Lake County Transit Development Plan – Existing Conditions

1. LakeXpress Fixed Route Service ...... 1

1.1. Operating Characteristics 1 1.2. Fare Schedule 3 1.3. Transportation Budget 5 2. Lake County Connection Paratransit Service ...... 9

2.1. Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program 9 2.2. Performance Measures 10 2.3. CTC Peer Review Analysis 13 3. Other Transportation Providers in Lake County ...... 20

4. Public Transportation Funding in Lake County ...... 21

4.1. Funding Sources for Operations and Capital 21 4.2. National Peer Comparison 22 5. Lake County Transportation Function ...... 24

6. Public Transportation Facilities ...... 25

6.1. Maintenance Facilities 25 6.2. Park-and-Ride Locations 25 6.3. Shelters 25 6.4. Transit Vehicles Inventory 26 6.5. On-Board Technology 27 7. Adjacent Area Providers ...... 28

8. Public Survey ...... 34

9. Appendices ...... 35

Existing Conditions in Lake County

This memo presents an overview of existing public transportation services offered in Lake County. The Lake County Board of County Commissioners contract with a private entity, MV Transportation, Inc., to provide both fixed route service, LakeXpress, as well as Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) and ADA Complementary Paratransit service, known as the Lake County Connection (LCC). Lake County currently operates a fleet of 13 fixed route and 67 paratransit vehicles throughout its 71 square mile service area. In addition to the LakeXpress/LCC service, Lake County is served by LYNX Link 44, Link 55, Link 427, and the Clermont Express (Link 204).

There are three FDOT owned Park-and-Ride locations within Lake County, two of which are currently in use. The Clermont Park-and-Ride, located near the intersection of US Highway 27 and Hook Street can accommodate 128 vehicles and is served by LYNX route 204 (Clermont Express) in the AM and PM peak periods. The Minneola Park-and-Ride, also located along US Highway 27, just south of Lake Minneola Shores, can hold 89 vehicles and is not currently served by any public transit routes. The Mascotte Park & Ride lot is a Shared-Use Park & Ride lot. Ten spaces at the Mascotte Civic Center can be used for carpool/vanpool parking by commuter groups. Designated for commuter use in 2011, this lot was formed through a partnership with the City of Mascotte and the reThink program.

In order to illustrate opportunities for transit service connectivity, a discussion of adjacent-area transit services in Marion, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia counties is also included in this section.

1. LakeXpress Fixed Route Service

Public, fixed route bus service was initiated in Lake County on May 21, 2007 and is known as LakeXpress. Current service is comprised of four, fixed routes traveling through the County along the U.S. Highway 441 Corridor, serving the major hub cities of Lady Lake, Fruitland Park, Leesburg, Tavares, Eustis, Mount Dora, Umatilla, and Zellwood. Currently, there are three transfer points between LakeXpress local routes; one transfer point allowing access to LYNX Link 44; and one transfer point between LakeXpress and Sumter County Transit service (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 - Public Transit Transfer Points in Lake County

Transfer Location LakeXpressRoutes Other Providers 14th St. & Citizens Blvd. 1, 2 Lake Tech 1, 3, 4 Anthony House @ Holly St. 4 LYNX Link 44 Spanish Springs Station 1 SCT Village Shuttle

1.1. Operating Characteristics LakeXpress provides fixed-schedule service on four routes, two base routes and two circulator routes in Leesburg and Mount Dora, respectively. LakeXpress routes operate on weekdays between the hours of 6 AM and 7:45 PM on 60 minute headways. Service is not available on weekends or federal holidays.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 1 Table 1.2 – LakeXpress Fare Schedule

Fare Type Cost One-way Trip Regular Reduced Adult $1.00 $0.50 Student (with valid ID) $0.50 Veteran (with a DD-214) $0.50 Senior $0.50 Medicare cardholder $0.50 ADA Eligibile $0.50 Multi-Trip Pass 1-Day Pass (unlimited rides) $3.00 $1.50 30-Day Pass (unlimited rides) $30.00 $15.00 10-Ride Pass $8.00 $4.00

Source: Lake County

Figure 1.1 below provides an overview of the LakeXpress fixed route system.

Route 1 The Villages to Eustis: LakeXpress Route 1 operates in an east-west alignment, traveling between Spanish Springs Station in The Villages to the west and Palmetto Street at Getford Road, Eustis, in the east. Timepoints along the route include major destinations such as Wal-Mart, Lake-Sumter Community College, Lake Square Mall, the Tavares government complex, Eustis Square, and the Waterman Hospital. In Leesburg, the route makes a loop through Lake Street and Newell Hill Road before continuing east toward Tavares and Eustis. Once into Eustis, the route traverses local routes to serve downtown destinations.

There are three transfer points along Route 1. At Spanish Springs Station, the western route terminus, riders can connect to the Sumter County Transit shuttles. At 14th Street and Citizens Boulevard, riders can transfer to LakeXpress Route 2. Finally, at Lake Tech, riders are able to transfer between route 1, 3, and 4.

The LakeXpress system operates Monday through Friday. The Villages to Eustis route begins at 6 AM and runs until 7:50 PM. In the eastbound direction, three express/altered alignment runs leave in the morning from US Highway 27 and Citizens Boulevard: at 6 AM direct to Lake Square Mall; at 6:32 AM direct to Main Street in Tavares; and also at 6 AM to the eastern terminus in Eustis. Beginning at 6:30 AM, buses run the entire route, east to west, on 60-minute headways. The last two eastbound runs operate between The Villages and Wal-Mart, only; the last timepoint occurring at 7:50 PM.

In the westbound direction, there are three alternative, AM alignments, departing at 6 AM, 6:25 AM, and 6:53 AM, respectively. Beginning at 7:14 AM, the west bound route leaves Palmetto Street and Getford Road, serving all timepoints on 60-minute headways. The last two runs of the day, leaving at 6:14 PM and 7:14 PM terminate at Lake Square Mall and Waterman Hospital, respectively.

Route 2 City of Leesburg: The Leesburg Circulator operates through the City of Leesburg from Wal-Mart in the north to the Southside Shopping Center in the south. There are various important destinations

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 2 along and adjacent to this circulator, including various subsidized housing complexes, Beacon College (for developmentally delayed persons), a One-Stop Center, and the Leesburg Recreation Center. From 6 AM until 7 PM, the route operates 13 complete runs on 60-minute headways.

At 14th Street and Citizens Boulevard, riders can transfer to LakeXpress Route 1.

Route 3 Mount Dora Circulator: Like the Leesburg route, the Mount Dora route is also a circulator. It operates between Eustis Square in the east, also a transfer point to Route 1, and downtown Mount Dora surrounding City Hall in the west. City Hall and Wal-Mart are among the primary destinations along the route. Beginning at 6:38 AM, the route operated on hourly headways with the last departure occurring at 6:38 PM.

Route 4 Altoona/Umatilla to Zellwood: Route 4 is the only LakeXpress route that travels outside of the county to its terminus. In the north, the route originates at the Altoona post office. In the south, the route originates at Anthony House in Zellwood, Orange County. The majority of the route travels on state and US highways and there are limited stops at destinations such as Umatilla City Hall, Eustis Square, and the Mount Dora Wal-Mart. A complete one-way trip takes approximately 69 minutes to complete.

In the soutbound to Zellwood direction, there are three AM and three PM departures: 7:11 AM, 9:11 AM, 11:11 AM, 1:11 PM, 3:1, and 5:11 PM. In the northbound direction, there are two AM and four PM departures: 8:20 AM, 10:20 AM, 12:20 PM, 2:20 PM, 4:20 PM, and 6:20 PM.

1.2. Fare Schedule A detailed fare schedule is presented in Table 1.2. Fares have not increased since service inception, in 2007. The regular full cash fare is $1. Seniors, students, Medicare cardholders, veterans, and individuals with disabilities are eligible for a reduced fare of $0.50. Children five years of age and younger are provided free passage throughout the system when accompanied by a paying adult. Multi-ride regular and discounted passes (Daily, 30-Day, and 10-Ride) are available for purchase at the Tavares City Hall and various Lake County Public Library locations. Bus-to-Bus transfers within the system are free. Diamond manual fareboxes are used on all vehicles.

Table 1.2 – LakeXpress Fare Schedule

Fare Type Cost One-way Trip Regular Reduced Adult $1.00 $0.50 Student (with valid ID) $0.50 Veteran (with a DD-214) $0.50 Senior $0.50 Medicare cardholder $0.50 ADA Eligibile $0.50 Multi-Trip Pass 1-Day Pass (unlimited rides) $3.00 $1.50 30-Day Pass (unlimited rides) $30.00 $15.00 10-Ride Pass $8.00 $4.00 Source: Lake County

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 3 Figure 1.1 - LakeXpress System Map

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 4 1.3. Transportation Budget The 2012 operating budget for LakeXpress was $1,790,832; Capital costs were $816,238. Compared to previous years, operating expenses remained relatively steady; an increase of only 11 percent from 2010 to 2013. For comparison, gas prices during the same period increased 25 percent.1 Capital costs in 2012 were much higher than in previous years, an increase of 127 percent over 2011, due to investments in passenger stations, administrative buildings, vehicles, and technology.

Operating Statistics and Measures of Efficiency and Effectiveness Table 1.3 below provides detailed budgetary information in conjunction with operating statistics and performance measurements. Sources of transportation funding in Lake County are discussed in a later section.

