC

Funding Use Conditions

Capital only (road system)

Operations and maintenance of traffic management systems and public transportation

Roadway Capacity Expansion

Operations and maintenance (transportation system, including public transit)

Current Status

Pros and Cons

County road impact fee program suspended through moratorium approved by BoCC; moratorium currently scheduled to be lifted January 31, 2014

Pros:  Fee level tied to new development’s impact to the road system Cons:  Limited to expansion of road system capacity; not flexible to spend on capacity expansion of other modes (i.e., transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities)  Not a stable, reoccurring revenue source (revenue generation tied to development levels)

Maximum six cents currently levied

Pros:  Flexible funding source  Revenue generation shared across multiple groups Cons:  Maximum pennies already levied; would displace other funding needs

Maximum five cents currently levied

Pros:  Revenue generation shared across multiple groups Cons:  Not able to fund transit operations  Maximum pennies already levied; would displace other funding needs

Maximum one-cent currently levied

Pros:  Flexible funding source  Revenue generation shared across multiple groups Cons:  Maximum pennies already levied; would displace other funding needs

C-11


Table C-2 Ten-Year Existing and Potential Revenue Forecast Budget

Growth

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Ten‐Year Total

LAMTD Revenues Federal Section 5307 State Block Grant Property Taxes (Existing LAMTD millage) Advertising Revenues Operating Assistance Fare Revenues Interest/Miscellaneous Income Contract Revenue (WHAT/Other Service) Total Revenue

$          2,585,783 $             808,412 $          3,209,778 $               47,907 $                      ‐ $          1,185,787 $               21,478 $          1,300,437 $9,159,583

$                 2,637,498 $                     824,580 $                 3,209,778 $                       48,626 $                             ‐ $                 1,185,787 $                       21,801 $                 1,378,463 $9,306,534

$                  2,690,248 $                      841,072 $                  3,290,023 $                        49,355 $                              ‐ $                  1,194,673 $                        22,128 $                  1,461,171 $9,548,670

$                  2,744,053 $                      857,894 $                  3,372,273 $                        50,096 $                              ‐ $                  1,203,625 $                        22,459 $                  1,548,841 $9,799,242

$                 2,798,934 $                    875,051 $                 3,544,259 $                       50,847 $                             ‐ $                 1,212,645 $                       22,796 $                 1,641,771 $10,146,305

$                  2,854,913 $                     892,552 $                  3,725,017 $                        51,610 $                              ‐ $                  1,221,732 $                        23,138 $                  1,740,278 $10,509,240

$                  2,912,011 $                     910,403 $                  3,914,992 $                        52,384 $                              ‐ $                  1,230,887 $                        23,485 $                  1,844,694 $10,888,858

$                2,970,251 $                   928,612 $                4,114,657 $                     53,170 $                            ‐ $                1,240,111 $                     23,838 $                1,955,376 $11,286,015

$                 3,029,656 $                     947,184 $                 4,324,505 $                       53,967 $                             ‐ $                 1,249,404 $                       24,195 $                 2,072,699 $11,701,610

$          3,090,250 $             966,127 $          4,545,054 $               54,777 $                      ‐ $          1,258,767 $               24,558 $          2,197,061 $12,136,593

$          3,152,055 $             985,450 $          4,776,852 $                55,598 $                      ‐ $          1,268,199 $                24,927 $          2,328,884 $12,591,965

$        28,879,870 $          9,028,926 $        38,817,411 $             520,430 $                      ‐ $        12,265,831 $             233,325 $        18,169,238 $     107,915,031

2.0% 2.0% (1) 1.5% n/a (2) 1.5% 6.0%

WHAT Revenues Federal (FTA 5307) ARRA FY09 Federal (FTA 5311) State Block Grant (FDOT) Local Municipalities Farebox PCTS Prior Year Carryover Total Revenue

$          1,800,000 $                      ‐ $             361,418 $             513,428 $             358,523 $             162,867 $          1,167,688 $          4,363,924

$                 1,240,000 $                             ‐ $                     373,256 $                     523,697 $                     358,935 $                     150,000 $                 1,718,196 $                 4,364,084

$                  1,264,800 $                              ‐ $                      385,450 $                      534,170 $                      367,909 $                      152,314 $                  1,571,526 $                  4,276,169

$                  1,290,096 $                              ‐ $                      398,009 $                      544,854 $                      377,105 $                      154,663 $                      427,557 $                  3,192,284

$                 1,315,898 $                             ‐ $                    409,950 $                    555,751 $                    386,531 $                    157,049 $                             ‐ $                 2,825,178

$                  1,342,216 $                              ‐ $                     422,248 $                     566,866 $                     396,192 $                     159,471 $                              ‐ $                  2,886,993

$                  1,369,060 $                              ‐ $                     434,916 $                     578,203 $                     406,095 $                     161,931 $                              ‐ $                  2,950,205

$                1,396,441 $                            ‐ $                   447,963 $                   589,767 $                   416,246 $                   164,428 $                            ‐ $                3,014,846

$                 1,424,370 $                             ‐ $                     461,402 $                     601,563 $                     426,650 $                     166,965 $                             ‐ $                 3,080,950

$          1,452,858 $                      ‐ $             475,244 $             613,594 $             437,314 $             169,540 $                      ‐ $          3,148,550

$          1,481,915 $                      ‐ $             489,501 $             625,866 $             448,245 $             172,155 $                      ‐ $          3,217,682

$        13,577,654 $                      ‐ $          4,297,940 $          5,734,331 $          4,021,222 $          1,608,515 $          3,717,279 $        32,956,942

2.0% n/a 3.0% 2.0% 2.5% (3)

Potential Future Revenue Proposed Sales Tax  Full Penny Half Penny Quarter Penny Ad Valorem  Additional LAMTD (1/2 mill) Winter Haven (1 mill) Countywide (1/2 mill) Countywide (1 mil)

Assumption

$        60,432,561 $               61,641,212 $                62,874,036 $                64,131,517 $               65,414,148 $                66,722,430 $                68,056,879 $              69,418,017 $               70,806,377 $        72,222,505 $        73,666,955 $      674,954,076 $        30,216,281 $               30,820,606 $                31,437,018 $                32,065,759 $               32,707,074 $                33,361,215 $                34,028,440 $              34,709,008 $               35,403,189 $        36,111,252 $        36,833,477 $      337,477,038 $        15,108,140 $               15,410,303 $                15,718,509 $                16,032,879 $               16,353,537 $                16,680,608 $                17,014,220 $              17,354,504 $               17,701,594 $        18,055,626 $        18,416,739 $      168,738,519 $          3,209,778 $          1,516,783 $        12,225,538 $        24,451,075

$                 3,209,778 $                 1,516,783 $               12,225,538 $               24,451,075

$                  3,290,023 $                  1,554,703 $                12,531,176 $                25,062,352

$                  3,372,273 $                  1,593,571 $                12,844,455 $                25,688,911

$                 3,544,259 $                 1,674,843 $               13,499,523 $               26,999,045

$                  3,725,017 $                  1,760,260 $                14,187,998 $                28,375,996

$                  3,914,992 $                  1,850,033 $                14,911,586 $                29,823,172

$                4,114,657 $                1,944,385 $              15,672,077 $              31,344,154

$                 4,324,505 $                 2,043,548 $               16,471,353 $               32,942,706

$          4,545,054 $          2,147,769 $        17,311,392 $        34,622,784

$          4,776,852 $          2,257,305 $        18,194,273 $        36,388,546

(4)

$        38,817,411 $        18,343,200 $      147,849,370 $      295,698,741

(5)

Revenue forecast assumptions: LAMTD Revenues (1) Assumes no growth rate (0%) 2012-2013; slow growth rate (2.5%) 2014-2015; historical average growth rate (5.1%) 2015-2022 based on historical change in revenue per mill from 1996-2011 (2) Assumes 0.75 percent annual growth in ridership based on 2010 NTD and TBEST ridership forecasts WHAT Revenues (3) Assumes 1.54 percent annual growth in ridership based on 2010 NTD and TBEST ridership forecasts Sales Tax Revenues (4) Source of 2012 sales tax figure is the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research; projections assumes 2.0 percent annual growth in revenue based on average annual change 2006 through 2012 projection. Ad Valorem Tax Revenues (5) Source of 2012 ad valorem figure is the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Projections assume no growth rate (0%) 2012-2013; slow growth rate (2.5%) 2014-2015; historical average growth rate (5.1%) 2015-2022 based on historical change in revenue per mill from 1996-2011

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022

C-12


Figure C-4 Comparison of Ad Valorem and Sales Tax Revenue Scenarios*

*Revenues reflect estimated annual revenues for 2012 from the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research

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

C-13


Appendix D Polk Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 202

D-1


Polk Transit Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

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............................................................................................................. Organization of Study .....................................................................................................

1-1 1-1

Section 2: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... Mode Identification ......................................................................................................... Segmentation ................................................................................................................. Evaluation .................................................................................................................. Preliminary Modal Assignment ......................................................................................

2-1 2-1 2-2 2-4 2-15

Section 3: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ Final Modal Assignment and Service Improvements Summary ..................................... Phasing and Implementation Plan ..................................................................................

3-1 3-1 3-4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:

Evaluation Process ........................................................................................................

2-4

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14:

Polk TDP Premium Bus Service Evaluation Criteria ...................................................... Summary of Existing Conditions Criteria Analysis and Mode Assignment .................... Transit Service Density Threshold ................................................................................. Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) ........................................................................ Summary of Future Conditions Criteria Analysis and Modal Assignment ...................... 2025 Average Daily Person Trips Summary .................................................................. TBEST Modeling Results .............................................................................................. Final Mode Assignment ................................................................................................. Typical Cross-Section Right-of-Way Requirements....................................................... Existing Right-of-Way Availability Analysis Results ....................................................... Service Improvements to Existing Corridor Transit Services ......................................... Proposed Express Services Summary .......................................................................... Proposed BRT Service Summary .................................................................................. Phasing of Service Improvements .................................................................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-5 2-8 2-9 2-11 2-12 2-14 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 3-3 3-3 3-4 3-5

i


LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Map 2: Map 3:

Study Corridor Segmentation ........................................................................................ Study Corridor Travel Flow Analysis.............................................................................. Service Improvements Summary...................................................................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-3 2-13 3-2

ii


SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A Countywide Transit Study was conducted in 2004 to identify the opportunities for continued expansion of transit services in Polk County and to develop a service development strategy and business plan to support this expansion. In that study, several major corridors in Polk County were identified as target premium transit corridors. The results of the Countywide Transit study were incorporated and further refined in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan as part of the Polk County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The regional transit projects identified in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan include the Bartow-to-Lakeland Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Express service along US 98 and US 92 express bus service connecting the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) Transit Terminal and the Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT) Terminal. Currently, service is provided along on US 98 by LAMTD Route 22XL and on US 92 by WHAT Route 12. To further improve transit services between Bartow, Lakeland, and Winter Haven, three corridors were identified to assess the possibility of enhanced premium bus services beyond what is being provided today. These three corridors include:   

US 98 from Bartow to Lakeland US 17 from Bartow to Winter Haven US 92 from Lakeland to Winter Haven

ORGANIZATION OF STUDY In addition to the introduction section, this document includes the following sections: Section 2 presents the Methodology and Analysis utilized to perform the premium bus service feasibility assessment. A detailed description of the process, analysis, and preliminary results is presented. Section 3 includes the Prioritization and Implementation Plan. This section summarizes the final recommendations from the assessment and includes a brief implementation plan for achievement of the resulting recommended services.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

1-1


SECTION 2 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS This section provides an overview of the methodology used to conduct the premium bus service feasibility assessment. The evaluation of the three study corridors was conducted using a multi-phased approach that focused on the feasibility of each corridor to support premium transit services and to guide development of a staged implementation plan to introduce those services in these corridors. The methodology used consists of five steps, which include:     

Mode identification Segmentation Evaluation Preliminary Modal Assignment Final Modal Assignment

MODE IDENTIFICATION In order to assign modes to the corridors, an initial list of potential modes was determined. The following transit modes are drawn from the Polk 2060 Vision and were determined to be appropriate for possible consideration in Polk County. 

Traditional local bus is the primary service that currently operates in Polk County. Traditional local bus service operates using traditional bus stops, makes frequent stops, and travels at lower average speeds than BRT or express bus services. Traditional local bus services generally operate alongside regular traffic with varying service frequencies.

Enhanced express bus is generally characterized as a peak hour commuter service where stops are concentrated at the ends of the route with few or none in the middle. Enhanced express bus often operates out of park-and-ride lots and serves passengers who are completing longer distance trips. The vehicles may include coach-style vehicles and may offer amenities such as wireless internet. There are two express routes in operation in Polk County, the LAMTD 22XL and the WHAT 22XW.

Premium bus service, such as BRT, operates in mixed traffic or on an exclusive lane of travel. The vehicles are typically stylized to look more like a rail vehicle than a bus, can be articulated, and are usually branded. Optional premium features include level boarding, off-board fare payment, and larger stations with more passenger amenities than a bus stop for traditional local bus service. Premium bus service operates at high service frequencies and can use traffic signal priority (TSP) to

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-1


help reduce travel time and improve reliability. High-frequency service, such as what is provided by BRT, typically operates most effectively in corridors consisting of high density commercial and residential development. It is important to note that, for this study, a distinction is made between high frequency, premium bus service and BRT based on the planning horizon of this analysis. ď&#x201A;ˇ

Light rail can be one or two train cars in length, operates on rail tracks, and is segregated from traffic. It operates at medium speeds, has medium frequencies, and makes frequent stops. Light rail is specifically branded and has significant stations. Although not part of this premium bus service assessment, light rail is included as a possible transit mode if appropriate densities and sufficient right-of-way exist in the urbanized areas within the study corridors.