Annual rideship for each of LakeXpress’ four fixed routes is outlined in the table and graph below. In aggregate, ridership on LakeXpress was up almost 28 percent between 2010 and 2012. Route 4, Altoona to Zellwood experienced the largest growth, an increase of nearly 43 percent, although all routes saw growth over 22 percent.

Table 1.3 – Annual LakeXpress Ridership

Oct 2009- Oct 2010- Oct 2011- Percent LakeXpress Route Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012 Change Route 1: Lady Lake/Eustis via US441 128,959 136,147 161,873 25.52% Route 2: City of Leesburg 45,056 46,679 55,110 22.31% Route 3: City of Mount Dora 33,585 40,488 44,061 31.19% Route 4: Altoona to Zellwood 25,194 34,407 35,925 42.59% LakeXpress Total: 232,794 257,721 296,969 27.57%

Source: Lake County Dept. of Transportation

Figure 1.2 - Annual LakeXpress Ridership

1 U.S Energy Information Administration: Weekly U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon), July 2010-July 2012

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 5 Source: Lake County Dept. of Transportation

Detailed ridership by route and month is provided as Appendix A.

Certain measures of transit efficiency and effectiveness are commonly accepted throughout the transit industry as valid. The National Transit Database (NTD), an information clearinghouse established by Congress and administered by the FTA, annually collects such information from recipients of Section 5307 and Section 5311 federal funds. Measures of effectiveness relate the desired outcome or the amount of service consumed (such as passenger trips or passenger-miles) to service provided (such as vehicle revenue hours or vehicle trips) or to resources used (typically operating expense). Measures of service effectiveness include operating expense per passenger mile or pre unlinked passenger trip and unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile (VRM) or vehicle revenue hour (VRH). Measures of efficiency relate service provided to resources used. Measures of service efficiency examine operating expense per vehicle revenue mile (VRM) or vehicle revenue hour (VRH).

Measures of effectiveness and efficiency in the transit industry are general based on peer comparisons, rather than industry-wide standards. In Florida, the Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS) combines information from both FTA and the NTD to allow for comparisons of peer characteristics. The table below illustrates operating characteristics for LakeXpress (fixed route) and three peer agencies: Collier Area Transit, the Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc., and Pasco County Transportation for the year 2011, the most recent data available through this system. For measures of effectiveness and efficiency, figures in green meet or exceed the peer average, while figures in red fall below expectations.

As shown, in 2011 LakeXpress service was somewhat less efficient and effective than its Florida peers. However, as demonstrated by Table 1.5, between 2011 and 2012, LakeXpress increased its effectiveness in all measures. Operating expense per passenger mile and per passenger trip decreased, and trips per vehicle revenue mile and vehicle revenue hour increased. In terms of efficiency, costs were actually slightly up, though this is probably attributable to the vast increase in fuel prices.

Table 1.4 – Operating Characteristics and Measures of Service Effectiveness/Efficiency for LakeXpress and its Florida Peers

Operating Operating Operating Passenger Operating Passenger Total Farebox Expense Per Expense Per Expense Per Passenger Passenger Trips Per Transit Sponsor Location Expense Per Trips Per Operating Recovery (%) Passenger Passenger Revenue Miles Trips Revenue Revenue Mile Revenue Mile Expense Mile Trip Hour Hour Collier Area Transit Naples 21.11 $0.55 $4.59 $79.30 $4.32 9,699,497 1,154,702 17.27 0.94 $5,300,989 Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc. Fort Pierce 10.46 $1.20 $9.56 $67.65 $4.73 1,163,521 145,769 7.08 0.49 $1,393,528 Lake County Board of County Commissioners Tavares 7.34 $0.95 $6.57 $72.80 $4.27 1,784,837 257,721 11.09 0.65 $1,692,299 Pasco County Public Transportation Port Richey 23.12 $0.69 $4.85 $63.37 $3.74 5,914,595 845,177 13.07 0.77 $4,097,123 Peer Average 15.51 $0.85 $6.39 $70.78 $4.27 4,640,613 600,842 12.13 0.71 $3,120,985 The table below highlights operating characteristics for LakeXpress for the years 2010-2012.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 6 Table 1.5 – Operating Characteristics and Measures of Service Effectiveness/Efficiency, LakeXpress 2010 – 2012

Operating Expense Service Effectiveness Service Efficiency 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 $1,620,604 $1,692,299 $1,790,832 Capital Expense Operating Expense/Pass. Mile Operating Expense per VRM $313,753 $360,319 $816,238 $1.35 $0.95 $0.85 $4.21 $4.27 $4.39 Farebox Revenues Operating Expense/Pass. Trip Operating Expense per VRH $104,210 $124,276 $107,039 $6.96 $6.57 $6.03 $69.71 $72.80 $77.78 Unlinked Passenger Trips Passengers Trips per VRM 232,794 257,721 297,022 0.61 0.65 0.73 Passenger Miles Passengers Trips per VRH 1,198,889 1,784,837 2,117,357 10.01 11.09 12.90 Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) 1,844,587 396,443 408,089 Vehicle Revenues Hour (VRH) 112,276 23,245 23,023

Figures 1.3 and 1.4 below are similar to those provided by the NTD and illustrate the change in effectiveness and efficiency for LakeXpress service between 2010 and 2012. In terms of effectiveness, operating expense per passenger mile improved steadily between 2010 and 2012, down nearly 60 percent from $1.35 to $0.85. Operating expense per unlinked passenger trip also decreased during those same years, down 15.5 percent from $6.96 to $6.03. Effectiveness of revenue service increased as well. Trips per revenue mile grew from 0.61 in 2010 to 0.73 in 2012 and trips per revenue hour increased from 10.01 in 2010 to 12.90 in 2012.

Service efficiency is measured by operating expense per vehicle revenue mile and operating expense per vehicle revenue hour. Unlike the improvements measures of effectiveness discussed above, between 2010 and 2012 LakeXpress service efficiency declined due to increasing costs. Its operating expense per vehicle revenue mile increased 41 percent, from $2.09 in 2010 to $2.95 in 2012. Operating expense per vehicle revenue hour increased less drastically, from $34.36 in 2010 to $44.12 in 2012, a change of 28 percent. As previously noted, the cost of gas during the same time period also increased substantially.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 7 Figure 1.3 – LakeXpress Measures of Service Effectiveness, 2010 – 2012

Figure 1.4 - LakeXpress Measures of Service Effectiveness, 2010 – 2012

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 8 2. Lake County Connection Paratransit Service

2.1. Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program Since 2001, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners has served as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Lake County. Lake County operates paratransit under the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program as Lake County Connection (LCC). Lake County Connection provides paratransit services to individuals qualifying under guidelines identified in the Florida Statutes 427, who would otherwise not have access to other means of transportation. The statewide TD program was developed in an effort to more cost-effectively and efficiently coordinate the existing TD services currently sponsored by social and human service agencies without duplication of services. The Florida Coordinated Transportation System (FCTS) with the enactment of Chapter 427, F.S. Chapter 427 defines TD as:

“…those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at-risk as defined in Section 411.202, Florida Statutes.”

Currently, Lake County’s TD Program is funded through the following agencies: Lake County Board of County Commissioners, Florida Department of Transportation, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Agency for Health Care Administration (Medicaid), Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), and Mid Florida Community Services and Elder Affairs.2 These agencies are known as “sponsoring agencies” and pay for riders’ individual trips, based on program participation.

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners currently contracts with MV Transportation, Inc. to provide its paratransit service. TD paratransit service is available within all of Lake County and from points within Lake County to Orlando and Gainesville for medical appointments. Service is operated Monday through Friday, from 6 AM to 7 PM and on Saturdays for dialysis and hospital discharges, only.

TD trips under Lake County Connection are provided on a first-come, first-served basis and must be reserved a minimum of 48-hours in advance for prioritization. According to the LCC Rider’s Guide, trip priority is based upon three criteria: critical medical care, other medical, and nutritional (grocery shopping, meals sites, food stamps). Subscription trips, or “standing orders,” for those trips that occur regularly over an extended period of time may be allowed on LCC, depending on the trip funding source.

Lake County Connection TD fares vary depending on the rider’s destination. The one-way fare to travel within Lake County is $2; the fare to Orlando is $5; and the Gainesville fare is $10 (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 – Lake County Connection TD Service Fares and Service Characteristics

One-way Service Area Days of Service Fare Within Lake County $2 Mon - Fri (Sat. dialysis and hospital) Orlando medical trip $5 Tues/Thurs, leaving Orlando at 2 PM Gainesville medical trip $10 Mon, Wed, Fri, leaving Gainesville at 2 PM Source: Lake County Connection Rider's Guide

2 Lake County Connection Rider’s Guide

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 9 ADA Complementary Paratransit In addition to the TD Program, ADA Complementary Paratransit (door-to-door) service is available to persons residing within ¾ mile of LakeXpress fixed routes who are unable, because of a disability, to use the fixed route system. Successful completion of an eligibility application is required to utilize these services and service is provided during the same days and hours as fixed route services. According to staff at the Lake County Public Transportation Department, ADA-funded trips make up an extremely small portion of overall paratransit trips. For the purposes of this analysis, ADA trips are included as part of the overall paratransit program.

Similar to the analysis for Lake County’s fixed route service, Table 2.2 presents a snapshot of recent and current operating characteristics and performance measures for Lake County Connection.