SEGMENTATION Segmentation was used to create more uniformly characteristic pieces of the corridors for analysis. Segmenting provides the opportunity for assessing the suitability of each segment in supporting varying levels of service, i.e., transit modes. Ideally, each corridor segment connects a logical beginning and ending point and has uniform characteristics throughout its length. These characteristics may include transitsupportive land uses, accessibility, and user markets. Later steps in this evaluation process will attempt to regroup segments with a similar mode assignment to allow for a more realistic and practical approach to the programming, implementation, and operation of premium bus services. Prior to completing the segmentation of the study corridors, the initial north end of the US 98 corridor was extended based on input provided from City of Lakeland staff to Maple Dr at US 98. The extension ensures that the feasibility analysis captures the portion of US 98 in north Lakeland, which is considered an area that may support premium transit services. Segmentation of the three corridors was then based on the Polk County Comprehensive Plan Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay (TCCO). That overlay identifies specific areas in Polk County targeted for higher densities and intensities for development and organizes those areas into transit corridors, transit centers, and transit center cores. Map 1 illustrates TCCO transit centers and transit center cores along with the segmentation developed for the evaluation. As shown in Map 1, US 98, US 17 and US 92 were divided into six, three, and four segments, respectively.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-2


CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

2

CR 6 4

0

4 Miles

LAKE HAMILTON DR W

CR 557/POMELO ST

NW)

SIXTH STREET SE

Corridor Segmentation US 17-1

US 92-1

HELENA RD

17 US

COOLEY ROAD

US 92-2 US 92-3 US 92-4 US 98-1 US 98-2

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD) SR 60

Legend

US 17-3

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

CR 655A (COX RD/ALTUR AS RD N)

US 17/98

NINETY-ONE MINE RD

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD SR 60

CR 55 5

SR 37

SR 60

SR 60

S U

17

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

US 17-2

EAGLE LAKE LOOP RD

8

CARTER ROAD

S U

17

BUCKEYE RD

FIRST STREET SOUTH

REYNOLDS RD

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SR 60

1

CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

9 US

SHEPHERD RD

LAKE MIRIAM DR

SR 3 OLD HIGHWAY 37 7 (F LO R IDA AVE S)

LUNN ROAD

PIPKIN RD WEST

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

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

ALAMO DRIVE

2

AVE T NE/COUNTRY CLUB RD N

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

(AGRIC O LA R D)

WARING ROAD

SR 570 (POLK PAR KWAY)

MAINE AVE

SPIRIT LAKE RD

CR 37B (LAKELAND HIGHLANDS RD)

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

) RT RD YATES ROAD

SYLVESTER ROAD

2

Y) HW

BEACON ROAD

ER CK (RE

98

(AIRPO

ARIANA ST

55

S U

SR 572

N LAKE DR CRYSTAL

CR 544A (DERBY AVE W)

6 SR

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

K PARKWAY)

LIME STREET

OLIVE STREET

0

ST E)

9 US

BRIDGERS AVE

SR 570 (POL

CR 542 (MAIN

BOLENDER RD/MORRIS RD

7/9 US 1

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

MINEOLA DR

TENTH ST W FIFTH STREET CRUTCHFIELD RD US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W) PARKER STREET

EWELL ROAD

SR 559

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

BELLA VISTA STREET

CASS ROAD

THIRTY-FOURTH ST NW

4

98

E AT ST R TE IN

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

4 D

US

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

L ROA

RD)

Y HIL SLEEP

THORNHILL RO AD

US 98

SR 659 (COMBEE

3 SR 3

US 98-3 US 98-4 US 98-5 US 98-6 SR 60

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

Transit Centers and Cores Core Center

Major Road

Map 1 Premium Bus Corridor Segmentation


EVALUATION The segment evaluation process, reflected as a decision tree in Figure 1, consists of a multi-criteria analysis. Each corridor segment was evaluated to determine the appropriate mode for that particular segment. Segments were evaluated first on their ability to support 10- to 15-minute service frequencies today based on an initial set of criteria. If the segment is not considered supportive of 10- to 15-minute service frequencies today then a second set of criteria was used to determine if the segment will support bus service with 10- to 15-minute service frequencies in the future. If segments were not determined to be supportive of 10- to 15minute service frequencies today or in the future, a separate corridor based assessment was conducted using origin-destination (OD) data from the travel demand model to determine if the corridor would support enhanced express bus services. The continuation of existing local bus service was recommended for any corridor that neither supported BRT nor express bus services based on the analysis. An additional right-ofway availability analysis was conducted on all segments to determine if exclusive lanes of travel can be accommodated to further enhance premium bus or express services. Figure 1 Evaluation Process

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-4


To conduct the evaluation, a set of criteria, shown in Table 1, was developed to gauge each corridor segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s supportiveness of BRT or express bus service. The criteria selected are comprehensive, nonredundant, and mutually-exclusive to the greatest extent possible. The criteria also have been designed to be quantifiable or classifiable to score individual segments/corridors. Scores range from 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 depending on the nature of each criterion. Three criteria were selected for assessing existing conditions, including existing transit ridership, transit dependent populations, and floor area ratio; three separate criteria were selected for assessing future conditions, including future population/employment density, activity centers, and the redevelopment propensity index. Table 1 presents the criteria and corresponding measures of effectiveness and data sources. Following Table 1 is a detailed description of each criterion, scoring thresholds, and the evaluation results. Table 1 Polk TDP Premium Bus Service Evaluation Criteria Criterion

Measure

Data Source

Existing Conditions Existing Transit Ridership

Annual average daily transit ridership per mile (2011)

Transit Agencies

Transit Dependent Populations

Proportion of segment half-mile service area within "Very High" or "High" TOI areas

ESRI 2010 Demographic Data by Block Group

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Proportion of parcels with BRT supportive FARs within half-mile service area

Polk County Property Appraiser

Future Population/Employment Density

Proportion of segment half-mile service area within "Very High" population or employment density thresholds

Polk TPO 2035 TAZ Data

Activity Centers

Total number of activity centers and transit trip generators and attractors per mile within segment half-mile service area

Polk 2060 Vision/Polk Comprehensive Plan

Redevelopment Propensity Index(RPI)*

Percent of parcels within segment half-mile service area with a high RPI

Polk County Property Appraiser

Travel Flow

Average daily person trips to and from corridor end activity centers

Regional Travel Demand Model (2025)

Right-of-Way Availability

Percent of available right-of-way within each segment

Polk County Property Appraiser

Future Conditions

Additional Assessments

*The RPI reflects a composite score for the age of built structures, access to transportation facilities, land value vs. structural value, and designated redevelopment areas.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-5


 Does the segment meet the threshold for 10 to 15 minute bus service frequency today? Existing Transit Ridership A ridership analysis was completed for each segment using FY 2011 route-by-route ridership data provided by PCTS, Citrus Connection, and WHAT. In order to determine the number of transit boardings along each of the analysis corridor segments, it was necessary to determine what proportion of each existing route currently operates within each corridor segment. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that average daily ridership per route was distributed equally across the length of each transit route. Ridership for each BRT analysis corridor segment was then calculated by summing the ridership for all overlapping transit route segments. Average daily ridership for each segment was then normalized by segment length to obtain ridership per segment mile. In order to determine a threshold for this criterion, average daily ridership per route mile for 16 BRT systems in the U.S. was obtained from operating survey data conducted by the National BRT Research Institute in March 2011 (http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Survey/BRT_Currently%20_Operating.pdf). Data from that survey indicates that the minimum BRT ridership per mile is 70 trips per mile. The following scoring system was developed for this criterion based on the minimum BRT ridership per mile. In addition, results of this criterion analysis can be found in Table 2.    

A score of 4 is assigned to segments experiencing 70 or more boardings per mile. A score of 3 is assigned to segments experiencing between 40 and 69 boardings per mile. A score of 2 is assigned to segments experiencing between 10 and 39 boarding per mile. A score of 1 is assigned to segments experiencing 9 or less boarding per mile.

Transit Dependent Populations Transit dependent populations, also called traditional market, refer to population segments that historically have had a higher propensity to use transit. Typical transit dependent population segments include the following characteristics:     

Older adult population (i.e., age 60 years or older) Youth population (i.e., age 15 to 24) Population below the poverty level Areas with high population density Households with no vehicles

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-6


A Transit Orientation Index (TOI) was developed to identify areas of the county where transit dependent populations exist. The five population segments identified previously were used to develop an index that identifies segments with higher concentrations of transit dependent populations relative to other segments. 2010 Environmental Systems Research Institute (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 the five noted population characteristics. To assess the TOI for each analysis segment, the proportion of each segment’s half-mile service area meeting the “Very High” or “High” TOI thresholds was calculated. An average and standard deviation for all analysis segments was then calculated and used to rank and score each. The following scoring system was developed.  

If a segment’s proportion of “Very High” and “High” TOI areas was greater than one standard deviation above the average (20.56%) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 3. If a segment’s proportion of “Very High” and “High” TOI areas was greater than or equal to the average (12.32%) for all segments and less than or equal to one standard deviation above the average (20.56%), then it was assigned a score of 2. If a segment’s proportion of “Very High” and “High” TOI areas was less than the average (12.32%) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 1.

Floor Area Ratio There is no better indicator of successful public transportation services than the presence of compact urban development. Floor area ratio (FAR) is well-suited to measure residential, non-residential, or mixed-use densities. The existing FAR within each corridor was calculated for parcels within half-mile service area of each corridor segment using the latest parcel data obtained from the Polk County Property Appraiser’s Office. That parcel database contains detailed information on the size of each parcel of land in the County and the square footage of existing structures on each parcel. In order to determine appropriate thresholds for this criterion, Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 2004 was reviewed. Based on this report, areas with FARs equal to or greater than 1.5 are considered supportive of BRT (i.e., 10 to 15 minute service frequencies) application while parcels with FARs less than 1.5 are considered supportive of lower levels of service (i.e., > 15-minute service frequencies). The following scoring system was applied based on the FAR analysis:   

If 50 percent of the parcels within half-mile buffer of an individual corridor segment has a FAR of 1.5 or higher, then it was assigned a score of 3. If 50 percent of parcels within half-mile buffer of an individual corridor segment has a FAR of 0.5 or more, then it was assigned a score of 2; If an individual segment does not meet any of the above conditions, it was assigned a score of 1.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-7


Existing Conditions Preliminary Modal Assignment Based on the existing conditions evaluation criteria and thresholds, individual scores were calculated for each criterion and a composite score was determined. A segment with a composite score of 8 or higher was determined to be supportive of 10- to 15-minute frequencies. Based on the analysis, none of the analysis segments are supportive of 10- to 15-minute frequencies at this time. Table 2 shows the results of the evaluation of existing conditions. Table 2 Summary of Existing Conditions Criteria Analysis and Modal Assignment Existing Transit Ridership Segment

US98-1 US98-2 US98-3 US98-4 US98-5 US98-6 US17-1 US17-2 US17-3 US92-1 US92-2 US92-3 US92-4

Average Daily Ridership per Mile 48.6 42.2 39.4 23.3 23.4 10.4 15.5 16.8 17.5 30.0 33.7 5.3 9.6

Transit Dependent Populations

FAR

Score

Percent

Score

Percent with FAR >=1.5

3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

1.78% 42.78% 7.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.66% 12.10% 9.19% 0.00% 19.23%

1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2

12% 3% 4% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 18% 9% 0% 0% 5%

Percent with Score FAR >=0.5 17% 8% 14% 10% 1% 5% 0% 0% 25% 14% 3% 1% 9%

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Composite Score

Mode

5 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 4

Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus

ď&#x192;&#x2DC; Will the segment meet the threshold for 10 to 15 minute bus service frequency in the future? Future Employment and Population Densities Future employment density is based on the number of employees per acre in 2025 while future population density is based on the number of dwelling units per acre in 2025. Both data were obtained from Polk TPO 2060 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) projections. Segment-by-segment employment and population density was determined using a half-mile service area buffer. The number of employees and dwelling units within the half-mile service area for all TAZs of each corridor segment was divided by the service area buffer to obtain employees and dwelling units per acre, respectively.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-8


Three levels of density thresholds were developed to indicate whether or not an area contains sufficient densities to sustain varying levels of transit service. 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.).

Table 3 presents the density thresholds for each of the noted categories. Table 3 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

Based on Table 3, the following scoring system was used to evaluate future employment and population densities for each corridor segment.    

Segments with employment densities of 7 or higher employees per acre or with densities of 8 or higher dwelling units per acre received a score of 4. Segments with employment densities between 5 and 6.9 employees per acre or with densities between 6 and 7.9 dwelling units per acre received a score of 3. Segments with employment densities between 4 and 4.9 employees per acre or with densities between 4.5 and 5.9 dwelling units per acre received a score of 2. Segments with employment densities of less than 4 employees per acre and with densities of less than 4.5 dwelling units per acre received a score of 1.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

population population population population

2-9


Activity Centers Activity centers 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. Activity centers were calculated on a per-mile basis, and an average number of activity centers per mile was calculated for all the corridor segments. An average and standard deviation for all analysis segments was then calculated and used to rank and score each. The following scoring system was developed:  

If the number of activity centers per mile within the segment is greater than one standard deviation above the average (2) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 3. If the number of activity centers per mile within the segment is greater than or equal to the average (1) for all segments and less than or equal to one standard deviation above the average (2), then it was assigned a score of 2. If the number of activity centers per mile within the segment is less than the average (1) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 1.

Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) A Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) was used to better assess the opportunities for redevelopment within each corridor. The RPI refers to an index score value that weights criteria related to the age of structures, the relationship between the value of structures and the value of the property, and access to major transportation facilities. The RPI was used to capture the redevelopment potential of parcels within a half-mile buffer of each corridor segment. Parcels with a higher redevelopment potential can be targeted for mixed-land use or transit-oriented development which is considered supportive of premium transit service with high levels of service. Table 4 details the methodology used to calculate the RPI score. The age of structures and land value/structural value data were obtained from the Polk County Property Appraiser parcel database. A parcel’s access to major transportation facilities was measured utilizing Arc GIS software and the Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City of Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Plan were used to identify areas targeted as redevelopment areas within the County and the City of Lakeland, respectively. Individual scoring for each RPI criterion and the final composite scoring system is shown in Table 4.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-10


Table 4 Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) RPI = Age of Structure + Access + Land Value/Structural Value + Redevelopment Area Age of Structure (Target Year 2025) Score Low High 1 25 35 2 36 50 3 51 75 4 75 + Land Value/Structural Value Score Low 1 0 2 0.51 3 1.26 4 2.51 5 5.01 Sample Input Values Value Description 1950 Year Structure Built I Access $1,000,000 Land Value $500,000 Structure Value High Redevelopment Area Sample Total RPI Score

High 0.5 1.25 2.5 5 +

Score 4 3 2

Score 5 0

Access Value (I) Interstate Interchange (within 0.5 mile) (A) Non Interstate Arterial (within 0.25 mile) (C) Collector (within 0.25 mile) Redevelopment Area Value In Redevelopment Area Not in Redevelopment Area

Score 4 4 3 5 16

After the RPI score for each parcel was calculated, the final score for each corridor segment was determined as follows:   

If 50 percent of parcels within a half-mile buffer of a corridor segment have an RPI score of 12 or higher, then it was assigned a score of 3. If 50 percent of parcels within a half-mile buffer of a corridor segment have an RPI score of 8 or higher, then it was assigned a score of 2. If an individual segment does not meet any of the above conditions, it was assigned a score of 1.

Future Conditions Preliminary Mode Assignment Similar to the existing condition mode assignment, individual criterion scores were calculated and composite scores were summed for each segment for future conditions. A segment with a composite score of 8 or higher was determined to be supportive of 10- to 15-minute frequencies. Table 5 presents the results of the mode assessment for future conditions. Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-11


Table 5 Summary of Future Conditions Criteria Analysis and Modal Assignment Employment Density* (2025) Segment

US98-1 US98-2 US98-3 US98-4 US98-5 US98-6 US17-1 US17-2 US17-3 US92-1 US92-2 US92-3 US92-4

Population Density* (2025)

Activity Centers

Employees/ Acre

Dwelling Units/ Acre

Score*

4.3 7.0 3.5 1.4 1.2 4.9 1.4 0.6 5.1 3.2 3.2 1.3 3.4

1.7 2.3 2.4 1.7 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.6

2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

Per Mile

Score

1.1 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.4 2.1 0.3 1.0 0.2 1.8

2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2

Redevelopment Propensity Index Percent corridor with RPI >=12 1% 64% 16% 0% 0% 0% 10% 13% 12% 26% 6% 23% 40%

Percent corridor with RPI >=8 20% 95% 35% 20% 10% 28% 56% 40% 44% 49% 36% 58% 75%

Composite Score

Mode

5 9 3 3 3 5 4 3 7 3 4 4 5

Local Bus Premium Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus

Score 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2

*Score is based on either employment density threshold or population density threshold.

ď&#x192;&#x2DC; Will future travel patterns within the corridor support express bus services? Travel Flow The travel flow analysis is intended to determine if the number of potential person trips that occur on each study corridor will support express transit service. In order to perform this analysis, the 2035 FSUTMS Polk Transportation Model, published in May 2011, was interpolated to obtain 2025 socioeconomic data. Four major trip origin and destination zones, illustrated in Map 2, were developed by grouping TAZs. The TAZ groups include those within Lakeland, Bartow, Winter Haven, and west of the Polk-Hillsborough county line (identified to capture the external trips generated outside and that enter or exit Polk County). TAZ groupings were refined for model purposes and the person trips for all trip purposes, except for truck-taxi trips, for each of the TAZ groups were modeled based on 2025 socioeconomic data. The analysis results are tabulated in an OD matrix showing trips traveling between the TAZ groups. Average daily person-trips were totaled together and are presented in Table 6. Map 2 illustrates the results of Table 6.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-12


CASS ROAD EVENHOUSE ROAD

EWELL ROAD

2

4 Miles

SR 37 OLD HIGHWAY 37

1

US 17/98

0

SIXTH STREET SE

Hillsborough County Winter Haven

HELEN A RD

Daily Person Trips 3,217 5,739

10,950

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

13,177

Analysis TAZ Zones SR 60

SR 60

Major Road

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

CR 640 (PINECREST RD)

CR 640

NINETY-ONE MINE RD

SR 60

CR 5 55

D) ICHOLS R CR 676 (N

SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)

US 17/98

RD)

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD

(AGR ICOL A

SR 60

Orign/Destination

15,066

8

RD

SR 60

S U

17

Legend

City of Lakeland CRUMP R D

9 US

T NE RO CO

CARTER ROAD

NW)

17

US

CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SHEPHERD RD

BAILEY ROAD

SPIRIT LAKE RD

LAKE MIRIAM DR

CHERRY LANE

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

THORNHILL ROAD

REYNOLDS RD

US 98

HALLAM DRIVE

PIPKIN ROAD WEST

COUNTY LINE RD

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

D

MEDULLA ROAD

E RD KEY BUC

NW)

K PARKWAY)

ROA COOLEY

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

98

SR 570 (POL

DRANE FIELD RD

2

Bartow

US 17 (SIXTH ST

US

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

2

Y) HW

98

BEACON ROAD

US 92

R KE EC (R

ARIANA ST

BRIDGERS AVE

55

PARKER STREET CR 542 (MAIN ST E) LIME STREET

S U

INTERSTATE 4 WY) AMPA H (OLD T CR 542

MINEOLA DR

9 US

6 SR

SWINDELL RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

US 27

7/9 US 1

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

TENTH ST W

CR 17

CR 557/POMELO ST

SR 559

) WAY

ODOM ROAD

US 98

K PAR OLK

CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)

0 (P

AD OLD BERKLEY RO EY RD) (BERKL CR 655

4

RD)

ROBSON ST

CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)

AD

ROAD Y HILL SLEEP

3 4 SR 3 STATE R INTE

SR 659 (COMBEE

DEESON ROAD

4 E AT T RS TE IN 3 SR 3

RD

7 SR 5

OL

DUFF RD

Y CIT

TOMKOW RO

BANANA ROAD

K OL DP

Map 2 Study Corridors Travel Flow Analysis


Table 6 2025 Average Daily Person Trips Summary From/To City of Lakeland

To/From Bartow

Daily Person Trips 13,177

Bartow

Winter Haven

5,739

Winter Haven

City of Lakeland

15,066

Hillsborough

Bartow

3,217

Hillsborough

Winter Haven

10,950

The travel flow analysis results presented in Table 6 was compared with the TBEST modeling results for Citrus Connection Route 22XL and WHAT Routes 12 and 22XW. These three routes currently operate on US 98, US 92, and US 17, respectively. Table 7 presents the 2022 TBEST modeling results for the three routes. Table 7 TBEST Modeling Results Route

Existing Average Daily Ridership

22XL

365

12 22XW

598 223

Average Daily Ridership (2022)

Growth Rate (2022)

Citrus Connection 4.2% 386 WHAT 5.4% 638 4.9% 237

Daily Revenue Hours (2022)

Trips per Revenue Hour (2022)

16.35

23.9

26.00 12.92

24.5 18.3

As can be seen in Table 6, a considerable number of daily person trips are forecasted to occur between the City of Lakeland and Winter Haven (15,066) and between the City of Lakeland and Bartow (13,177). When daily person trips between Hillsborough and Winter Haven are taken into consideration total daily person trips between Winter Haven and the City of Lakeland and Hillsborough County rises to 26,016. In addition, daily person trips generated between Bartow and Winter Haven are estimated to be 5,739. Table 7 indicates that Route 12, operating on US 92, will experience the highest average daily ridership (638) and passenger trips per revenue hour (24.50) levels in 2022 among the three existing routes. Route 22XW reflects 237 average daily boardings and 18.3 trips per revenue hour in 2022. These ridership levels indicate that some level of service improvements may be implemented within the US 92 corridor and/or to Route 12, within the US 98 corridor and/or to Route 22XL, and within the US 17 corridor and/or Route 22XW (e.g. increased peak-hour service frequencies.)

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-14


PRELIMINARY MODE ASSIGNMENT Based on the existing conditions, future conditions, and travel flow analyses, a preliminary mode assignment was identified for the three corridors. Table 8 presents the results of that mode assignment. In summary, existing express services operating in the three corridors should be retained and only part of the US 98 corridor, segment US 98-2 in Downtown Lakeland, is considered supportive of premium bus service in 2025. It is important to note that Segment 17-3, Downtown Winter Haven, was identified as having a composite score of 7 for premium bus service supportiveness in the future. That score was one point lower than the threshold identified for premium bus service supportiveness in the analysis. As land use and employment activity changes in the County over time, future efforts to evaluate corridors for premium bus service implementation should strongly consider this corridor segment. Table 8 Final Mode Assignment Corridor US 98 US 92 US 17

Express Service Recommended Comments (Yes/No) Level of service Yes improvement Level of service Yes improvement Level of service Yes improvement

Premium Bus Service Recommended Comments (Yes/No) Only for segment US 98-2 in Yes Downtown Lakeland in the future No

N/A

No

N/A

Level of service improvements for the express services and operational recommendations based on the following right-of-way analysis are included in Section 3 of this report. ď&#x192;&#x2DC; Is there sufficient right-of-way to operate premium bus services in exclusive runningways? Right-of-Way Availability An assessment of current right-of-way availability was performed on all corridor segments to assess the opportunity for exclusive lanes of travel for transit services. Transit services that could utilize exclusive lanes include premium and express transit service. Right-of-way requirements for typical cross-sections were defined and are shown in Table 9. As shown in that table, an existing roadway with 2 lanes should have a minimum right-of-way of 74 feet to add 1 more exclusive lane of travel in each direction.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-15


Table 9 Typical Cross-Section Right-of-Way Requirements Number of Lanes 2 4 6 8

BRT One Lane 74 ft 120 ft 144 ft 168 ft

The typical cross section right-of-way requirements were defined based on typical Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) cross-sections for urbanized areas and the BRT Functional Classification Study prepared by the Office of Modal Development, FDOT District 4. After defining the cross-section designs to calculate the percentage of right-of-way availability, the available right-of-way along each segment was compared against the cross-section needed to accommodate the previously identified modes. The percentage is calculated by dividing the segment length with adequate right-of-way with the total length of each corresponding segment. The percentage of right-of-way availability was computed for each segment. If the percentage was equal to or greater than 60 percent, then it was assumed that there is potential for the implementation of the previously identified modes (Premium or Express Service) on exclusive running ways. In segments where the percentage of right-of-way availability was lower than 60 percent, it was assumed that mixed-traffic operation is more appropriate in that segment. Table 10 presents the results of the right-of-way analysis. These results were used to further define operational recommendations by corridor presented in Section 3 of this report. It is important to note that the lack of right-of-way should not preclude any transit service from exclusive running way operation at this time. Future plans for securing additional right-of-way within the study corridors are currently underway and recommendations for application or use of additional right-of-way at intersections are provided in Section 3 of this report.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

2-16


Table 10 Existing Right-of-Way Availability Analysis Results ROW Availability Segment Percent Segment with Adequate ROW Exclusive or Mixed-Traffic Operation US 98-1 US 98-2 US 98-3 US 98-4 US 98-5 US 98-6 US 17-1 US 17-2 US 17-3 US 92-1 US 92-2 US 92-3 US 92-4

60.2% 53.8% 34.1% 90.1% 100.0% 47.4% 100.0% 66.0% 35.9% 5.4% 51.8% 86.8% 30.0%

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

Exclusive Mixed-traffic Mixed-traffic Exclusive Exclusive Mixed-traffic Exclusive Exclusive Mixed-traffic Mixed-traffic Mixed-traffic Exclusive Mixed-traffic

2-17


SECTION 3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A recommendation for a phased implementation plan for the premium bus services identified in Section 2 of this report was prepared and is included in this section. The phasing of improvements will allow for a number of advantages including the assessment of services as service expansions are implemented, coordination of services as the system grows, and the ability to capitalize on changes to the existing environment such as new development, favorable right-of-way acquisition, and/or coordination with county, city, and FDOT projects. Premium bus service improvements are included in the Polk TDP Needs Plan. The incorporation of those service improvements into the Needs Plan ensures consistency with the Polk TDP and also provides an opportunity to prioritize these service improvements with other proposed TDP Needs Plan alternatives. This section is organized into two major parts. The first summarizes the final modal assignment and details the specific service improvements for each corridor based on the analysis presented in Section 2. The second includes recommendations for a phased implementation plan for each corridor. FINAL MODAL ASSIGNMENT AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY Based on the results of the analysis conducted in Section 2, three types of service improvements were recommended for the three study corridors, high-frequency premium bus service, express bus service, and improvements to existing local bus service. Map 3 illustrates the service improvements summary. Level-of-service improvements for existing services According to the Polk TDP Needs Plan assessment, Routes 22XL, 12, and 22XW are expected to experience high ridership levels in 2022 relative to the rest of the fixed-route transit system. Consequently, these three routes were qualified for service frequency and service span improvements. Table 11 presents the existing and proposed operating characteristics for those three routes. Express Services The analysis results presented in Section 2 indicate that the three study corridors do not support transit service with 10 to 15 minute service frequencies for their entire length all day long. Only one segment was shown to be supportive of those service levels. This does not preclude the possibility for the implementation of express service during peak-hour periods. The 2025 travel flow analysis results show that 13,177 and 15,066 person trips will be generated between Lakeland and Bartow, and between Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

3-1


LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)

4 Miles

17

SIXTH STREET SE

Legend Transit Center

New Services Downtown Lakeland BRT

SR 60

CR 655A (COX RD/ALTUR AS RD N)

CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)

17

NINETY-ONE MINE RD

Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Existing Service Improvement HELENA RD

S U

LAKE HAMILTON DR W

CR 557/POMELO ST

NW) 17

US

COOLEY ROAD

FIRST STREET SOUTH

US 17 (SIXTH ST NW)

BUCKEYE RD

EAGLE LAKE LOOP RD

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

0

SR 60

US 17/98

LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD

CR 55 5

SR 37 CR 6 4

US

8

SR 60

9 US

SR 60

2

CR 559 (BOMBER RD)

CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)

SR 60

THIRTY-FOURTH ST NW

REYNOLDS RD

SPIRIT LAKE RD

S) AV E

OLD HIGHWAY 37 SR 37 (FL OR IDA

HALLAM DRIVE

CARTER ROAD

CR 0 640 (PINECREST RD)2 1

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)

SR 37 (CHURCH AVE N)

LUNN ROAD

YATES ROAD

HARDEN BLVD

WARING ROAD

SR 570 (POLK PAR KWAY)

MAINE AVE

(AGRIC O LA R D)

) RT RD

EDGEWOOD DRIVE E

7/9 US 1

AVE T NE/COUNTRY CLUB RD N

Y) HW

SYLVESTER ROAD

ER CK (RE

98

(AIRPO

BEACON ROAD

KE DR N

CR 544A (DERBY AVE W)

55

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

S U

SR 572

LA CRYSTAL

ARIANA ST

92 US

6 SR

ST E)

BOLENDER RD/MORRIS RD

BRIDGERS AVE

K PARKWAY)

CR 542 (MAIN LIME STREET

CASS ROAD

US 17 (EIGHTH ST

MINEOLA DR

SR 570 (POL

OLIVE STREET

SHEPHERD RD

SR 559

CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)

BELLA VISTA STREET

TENTH ST W FIFTH STREET CRUTCHFIELD RD US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W) PARKER STREET

EWELL ROAD

CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)

4 4

98

E AT ST R TE IN

US

CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)

OAD HILL R

RD)

Y SLEEP

THORNHILL RO AD

US 98

SR 659 (COMBEE

3 SR 3

US 98 Express Service US 92 Express Service

Analysis TAZ Zones SR 60

ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF

Major Road

Map 3 Study Corridor Service Improvements Summary


Table 11 Service Improvements to Existing Corridor Transit Services Routes

Corridor Served

22XL

US 98

12

US 92

22XW

US 17

Existing Conditions Service Frequency Service Span (minutes) Weekday: 60 – 90 Weekday: 6:05 – 6:30 PM Saturday: 60 Saturday: 7:15 – 4:42 PM Weekday: 60 Weekday: 6:15 – 7:15 PM Saturday: 60 Saturday: 7:15 – 4:15 PM Weekday: 60 Weekday: 6:15 – 7:10 PM Saturday: 60 Saturday: 7:15 – 4:10 PM

Future Conditions Service Frequency Service Span (minutes) Weekday: 30 Weekday: 6:05 – 10:00 PM Saturday: 30 Saturday: 7:15 – 7:15 PM Weekday: 30 Weekday: 6:05 – 10:00 PM Saturday: 30 Saturday: 7:15 – 7:15 PM Weekday: 30 Weekday: 6:05 – 10:00 PM Saturday: 30 Saturday: 7:15 – 7:15 PM

Lakeland and Winter Haven, respectively. In addition, the TBEST 2022 modeling results note 24 or more trips per revenue hour would be expected for Routes 22XL and 12, which operate along the US 98 and US 92 corridors, respectively. The results of those analyses substantiate implementation of express service during peak-hour periods along the US 98 and US 92 corridors. The two express services would serve as destination-to-destination overlay services in addition to the improvements to existing services shown in Table 11. Table 12 shows the operating characteristics for proposed express services within the US 98 and US 92 corridors. Table 12 Proposed Express Services Summary Routes

Weekday Operating Characteristics Service Frequency Service Span (minutes)

US 98 Express Service (Lakeland to Bartow)

30

6:15 – 8:30 AM/4:30 – 6:30 PM

US 92 Express Service (Lakeland to Winter Haven)

30

6:15 – 8:30 AM/4:30 – 6:30 PM

High Frequency Premium Bus Service

Based on the analysis, one segment on the US 98 corridor will be supportive of 10- to 15-minute service frequencies in the future. The original segment starts at Tucker Street and ends at South Lake Parker Avenue within in US 98 corridor. However, the north end of this segment was extended to US 98 at Crevasse Street (Lakeland Square Mall) based on the following three major considerations: 

The City of Lakeland officials have a strong desire to connect the Lakeland Square Mall, located just northwest of the intersection of US 98 and I-4, to Downtown Lakeland with premium bus service.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

3-3


Groundbreaking of a park-and-ride facility to be located at US 98 and I-4 just occurred recently. The construction of this facility is going to take place in 2012. Connecting the park-and-ride facility with Downtown Lakeland via premium bus service will make the facility more appealing to potential park-and-ride users, and thus will enhance the utilization of the park-and-ride facility.

A Central Lakeland Transit Signal Prioritization Study is programmed in the FDOT Five Year Work Program and is scheduled to be conducted in FY 2013/14. The northern terminus of the proposed study corridor is US 98 is at the Lakeland Square Mall. Consequently, the extension of the premium bus service segment to US 98 at Crevasse Street reflects the scope of that study.