Table 2.2 - Operating Characteristics and Measures of Service Effectiveness/Efficiency, Lake County Connection 2010 – 2012

Operating Expense Service Effectiveness Service Efficiency 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 $3,857,296 $4,098,937 $4,492,618 Capital Expense Operating Expense/Pass. Mile Operating Expense per VRM $1,540,728 $217,224 $228,426 $1.01 $1.35 $1.65 $2.09 $2.41 $2.95 Farebox Revenues Operating Expense/Pass. Trip Operating Expense per VRH $134,137 $136,774 $185,298 $17.73 $21.37 $24.65 $34.36 $37.43 $44.12 Unlinked Passenger Trips Passengers Trips per VRM 217,582 191,767 182,240 0.12 0.11 Passenger Miles Passengers Trips per VRH 3,828,171 3,034,916 2,730,864 1.94 1.75 1.79 Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) 1,844,587 1,701,203 1,524,914 Vehicle Revenues Hour (VRH) 112,276 109,505 101,826

In addition, as part of the previously conducted Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) a trend analysis from FY 2005 through FY 2011was conducted to examine the performance of the Lake County CTC (Lake County Connection) over time. This trend analysis includes information for all TD transportation services coordinated through the CTC. However, it is important to recognize that MV Transportation Inc. is the major provider. The tables and figures provided throughout the trend analysis present selected performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures that are available from AOR's. Results from the trend analysis are provided in the following paragraphs.

2.2. Performance Measures Shown in Figure 2.1 are selected performance measures for the TD services provided by the CTC. Most of these measures show growth over the seven-year period from FY 2005 through FY 2011. Total annual passenger trips have decreased since FY 2005, resulting in an overall decrease of over seven percent (from 229,678 trips to 213,015 trips). Vehicle miles of service over the seven-year period have

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 10 increased by 51.10 percent and revenue miles over the seven-year period also showed an increase of 79.45 percent. CTC operating expenses have increased by 24.36 percent over the seven-year period and operating revenues have increased by 51.21 percent.

In addition, although vehicle fleet size has fluctuated significantly during the review timeframe, overall it decreased from 87 vehicles in FY2005 to 67 vehicles in FY 2011. This represents a 23 percent decrease over the seven-year period.

Figure 2.1 – Lake County Connection/Lake County CTC Selected Performance Measures, 2005-2011

Effectiveness Measures As stated previously, effectiveness measures indicate the extent to which various service-related goals are being achieved. In this analysis, the Lake County CTC was analyzed using six effectiveness measures. The results of the seven-year analysis period are contained in Table 2.3.

The last two effectiveness measures in Table 2.3 are measures of system safety and service reliability. Accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles logged have shown a decrease over the seven-year period.

Table 2.3 – Lake County CTC Trend Analysis – Effectiveness Measures

Percent Effectiveness Measures FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Change (2005-2011) Vehicle Miles per TD Capita 15.96 19.00 21.26 21.08 22.24 21.10 21.34 33.69% Vehicle Miles per Passenger Trip 7.54 8.34 9.75 9.53 9.57 11.24 12.28 62.86% Passenger Trips per TD Capita 2.17 2.09 2.18 2.21 2.32 1.88 1.74 -19.91% Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 -38.62% Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles 0.81 0.63 1.90 0.25 0.19 0.40 0.69 -14.81% Vehicle Miles betw een Roadcalls/Failures 247,236 26,762 25,403 20,339 34,147 17,279 26,685 -89.21%

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 11 Efficiency Measures The trend in system efficiency also was examined for the Lake County CTC. Efficiency measures involve reviewing the level of resources required to achieve a given level of output. Five efficiency measures are listed in Table 2.4.

The first two measures address operating expense efficiencies. Over the seven-year analysis period, operating expense per passenger trip increased by 34.07 percent and operating expense per vehicle mile decreased by 17.51 percent. The operating expense per driver hour increased by 10.71 percent for the same period.

The other two efficiency measures listed in Table 2.4 indicate the local non-government revenue ratio and the local government revenue ratio. Over the seven-year period, the local non-government revenue ratio, which is a ratio of farebox and other local non-government divided by total operating expenses, has increased since FY 2008. The local government revenue ratio, which is a ratio of local government revenues divided by total operating expenses, has continued to decrease since FY 2008.

Table 2.4 – Lake County CTC Trend Analysis – Efficiency Measures y Percent Efficiency Measures FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Change (2005-2011) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $16.38 $18.79 $22.76 $18.85 $21.35 $22.45 $21.96 34.07% Operating Expense Per Vehicle Mile $2.17 $2.25 $2.33 $1.98 $2.23 $2.00 $1.79 -17.51% Operating Expense Per Driver Hour $35.30 $42.00 $41.00 $26.73 $39.72 $42.08 $39.08 10.71% Local Non-Government Revenue Ratio 5.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 2.9% 4.4% -11.84% Local Government Revenue Ratio 39.9% 48.8% 43.1% 51.0% 37.0% 27.5% 24.2% -39.37%

Source: Annual Performance Reports from 2005-2011, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Note: Local Non-Government Revenues include Farebox, Medicaid Co-Pays Received, Donations, Contributions, In-Kind Services, and Other Non-Government Revenues Summary Results of Trend Analysis Trend analysis is only one widely used aspect of transit performance evaluation. Strengths and weaknesses of the Lake County CTC will be referred to periodically as other aspects of performance are considered in subsequent work activities and when recommendations are prepared for the TDP/TDSP. Table 2.5 provides a summary of the trend analysis indicating each performance measure, along with the percent change from 2005-2011.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 12 Table 2.5 – Lake CTC Trend Analysis Summary

Percent Change Performance Indicators/Measures (2005-2011)

Performance Measures Passenger Trips -7.25% Total Vehicle Miles 51.10% Total Revenue Miles 79.45% Operating Expense 24.36% Total Fleet Size -22.99%

Effectiveness Measures Vehicle Miles per TD Capita 33.69% Vehicle Miles per Passenger Trip 62.86% Passenger Trips per TD Capita -19.91% Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile -38.62% Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles -14.81% Vehicle Miles between Roadcalls -89.21%

Efficiency Measures Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip 34.07% Operating Expense Per Vehicle Mile -17.51% Operating Expense Per Driver Hour 10.71% Local Non-Government Revenue Ratio -11.84% Local Government Revenue Ratio -39.37%

2.3. CTC Peer Review Analysis A CTC peer review analysis was conducted comparing the performance of Lake County TD services with that of other CTC systems having similar operating characteristics. A peer group analysis serves two functions: first, it provides a comparison of how well Lake County CTC has performed relative to similar CTC systems within the state of Florida, and second, it helps to establish realistic performance standards for the evaluation process. The seven Florida peer CTC's included in the analysis are shown in Table 2.6. These seven systems were chosen in the previous Lake County TDP/TDSP because they were fairly similar to the Lake County CTC in terms of the following five key elements: demographic characteristics, system size (measured in terms of annual passenger trips provided), operating environment (urban or rural service area designation), organization type (transit agency, government, private non-profit, or private for-profit), and network type (sole provider, partial provider, or complete brokerage). Based on the assumption that the similarities in the five elements have not changed significantly over time, and based on discussions with Lake County staff, the same systems were used again. Table 2.6 also indicates which peers operate demand response, deviated fixed-route, and/or fixed-route services.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 13

Table 2.6 – Lake County CTC System Peers, FY 2011

Community Deviated Service Organization Demand Fixe d Transportation Fixe d Area Type Response Route Coordinator Route

Charlotte Charlotte County County Transit Department County Yes Yes N/A

Citrus County Citrus County Transit County Yes No N/A

Collier Collier County Board of County County Commissioners. County Yes No Yes

Indian River Senior Resource Private Non- County Association, Inc. Pr of it N/A N/A Yes

Marion Marion Senior Private Non- County Services, Inc. Pr of it Yes N/A N/A

Pasco Pasco County Public County Transportation County Yes N/A Yes

St. Lucie St. Lucie Board of County County Commissioners County Yes N/A Yes Source: 2011 Annual Performance Reports, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged The tables and graphs presented in this section summarize selected performance measures, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures for the CTC’s considered for this review. For each selected measure, the tabular analysis provides the Lake County CTC’s performance, the minimum value among the peer group, the maximum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent that Lake County CTC’s values are away from the mean value. The peer review was conducted for FY 2011, the most recent full fiscal year of data available to at the time of the analysis.

Each performance measure is depicted graphically on a bar chart, along with the peer group mean (the vertical line in each chart) to enhance the overall comparison. All performance statistics for the CTC peer group systems, were obtained from the CTD’s 2011 Annual Performance Report, which contains a compilation of the Annual Operating Reports submitted to the CTD for FY 2011 by each local CTC.

Performance Measures Table 2.7 and Figure 2.2 present information pertaining to the various performance measures that have been analyzed for the Lake County CTC and its peers. As discussed previously in the trend analysis section, performance measures provide general information related to overall system performance.

In comparison to the peer group, Lake County TD transit service provided 213,015 trips, which is approximately 18 percent below the mean number of trips for the peer group. In addition, the system has provided the second highest vehicle miles and revenue miles of service (71.98% and 93.592% above the peer group means, respectively) among the peers for this fiscal year. In keeping with its

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 14 comparatively larger system size, the Lake County CTC also had the fourth largest vehicle fleet in the group, with a total of 67 vehicles, although this fleet size is 12.70 percent lower than the FY 2011 peer group mean of 77 vehicles.

Data related to system total operating expenses and operating revenues also are also presented in Table 2.7. These data show that Lake County CTC operating expenses are the third highest in the group and 22.93 percent higher than the peer group mean for FY 2011. Total operating revenue for the Lake County CTC is the highest of the peer groups (77.31% percent), and ranks first overall among the peers.

Table 2.7 – CTC Peer Analysis Performance Measures

Peer Group Peer Group Peer Group Lake: % From Lake Performance Measures Minimum Maximum Mean Mean

Service Area Population 297,052 138,028 464,697 266,450 11.49% Potential TD Population 122,562 62,458 228,418 127,477 -3.86% Passenger Trips 213,015 72,641 509,440 261,921 -18.67% Vehicle Miles 2,615,090 502,587 2,712,827 1,520,536 71.98% Revenue Miles 2,302,415 463,000 2,302,415 1,189,320 93.59% Operating Expenses 4,677,740 1,542,309 4,966,980 3,600,100 29.93% Operating Revenues 5,647,622 1,543,966 5,647,622 3,185,094 77.31% Total Fleet 67 35 122 77 -12.70% Source: Annual Performance Reports, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Effectiveness Measures As stated previously in the trend analysis section, effectiveness measures indicate the extent to which various service-related goals are being achieved. Shown in Table 2.8 and Figure 2.3 are a variety of effectiveness measures for the Lake County CTC and its peer CTC’s.

On average, the Lake County CTC had the second highest ratio of vehicle miles of service to potential TD customers among the peer systems. The CTC traveled 68.95 percent more than the number of vehicle miles per TD capita as did the peers on average (11.39 miles per TD capita) in FY2011. The Lake County CTC has provided 15.37 percent less passenger trips per potential TD customer than the peer group mean. Nevertheless, the Lake County CTC ranks fourth in this particular effectiveness measure overall.

The average length of the trips (i.e., vehicle miles per passenger trip) provided by the Lake County CTC in FY 2010 was 12.28 miles, which is 83.50 percent more than the peer group mean of 6.69 miles. This represents the longest average trip length among the peers. The inverse effectiveness ratio, passenger trips per vehicle mile, gives a general indication of the passenger loading that is occurring for each mile of vehicle travel. In the case of this measure, the Lake County CTC performed significantly lower (i.e., 59.11% below) than the peer group average in FY 2011. Specifically, for Lake County, there are 0.08 passenger trips occurring per vehicle mile of service, while the peer group average was 0.23 passenger trips per vehicle mile in FY 2011.

The other two effectiveness measures listed in Table 2.8 compare the Lake County CTC to its peers in terms of system safety and service reliability. Comparatively, the Lake County CTC experienced a low accident rate (per 100,000 vehicle miles) among the peers in FY 2011. The Lake County CTC’s performance in this particular measure is highlighted by the system’s increased vehicle mileage FY 2011, which in turn increases overall accident exposure. In terms of reliability, the Lake County CTC logged

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 15 fewer vehicle miles between roadcalls of its CTC peers. In FY 2010, the CTC logged 26,685 vehicle miles between roadcalls. This rate is 60.51 percent below the peer group mean of 67,582 miles between roadcalls.

Figure 2.2 – CTC Peer Analysis Performance Measures

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 16

Table 2.8 – CTC Peer Analysis Effectiveness Measures

Peer Group Peer Group Peer Group Lake: % Effectiveness Measures Lake Minimum Maximum Mean Fr om M e an

Vehicle Miles per TD Capita 21.34 4.42 23.85 12.63 68.95% Vehicle Miles per Passenger Trip 12.28 2.89 12.28 6.69 83.50% Passenger Trips per TD Capita 1.74 1.16 3.74 2.05 -15.37% Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile 0.08 0.08 0.35 0.20 -59.11% Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles 0.69 0.15 0.93 0.48 43.75% Vehicle Miles betw een Roadcalls 26,685 26,685 161,975 67,582 -60.51% Figure 2.3 – CTC Peer Analysis Effectiveness Measures

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 17 Efficiency Measures The final area addressed in the CTC peer analysis concerns system efficiency. The efficiency measures that are reviewed are detailed in Table 2.9 and presented graphically in Figure 2.4.

The first three efficiency measures listed in Table 2.9 pertain to unit costs based on total operating expenses. In the case of the operating expense per passenger trip ratio, the Lake County CTC did not perform quite as well as the average of its peers in FY 2010. That is, Lake’s average cost per trip of $21.96 is 41.99 percent higher than the peer group mean of $15.47. This cost per trip figure also represents the second highest average value among the peers in FY 2010. Conversely, the data indicate that the Lake County CTC was cost efficient in terms of vehicle miles and driver hours compared to its peers for FY 2010. The CTC’s cost per mile of $1.79 in FY 2011 is 29.21 percent lower than the peer group mean for this measure. The cost per driver hour of $33.79 is 10.50 percent below the corresponding peer group mean.

Table 2.9 also presents the amount of local non-government revenue collected during FY 2010 from the CTC’s in comparison to total operating expense. Local non-government revenues can include farebox, Medicaid co-pays received, donations, contributions, in-kind services, as well as any other non- government revenues. The Lake County CTC’s ratio of local non-government revenue collected to total system costs (5%) is slightly lower than the peer group mean (6%) for FY 2011. Lake County had the third lowest local non-government revenue ratio among the peers in FY 2011. However, the Lake County CTC’s ratio of local government revenue collected to total system costs is nearly equal to that of the peer group mean in FY 2011. This signifies that Lake County is performing above average in terms of the total revenue contributed by local government sources (in comparison to its total operating expenses). This level of local government subsidy of the Lake County CTC makes up for the comparatively lower performance in terms of local non -government revenue generation. Table 2.9 – CTC Peer Analysis Efficiency Measures y Peer Group Peer Group Peer Group Lake: % Performance Measures Lake Minimum Maximum Mean Fr om M e an

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $ 21.96 $ 7.42 $ 23.02 $ 15.47 41.99% Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile $ 1.79 $ 1.75 $ 3.78 $ 2.53 -29.21% Operating Expense per Driver Hour $ 33.79 $ 24.12 $ 52.49 $ 37.75 -10.50% Local Non-Government Revenue Ratio 5% 1% 9% 6% -15.17% Local Government Revenue Ratio 24% 3% 51% 26% -6.71%

Note: Non-Government Revenue includes Farebox collections

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 18 Figure 2.4 – CTC Peer Analysis Efficiency Measures

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 19 3. Other Transportation Providers in Lake County There is one private-for-profit operator under contract with Lake County providing transportation services to the coordinated system, and 18coordination contractors. The area is also serviced by five other private operators and numerous taxi cabs.

Private for Profit Operator: M.V. Transportation Inc.

Coordination Contracts as of May, 2012 Barriner, Tia d.b.a. Circle of Life Assisted Care Gift of Love, Inc. Beacon College, Inc. Great Expectations, Inc. Bridgeway Services Green, Jennifer Brower, Joan Hanna House of Care Building Blocks Ministries Hines, Bobbie Bush Gardens Foster Home, LLC Kinsman Transportation, Inc. Caring Services from the Heart, Inc. Life Care Services Creative Concepts Learning Facility Love Thy Neighbor Count Your Blessings Bowers, Brien Odell d.b.a. New Seasons Agency Deaf2Deaf, Inc. Sunrise Arc, Inc. DOU Transportation, Inc. Tee Foundation, Inc. Earth Angels Care, LLC Wings of Love Florida Transcare, Inc. Other Private Operators: American Logistics Godoy Transportation GT Transportation Palmetto Transport & Logistic Sunshine Shuttle & Charter Inc.

Taxicabs A1 Taxi AAA Access Taxi of Clermont AAA Airport Taxi of Clermont AAA Yellow Cab of Clermont Ambassador Limousine & Airport Shuttle Central Taxi Central Taxi South Eco Green Airport Taxi Eustis Taxi Eutco Home Town Taxi & Delivery Service Kings 321 Zoom Taxi & Delivery Service Mr. Taxi #1 Cab Ronny’s Ride Tippy’s Taxi Tri-City Cab Yellow Cab City Inc.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 20

4. Public Transportation Funding in Lake County

4.1. Funding Sources for Operations and Capital The history of Lake County operating funding by source is shown in Table 4.1 beginning in 2007, the year in which LakeXpress fixed route service began. The 2012 budget is higher compared to the previous two years, and higher compared to 2007, but level compared with 2008 (without accounting for inflation). The distribution of funds by source is show in Table 4.2. Fare revenues account for only five percent of operating costs, up slightly from two percent in 2007. Since 2008, the local share of operating funds has declined from 44 percent to 20 percent and the state and federal shares have both increased. State funds are currently the largest source of Lake County Transit’s operating revenues, followed by federal and local funds.