Table 13 presents the operating characteristics for the proposed premium bus service for the noted segment. Table 13 Proposed Premium Bus Service Summary Route Downtown Lakeland Premium

Weekday Operating Characteristics Service Frequency Service Span (minutes) 10/15 (Peak/Off-Peak) 6:15 AM – 8:00 PM

PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN It is important to emphasize that high-frequency bus service and BRT have been differentiated in this study. This has been done to ensure consistency with the planning horizon of the My Ride document and to inject a sense of scale into the development of a fully articulated BRT operation and its appropriateness for Polk County. Understanding that BRT can include a host of technology components, it has been determined through the analysis that Polk County should consider a more conservative approach to premium bus service implementation. That approach includes enhancing existing bus service gradually over time to improve the appeal, speed, and reliability of bus service within the US 98 corridor. This would allow the system to adapt and grow without the large capital investments necessary to produce the type of premium bus service commonly associated with BRT (e.g., Bogotá, Colombia; Eugene, Oregon; Miami, Florida). Long term planning processes, such as the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update, should continue to assess the need for full-scale BRT operations beyond the planning horizon of the TDP. Implementation of the proposed premium bus service improvements, particularly the high-frequency premium bus service, should be phased consistent with the pace of development occurring along the three study corridors. Initial service improvements should include the improvements to existing services shown in Table 11, followed by the implementation of express bus service. For the high-frequency premium bus service, an incremental approach to implementation will allow transit agency staff to assess and test the Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

3-4


success of less aggressive service improvements prior to making a large investment in more aggressive service expansions. Table 14 presents a tentative implementation schedule recommended for the implementation of all three service improvement types. Table 14 Phasing of Service Improvements Routes

Service Improvement Details

Tentative Schedule

Note

22XL, 12, and 22XW

Service Frequency and Service Span

By 2013

N/A

Express Services

Implementation of New Service

By 2014

N/A

High-Frequency Premium

Implementation of New Service

By 2022

Preceded by improvements to Route 1

For the high-frequency premium bus service, it may be beneficial to increase service frequencies on Citrus Connection Route 1 prior to implementation of other technological improvements. Currently, the route operates on 30-minute frequencies and an investment directed at reducing frequencies to 15 minutes, specifically within the US 98 corridor segment identified in this study, is strongly recommended. Larger investments in service can more easily be justified as recognition of the service grows and as development along the corridor also continues to grow. To truly create a rapid bus service, the bus must be given some level of priority or exclusivity above and beyond the regular flow of traffic. Otherwise, the service would function as traditional bus service functions, in mixed-traffic alongside other vehicles and stopping at all signalized intersections. The speed and reliability offered by BRT service boils down to two major components, signal priority and exclusive bus lanes. Other common BRT components, such as off-board fare payment, level boarding, and advanced passenger information systems, contribute marginal improvements to speed and reliability when compared to signal priority and lane exclusivity. Consequently, for Polk County, the focus of improvements beyond operational frequencies and service span should be capital investments in signal priority and exclusive runningways. Signal priority and exclusive runningway facilities can be added to the corridor once Route 1 service frequency improvements are implemented, productivity levels have risen, and capacity on the route begins to be saturated. To facilitate the implementation of bus supportive infrastructure, it is to the advantage of the agency to participate in local efforts to improve intersection signalization and in city, county, and state roadway maintenance projects to ensure that capital improvements that will benefit premium bus services considered are included in those plans. The FY 2012 FDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies several PD & E and construction projects that can serve as opportunities to enhance transit Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

3-5


services within all three study corridors. An evaluation of the level-of-service of major intersections along the corridor may also supply information for the planning and programming of intersection treatments for buses, such as signal priority. Right-of-Way To further assist in the implementation of the high-frequency premium bus service, information from the right-of-way analysis results presented in Section 2, Table 10, were evaluated. That analysis reveals several opportunities for enhancing the quality of the premium bus services in the study corridors. Making use of available right-of-way will enhance the operational characteristics of the transit services through the application of exclusive runningways or through the addition of queue jump lanes at intersections. Guidance on making use of the available right-of-way identified in the analysis is provided below. 

Segments with adequate right-of-way should be considered for construction of exclusive running way facilities. Ideally, the facility would be exclusive for bus service only in the AM and PM peak period, particularly for the high-frequency premium bus service. For express service, the facility could be a shared facility or even a shared tolled facility throughout the day or during off-peak hours.

Major intersections with adequate right-of-way should be considered for signal priority combined with a queue jump lane. If signal priority timing cannot be accomplished, then a queue jump lane application with a receiving lane should be considered. The speed and reliability of both BRT and express bus services will benefit from either application.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study

3-6


Appendix E Park-and-Ride Facility Study

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

E-1


Polk Transit Park-and-Ride Facility Study

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

May 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. Background .................................................................................................................... FDOT State Park-and-Ride Lot Program ........................................................................ Organization of Study .....................................................................................................

1-1 1-1 1-1 1-2

Section 2: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... Park-and-Ride Site Identification .................................................................................... Park-and-Ride Site Evaluation ....................................................................................... Park-and-Ride Facility Demand, Impact, and Economic Analysis ..............................

2-1 2-1 2-3 2-9

Section 3: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ Project Justification ......................................................................................................... Facility Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................

3-1 3-1 3-4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:

Polk Park-and-Ride Facility Evaluation Methodology ....................................................

2-2

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12:

Summary of Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................... Candidate Sites Score Summary by Criteria ................................................................. Summary of Site Advantages and Disadvantages......................................................... Traffic Data Summary for I-4 and Polk Parkway ............................................................ Design Period Summary by AADT ................................................................................ Demand and Size Estimate Results .............................................................................. Summary of Highway Travel Path Distances between Park-and-ride Lot and Major Destinations................................................................................................................... 2025 Daily Person Trips Summary ................................................................................ Annual VMT Reduction by Major Destination ................................................................ Top Four Candidate Sites Just Market Value Summary ................................................ Capital Costs Summary ................................................................................................. FDOT Priorities and Project Justification .......................................................................

2-5 2-7 2-8 2-11 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 3-3

LIST OF MAPS Map 1:

Park-and-Ride Candidate Sites .....................................................................................

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-4 i


SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A Park-and-Ride study, sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), was conducted for the Polk Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) to identify a specific location for a park-and-ride facility in the vicinity of the intersection of I-4 and the Polk Parkway. The prospective park-and-ride facility would serve three major trip activity centers, including the Florida Polytechnic University campus, the Williams Property Development of Regional Impact (DRI), and the Polk Commerce Center DRI, and would connect public transportation service users with other major destinations throughout the County. BACKGROUND The I-4 corridor is ideally suited to support park-and-ride facilities in Polk County as it serves as the major transportation corridor connecting Polk County to Hillsborough County, Osceola County, and Orange County. There have been several “potential” locations identified in the I-4 corridor that would provide connectivity; however, an in-depth study is needed to determine a specific location based on future transportation plans that are under consideration in this high profile corridor, including express bus service, service to the new Polytechnic campus and future rail. Development of two park-and-ride projects in the I-4 corridor is currently in progress. Groundbreaking just occurred for a park-and-ride facility to be located at Highway 98 and I-4 with construction taking place in 2012. There is also a multi-modal facility to be located at Highway 27 and I-4 as a development requirement at the Posner Center. The outcome of this study will be the identification of a specific location for a park-and-ride lot in the I-4 corridor, which would have adequate right-of-way initially for a park-and-ride lot, but would allow for expansion to serve as a multimodal transfer center in the future. The study scope includes identifying any land or right-of-way that may be owned and donated by a city, county or state governmental agency. It is visualized that once constructed, the park-and-ride lot would include amenities such as paving, lighting, transit shelter, benches, and other passenger amenities to be inviting and comfortable for commuters and regional travelers. FDOT STATE PARK-AND-RIDE LOT PROGRAM To ensure consistency with the FDOT Park-and-Ride Lot Program, the Program’s office was contacted and the FDOT State Park-and-Ride Lot Program Planning Manual (FDOT Manual) was reviewed and consulted. FDOT has identified three factors used to prioritize projects for funding. Those factors include:

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

1-1


  

Linkages to local transit services – Will existing and future transit services tie in to the proposed facility? Local funding levels – What is the level of commitment by the local agencies? Completion schedule – How quickly can the project be implemented?

In regard to the FDOT Manual, there are five major steps for the evaluation of potential park-and-ride facilities. These five steps include:     

Facility Site Selection Demand and Size Estimation Assessment of Local Impacts Economic Analysis Project Justification

The manual also presents the specific criteria or methodology to follow for each step. Based on the guidelines and procedures provided in the FDOT Manual, this park-and-ride study identifies and prioritizes a list of four park-and-ride lot locations in the study area. The final conclusion includes documentation that respond to FDOT’s priority factors, and recommendations on operational and maintenance arrangements for the facility. ORGANIZATION OF STUDY In addition to this Introduction, this Park-and-Ride Study includes the following sections: Section 2 presents the Methodology and Analysis utilized to perform the park-and-ride lot assessment. A detailed description of the process, analysis, and preliminary results is presented. Section 3 includes the Project Justification. This section summarizes how the proposed park-and-ride facility addresses FDOT’s priority factors and includes recommendations on operational and maintenance arrangements.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

1-2


SECTION 2 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS This section provides an overview of the methodology used to conduct the park-and-ride lot assessment. The methodology is derived from the FDOT Manual and consists of five major steps:     

Park-and-Ride Sites Identification and Evaluation Demand and Size Estimate Local Impact Assessment Economic Analysis Project Justification

The evaluation of potential park-and-ride lot locations was conducted using the first step in the FDOT Manual guidelines, Park-and-Ride Sites Identification and Evaluation, with the purpose of selecting the top three candidate sites among a group of sites in the study area. After the top three sites were determined, quantitative and qualitative methodologies were applied to estimate the facility demand and size, assess local impacts, and to analyze economic impacts. Figure 1 illustrates the step-by-step evaluation process utilized to conduct this park-and-ride lot analysis. Each step is described based on the detailed assessment methodology outlined in the FDOT Manual. In addition, data required to perform the demand and size estimate and impact assessment are also identified in that figure. PARK-AND-RIDE SITE IDENTIFICATION In order to identify a list of potential park-and-ride lot sites, the latest Polk County parcel data were retrieved from the Polk County Property Appraiser’s office. The parcel data includes information that assisted in the initial screening of candidate sites, such as parcel ownership, parcel size, just market value, etc. In addition, TPO, transit agency, and City of Lakeland staff were consulted to identify any issues or conditions about candidate sites that were not reflected in the parcel data. Prior to developing an inventory of candidate parcels in the study area, the following basic site selection guidelines were identified based on the review of the FDOT Manual.  

Candidate parcels need to be located near I-4 and/or the Polk Parkway to allow for quick ingress/egress to I-4 and the Polk Parkway. Candidate parcels that are publicly owned, have a relatively low right-of-way cost, or that may be donated for park-and-ride lot use are preferred.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-1


Figure 1 Polk Park-and-Ride Facility Evaluation Methodology

Step 2 Demand and Size Estimate

• Use the multi-criteria assessment methodology developed in Florida PNR Manual to prioritize the preidentified candidate PNR sites.

• Use the parking demand methodology developed in Florida PNR Manual to estimate parking demand and lot size requirements.

• Use the local impact analysis methodology developed in Florida PNR Manual to estimate annual VMT reduced due to implementation of PNR facility.

• Use the project costs estimate methodology developed in Florida PNR Manual to estimate rough project costs.

• Right-of-Way

• Data Needed • 2022 AADT for I-4 and Polk Parkway segments adjacent to PNR location

• Data Needed • Parking demand calculated in Step 2

• Costs • Engineering • Construction • Operation /Maintenance

• Visibility • Vehicle/Transit Accessibility • Access Road Congestion

• 2022 K and D Factors for I-4 and Polk Parkway segments adjacent to PNR location

• Bicycle/Pedestrian Accessibility

Step 3 Impact Assessment

Step 4 Economic Analysis

Step 1 Site Identification and Evaluation

• 2022 travel flow information from PNR to major destinations • Distances between PNR Facility to major destinations

• Future Expansion Potential PNR: Park‐and Ride

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-2


Candidate parcels with the potential to be expanded for additional uses that would enhance alternative transportation opportunities are preferred.

Based on the guidelines presented above and feedback from the project team, a total of 10 candidate parcels were identified for further evaluation and are illustrated in Map 1. Of the 10 candidate parcels, Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8 are located north of I-4 and are outside the proposed boundary of the Williams Property DRI and the Polk Commerce DRI. Parcels 1 and 2 are located in the Florida Polytechnic University campus. Sites 9 and 10 are located south of I-4 and are within the proposed boundary of the Williams DRI. Parcels 3 and 4 are located adjacent to the proposed boundary of the Polk Commerce DRI. PARK-AND RIDE SITE EVALUATION The 10 candidate park-and-ride lots identified were further evaluated utilizing a multi-criteria analysis methodology identified in the FDOT Manual and one criterion from the Evaluation of Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facilities, developed by Alan J. Horowitz and Nick A. Thompson in 1994. An additional criterion geared to assessing the suitability of sites for an intermodal transfer facility was added because of the interest expressed by local staff to possibly enhance the park-and-ride site for more comprehensive public transportation service and use. The following is a description of each criterion in the FDOT Manual. It should be noted that, of the following 9 criteria introduced, only 6 criteria were used to conduct the actual evaluation process. The reasons for excluding those three criteria can be found in Table 1. 

Right-of-Way – The level of funding for park-and-ride development has forced many agencies to enter into arrangements which results in free contribution of land. Right-of-Way costs can be much more than the construction cost if right-of-way is to be purchased. The factor can be the most important as far as determining implementation feasibility. This criterion is included in the analysis.

Atmosphere – For determining the success of a park-and-ride lot, atmosphere may be the most critical factor. This includes safety and environment, both perceived and real. Lots located in areas perceived safe for both the parker and his vehicle are more frequently used. Lots should also be located in areas that are free from annoyances, such as ash emitted from an incinerator or the stench from a landfill. This criterion was not included in the analysis.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-3


Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan

Legend

4

Top 4 Candidate Sites

3

4

1

Candidate PNR Parcel

2 Pace Road

Polk Commerce DRI Polk Park way

Williams DRI Parcel Major Road Proposed Road I-4 Interchange Research Way University Blvd

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

Map 1 Park-and-Ride Candidate Sites


Table 1 Summary of Evaluation Criteria Criteria Right-of-Way Availability

Source

Value

Description

FDOT Manual 1=High. 2=Medium. 3=Low.

No

Note All candidate sites are owned privately and need to be purchased except for Sites 9 and 10. This situation is taken into consideration in right-of-way cost analysis.

Yes

Just market value per acre. Used to compare possible right-of-way acquisition cost for park-and-ride facility on each site.

Right-of-Way Cost

FDOT Manual

Atmosphere

FDOT Manual

No

No obvious risk or chance of vandalism or car theft presented for all sites.

Site Size

FDOT Manual

No

All potential sites have adequate sizes to build the facility. (All potential parcels are large enough to accommodate a park-and-ride facility with 200 parking spaces)

Visibility from I-4 or Polk Pkwy

FDOT Manual

3

Yes

Ease of site to be visible from I-4 and the Polk Pkwy.

Vehicle/Transit Accessibility

FDOT Manual

1 to 3

Yes

Ease of vehicle/bus accessing the site from I-4/Polk Pkwy or vice versa. Includes the consideration of directness of access and driving distance between the site and I-4/Polk Pkwy

Transit Service

FDOT Manual

No

Planned transit service to the park-and-ride facility is outlined in the Transit Development Plan (TDP).

Access Road Congestion

FDOT Manual

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility

Evaluation of Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facilities

Future Expansion Potential

FDOT Manual

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

1 to 3

Criterion Applied (Yes/No)

1=Poor access to both I-4 and Polk Pkwy. 2=Good access to either I-4 or Polk Pkwy. 3=Good access to both I-4 and Polk Pkwy.

1 to 3

1=Congested. 2=Somewhat Congested. 3=Not Congested.

Yes

Measures the potential congestion on access road, if park-and-ride facility is built.

1 to 3

1=Poor access to Florida Polytechnic campus and Polk Commerce Center. 2=Good access to either Florida Polytechnic campus or Polk Commerce Center. 3=Good access to both Florida Polytechnic campus and Polk Commerce Center.