Table 4.1 - Lake County Sources of Transit Operating Funds, 2007-2012

Sources of Operating 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Funds Fare Revenues $95,025 $165,572 $201,701 $238,347 $261,050 $292,337 Local Funds $0 $2,573,723 $2,249,013 $600,599 $1,247,273 $1,184,061 State Funds $0 $1,626,418 $1,869,881 $2,253,260 $2,159,865 $2,502,796 Federal Assistance $300,858 $1,425,136 $1,233,345 $2,245,783 $1,990,807 $1,912,164 Other Funds* $4,657,729 $110,330 $104,722 $139,911 $132,242 $19,228 Total $5,053,612 $5,901,179 $5,658,662 $5,477,900 $5,791,237 $5,910,586 *There is no information provided in the National Transit Database about the origin of these funds in 2007 Table 4.2 - Lake County Sources of Transit Operating Funds, 2007-2012, % Distribution

Sources of Operating 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Funds Fare Revenues 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% Local Funds 0% 44% 40% 11% 22% 20% State Funds 0% 28% 33% 41% 37% 42% Federal Assistance 6% 24% 22% 41% 34% 32% Other Funds 92% 2% 2% 3% 2% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Almost all of $7.5 million in capital invested in Lake County transit operations between 2007 and 2012 came from federal funds (see tables below). As is typical throughout the industry, capital funding has been much more uneven than operating funding.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 21 Table 4.3 - Lake County Sources of Transit Capital Funds, 2007-2012

Sources of Capital 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Funds Local Funds $0 $23,328 $57,031 $29,727 $21,722 $27,884 State Funds $0 $64,908 $62,245 $0 $0 $62,739 Federal Assistance $1,619,426 $609,288 $1,350,138 $1,824,754 $555,821 $1,014,041 Other Funds $186,921 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 Total $1,806,347 $697,524 $1,489,414 $1,854,481 $577,543 $1,104,664

Table 4.4 - Lake County Sources of Transit Capital Funds, 2007-2012, % Distribution

Sources of Capital 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Funds Local Funds 0% 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% State Funds 0% 9% 4% 0% 0% 6% Federal Assistance 90% 87% 91% 98% 96% 92% Other Funds 10% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4.2. National Peer Comparison As a supplement to the Florida peer analysis previously conducted, and to provide a national perspective, national peer agencies for Lake County were selected with the use of the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS). The default peer-selection parameters were used; the top five agencies were selected as national peers. Note that all of these agencies operated both demand-response and fixed route service, with the exception of Spartanburg and Wiregrass, which operate demand-response service only. Table 4.5 compares the sources of operating funding in Lake County and its peers. The share of operating costs paid for from passenger fares at Lake County is among the lowest of the peers, although the Alabama agency showed a similarly low percentage. The share paid by state operating assistance was among the highest, with the exception of Blue Water, Michigan and Redding, California. The latter was an outlier among the group, with 69 percent of operating assistance coming from state sources.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 22 Table 4.5 - National Peer Sources of Transit Operating Funds, 2007-2012, % Distribution

Lake County Spartanburg Blue Water Area Board of Eau Claire Redding Area County Wiregrass Transit Name Transportation County Transit Bus Authority Transportation Authority Commission Commissioners Services

City Tavares Eau Claire Port Huron Redding Spartanburg Dothan State FL WI MI CA SC AL Fares 5% 19% 30% 15% 32% 2% DG* 2% 1% 5% 2% 0% 29% Local 22% 22% 2% 0% 2% 7% State 37% 26% 39% 69% 7% 0% Federal 34% 32% 24% 14% 59% 62% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *Directly Generated, other than passenger fares Table 4.6 shows the distribution of capital funding sources for Lake County and its national peers. Two of the peers had received 100 percent federal funding for capital, similar to Lake County in 2011, while the other two both received more than 70 percent federal funding for capital during the same year. In 2011, Spartanburg did not receive any funding for capital. In general, the amount and sources of capital funding can vary significantly from year to year.

Table 4.6 - National Peer Sources of Transit Capital Funds, 2007-2012, % Distribution

Lake County Spartanburg Blue Water Area Board of Eau Claire Redding Area County Wiregrass Transit Name Transportation County Transit Bus Authority Transportation Authority Commission Commissioners Services

City Tavares Eau Claire Port Huron Redding Spartanburg Dothan State FL WI MI CA SC AL Fares 0% 0% 0% 0% n/a 0% DG* 4% 0% 0% 0% n/a 0% Local 0% 0% 18% 27% n/a 0% State 96% 100% 82% 73% n/a 100% Federal 100% 100% 100% 100% n/a 100% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *Directly Generated, other than passenger fares

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 23 5. Lake County Transportation Function

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners contracts with MV Transportation, Inc., a private, for-profit corporation, to provide both its public and TD transportation services. Day-to-day oversight of MV Transportation is the responsibility of the Lake County Public Transportation Division (LCPTD). An organizational chart of the Transportation Department and its function is provided below. At the time of this analysis, Lake County was preparing a request for proposals for contracted operation of transit service.

Figure 5.1 – Lake County Transportation Department Organizational Chart

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 24 6. Public Transportation Facilities

6.1. Maintenance Facilities All Lake County transit services use the maintenance facility on Griffin Avenue in Leesburg, owned directly by Lake County. The age and date of last renovation are unknown and staff reported that the facility is declining in condition and useful life. Much of the vehicle storage area is uncovered and unpaved. A new facility in Groveland is currently under construction. The new facility will include a 31,520 square foot building on 23.24 acres of land.

6.2. Park-and-Ride Locations There are three Park-and-Ride locations within Lake County, all of which are owned by FODT and two of which are currently in use. The Clermont Park-and-Ride, located near the intersection of US Highway 27 and Hook Street can accommodate 128 vehicles and is served by LYNX route 204 (Clermont Express) in the AM and PM peak periods. The Minneola Park-and-Ride, also located along US Highway 27, just south of Lake Minneola Shores, can hold 89 vehicles and is not currently served by any public transit routes. The Mascotte lot, located on North Sunset Avenue, is currently inactive. Please see Table 6.1 for specific facility characteristics.

Both the Clermont and Minneola lots are situated in southeast Lake County, near Orange along regional corridors, allowing users from various locations access to employment centers and major destinations throughout the county. A user survey of the Clermont Park-and-Ride facility conducted in 2013 by TranSystems found that 95 percent of users were from Lake County; 76 percent of the users were traveling to downtown Orlando; and 100 percent of the users were traveling for work purposes. In addition, 76 percent of users reported traveling from the lot to their destination via public transit.

Average daily ridership on Link 204 serving the Clermont Park-and-Ride facility is just over 300 trips.

Table 6.1 – Active FDOT Park-and-Ride Facilities in Lake County

Vehicle Location Dimension Sq. Feet Transit Connections Capacity Clermont 428' x 214' 91,592 128 LYNX Link 204 - AM/PM peak service Minneola 393' x 119' 46,767 89 None

Source: Lake County (2013)

6.3. Shelters In 2009, Lake County began an effort to evaluate bus stop site conditions and identify potential shelter locations throughout the County. As a result of that effort, 15 shelters have been installed throughout Eustis, Tavares, Leesburg, Mount Dora, Umatilla, and Fruitland Park. The shelters are either 4x8 or 4x12 and manufactured by Brasco. The Lake County Department of Community Services, Public Transportation Division recently had installed the first 12 of 27 bus shelters for LakeXpress as part of the County’s Bus Shelter Program. The prototype shelter was installed outside of the Lake County Administration Building, 315 W. Main St., Tavares, which is one of the highest volume bus stops for LakeXpress.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 25

The shelters, manufactured by Brasco International, Inc., were purchased using grant funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Mark Cook Builders, Inc., a local commercial and industrial contracting company, is installing the shelters.

Some of the features of the pre-fabricated shelters include easy accessibility for persons with disabilities, solar powered lights, built-in trash cans and benches, and space on the interior to display a route map.

Table 6.2 presents an inventory of current shelter locations and characteristics, organized by jurisdiction.

Table 6.2 – LakeXpress Bus Shelter Inventory

Lake County Shelter Description / Location Jurisdiction Site Number Size 2 Eustis Public Library Eustis 4x8 Tall Pines Apartments Wall Street West Side Of 3 Eustis 4x8 Road 4 Lake Tech Eustis 4x12 13 Fruitland Park Public Library Dixie Ave Fruitland Park 4x8 12 Lady Lake Public Library Lady Lake 4x8 22 North Lake Community Park Lake County 4x8 25 Lake Sumter Community College Leesburg 4x12 15 Leesburg Regional Medical Cntr Leesburg 4x8 26 WalMart - Leesburg Mlk Blvd Leesburg 4x8 28 Intersection Of Lincoln & Grandview Mount Dora 4x8 5 5th Ave East Side Of Suntrust Driveway Mount Dora 4x8 9 Florida Hospital Waterman Tavares 4x8 17 County Admin Blgd East Bound Tavares 4x8 21 Lake County Health Department CR 450 Umatilla 4x8 20 Umatilla Public Library Umatilla 4x8

Source: Lake County (2013)

6.4. Transit Vehicles Inventory Lake County’s current vehicle inventory for public transportation includes 80 county-owned vehicles and no contractor-owned vehicles. As of the 2008 contract with MV Transportation, the County assumed ownership of previously-owned contractor vehicles used in the operation of LakeXpress and Lake County Connection services. The 13 standard buses that comprise the fixed route inventory can each accommodate two non-ambulatory passengers and between 18 – 29 ambulatory passengers. The paratransit fleet provides a wider range of seating, from 2/2 cutaway vans to up to 18/4 cutaway buses. With the exception of eight sedans, all vehicles used in transit services are accessible to mobility devices, with lifts manufactured by Braun, Lift U, or Ricon.

The current fleet was procured using a combination of funds from the Lake County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), FDOT, FTA, and ARRA (FDOT and FTA). Table 6.3 below provides a detailed breakdown of vehicle funding

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 26 sources and that funding sources share of the total fleet. Typically, federal funds require an 80/20 local match.

Table 6.3 – Vehicle Funding Source Breakdown

Source Number % Share

Board of County Commissioners 1 1.25% Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 5 6.25% FDOT 37 46.25% FDOT ARRA 14 17.50% FTA 21 26.25% FTA ARRA 2 2.50% Total: 80

Source: Lake County (2013) Average annual mileage on both fixed route and paratransit vehicles is just over 30,000 miles. As demonstrated by the detailed inventory table contained in Appendix B, the oldest vehicles in the fleet are model year 2003. According to expected retirement dates, almost 30 percent of vehicles have exceeded their useful lives.

6.5. On-Board Technology All 13 fixed route vehicles have been equipped with Automatic Annunciation Systems (AAS), Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs), Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVLs), and security cameras. The County is currently working with their routing software provider, RouteMatch, to link their scheduling system to the APCs.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 27 7. Adjacent Area Providers

Ocala/Marion County Public Transportation System (SunTran and Marion Transit Services) SunTran

Marion County operates the transit agency “SunTran” through a cooperative effort of the Ocala/Marion County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), Marion County, the City of Ocala, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Federal Transportation Administration. 3 SunTran operates Monday through Saturday from approximately 5 AM until 8 PM, serving the City of Ocala and the Silver Springs Shores area. SunTran does not operate bus service on Sundays and certain holidays. A total of six fixed routes operate on headways between 60 and 140 minutes, providing over 400,000 trips per year.

The #1 Green, #2 Blue, #3 Purple, #4 Orange, #5 Red, and #6 Yellow (A&B) serve a variety of important destinations throughout the Ocala area, including Wal-Mart, Booster Stadium, the One-Stop Center, MT High School, YMCA, City Hall, Marion County Department of Health, and the Downtown Transfer Station. The regular, general public one-way fare is $1.50 and discounted fares are offered for students, seniors, persons with disabilities, and Medicaid card holders (ranging from $0.75 to $1.10).

Currently, there are no available transfer points between SunTran and LakeXpress service. SunTran’s system-wide route map is provided as Figure 7.1.

Marion Transit Services

Paratransit services in Marion County are provided by Marion Senior Services under the name Marion Transit Services. TD transportation is available Monday through Friday from 9 AM until 2 PM, unless special arrangements are made (primarily for dialysis patients) and ADA service is available during the same days and hours as fixed route. Like other TD services, transportation is provided according to a needs schedule, as follows: Medical, life sustaining activities, education, employment, business, and recreational. Fares vary from $1 to $5 one-way, depending on location and eligibility for service.

3 http://www.ocalafl.org/tpo/TPO.aspx?id=681

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 28 Figure 7.1 – SunTran Fixed Route System Map

The Central Florida Regional Transit Authority (LYNX) The Central Florida Regional Transit Authority, operating as LYNX, is the Orlando area’s largest provider of public transportation service, operating 81 fixed routes, ADA complementary paratransit, on-demand flexible services, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), commuter service, vanpool, roadside assistance, and university transit, over approximately 2,500 square miles of service area. In FY2012, LYNX’s systemwide ridership was just under 30 million passenger trips. LYNX’s primary fixed route service area encompasses Orange, Seminole, and Osceola counties.

Lake County contracts with the LYNX transit system to provide residents additional transportation alternatives and connectivity to neighboring areas. Direct service to Downtown Orlando via the Clermont Express (Link 204), a limited stop express bus route, is a popular option for Lake County transit users. This route departs from the Clermont Park-and-Ride lot and travels due east to downtown Orlando with a terminus at LYNX Central Station. The Clermont Express runs during the weekday AM and PM peak periods, operating on 30-minute headways. Currently, there is no connecting LakeXpress route serving the Clermont Park-and-Ride facility.

LakeXpress Route 4 connects to LYNX Link 44 at the Anthony House stop, in Zellwood (Orange County). Link 44 extends into the far northwestern limits of the LYNX system, with Monday through Saturday service to Zellwood. Service is operated on hourly headways between approximately 5:30 AM and 9 PM and LakeXpress riders with a valid pass may transfer for free between systems.

The Four Corners community located in the far southeastern corner of Lake County and so named because it sits at the juncture of Lake, Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties is served by two LYNX routes: Link 55 and Link 427. Link 55 provides half-hour service along U.S. Highway 192 between the Four Corners Wal-Mart and Osceola Square Mall, seven days per week, from approximately 6 AM to 10 PM.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 29 Link 427 is a limited stop service running north-south between Four Corners and Haines City, in Polk County. Monday through Friday, hourly service operates between 5:48 AM and 7:39 PM. On Saturdays, there are two northbound trips in the AM period and two in the PM period. There are three AM trips southbound, with the final southbound trip departing Four Corners at 1:48 PM. There is no Sunday service.

LYNX fares vary greatly depending on the type of service utilized. The regular, general public fare for a one-way ride on the fixed route system is $2. Figure 7.2 – Select LYNX Routes Sumter County Transit The Sumter County Board of County Commissioners serves as the designated CTC for nearby Sumter County, providing both door-to-door Paratransit and deviated shuttle service Monday through Friday, in Sumter County and The Villages area of Lake County. Transit service is provided by a contractor, Ride Right, LLC. During FY2010, Sumter County Transit provided 95,980 passenger trips with its fleet of 52 vehicles.

Door-to-door paratransit is available Monday through Friday, from 8 AM until 3 PM and operates on a priority trip basis; medical, employment, nutritional and educational needs trips are given the highest priority. Trip appointment scheduling is encouraged three days in advance to ensure driver and vehicle availability. Paratransit trips that begin and end within Sumter County are $1.50 each way. Out-of- county paratransit trips are available for medical purposes, only, and return trips must be scheduled to depart no later than 2 PM, Monday through Friday. Trips to Leesburg (Lake County) are $2 each way and trips to Gainesville (Alachua County) are $8 one-way.

Sumter County Transit also operates five deviated, fixed route shuttles: the Orange Shuttle, Villages Shuttles (Green, Purple, and Blue), and the Wildwood Circulator (Figure 7.3). The shuttles operate on a fixed route schedule, but will deviate up to ¾ mile off the alignment with an advanced reservation.

The Orange Shuttle operates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, in the communities of Center Hill, Webster, Sumterville, and Bushnell. There is a morning run departing Center Hill at 7:45 AM and returning at 11:20 AM and an afternoon run, departing at noon and returning at 3:30 PM.

The Villages Shuttles, referred to as the Shopper Shuttles in Figure 7.3, are comprised of three, color- coded shuttle routes with The Villages community, operating at various times throughout the day Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. The Green route serves the northern portion of The

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 30 Villages, the Blue route serves the southern portion of The Villages, and the Purple route provides a connection between north and south. Riders can transfer from the Green Route to LakeXpress Route 1 at Spanish Springs Station.

Finally, the Wildwood Circulator operates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday between the Villages Service Center and Publix at Southern Trace with a single northbound trip in the morning, departing at 9 AM, and a southbound trip in the afternoon, departing at 12:25 PM.

Shuttle fares are $0.50 for the regular, general public fare and $1 to deviate off the route. Senior citizens ride at half-fare prices: $0.25 for the regular route and $0.50 to deviate.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 31 Figure 7.3 – Sumter County Flex Routes

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 32 Volusia County (Votran) Based in South Daytona, Volusia County’s public transit system is known as Votran. Votran directly operates a combination of fixed routes, flexible services, paratransit, and Vanpools. Paratransit services are also provided under contract to Votran and by area taxis (discussed below). Votran provides service to all urban areas of the County with a fleet of 134 vehicles, four of which are trackless-trolley vehicles.4 56 peak-period vehicles provide half-hour to hourly service on 26 fixed routes (Figure 7.4). Standard service operates Monday through Saturday, from 6 AM until 7 PM with limited evening and Sunday service. The regular one-way fare for fixed route service is $1.25. During FY2011, Votran provided just over 3.5 million fixed route trips.

Votran’s demand response paratransit is known as Gold Service and is available to eligible TD and ADA certified persons residing in Volusia County. Votran both directly operates and contracts out its paratransit function, including the use of taxis. Paratransit service is available Monday through Saturday from 6 AM until 6 PM and the one-way fare is $2.50. Almost 300,000 demand response trips were provided during FY2011.5

Figure 7.4 – Votran Fixed Route System Map

4 http://www.votran.org/benefits.htm 5 National Transit Database 2011

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 33 8. Public Survey In 2012 a survey was created to evaluate the perception of transit services in Lake County. Surveys were distributed at public events by the Lake~Sumter MPO staff and Sumter County Transit and were collected online from beginning in February 2012. The full survey instrument along with the number of responses to each question can be found in Appendix C.

Current riders which asked which of the LakeXpress routes they rode; they answer distribution was fairly How would you rate your bus similar. Of those surveyed, 18 percent used Route 1; 27 service? percent used Route 2; 29 percent used Route 3; and 26 percent used Route 4. 14% Average Over 80 percent of those surveyed rated the Good LakeXpress bus service as good (30%) or very good Very (54%). Good 30% Poor 54% Very Good The most popular reason cited for using LakeXpress was to travel to school or college (40%) and for Table 24: How would2% you rate your bus service? shopping/errands (25%). Approximately 41 percent of respondents indicated that they traveled less than one Figure 8.1 – Rate the LakeXpress Bus Service block to get to their bus route and around 23 percent walked up to two blocks.

Wheelchair lifts were not heavily utilized by participants as most of those surveyed (89%) did not use the wheelchair lift to board the bus.