Yes

Ease of bicycle and pedestrian access to site from Florida Polytechnic campus or Polk Commerce Center. (Includes consideration of bicycle and pedestrian travel distance to candidate site, as well as presence of sidewalks).

0=No. 1=Yes.

Yes

Potential of acquiring more right-of-way for future site expansion.

0 and 1

2-5


Site Size – Size of candidate sites is an important consideration. If large enough sites are not available, a number of smaller lots may need to be developed in an area. Sites which are too large results in an ineffective expenditure of funds. Required lot sizes can be assessed using factors of 280 to 400 total square feet per space or 108 to 153 spaces per acre. The appropriate factor depends on the size and shape of the site, stall and aisle geometrics, circulation system, and possibly the proportion of small to standard size vehicles if the designated compact parking stalls are to be provided. This criterion was not included in the analysis.

Visibility – Sites should be visible from adjacent travel routes. Visibility contributes to recognition of an available park-and-ride lot, and is a deterrent to crime. Landscaping should not be obscure the visibility of the facility. This criterion is included in the analysis.

Access – A site must be easily and directly accessible by both automobiles and transit vehicles where transit service is planned. Lots should not divert commuters more than ½ to ¾ miles out of their normal travel path. Access should be safe, with signal control if warranted. This criterion is included in the analysis.

Transit Service – Lot usage increases with transit service. Sites are best located along existing or planned transit routes. This criterion was not included in the analysis.

Access Road Congestion – Congestion between the main travel roadway and the park-and-ride facility can discourage lot usage by adding time to the trip. Sites are best located where time between the main commute roadways and the lot can be minimized. This criterion is included in the analysis.

Pedestrian and Bike Access – This criterion is obtained from “Evaluation of Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facilities”, with the consideration of future potential expansion of the candidate sites to an intermodal facility. It is used to gauge how accessible the site is to pedestrians and bike users. This criterion is included in the analysis.

Expansion Potential – Funding constraints may dictate construction of a lost that is smaller than what is needed to meet future demand. In this case, it is important to choose a site with potential for expansion. This criterion is included in the analysis.

A score was assessed for each evaluation criterion based on a comparison of the site’s features with the ideal condition associated with that criterion. The scores range from 1 to 3 or 0 to 1, depending on the nature of each criterion. Table 1 shows the summary of evaluation criteria and corresponding score value range. A field review of the candidate sites was conducted in early March 2012 to examine the actual conditions of

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-6


each site, including perceived site safety, roadway congestion levels, site visibility from adjacent major commuter corridors, presence of sidewalk availability, and to supply other information needs. Scores for all the criteria, except for right-of-way, were assigned based on the results of the field review, input from City of Lakeland staff, and professional judgment. For the right-of-way criterion, right-of-way costs were calculated using the 2011 just market value divided by the candidate site parcel area. Just market values and parcel area size data were obtained from the Polk County Property Appraiser’s database. An average and standard deviation for all site unit costs per acre was calculated and used to rank each site. The score was assigned to each site based on following the scoring rules:   

If a site’s unit costs per acre was greater than one standard deviation above the average ($3,791) or, then it was assigned a score of 1. If a site’s unit costs per acre was greater than one or equal to the average ($2,471) and less than or equal to one standard deviation ($3,791), then it was assigned a score of 2. If a site’s unit costs per acre was less than the average ($2,471) or a land donation of the site is warranted, it was assigned a score of 3.

Table 2 presents the scores assigned to each candidate site by criterion. Total scores for each candidate site are summed in the last column. According to the analysis, Sites 9, 10, 1, 2 scored the highest and are selected as the top four site locations for the future park-and-ride facility. Table 2 Candidate Sites Score Summary by Criteria

Site ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rightof-Way Cost 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 3 3

Visibility from I-4/Polk Vehicle/Transit Pkwy Accessibility 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 2 3

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

Access Road Congestion 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

Future Expansion Potential 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total Score 14 12 8 10 12 12 8 7 15 15

2-7


The aerial image on the left illustrates the top four candidate sites, sites 9, 10, 1, and 2. Table 3 includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages for each of those sites. Based on the information in that table, sites 9 and 10 are the priority sites for the park-and-ride facility, beginning with Site 9. In the event that either of those sites cannot be secured, sites 1 and 2 are ideal substitutes.

1 2

10

9

Table 3 Summary of Site Advantages and Disadvantages Site Number/Location Advantages

Disadvantages

Site #9 (Northwest corner of Polk Pkwy and Pace Rd)

    

Right-of-way dedication by Williams DRI Visibility from Polk Pkwy Good vehicle and transit access Good bicycle and pedestrian access Future expansion potential

 Visibility from I-4

Site #10 (Northeast corner of Polk Pkwy and Pace Rd)

    

Right-of-way dedication by Williams DRI Visibility from Polk Pkwy Good vehicle and transit access Good bicycle and pedestrian access Future expansion potential

 Visibility from I-4

Site #1 (Southwest corner of Polk Pkwy and I-4)

 Visibility from Polk Pkwy/I-4  Good vehicle and transit access  Future expansion potential

 Right-of-way acquisition  Distance from Polk Commerce Center

Site #2 (Southwest corner of Polk Pkwy and I-4, adjacent to Research Way)

 Visibility from Polk Pkwy/I-4  Good vehicle and transit access  Future expansion potential

 Right-of-way acquisition  Distance from Polk Commerce Center

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-8


PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITY DEMAND, IMPACT, AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A total of five park-and-ride types were identified in the FDOT State Park-and-Ride Lot Program Planning Manual. Each type is characterized by a different set of unique features that include geographic conditions, traffic conditions of adjacent roadways, and surrounding area land uses. Each type also corresponds to specific methodologies to estimate demand and size, assess the impact, and analyze economic aspects. Consequently, to conduct the demand, impact, and economic analyses in the FDOT Manual, it was necessary to determine the park-and-ride type of the top ranking candidate sites identified from the site evaluation. According to the FDOT Manual, urban corridor lots are located along major commute corridors within urban/suburban areas and are served by HOV lanes or line-haul transit services such as express bus, urban rail, or commuter rail services. Trip origin patterns tend to be dispersed along the corridor, and trip destination patterns are usually concentrated in a central business district or other major employment center. The critical characteristics of a typical urban corridor lot include:    

Corridor level-of-service: E or worse Corridor traffic: 50,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (based on 100-space facility) Service area dwelling units: > 2,000 dwelling units with 2 miles of lot Distance from major employment center: > 10 miles

In order to obtain relevant data for the top ranking candidate sites, several data sources were reviewed, which include Polk TPO Roadway Level-of-Service (LOS) Manual, information from the FDOT Transportation Statistics Office, Polk County 2025 TAZ projections, and the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. The following is a summary of relevant data pertaining to the top ranking candidate sites:      

Transit service: lot will be served by one or more proposed express bus services 2022 I-4 LOS : D or worse/2022 Polk Parkway LOS: E or worse 2022 I-4 AADT: 77,300/2022 Polk Parkway AADT: 10,000 2025 dwelling units within 2 miles of lot: 2,572 Distances from major employment centers: 11- 22 miles 2022 land use: mixed land use development

Comparing candidate site features with critical characteristics of urban corridor lots, the top ranking candidate sites can be categorized as urban corridor lots. As a result, the methodologies used to perform the demand and size assessment, the impact assessment, and the economic analysis were based on the corresponding methodologies developed in the FDOT Manual for urban corridor park-and-ride lots.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-9


Demand and Size Estimate The methodology for estimating facility sizes for urban corridor park-and-ride lots was taken directly from the FDOT Manual. That model assumes that parking demand is a function of the amount of traffic on roadways adjacent to the park-and-ride facility. That approach is best applied in areas where there are a limited number of commuting roadways. Commuting roadways include those major roadways that are adjacent to the proposed park-and-ride facility and serve as major paths for work trip purposes. The model assumes that commuters will not divert from their normal travel routes and that users come only from commute routes adjacent to the park-and-ride facility. These assumptions are realistic in areas with a very few number of commute routes, and the condition applies to the top ranking candidate sites as only two major commuter roadways, I-4 and the Polk Parkway, can be used by potential park-and-ride users. Data Required Data required for this model include the following: 

 

AM peak hour traffic counts in 15-minute increments for roads from which the lot is expected to attract customers. If 15-minute counts are not available, total peak-hour counts as well as 24-hour traffic counts with appropriate K (peak hour percentage) and D (peak hour directional distribution) factors can be used. Facility type of the commute roadways adjacent to the lot. Area type of the adjacent roadways (e.g. urban, suburban, rural).

Methodology Step 1: Collect traffic data for affected roadways Identify the primary and secondary roadways that are expected to produce customers. The primary roadway is considered in the vicinity of the park-and-ride lot. Secondary roadways are commuting routes of lesser importance, producing fewer numbers of potential customers. In order to collect the traffic data for I-4 and the Polk Parkway, the 2022 AADT data forecasts and K and D factors were obtained from the FDOT Transportation Statistics Office. Since K and D factors are not available for year 2022, K and D factors from 2001 to 2010 for I-4 and from 2007 to 2010 for the Polk Parkway were retrieved and averaged, respectively, to obtain surrogate 2022 K and D factors for both corridors. Table 4 presents the traffic data collected for I-4 and the Polk Parkway. The calculated K and D factors are consistent with the generalized K and D factors for suburban freeways (e.g. I-4) and suburban multi-lane highways (e.g. the Polk Parkway) provided in the FDOT Manual.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-10


Table 4 Traffic Data Summary for I-4 and Polk Parkway Facility Name I-4 Polk Pkwy

2022 AADT* 77,300 10,000

2022 K Factor 8.72 11.08

2022 D Factor 53.36 57.63

*Source: FDOT Transportation Statistics Office

Step 2: Determine the design period The design period should represent that time in which there is a pronounced peaking of traffic on the commuter roadways. The accuracy of the demand estimate is sensitive to the design-period traffic. It is not necessary that the design period equal the conventional peak period or peak hour. A plot of 15-minute traffic or observations of actual traffic flows in the field are useful methods for determining this time period. Table 5 presents design period values that were developed in the FDOT Manual for roadways carrying the indicated 24-hour traffic volumes shown in Table 4. Those values can be used in lieu of actual 15-minute counts or traffic observations. Since the 2022 AADT for I-4 and the Polk Parkway are 77,300 and 10,000, respectively, the design periods for I-4 and the Polk Parkway are 60 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively. Table 5 Design Period Summary by AADT AADT Above 50,000 35,000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 49,999 Below 35,000

Design Period 60 minutes 45 minutes 30 minutes

Step 3: Estimate the lot size Compute the parking demand for the facility as flows: Demand = (a x Vp) + (b x Vs) Where: Vp = Total design period traffic on adjacent primary facilities Vs = Total design period traffic on adjacent secondary facilities a = 0.03 representing a capture of three percent on primary facilities b = 0.01 representing a capture of three percent on secondary facilities Data collected in Step 1 and Step 2 were applied in the formula above to calculate demand. Lot size requirements can then be determined by multiplying the demand by an appropriate adjustment factor and dividing the result by 300 square feet per parking space for surface facilities. It is recommended that the adjustment should provide for at least a 25 percent increase over the demand. This would plan for an 80 percent occupancy rate. Table 6 summarizes the actual value of coefficients and variables applied in the formula above and the results of the demand and size estimation process. Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-11


Table 6 Demand and Size Estimate Results Coefficient Value a b

0.03 0.01

Variable Value Vp Vs

Demand (Parking Space)

Total Parking Space (125% of Demand)

Proposed Lot Size (Acre)

110

138

0.956

3596.8 319.3

The proposed lot size indicated in Table 6 only satisfies the minimum number of parking spaces that need to be provided by the park-and-ride facility. In the event of future expansion of the facility to an intermodal transfer facility, additional right-of-way may need to be acquired. Impact Assessment According to the FDOT Manual, there are several major impacts from the implementation of a new park-andride facility, which include reduced vehicle miles of travel (VMT), reduced vehicle emissions, reduced fuel consumption, and reduced travel time. These effects are achieved through two mechanisms. The first one represents the direct reduction of removing vehicles from the roadway network. Removing vehicles produces reductions in both vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel (VMT). Second, there are indirect impacts of reduced congestion levels produced by removing vehicles from the roadways connecting park-and-ride facilities with destination areas. The effects of these secondary impacts may not be appreciable in all cases and are likely not long lasting. For example, a fully-occupied park-and-ride lot with 60 spaces and no transit service contributes to the removal of only 60 vehicles from commuting roadways. This reduction in vehicles will not have a significant impact on other users of the commuting roadways. Consequently, it is reasonable to disregard these secondary impacts for small park-and-ride lots if they are located in areas where traffic flows are not at saturation levels. For this impact assessment, only VMT reductions due to the implementation of the proposed park-and-ride facility were calculated, and other secondary impacts, including reduced fuel consumption, reduced emission levels, and reduced travel time, were excluded from the calculation, since these secondary effects are not anticipated to be significant based on the parking demand estimates presented in the demand and size assessment. Data Required The following is a summary of data required to perform the impact assessment for VMT reduction   

Vehicle travel distances for all highway travel paths between park-and-ride lot and major destinations. Number of parked vehicles projected for the planning year (parking demand estimated previously). Proportion of total parked vehicles traveling via each highway travel path.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-12


Methodology Step 1: Identify major travel paths from the park-and-ride facility to major destination area(s) Significant paths of highway travel from the park-and-ride facility to major destinations must be identified. The following recommendations, identified in the FDOT Manual, are considered for simplifying this process:   

More than one path should be selected only in cases where there is more than one major destination area served by the parking facility. Only one path should be identified for each major destination area. Only major trunk facilities should be included in the travel paths.