The bus system is utilized on a regular basis. The largest average number of trips per person, per week How many trips do you make (36%) was 3-5 trips. Around 71 percent of participants per week on LakeXpress? did not have other travel options besides the bus for travel, indicating that they are dependent on public 2% 1-2 Trips transit. The most important reasons participants chose to ride the bus was that they do not have a car available 3-5 Trips (38%) or that they did not drive (24%). 21% 22%

A majority of those surveyed (68%) have been using 5-7 Trips LakeXpress for more than six months. 19% 36% Overwhelmingly, (85%) of participants beileve there is a More than 7 need for additional transit service in Lake County. Of Trips those who indicated there should be additional transit No Response service, around 55 percent indicated they would like to see weekend service added.

Respondents said that information about LakeXpress Figure 8.2 – Number of LakeXpress Trips per Week was most commonly collected from the LakeXpress bus schedule (33%) or from LakeXpress bus drivers (21%).

Demographic information indicated the common age range for participants (28%) was 40 – 49 years old and that most participants (46%) made less than $10,000 in 2012.

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 34 9. Appendices

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Page 35

Appendix A: 2012 LakeXpress Ridership by Route and Month

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Appendix

October November December January February March April May June July August September LakeXpress Route 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Route 1: Lady Lake/Eustis via US441 11,049 11,850 12,683 9,678 10,715 13,334 9,492 9,992 13,321 8,491 10,177 12,773 8,908 10,509 12,823 9,930 11,453 14,444 12,122 11,437 13,458 10,159 11,507 13,670 11,453 12,208 12,837 12,313 10,626 13,899 14,073 13,282 16,010 11,291 12,391 12,621

Route 2: City of Leesburg 3,556 3,650 4,448 3,311 3,613 4,598 3,630 3,811 4,400 2,988 3,896 4,329 3,066 3,910 4,409 3,477 3,854 4,903 4,794 3,576 4,658 3,260 3,898 4,416 3,690 4,035 4,133 4,297 3,670 4,572 5,136 4,586 5,735 3,851 4,180 4,509

Route 3: City of Mount Dora 3,153 3,647 3,733 2,643 3,090 3,935 2,485 2,844 3,723 2,244 2,815 3,509 2,318 2,983 3,310 2,689 3,516 3,893 2,751 3,301 3,577 2,215 3,345 3,754 2,930 3,646 3,475 3,030 3,351 3,724 3,758 4,075 4,185 3,369 3,875 3,243

Route 4: Altoona to Zellwood 1,493 3,047 3,076 1,477 2,806 3,043 1,607 2,816 3,063 1,629 2,749 2,856 1,743 2,567 2,928 1,996 2,952 3,197 2,312 2,482 2,827 2,096 2,829 3,126 2,585 3,375 2,846 2,793 2,708 3,168 2,921 3,158 3,312 2,542 2,918 2,483

LakeXpress Total: 19,251 22,194 23,940 17,109 20,224 24,910 17,214 19,463 24,507 15,352 19,637 23,467 16,035 19,969 23,470 18,092 21,775 26,437 21,979 20,796 24,520 17,730 21,579 24,966 20,658 23,264 23,291 22,433 20,355 25,363 25,888 25,101 29,242 21,053 23,364 22,856 Appendix B: Lake County Vehicle Inventory

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Appendix

County Ramp Average Expected Model Seats + Current Funding Make/Size/Type Property VIN Number Manu- Miles per Retirement Service Year W/C Mileage Source Number factuer Year Date 2003 Ford 22' Cutaway 21935 93519-1FTSS34L73HA11429 Braun 2 + 2 18,053 180,531 2008 FDOT PT 2003 Ford 22' Cutaway 21934 93520-1FTSS34L53HA11428 Braun 2 + 2 19,978 199,780 2008 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23217 90505-2G1WF52E559357162 N/A 4 + 0 13,192 105,537 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23219 90506-2G1WF52EX59362101 N/A 4 + 0 14,750 118,001 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23220 90507-2G1WF52E159358096 N/A 4 + 0 15,413 123,301 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy 20' Champion 26042 1GBJG31U451197652 Braun 8 + 2 17,714 141,709 2010 BCC PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23216 90504-2G1WF52E959356628 N/A 4 + 0 17,773 142,186 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23222 90509-2G1WF52E659357252 N/A 4 + 0 19,632 157,054 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23221 90508-2G1WF52E859360279 N/A 4 + 0 20,941 167,527 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23215 90503-2G1WF52E759356479 N/A 4 + 0 22,525 180,203 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Ford 22' Cutaway 23122 93575-1FDWE35L44HA33991 Ricon 9 + 2 33,995 271,960 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Ford 18' Van 23483 90518-1FDWE35L75HB24822 Braun 6 + 2 34,713 277,700 2010 FDOT PT 2005 Ford 22' Cutaway 23104 93574-1FDWE35F43HB88114 Braun 9 + 2 39,627 317,019 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Chevy Impala Sedan 23223 90510-2G1WF52E559360143 N/A 4 + 0 22,878 183,021 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Ford 18' Van 23479 90514- FDWE35LO5HB24824 Braun 6 + 2 34,566 276,528 2010 FDOT PT

2005 Ford 18' Van 23482 90517-1FDWE35L75HB24822 Braun 6 + 2 35,306 282,446 2010 FDOT PT

2006 Int'l 31' Cutaway 24890 90564-1HVBTAFM36W325192 Lift U 24 + 2 20,208 141,454 2013 FDOT FR

2006 Bluebird 30' Ultra LF 24798 1BAGEBPA16W100487 Ricon 18 + 2 28,502 199,511 2013 FTA FR

2006 Bluebird 30' Ultra LF 24795 1BAGEBPAX6W100486 Ricon 18 + 2 30,255 211,785 2013 FTA FR

2006 Bluebird 30' Ultra LF 24794 1BAGEBPA66W100484 Ricon 18 + 2 30,811 215,675 2013 FTA FR

2006 Bluebird 30' Ultra LF 24793 1BAGEBPA96W100477 Ricon 18 + 2 30,996 216,969 2013 FTA FR

2006 Bluebird 30' Ultra LF 24797 1BAGEBPA86W100485 Ricon 18 + 2 34,566 241,960 2013 FTA FR

2006 Chevy 23' Turtle 24363 90539-1FDWE35LO5HB24824 Braun 6 + 2 22,147 155,028 2011 FDOT PT

2007 Chevy 25' Cutaway 24831 90561-1GBE4V1267F404682 Ricon 6 + 2 24,623 147,738 2012 FDOT PT

2007 Chevy 23' Cutaway 25004 90571-1GBE4V1927F424487 Braun 12 + 2 24,799 148,792 2012 FDOT PT County Ramp Average Expected Model Seats + Current Funding Make/Size/Type Property VIN Number Manu- Miles per Retirement Service Year W/C Mileage Source Number factuer Year Date

2007 Chevy 23' Cutaway 25002 90572-1GBE4V1947F424510 Braun 12 + 2 25,776 154,653 2012 FDOT PT

2007 Chevy 23' Cutaway 25003 90573-1GBE4V1917F424755 Braun 12 + 2 26,477 158,859 2012 FDOT PT

2007 Chevy 23' Cutaway 24577 1GBE4V12X7F404247 Braun 12 + 2 34,732 208,394 2012 CTD PT

2007 Chevy 23' Cutaway 24896 1GBE4V1267F404262 Braun 12 + 2 38,199 229,191 2012 CTD PT

2008 Int'l 29' Cutaway 25411 90589-1HVBTAFM27W384901 Lift U 18 + 2 14,257 71,285 2015 FDOT FR

2008 Eldorado 29' EZ Rider II 25734 1N9MNAC688C084085 Lift U 29 + 2 38,679 193,394 2015 FTA FR

2008 Chevy 26' Cutaway 25445 1GBE4V1G27F424505 Ricon 16 + 2 28,109 140,545 2013 CTD PT

2008 Chevy 21' General 25799 1GBJG31K781153938 Ricon 9 + 2 34,268 171,339 2013 FTA PT

2008 Chevy 21' General 25798 1GBJG31K381153838 Ricon 9 + 2 34,876 174,382 2013 FTA PT

2009 Eldorado 30' EZ Rider II 25956 1N9MNAC679C084225 Lift U 29 + 2 36,854 147,415 2016 FTA FR

2009 Eldorado 30' EZ Rider II 25957 1N9MNAC659C084224 Lift U 29 + 2 43,552 174,208 2016 FTA FR

2009 Chevy 25' Cutaway 26025 91536-1GBE4V1GX9F412184 Braun 12 + 2 25,220 100,880 2014 FDOT PT

2009 Chevy 25' Cutaway 25992 1GBE4V1G69F409735 Braun 12 + 2 29,806 119,223 2014 CTD PT

2009 Chevy 25' Cutaway 26024 91535-1GBE4V1G49F412245 Braun 12 + 2 33,763 135,050 2014 FDOT PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25895 1GBJG31K281232563 Ricon 9 + 2 36,198 144,790 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25892 1GBJG31K781234079 Ricon 9 + 2 37,233 148,930 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25897 1GBJG31K781234504 Ricon 9 + 2 37,724 150,896 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25812 91506-1GBJG31K181233249 Ricon 9 + 2 39,766 159,062 2014 FDOT PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25894 1GBJG31K381233107 Ricon 9 + 2 40,198 160,792 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25951 1GBJG31K391129797 Ricon 9 + 2 40,383 161,530 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25898 1GBJB31K881234317 Ricon 9 + 2 40,771 163,084 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25825 91507-1GBJG31K181232294 Ricon 9 + 2 42,654 170,614 2014 FDOT PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25896 1GBJG31K781234261 Ricon 9 + 2 43,057 172,227 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25893 1GBJG31KX81231872 Ricon 9 + 2 43,443 173,773 2014 FTA PT