Based on the above recommendations, a list of major destinations for the proposed park-and-ride lot was identified. Highway travel paths and distances between the park-and-ride lot and destinations were also determined. The results for this analysis are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Summary of Highway Travel Path Distances between Park-and-Ride Lot and Major Destinations Major Destinations Posner Center

Highway Travel Paths I-4

Travel Distance (Mile) 13.3

Osceola and Orange Counties

I-4

16.1

Downtown Lakeland

I-4 and US 98

11.1

Hillsborough County

I-4

15.7

Downtown Winter Haven

Polk Pkwy, US 92, SR 544, and US 17

15.1

Downtown Bartow

Polk Pkwy and US 98

21.8

Lake Davenport

I-4 and US 27

19.1

Step 2: Determine the proportion of total parked vehicles traveling via corresponding highway travel path The proportion of parked vehicles traveling via a highway travel path is dependent upon 2025 origindestination (OD) information obtained from the Polk 2035 Transportation Model files. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) were grouped for major destinations identified in Table 6 and their surrounding areas. TAZ groupings were refined for model purposes and daily person trips for all trip purposes, except for truck-taxi trips, were estimated and the results are presented in Table 8. It was assumed that the distribution of person trips from the TAZs surrounding the proposed park-and-ride lot to the TAZ groupings for major destinations is proportional to the number of person trips made by park-and-ride users to each destination.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-13


Table 8 2025 Daily Person Trips Summary Description

2025 Daily Person Trips

Proportion

Park-and-ride to Posner Center

1,450

5.2%

Park-and-ride to Osceola and Orange Counties

7,240

26.0%

Park-and-ride to Downtown Lakeland

11,362

40.8%

815

2.9%

4,261

15.3%

350

1.3%

Park-and-ride to Lake Davenport

2,360

8.5%

Total

27,838

100%

Park-and-ride to Hillsborough Park-and-ride to Downtown Winter Haven Park-and-ride to Downtown Bartow

Step 3: Estimate annual VMT reduction by major travel path The annual reduction in VMT can be calculated using the equation described below. The equation is applied to each highway travel path identified in Step 1. The distance of each path measured in Step 1, the proportion of travel by path is calculated in Step 2, and the estimate of parking demand in year 2022 are inputs to the following equation to produce values for reduced VMT: VMTi = Li x D x Pi x 2 x Afac Where: VMTi = Annual reduction in VMT for highway travel path i Li = Average distance for highway travel path i D = 110 (Parking demand estimated in demand and size estimate) Pi = Proportion of total parked vehicles traveling via highway travel path i 2 = Two trips/day per parked vehicle Afac = Factor to convert Daily VMT reduction to an annual basis; equals 233 for urban corridor lots. Based on the above formula, reduced VMT was calculated for each highway path identified in Step 2. Table 9 presents the actual value for each variable and the annual VMT reduced by major destination. The last column shows the total annual VMT reduction resulting from the implementation of a park-and-ride lot in the study area.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-14


Table 9 Annual VMT Reduction by Major Destination

13.3 110 5.2% 233

Osceola and Orange Counties 16.1 110 26.0% 233

35,427

214,693

Posner Center

Variable L1 D P1 Afac Annual VMT Reduction

Downtown Lakeland

Hillsborough County

Downtown Winter Haven

Downtown Bartow

Lake Davenport

11.1 110 40.8% 233

15.7 110 2.9% 233

15.1 110 15.3% 233

21.8 110 1.3% 233

19.1 110 8.5% 233

231,430

23,582

118,392

14,064

82,879

Total Annual VMT Reduced

720,470

Economic Analysis The economic analysis mainly involves the estimate of capital and operating costs associated with the construction of the proposed park-and-ride facility. Capital costs for park-and-ride facilities include engineering, right-of-way, and construction costs, and operating costs include maintenance and operational costs. Each component of the capital and operating costs is described further below, followed by the calculation process to estimate each. The calculation methodology was obtained from the FDOT Manual. Construction Construction costs include supervision, staking, inspections, and testing; facility elements including earthwork, pavements, drainage, embankments, structures, and ramps; landscaping and erosion control; maintenance of traffic; and traffic control devices. The cost basis includes labor, materials, equipment, and contractor overhead and profit margin. The following typical order-of-magnitude unit construction costs can be used for preliminary cost estimates:  

Garage costs: $6,000 per parking space (1989 value) Surface lot costs: $2,000 per parking space (1989 value)

A surface lot facility was assumed for the proposed park-and-ride facility. Based on the demand estimate presented previously, the following formula was used to estimate preliminary construction costs. The parkand-ride facility is assumed to be constructed at year 2018 for inflation adjustment purpose. Construction = Unit Surface Lot Cost X # of Parking Spaces X Inflation Factor = $2,000 x 138 x 2.3566 = $648,637 (2018 Value)

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-15


Engineering Engineering costs relate to preliminary engineering, final design, and construction plans and specification preparation. Other associated costs include developing design concepts, preliminary layouts, land and aerial surveys, right-of-way appraisals, environmental assessments, final design plans, and preparation of construction drawings, specifications, and bid documents. Cost estimates for those associated cost components should be developed as a percentage of construction costs. This percentage is based on the complexity and magnitude of the construction and typically ranges from 10 to 20 percent. For this analysis, 15 percent is used to estimate the engineering cost. Engineering = 0.15 x construction cost = 0.15 x $648,637 = $97,296 (2018 Value) Right-of-Way Right-of-way costs include purchase price, legal, title, and other fees related to transfer of ownership, administrative costs for negotiation, condemnation, or settlement, business, family, and utility relocation, and demolition. Currently all of the top ranking sites are vacant. Consequently, right-of-way costs may only include land acquisition. As indicated in the site assessment, two of the sites are within the William DRI which has been required to dedicate a site for a transit transfer center since the original development order was approved in 2001. With the support of this park-and-ride study, one of the two sites identified in the Williams DRI could be used as the dedicated transfer center site in order to facilitate the development of the proposed park-and-ride facility and for future expansion of the site to its required use per the development order. To obtain just market value for each of the top four ranking sites, 2011 parcel data from the Polk County Property Appraiserâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office were reviewed. Table 10 presents the just market value for each of the top ranking candidate sites. Table 10 Top Four Candidate Sites Just Market Value Summary Site Number 2011 Just Market Value Area (Acre) 9 $30,127 27.65 10 $44,544 37.11 1 $156,115 70.36 2 $412,007 100.70

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

2-16


Maintenance and Operation Maintenance costs include routine and periodic upkeep including patching, striping, painting, drainage cleanout, and landscaping; replacement of pavement, traffic control devices, fences, guardrails, etc. Operation costs include utility charges, safety patrols, operation of signals, garbage removal, administration of lease agreements, and traffic surveillance. These costs may be lumped together with maintenance in line with the traditional approach of estimating incremental O&M cost. Costs related to maintaining park-and-ride facilities are approximately $60 per space per year. Annual Maintenance and Operation Costs = $60 x # of Parking Spaces x Inflation Factor = $60 x 138 x 2.3566 = $19,459 (2018 Value) The cost estimates presented above do not include the cost estimate for the future potential expansion of the proposed park-and-ride facility. Table 11 summarizes the costs for each capital component excluding rightof-way acquisition. Just market values for each site are shown in Table 10. It is assumed that the park-andride facility has a 20-year life span according to the FDOT Manual. It is important to note that costs shown do not include costs associated with the implementation of passenger amenities such as benches, shelters, bathroom facilities, etc. Additional work associated with the design, engineering, and construction of those facilities will increase the cost of the park-and-ride facility.

Table 11 Capital Costs Summary Component

Value

Note

Engineering

$97,296

2018 Estimate

Construction

$648,637

2018 Estimate

Total (excluding right-of-way)

$745,933

Maintenance and Operation

$19,459

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

Annual Cost, 2018 Estimate

2-17


SECTION 3 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS According to the FDOT State Park & Ride Lot Program Planning Manual, justification for proposed parkand-ride projects and related improvements must contain sufficient explanation and data to show the need and purpose of the improvement under consideration. The justification should consider alternatives and benefit and cost impacts. If applicable, the relationship of the project to local plans, programs, and projects within the impact area should be demonstrated and the impacts of the improvements on the local transportation systems should be addressed. In addition, FDOT has identified three factors used to prioritize projects for funding. Those factors include:   

Linkages to local transit services – Will existing and future transit services tie in to the proposed facility? Local funding levels – What is the level of commitment by the local agencies? Completion schedule – How quickly can the project be implemented?

This section integrates the analysis results of Section 2 and information pertaining to the aforementioned important factors to justify the proposed park-and-ride facility. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The following project justification focuses on consistency with local plans, programs, and projects and details the benefit and cost aspects associated with the top ranking candidate sites. In addition, the relationship between the proposed project and FDOT priorities is also included. Consistency with Local Plans In regard to capital infrastructure, the Polk 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (2035 LRTP), includes transportation improvements for Polk County to meet community short- and long-term needs. That plan identifies 11 potential locations for the construction of park-and-ride facilities. One of the 11 locations is the I4/Polk Parkway location. In regard to transit service, the 2016-2020 transit service improvements, identified in the 2035 LRTP, also indicates the need to offer express bus service on I-4 corridor to the Disney area near Orlando, to downtown Tampa, and to Plant City. The 2013-2022 TDP Needs Plan also includes the implementation of another local bus service in this area to serve Polk City with a connection to the proposed park-and-ride facility. These transit services will benefit from a park-and-ride facility as potential park-and-ride users can utilize these transit services to fulfill their transportation needs. Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

3-1


Programs and Projects within the Impacted Areas Two major Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) are proposed to be built in the vicinity of the intersection of I-4 and the Polk Parkway. These two DRIs include the Williams DRI and the Polk Commerce DRI. Both of these DRIs are large-scale developments with mixed land use characteristics. They include residential, retail, and business park center developments and therefore are expected to produce large number of vehicle trips. For example, according to the Polk Commerce DRI Development Order, phase I of the Polk Commerce DRI is expected to produce 41,832 average daily trips, with 3,370 total AM peak hour trips and 4,093 PM peak hour trips. Those trip volumes are not accounted for in the transportation demand model data used to prepare the demand and impact assessments presented in Section 2 of this report. Consequently, it is possible that increases in traffic volumes resulting from the buildout of the two DRIs could result in more demand and more impacts from the development of the park-and-ride facility. In addition to the two DRIs, the new Florida Polytechnic Campus, located at the eastern intersection of I-4 and the Polk Parkway, will be completed in year 2013. Initial enrollment is expected to be approximately 16,000. That student population is considered transit-dependent and will benefit from improved transportation options. Benefits and Costs Assessment A park-and-ride facility with potential express service typically includes a series of benefits and costs. The following is a list of benefits and costs obtained from the assessment process presented in Section 2. Transit Ridership Transit ridership is one of the most important benefits provided by the proposed park-and-ride facility. The 2030 Transportation Improvement Plan identified a need to provide express service along the I-4 corridor. Express service improvement alternatives are also found in 2013-2022 Polk Transit Development Plan Needs Plan. The demand estimate for the park-and-ride facility notes that 110 park-and-ride users may utilize the facility during peak-hour period. This fact indicates the proposed park-and-ride facility may add up to 110 riders during AM peak-hour and PM peak-hour periods, respectively, to the future express service. In addition, the proximity of the park-and-ride facility to the new Florida Polytechnic Campus also benefit the campus students as they can either walk or bicycle to the facility and utilize the future express bus service and another proposed local bus service for this area. Peak-hour Highway Level of Service Assuming the estimated 110 parking spaces are fully utilized and that these park-and-ride users use future express service to fulfill their transportation needs, a total of 110 vehicles will be removed from I-4 and the Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

3-2


Polk Parkway during the peak period. Cost effective express services fulfilling the transportation needs of those park-and-ride users can serve as a precursor to more mature public transportation services in the area once the DRI developments reach buildout. VMT Reduction Reduction of VMT is another important benefit from the park-and-ride facility. According to the impact assessment in Section 2, total VMT reduction due to the implementation of the proposed park-and-ride facility is approximately 727,500 annual vehicle-miles. Other secondary benefits associated with the reduction of VMT include the reduction of fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. Engineering, Right-of-Way, Construction, and Maintenance Costs Major capital costs related to constructing the park-and-ride facility include engineering, right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs. These costs, except for right-of-way costs, were estimated as part of the economic analysis summarized in Table 9. Total costs, excluding right-of-way acquisition, are estimated to be $746,000. Annual maintenance costs are estimated to be $20,000. In regard to right-of-way acquisition, it is important to highlight the requirement for the Williams DRI to dedicate a site for a transfer center. That requirement will significantly reduce the right-of-way costs if Site 9 or 10 is selected for the new facility. In addition, the amended development order for the Williams DRI, approved in August 2011, also includes a condition regarding the dedication of right-of-way for roads, dedicated bus lanes, and BRT facilities. FDOT Priorities The follow table links the project justification information to the three FDOT priority factors for project implementation if Site 9 or 10 is selected for the proposed park-and-ride facility. Table 12 FDOT Priorities and Project Justification Factor

Justification

Notes

Linkages to local transit services TDP Planned Improvements TDP identifies express and fixed-route services that will connect to the proposed facility Local funding levels Completion schedule

Land dedication

The Williams DRI is required to dedicate a site for a transfer center as part of its Development Order

Land dedication

Eliminating right-of-way acquisition from development process will accelerate implementation of the facility

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

3-3


FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE There are two key components to the management of the property, ownership and operation and maintenance responsibilities. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are approximately $20,000. If Polk Transit were to secure a dedicated funding source, then it is recommended that it assume ownership of the property and, in turn, assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the parkand-ride facility. Similarly, in the event that the Polk Transit was not able to secure a dedicated funding source, it is recommended that the governing transit body in the county, LAMTD, Polk County, or another agency, also assume ownership and operation and maintenance responsibilities. Such an arrangement would be consistent with and would facilitate local plans to develop and expand the facility to a transit hub or transit center in the future. The park-and-ride facility is strategically located to support a number of travel patterns within the county and throughout the region. As transit services in Polk County mature, those services can capitalize on the transit infrastructure spurred by the development of this park-and-ride facility. A second option would be to arrange a lease for the property. A long-term lease agreement between the property owner and the transit governing body for the duration of the useful life of the facility would be consistent with FDOT and FTA guidelines if funding from one of these two agencies were to be used to implement the facility. Although such an arrangement may impact the opportunity to expand the site in the future, it is still considered a viable option in the short term.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY 2022 Park-and-Ride Facility Study

3-4


Appendix F Polk Consolidation and Transition Plan

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

F-1


Polk Transit Consolidation and Transition Plan

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

May 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1:

CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSITION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................. Consolidation and Transition Plan Approach ........................................................... Consolidation and Transition Plan Major Tasks and Milestones ...............................

1-1 1-1 1-2

SECTION 2:

CONSOLIDATION PLAN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES ..................................... Governance Structures ............................................................................................ Staffing Analysis ......................................................................................................

2-1 2-1 2-5

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5:

Polk Transit Consolidation and Transition Plan ............................................................. Status Quo Model .......................................................................................................... Polk Transit Authority (Independent Transit Authority) .................................................. Polk Transit Service Area .............................................................................................. Polk Transit Contracted Service ....................................................................................

1-3 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2:

Consolidation and Transition Plan Implementation Schedule ........................................ NTD Staffing Analysis....................................................................................................

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

1-7 2-7

i


SECTION 1 CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSITION PLAN DEVELOPMENT This report includes the Consolidation and Transition Plan for all transit services in Polk County, including Citrus Connection, Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT), and Polk County Transit Services (PCTS) to the Polk Transit (PT) board. The approach used in developing the plan is briefly described, and an implementation matrix and schedule for execution of Consolidation and Transition Plan tasks is provided. In addition, the implementation matrix notes task responsibilities and due dates for activities in the Plan. CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSITION PLAN APPROACH The Consolidation and Transition Plan presented here sets the course of action for achieving the establishment of a dedicated transit funding sources and a new consolidated governance structure. A timeline and schedule have been prepared that will guide the execution of recommended Consolidation and Transition Plan tasks. Two different tracks were developed for the plan. The first track provides tasks to guide the transition to a new funding source and a new consolidated governance structure and a second track which provides guidance on consolidation efforts between the three transit systems and the two operating agencies. Consolidation and Transition Plan items can be generally summarized into the following four categories: 

Major Tasks and Milestones – These represent significant achievements in the plan process and generally consist of completion or achievement of one or more previous major tasks, sub-tasks, and/or milestones in order to complete.

Sub-Tasks – Sub-tasks are consistent with one of the major tasks indicated and reflect some of the major components to be accomplished within the corresponding major task.

Alternative Funding Models – Various alternative funding models/contingencies are provided in the event that the recommended dedicated transit funding source is not secured. Flow charts for each of these alternatives are provided.

Transit Service Outcomes – Two possible outcomes resulting from the implementation of the governance structures presented and consist of service expansion and transit service within available funding.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

1-1


Each major task of the Consolidation and Transition Plan is described in the following section. Recommendations also are provided that will guide the execution of each of the activities in the plan. A matrix outlining task-by-task due dates and responsibilities also is provided. Figure 1 presents a flow chart for Consolidation and Transition Plan activities. In that figure, task categories are distinguished by color. The Consolidation and Transition Plan activities are discussed in detail on the following pages. CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSITION PLAN MAJOR TASKS AND MILESTONES TRACK:

Transition

Task/Milestone 1: MAP-21 Legislation Approval, June/July 2012 MAP-21 legislation includes an allowance for transit agencies operating in large urbanized areas that operate fewer than 100 vehicles in maximum service to use a portion of their FTA 5307 Urbanized Area formula grant funds for operations. This is significant in that both of the urbanized areas in Polk County, the Winter Haven Urbanized Area and the Lakeland Urbanized Area, exceeded the population threshold in the 2010 Census of 200,000 persons for use of the 5307 grant funds for operations. Under the legislation, agencies operating 75 vehicles or less during their peak service hours could use up to 75 percent of their 5307 funds for operations. Those agencies operating 76â&#x20AC;&#x201C;100 vehicles during their peak service period are eligible to use up to 50 percent of their grant funds for operations. Implementing the entire Needs Plan would require less than the 75-vehicle threshold, which is a positive outlook for use of the 5307 grant funds through the planning horizon of the TDP. Service expansions and financial planning beyond the 2022 TDP planning horizon will have to be reassessed based on the MAP-21 legislation. Task/Milestone 2: My Ride Completion, July/August 2012 The My Ride effort is considered the roadmap that will guide the consolidation of transit services in Polk County, the improvement and expansion of transit services, and the transition to a dedicated local funding source and a new transit governance structure in the county. Specifically, the My Ride effort will result in the two major components, the Consolidation and Transition Plan included in this section and the TDP service plan. The My Ride effort is the culmination of months of public outreach and technical analyses, and the service plan will be used to help facilitate the voter education and marketing campaign that will be part of the referendum process.

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

1-2


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

1-3


Task/Milestone 3: Voter Education/Market Campaign Process, January 2013 The voter education and market campaign plan developed for the pursuit of a successful referendum should be deployed as early as possible. To run an effective ballot issue in Polk County, it is recommended that the campaign process begin 20 to 24 months prior to the date of the referendum. The campaign strategy consists of two parts: (1) an education and information campaign developed and run by PT and, if this issue will be placed on the ballot, (2) an advocacy campaign that must be run by a Political Action Committee (PAC), as defined by Florida Election Law. PT can use public dollars to develop transit plans and proposals that would benefit from new funding, conduct survey research, and determine if and when to go on the ballot. Once the decision is made to put a transit funding referendum on the ballot, however, the campaign must be run using a PAC that is set up in Polk County. Both campaigns must be carefully coordinated to ensure that all campaign activities, expenditures, and communications are done properly and efficiently to educate or advocate to key groups and voters. It is recommended that a political consultant work to manage the coordination of the campaign, in conjunction with PT. Task/Milestone 4: Sales Tax Referendum, November 2014 Approval by a majority vote of the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electorate is required to levy the Charter County and Regional Transportation Authority Local Option Sales Tax. Referendum language needs to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and it is recommended that this occur six months prior to the referendum date. A successful sales tax referendum at the levels recommended in the financial plan section of this report will ensure for future growth and expansion of transit services in Polk County. Task/Milestone 5: Initiate Final Transit Authority Transition and Consolidation, December 2014/ January 2015 Once the sales tax is approved, final efforts to transition and consolidate capital and staff should be performed. PT is anticipated to be the umbrella agency, retaining ownership of facilities, vehicles, and all other capital and will be responsible for all of the administration, planning, and operation of the fixed-route transit services in the county. Consequently, policies, procedures, budgets, and ownership of assets should be phased to the PT if possible. Any interlocal agreements needed for temporary or long-term use and sharing of facilities should be prepared for approval by the appropriate governing boards. A staffing analysis has been provided to provide guidance to the PT in regard to appropriate staffing levels as the transition and consolidation efforts are conducted. That staffing analysis is presented at the end of this section. Final consolidation efforts are to be coordinated with the initial consolidation efforts presented in Task/Milestone 8. Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

1-4


Task/Milestone 6: Sales Tax Funding Available, March/April 2015 Sales tax revenues are collected on a calendar-year basis. Revenues associated with a successful sales tax referendum will begin to be collected in January following the referendum and are anticipated to be distributed back to Polk County by March or April of that same year. Service improvements or expansions can be implemented at that time or the PT can consider bonding to accelerate investments in capital infrastructure. TRACK:

Consolidation

Task/Milestone 7: Common Marketing and Branding, February 2012 The PT recently adopted a uniform logo design and color scheme to be used as the system brand. This effort represents one of many efforts to be performed to unify the three transit systems and the two operating agencies under one umbrella organization. Task/Milestone 8: Implement Initial Consolidation Efforts, February 2012–November 2014 There are a number of consolidation efforts that can and should be accomplished prior to the full transition to the transit authority governance structure. In addition to streamlining transit services and improving the overall efficiency of service delivery, these efforts will alleviate the amount of effort needed to be completed if and when a sales tax is approved and in place. Current key efforts have centered on efficiencies to help ensure that both agencies are doing the best they can with current resources, limit the potential impact of revenue shortfalls, and prepare for the eventual consolidation. Consequently, these ongoing efforts should continue at greater levels consistent with the progress toward one consolidated agency. It is important to note that even if a sales tax is not approved and/or if the PT is not endorsed to continue with its initial capacity, the alternative funding models shown in Figure 1 can also benefit from the consolidation efforts. 

Consolidate Policies – There are a number of efficiencies to be gained through the consolidation of fare and operating policies. In addition, the major benefit may be gained by public transportation customers. Uniformity in call center operating procedures, fare policies, assessments, and demand response system service delivery procedures will make services more understandable, more user-friendly, and easier to use.

Align Fuel Contracts – Although not directly related to policies, fuel contracts should be aligned, as the current Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) contract for diesel fuel is considered to have better pricing than what PCTS is paying. The current LAMTD diesel fuel contract is a joint contract with Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) and the Central Florida Regional

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

1-5


Transportation Authority (LYNX), and consolidated efforts could result in better fuel pricing and long-term savings. 

Consolidate Call Centers – At this time, LAMTD and PCTS are working to consolidate their call center operations to one location. The establishment of a mobility call center is considered a major milestone in terms of the overall consolidation of services and could be considered the first responsibility for the PT in terms of governance and administration. This effort is consistent with the effort to consolidate policies. An assessment of the call center is recommended within six months of commencement of the operation. That assessment should be based on a common set of performance standards agreed upon as part of the consolidation of policies. Decisions on staffing levels should also be determined at that time.

Implement Marketing and Branding Strategy – The recently-developed PT brand is being implemented in all PT marketing materials. Those efforts should continue and, as the transition to a unified system progresses, fixed-route published schedules, websites, and other materials created for public consumption should also be aligned and should contain the PT brand. These efforts are critical to end-users and can occur even before the full transition to the PT occurs. In addition, it has been indicated that marketing efforts should be coordinated with neighboring counties and other public transportation planning agencies such as HART, the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), and LYNX.

Eliminate Service Duplication/Maximize Service Efficiency – Every attempt to eliminate duplicative service should be conducted as the agencies unify. Elimination of service duplication does not include eliminating service on shared routes such as what occurs on WHAT routes 30 or 12 on Saturdays, where Citrus Connection and WHAT work together to operate the same service. Instead, streamlining of service should include the delegation of the entire operation of the corresponding service to one agency. This will minimize the work related to compiling performance statistics and, most importantly, will ensure that one operational center is managing all buses operating on the same line. Other duplicative services indicated by staff include those associated with demand response services. It is anticipated that the centralized mobility call center will assist in eliminating those service overlaps. In addition, a one-agency, one-fixed-route management strategy will alleviate coordination efforts associated with provision of complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service.

Consolidate Capital Facilities – As indicated in Task/Milestone 5, all assets should be transitioned to the PT as appropriate. There are several interim steps that can be taken to facilitate a smooth transition and also integrate efficiencies into maintenance activities using shared capital facilities.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

1-6


Because of the size of the county, it will be critical to maintain multiple vehicle storage facilities, and separate dispatch and supervisory functions could be staged at each location. It would be beneficial for each storage location to include the opportunity for maintenance activities. In the short term, these functions can be accomplished using shared facilities and, ideally, shared County facilities. Maintenance contracts could be developed that could include the option to lease bus bays. This would ensure that transit agency vehicles receive priority maintenance and are serviced by trained maintenance personnel, thus reducing any liabilities to the facility owner. These steps are critical short-term steps and will serve as precursor to larger vehicle maintenance and storage facilities that could be constructed once full consolidation of services is accomplished and a dedicated funding source is secure. Table 1 summarizes the implementation schedule for the consolidation and transition plan. Table 1 Consolidation and Transition Plan Implementation Schedule Major Task/Milestone Transition Track 1 MAP-21 Legislation Approval 2 My Ride Completion 3 Voter Education/Market Campaign Process 4 Sales Tax Referendum 5

Initiate Final Transit Authority Transition and Consolidation

6 Sales Tax Funding Available Consolidation Track 7 Common Marketing and Branding Implement Initial Consolidation Efforts  Consolidate Policies  Consolidate Call Centers 8  Implement Marketing and Branding Strategy  Eliminate Service Duplication/Maximize Service Efficiency  Consolidate Capital Facilities

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

Duration/ Completion June/July 2012 July/August 2012 January 2013 November 2014 December 2014/ January 2015 March/April 2015 February 2012

February 2012 – November 2014

1-7


SECTION 2 CONSOLIDATION PLAN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES The preferred governance structure for Polk County public transportation services has been determined to be an independent transit authority. This section includes a series of illustrations that allow comparisons between the preferred governance structure, the status quo, and also alternative funding model contingencies noted below for the consolidation of services in the event that a sales tax referendum is not approved by the electorate. Although financial contingencies are not specifically addressed in this report, several opportunities for maintaining existing transit service levels are implied in each of the proposed alternative funding models presented here. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES Four flow charts have been prepared to illustrate the Independent Transit Authority, the status quo, and two alternative funding models. Under each scenario (except the status quo), fixed-route and paratransit services (e.g., ADA, demand response, and CTC duties) would be the responsibility of the governing agency. Status Quo Currently, three transit services—Citrus Connection, WHAT, and PCTS—are administered by two different agencies, Polk County and LAMTD. As structured, the various services are either directly operated by the corresponding agency or contracted out to one or more service providers. Figure 2: Status Quo Model

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

2-1


Polk Transit Authority (Independent Transit Authority) This is the recommended governance structure for transit services in Polk County. Under this governance structure, the PT would assume all public transportation administrative, policy, and operational responsibilities. An independent transit authority functions as an independent government body, setting region-wide policy for transit service and serving as the single designated federal and state transit funding recipient. The PT has been afforded funding powers, such as the assessment of ad valorem taxes, and may also receive sales taxes revenues from the county, issue bonds, and/or collect local funding contributions from the participating municipalities or entities in the region for service provided. An advisory board/committee of citizens would routinely provide input to the transit authority board and transit authority staff on service operation and governance administration issues. Figure 3 illustrates this governance structure. Figure 3: Polk Transit Authority (Independent Transit Authority)

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

2-2


Polk Transit Service Area An alternative funding model in the event a sales tax failed would be to create a PT service area. The administration and operation of public transportation services under this option would function similar to how LAMTD currently oversees the Citrus Connection service. Those areas wishing to receive public transportation services could opt to be included within the PT service area. A process that determined the extent or inclusion in the service area would need to be created. Currently, inclusion into LAMTD is determined via referendum. The PT has the authorization to levy up to three mills in ad valorem assessments via referendum approval. Figure 4: Polk Transit Service Area

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

2-3


Polk Transit Contracted Service Another option available for service consolidation would be to contract out all service to Polk Transit. All entities, municipalities, and areas in the unincorporated county wishing to receive public transportation services would negotiate terms for that service through an interlocal agreement. This is the option that is most similar to the status quo, and the major distinction is that the PT would serve as the single entity administering and operating all public transportation services in the county. A uniform PT brand could be applied to all fixed-route services. That brand could be the newly-created brand and logo for the PT. Figure 5: Polk Transit Contracted Service

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

2-4


STAFFING ANALYSIS The staffing level assessment is based on a comparative analysis of WHAT and Citrus Connection staffing levels by major transit employment categories with staffing levels of other peer transit systems. Major employment categories are standardized employment categories defined in the National Transit Database (NTD) and include: 1. Administrative Employees - Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) 2. Maintenance Employees - Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) 3. Operating Employees - Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) The selected peer agencies are consistent with the peers used to conduct the peer review analysis performed for this Transit Development Plan Major Update. As a general industry practice, three performance variables are commonly used to allocate costs between administrative, maintenance, and operating functions. Those performance measures include peak vehicles, revenue miles, and revenue hours, respectively. Similarly, the same set of variables can be used to assess the level of administrative, maintenance, and operating employees. The latest available NTD data were used to perform the analysis, and performance statistics for Citrus Connection and WHAT were combined to created a consolidated system variable for Polk County. Table 2 includes the performance statistics and FTE employee information for all peers and Polk County and includes the peer group mean for each variable. The table also indicates the peer group mean for revenue hours, revenue miles, and peak vehicles per corresponding employees in each category. Salient conclusions from the analysis include the following: 

 

The number of Polk County revenue hours per operating employees is lower than the peer group mean. This may be a function of the extensive service area for the fixed-route service and should be examined as part of the effort to streamline service. The analysis shows that Polk Consolidated services is operating short-handed in terms of maintenance staff, as revenue miles per maintenance employee is almost double that of the peer group mean. WHAT shares County staff for its maintenance duties, which may contribute to the reduced number of FTEs available for the fixed-route service. Administrative staffing levels are high in Polk County when compared to the peer group mean and may be a function of having two agencies operating three fixed-route services throughout the county. It is important to note that when revenue hours of service are divided by total employees, Polk Consolidated services records 852 revenue hours of service per FTE, whereas the peer group averages 1,137 revenue hours of service per FTE, 33 percent higher than Polk.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022 Consolidation and Transition Plan

2-5


As consolidation efforts progress, these performance statistic standards should be revisited to ensure that efficiencies are being maximized whenever possible. For example, administrative staff duties and responsibilities and their relationship to any grant funding being received by the agencies should be examined to ensure that duplicative efforts can be eliminated. In addition, it may benefit the agency to shift administrative positions to maintenance duties if it is the desire of the consolidated agency to conduct its own maintenance as opposed to contracting out this function.

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

2-6


Table 2 NTD Staffing Analysis Measure

Chattanooga, TN

Revenue Hours

Pensacola, FL

Laredo, TX

Shreveport, LA

Northern Kentucky

WinstonSalem, NC

Polk Consolidated

Peer Group Mean

163,451

97,371

150,323

150,856

203,616

132,023

114,454

149,607

Operating Employees FTE

92.64

58.78

98.63

93.79

150.14

67.64

96.58

93.60

Revenue Hours per Operating Employee FTE

1,764

1,657

1,524

1,608

1,356

1,952

1,185

1,644

2,125,131

1,388,505

1,739,286

2,275,503

2,914,543

1,493,605

2,000,275

1,989,429

33.23

20.97

28.60

29.50

36.12

25.20

15.10

28.94

63,952

66,214

60,814

77,136

80,691

59,270

132,469

68,013

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service

49.00

32.00

35.00

37.00

84.00

33.00

33.00

45.00

Administrative Employee FTE

14.33

6.73

5.75

4.65

11.12

11.61

22.69

9.03

3.42

4.75

6.09

7.96

7.55

2.84

1.45

5.44

Revenue Miles Maintenance Employees FTE Revenue Miles per Maintenance Employee FTE

Vehicles per Administrative Employee FTE

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

2-7


Appendix G Performance Monitoring Program

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

G-1


PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAM A performance monitoring program tracks the performance and efficiency of the transit system. It is a tool utilized by transit agencies for ensuring the provision of the most efficient and effective transit service. Such a program will assist Polk Transit in identifying routes in need of improvement or modification. The monitoring program recommended for Polk Transit consists of a comparative analysis of fixed-route service performance. The methodology utilizes specific route-level data and compares each route’s performance with all other regular local service routes. This application requires different performance measures than those reflected in the My Ride Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies and is being presented as a recommended course of action to guide the PT when considering performance-based service cuts. Detailed procedures for the recommended Polk Transit performance monitoring program are described below. In addition, a route restructuring and elimination process is presented. PERFORMANCE MEASURES & INDICATORS

The following performance indicators and measures should be monitored by route for fixed bus routes operating in Polk County on a quarterly basis as part of the recommended performance monitoring program: 

Passenger Trips – Annual number of passenger boardings on the transit vehicles.

Revenue Miles – Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up passengers).

Revenue Hours – Total hours of vehicle operation in active revenue service.

Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile – The ratio of passenger trips to revenue miles of service.

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour – The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation. This is the key indicator of service effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY & PROCESS

The noted performance indicators and measures for local bus service routes for a full fiscal year of operation, FY 2011, were used to present an example application of the proposed performance monitoring process. Table 1 presents the specific route-level data. The process is based on two measures (trips per mile and trips per hour) weighted equally to derive an overall route score. A route’s score for a particular measure is based on a comparison of the measure as a percentage of the system average for that

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

G-2


particular measure. These individual measure scores are added together and divided by two to get a final aggregate score. This final composite performance score is an indication of a route’s performance for both measures when compared to the system average for those measures. A higher score represents better overall performance when compared to other routes. The final column rank-orders the routes based on their aggregate scores. URBAN AND RURAL APPLICATIONS

In the example, routes have been divided into urban and rural services so as to create a different standard, or benchmark, for each service area. Because of their nature, rural routes experience lower ridership levels than urban routes. While there are currently only two routes in the example that are considered “rural,” according to the TDP plan, new call-and-ride service and flex route service will be available in rural areas, and these will need to be added to the performance monitoring programs list of rural service routes. Urban routes have been identified as most of the existing fixed route service. Future BRT or express route should also be treated as urban services. As shown in Table 1, the three urban routes with the best overall performance in FY 2011 are Citrus Connection Routes 1 and 3 and WHAT Route 12. The three urban routes with the lowest overall performance are Citrus Connection Routes 39, 57, and 58. The noted comparative performance evaluation can be beneficial, but care should be taken when using the final scores and rankings, because these figures are comparing routes to one another and may not reflect the specific goals established for a particular route (i.e., geographic coverage vs. ridership performance). The process is particularly useful, however, in highlighting those routes that may have performance-related issues. These routes can then be singled out for closer observation in future years to determine specific changes that may help mitigate any performance issues. LAMTD TRIP SCREENING INDEX INTEGRATION

LAMTD currently utilizes its APC technology to track ridership performance by route and by time of day. This process, called the Trip Screening Index (TSI), uses average hourly ridership and compares it to hourly goals set forth by the transit agency. LAMTD reviews route performance at a bi-yearly frequency in order to discontinue trip segments or bus routes that are underperforming and redistribute those resources to more efficient service. While the previously discussed performance monitoring model example compares annual route level data to system-wide averages, the same method can be applied to routes by service period/time-of-day. The TSI data can be used to break down the performance model into service periods/time-of-day. By defining transit service periods based on industry standard (AM peak = 6 AM to 9 AM, off peak = 9 AM to 3 PM, and

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

G-3


Table 1: Route Statistics for Local Service Route #

Service Provider

Service Area

Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Score Final Rank Urban Routes 11 WHAT Urban 3,850 3,784 341 1.02 11.29 56% 14 12 WHAT Urban 183,028 140,398 7,365 1.30 24.85 94% 4 15 WHAT Urban 66,474 88,525 3,541 0.75 18.77 63% 12 22XW WHAT Urban 68,125 90,296 3,520 0.75 19.35 65% 11 30 WHAT Urban 124,255 137,821 7,061 0.90 17.60 66% 10 40 / 44 WHAT Urban 36,509 53,918 3,068 0.68 11.90 47% 17 50 WHAT Urban 43,928 57,378 3,068 0.77 14.32 54% 15 1 LAMTD* Urban 47,713 15,731 1,581 3.03 30.18 160% 1 3 LAMTD* Urban 20,137 9,810 791 2.05 25.46 119% 2 10 LAMTD* Urban 13,096 16,976 663 0.77 19.75 66% 9 14 LAMTD* Urban 18,925 21,243 1,530 0.89 12.37 54% 16 15 LAMTD* Urban 26,254 19,560 1,500 1.34 17.50 80% 6 32 / 33 LAMTD* Urban 7,179 6,532 704 1.10 10.20 56% 13 39 LAMTD* Urban 975 6,573 280 0.15 3.48 12% 21 45 LAMTD* Urban 13,582 13,291 791 1.02 17.17 69% 7 46 LAMTD* Urban 6,927 12,580 1,294 0.55 5.35 29% 18 47 LAMTD* Urban 10,418 5,391 765 1.93 13.62 90% 5 57 LAMTD* Urban 3,550 12,913 584 0.27 6.08 22% 20 58 LAMTD* Urban 8,458 18,520 1,365 0.46 6.20 28% 19 12 LAMTD* Urban 98,368 68,123 3,520 1.44 27.95 105% 3 22XL LAMTD* Urban 98,523 139,904 4,732 0.70 20.82 66% 8 Subtotal 900,274 939,267 48,064 1.04 15.91 Rural Routes** 25 WHAT Rural 26,281 83,702 3,761 0.31 6.99 56% 2 35 WHAT Rural 37,473 88,390 3,842 0.42 9.75 77% 1 Subtotal 63,754 172,092 7,603 0.37 8.37 Total 964,028 1,111,359 55,667 0.87 17.32 *LAMTD Route operating characteristics reflect numbers between July, 2011 and September, 2011 as these routes began their service in July 2011. **Example based on existing rural route.

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

Passenger Trips

Scoring Indicators Trips /Mile Trips /Hour

G-5


PM peak = 3 PM to 6 PM), Polk Transit can use TSI data to compare how well routes perform in those periods. They can then be compared as a percent based on the average system performance for all routes operating in those same service periods. This is an important application, as transit services in Polk County tend to experience their peak during mid-day as opposed to typical morning and evening commuter rushes experienced in areas that are more urban. Although the initial evaluation was completed using annual statistics, the comparative performance evaluation should be conducted by Polk Transit on a more frequent, quarterly basis. A more comprehensive set of performance measures can easily be integrated into this model. The rankings are a useful proxy to determine the comparative performance of any route, as well as for monitoring changes in performance over time. The score for each particular route in Table 1 can be considered as a baseline, with which the score for the corresponding route over a subsequent analysis period can be utilized for trend comparison purposes. To track the performance variation over time, three performance levels have been developed. 

Level I – Good ( ≥ 75%) – Transit routes that fall in this category are performing efficiently compared with the average level of all the agency’s routes.

Level II – Monitor (30% to 74%) – Routes that fall in this category exhibit varying levels of performance problems and need to be singled out for more detailed analysis (e.g., ridechecks, onboard surveys, increased marketing efforts, etc.) to aid in identifying specific changes that can be made to help improve the route’s performance.

Level III – Route Modification or Discontinuation ( ≤ 29%) – Routes that fall in this category exhibit poor performance. Recommendations for these routes may include truncation of the route, reduction in the route’s number of revenue hours, or discontinuation of the route.

Figure 1 illustrates the three evaluation levels and notes the recommended thresholds for each level. In the future, Polk Transit services may want to consider changing the thresholds noted for each performance level to more specific performance standards. For example, LAMTD suggests a performance standard for annual ridership of 10 passenger trips per hour. Setting such a performance standard will assist in eliminating any scoring bias towards routes that appear to be performing poorly because of the averagebased scoring proposed for the performance monitoring program. To implement such standards, Polk Transit would need to select appropriate performance standards. Standards should be coordinated between all of the fixed-route transit services in Polk Transit to ensure a seamless consolidation when the routes become a part of a single transit agency.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

G-6


Figure 1 Evaluation Levels

ROUTE MODIFICATION AND DISCONTINUATION PROCESS

Elimination of underperforming routes should occur only after implemented route modifications have continued to result in unsatisfactory performance. A series of recommended steps to be taken by Polk Transit for routes falling in the Level II and Level III performance categories is illustrated in Figure 2. Level II – Monitor

Routes operating at a Level II performance standard may be candidates for minor operational changes. Prior to implementing any operational changes Polk Transit should assess the factors affecting the operation of the route. Factors to be reviewed and assessed by Polk Transit include the following: 1. Data collection – Verify that data is being reported correctly. 2. Seasonal fluctuations – Compare changes in system performance with seasonal travel factors. 3. Operating conditions – Determine whether any changes to the operating conditions of the route have affected its performance (i.e., new development, roadway improvements, etc.). 4. Survey bus operators – Contact bus operators to gather insight on any on-road problems. This can be completed by initially speaking to shift supervisors.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

G-7


Figure 2 Route Modification/Discontinuation Decision Tree

I Good

II Monitor

Indicates New Performance Evaluation

Continue Existing Service

Indicates Sixth (6) Consecutive Level III Performance Evaluation Scores

Continue Existing Service Operational Assessment

Performance Improvement Implement Minor Modification(s) No Performance Improvement

III Modify or Discontinue

Performance Improvement

Operational Assessment

Notify Public of Route Change(s)

Implement Modification(s)

Continue Existing Service No Additional Modification(s)

No Performance Improvement Implement Additional Modification(s)

Recommend Service Elimination

Polk Transit Decision


5. Ridecheck – Conduct a ridecheck to determine potential bus stop eliminations, bus stop consolidations, and/or other minor route adjustments. 6. Marketing – Increase marketing efforts along the route. The noted review and assessment factors should be analyzed in order as presented. An effort should be made in determining whether the route is being affected by a temporary or a permanent change. Temporary disruptions in operating conditions that may be out of the control of the transit agency should not warrant any change to the route. The routine application of the performance monitoring program will determine whether bus routes need to be reassessed or should be considered for modification. Level III – Route Modification or Discontinuation

Routes falling in the Level III performance category require a major modification. Polk Transit should first conduct an operational assessment to determine what type of operational change should occur. Unlike the assessment tasks outlined for the Level II performance category, tasks for Level III consist of possible route improvements. Improvements to routes should be considered only after an examination of the scores obtained for each of the performance monitoring program’s scoring components (i.e., passenger trips per revenue mile, operating cost per passenger trip, etc.). Examination of those scores will assist in determining what the potential cause(s) of the route’s inefficiency is. In addition to the assessment tasks noted for Level II, the following options should be considered by Polk Transit for those routes falling in the Level III performance category:  

     

Passenger loading – Determine if there are any stops along the route that need frequency improvements or that can be eliminated based on ridecheck data and on driver input. Service area – Assess if the route can be realigned to serve nearby transit supportive areas. Transit supportive areas include commercial and retail development and areas with high residential densities. In addition, this TDP identifies areas of the county with a high transit orientation index. Route truncation – Assess the cost and ridership implications of reductions in revenue hours and/or revenue miles. Frequency – Evaluate the need for headway improvements in the peak hour or all-day. Transfers – Identify opportunities for increasing the productivity of the route by linking it to other existing routes. Schedule adjustment – Consider the need to adjust the route’s service schedule. Other operational improvements – Consider other operational improvements, such as shortturning and through-routing, as options for poorly performing routes. Shift paratransit trips to fixed-route – Identify if there hot spots of activity for “non-essential” trips along the route and look for opportunities to shift these trips to fixed-route service or assess

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

G-9


whether it would be more effective to realign existing fixed-route service to those hot spots of paratransit trip activity. Reassessment of the route should indicate whether changes have resulted in an improvement in performance. If not, other financially- and politically-feasible route changes should be considered, if any. It is recommended that Polk Transit implement major modifications to or discontinue routes that fall in the Level III category for six consecutive quarters (18 months), assuming that efforts to improve a problematic route have been made. If, after six consecutive analysis periods (18 months), a route still scores in the Level III category and all feasible alternative improvements have been exhausted, Polk Transit should consider the possible discontinuation of the route and redistribution of resources to more cost-effective and/or productive transit service areas. The Polk Transit Board would then decide whether or not to discontinue service or to continue service despite poor performance. The performance monitoring program is a useful and important tool for assessing transit system performance and assisting transit operations planning and programming. However, Polk Transit should exercise caution in interpreting the performance of routes falling within the Level II and Level III categories. As mentioned previously, there are other objectives of transit that are not measured or reflected through the performance monitoring program. For instance, the program does not address several relevant considerations such as taxpayer and public opinions about the agency, passenger satisfaction with regard to levels of service, quality of planning, and contributions to economic development, among others. In addition, the program also does not measure several aspects of quality of service, including vehicle cleanliness and comfort, operator courtesy, on-time performance, frequency of service, and geographic coverage of the service. Finally, it should be noted that this performance review mechanism does not necessarily provide information regarding which aspects of performance are controlled by Polk Transit and which are not. For example, local policy decisions such as land use, urban design, parking, and zoning, which ultimately affect the overall performance of the transit system, are out of the transit agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s control. On the other hand, operator skills and experience, employee morale, service design, and marketing can be controlled and regulated by the transit agency.

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

G-10


Appendix H Farebox Recovery Ratio Report

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

H-1


Annual Farebox Recovery Ration Report – July 2012 Polk Transit – Fixed Route System Polk County, FL Current Farebox Recovery Ratio FY 2011 farebox recovery ratios for LAMTD, WHAT, and PCTS are 14.2%, 8.6%, and 7.5%, respectively. The consolidated FY 2011 fare recovery ratio was 12.9%. The background with regard to the farebox recovery ratio is as follows. Prior Year Fare Studies and Changes and Proposed Fare Changes for Upcoming Years The first fare increase in the 25-year history of LAMTD was implemented in January 2007. The fare was raised 33 percent, from $0.75 to $1.00, with WHAT and PCTS following suit. Operating costs for the transit agencies have increased due to the increasing cost of fuel, as well as insurance, maintenance, and other operational costs. To offset the increased costs of operations, all three agencies approved a 25 percent fare increase effective October 1 2008, increasing the fare from $1.00 to $1.25. The Consolidated TDP adopted in August 2007 contained a phased fare increase every three years. The 2008 Progress Report finance plan was amended to assume fare increases every two years beginning in FY 2009. Subsequent changes were/are planned to occur in fiscal years 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019 at a rate of 10 percent per increase. In FY 2011, the cash fare was increased by 20 percent to $1.50. The greater-than-scheduled fare increase is primarily due to the decrease in operating revenues resulting from the economic downturn that began in FY 2008. Strategies Affecting the Farebox Recovery Ratio “My Ride,” the Polk Transit 2013–2022 TDP Update, identifies strategies that will be used to maintain or increase the farebox recovery ratio, including the following:      

Monitor key performance measures for individual fixed-routes. Consolidate services and reduce or eliminate the duplication of administrative services. Ensure that transit serves the major activity centers and corridors, potentially increasing the effectiveness of service. Increase ridership by continuing to transition transportation disadvantaged and ADA patrons to fixed-route service. Increase ridership through enhanced marketing and community relations activities. Transition to alternative fuel vehicles to reduce fuel cost.

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

H-2


Determine the most cost-effective service type on all major corridors, given demand, routings, and coverage areas. Polk Transit Fare Structure (FY 2012) Customer Type

Fare Type Cash Fare All-Day Pass Adult - Regular Fare 10-Trip Pass 7-Day Pass 31-Day Pass

Discount Fare

Students Cash Fare Senior and Disabled Cash Fare Student Day Pass Senior and Disabled Day Pass 10-Trip Student Day Pass 10 Trip Senior/Disabled Day Pass

Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013–FY 2022

Current Fare $1.50 $3.00 $27.00 $12.00 $47.00 $1.25 $0.80 $2.50 $1.60 $22.00 $16.00

H-3

My ride 2013 2022 transit development plan  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you