2009 Chevy 21' General 25813 91505-1GBJG31K081231122 Ricon 9 + 2 48,515 194,060 2014 FDOT PT County Ramp Average Expected Model Seats + Current Funding Make/Size/Type Property VIN Number Manu- Miles per Retirement Service Year W/C Mileage Source Number factuer Year Date

2010 Eldorado 31' EZ Rider II 26118 1N9MNACL6AC84100 Lift U 29 + 2 55,326 165,978 2017 FTA FR

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26120 80505-1GBE4V1G99F412175 Braun 18 + 2 24,968 74,905 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 23' Champion 26247 91547-1GB9G5AGXA1116835 Braun 12 + 2 29,106 87,318 2015 FDOT PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26117 80508-1GBE4V1G99F412192 Braun 18 + 2 30,645 91,934 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26123 80519-1GBE4V1G99F413133 Braun 18 + 2 30,788 92,363 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Challenger 26124 91545-1GBE4V1909F413118 Braun 16 + 2 31,247 93,742 2015 FDOT PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26116 80510-1GBE4V1G89F413110 Braun 18 + 2 31,495 94,485 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26121 80509-1GBE4V1G49F412283 Braun 18 + 2 31,651 94,952 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26119 80512-1GBE4V1G39F413094 Braun 18 + 2 31,845 95,535 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 23' Champion 26248 91548-1GB9G5AG7A1116355 Braun 12 + 2 32,146 96,439 2015 FDOT PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26122 80518-1GBE4V1G19F412249 Braun 18 + 2 33,057 99,172 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26111 80502-1GBE4V1G09F412257 Braun 18 + 2 33,359 100,076 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26095 80501-1GBE4V1G49F412228 Braun 18 + 2 33,998 101,994 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26112 80511-1GBE4V1G19F413059 Braun 18 + 2 35,920 107,761 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Challenger 26130 91546-1GBE4V1G79F413082 Braun 16 + 2 35,929 107,788 2015 FDOT PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26110 80504-1GBE4V1G79F412188 Braun 18 + 2 36,183 108,548 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26115 80506-1GBE4V1GX9F412265 Braun 18 + 2 38,044 114,131 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26113 80507-1GBE4V1G19F412199 Braun 18 + 2 38,710 116,130 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2010 Chevy 26' Champion 26114 80503-1GBE4V1G29F412180 Braun 18 + 2 42,573 127,719 2015 FDOT ARRA PT

2011 Eldorado 31' EZ Rider II 26363 1N9MNAC63BC084048 Lift U 29 + 2 44,833 89,665 2018 FTA FR

2011 Chevy 26' Cutaway 26481 91569-1GB6G5BG7B1143830 Braun 18 + 4 23,226 46,452 2016 FDOT PT

2011 Chevy 26' Cutaway 26480 91568-1GB6G5BG7B1143830 Braun 18 + 4 26,594 53,188 2016 FDOT PT

2011 Chevy 26' Cutaway 26479 91567-1GB6G5BG7B1143830 Braun 18 + 4 29,785 59,570 2016 FDOT PT

2011 Chevy 23' Champion 26322 1GB9G5AG5A1126530 Braun 14 + 2 39,029 78,057 2016 FTA ARRA PT

2011 Chevy 23' Champion 26321 1GB9G5AG3A1129930 Braun 14 + 2 40,859 81,718 2016 FTA ARRA PT County Ramp Average Expected Model Seats + Current Funding Make/Size/Type Property VIN Number Manu- Miles per Retirement Service Year W/C Mileage Source Number factuer Year Date

2012 Eldorado 31' EZ Rider II 26550 1N9MNAC61CC084101 Lift U 29 + 2 32,894 32,894 2019 FTA FR

2012 Ford 23' Cutaway 26627 91593-1FDFE4FL2CDA82412 Braun 14 + 4 13,659 13,659 2017 FDOT PT

2012 Ford 23' Cutaway 26625 1FDFE4FL2CDA82410 Braun 14 + 2 15,926 15,926 2017 CTD PT

2012 Ford 23' Cutaway 26628 91595-1FDFE4FL2CDA82413 Braun 14 + 4 17,172 17,172 2017 FDOT PT

2012 Ford 23' Cutaway 26626 91594-1FDFE4FL2CDA82411 Braun 14 + 4 20,877 20,877 2017 FDOT PT

As of November 30, 2012 Appendix C: Survey Instrument and Responses

Lake County Transit Development Plan 2013 Major Update Existing Conditions Appendix

Name:

Organization (if applicable):

Title (if applicable):

Street Address:

City, town, or village and zip code:

Phone: E-mail:

` Which of the following best describes your organization? I am an individual responding to the survey on my own behalf (skip to question 9) Municipal Government County Government Private, Non-Profit Human Service Agency Private, Non-Profit Transportation Company Private, For-Profit Transportation Company Federal or State Human Service Agency Other (please specify): ______

Agency Services

1. Please provide a brief description of the programs your agency provides

2. Please provide a description of your clientele and their specific transportation needs

3. Please note the major origins (where they started trips) and destinations (where they’re going) for your clients (on their going trips), including the facility or site name and address (street address, city/town and zip code) of each destination

Origin/ Destination 1. 2. 3. 4. 4. Does your organization provide (i.e. purchase, operate, or arrange for) passenger transportation services of any type? No Yes 5. Does lack of transportation keep people from participating in your agency’s or company’s programs, activities, or services?

Yes, frequently Sometimes Never Don’t know

6. Please describe any unmet transportation demand (days/hours during which transportation service is not available, etc.)

7. If expanded or improved transportation services would benefit your agency, clients, customers, or other people in and around the area you serve, please describe the benefits below. Be as specific as possible about geographic areas where better transportation is needed, times of the day when transportation is needed, problems with transportation costs or service quality, etc.

8. If your clients do not use public transportation, please comment on the reasons why (limited hours and days of service/ quality of service/ availability, etc.).

Thank you for completing this survey 9. Which of these services do you currently use for transportation? Please check all that apply.

Personal motor vehicle

Golf cart

LakeXpress fixed route buses

Lake County Connection paratransit

Sumter County Transit shuttle

Taxi

Carpool

Ride with Friends or Relatives

Walk/Bike

Currently, I have no reliable method of transportation

Other (Please specify): ______

10. (If applicable) I don’t use public transportation for the following reasons (please check all that apply):

I don’t have to

It’s too expensive

It takes too long to reach my final destination

The bus does not go where I want or need to go

The bus does not operate at the time I want to travel

There is no bus stop close to where I want to start my trip

Using public transportation is a hassle

I don’t understand the bus schedule

I don’t want people to know that I use public transportation

I need assistance when traveling

The bus is not reliable

11. Has lack of transportation options prevented you from doing any of the following? Please check all that apply.

Shopping or personal errands

Medical trips

Education

Employment

Taking kids to daycare/ school and then continuing to my workplace

Agency services

Recreation

Lack of transportation is not a problem for me

12. Are there any specific places within or near Lake or Sumter counties that you would like to travel to that you cannot currently, due to lack of transportation options? Please describe those destinations:

13. Are there any days or hours that you would like to travel that you cannot currently, due to lack of transportation options?

14. Please use the comment field below for any additional information you wish to provide to the Lake~Sumter MPO (the lead agency in transportation planning for Lake and Sumter counties)

Thank you for completing this survey

Survey Question Results: What LakeXpress route or routes are How would you rate your bus What is the main purpose of you currently using? service? your trips on LakeXpress? # Response # Response # Response 17 Route 1 (US441- Lady Lake to Eustis) 13 Average 30 Work 26 Route 2 (Leesburg Circulator) 29 Good 66 No Response 28 Route 3 (Mount Dora Circulator) 2 Poor 18 School/College 25 Route 4 (Altoona/Zellwood) 52 Very Good 44 Shopping/Errands 27 Medical 12 Recreation/Visiting 1 Dr. Appointment 8 Other Do you use the wheelchair lift to How many trips do you make How do you usually get to the Bus? board the Bus? per week on LakeXpress? # Response # Response # Response 3 Bicycle 85 No 21 1-2 Trips 3 Get dropped off 6 Yes 35 3-5 Trips 21 Walk 1 to 2 blocks 5 No Response 18 5-7 Trips 12 Walk 2 to 5 blocks 20 More than 7 Trips 37 Walk less than 1 block 2 No Response 10 Walk more than 5 blocks 4 Other 1 WheelChair Do you have other travel options if not What is the most important How long have you been using using the bus? reason you ride the Bus? LakeXpress? # Response # Response # Response 68 No 15 Bus is economical 12 3-6 months 23 Yes 37 Car is not available 16 Less than 3 months 5 No response 23 I don't drive 65 Longer than 6 months 20 I don't have a Driver's License 3 No Response 1 No Response If you answered yes to question 10 above, what type of service Do you think there is need for additional How do you usually get improvement would you most transit service in Lake County? information about LakeXpress? like to see. Please check only one. # Response # Response # Response 12 No 3 Evening service 22 Bus Driver 82 Yes 29 More frequent service 18 Call LakeXpress Office 2 No Response 3 More routes/service 34 LakeXpress Bus Schedule 44 Weekend service 4 LakeXpress Website 17 No Response 1 Newspaper 1 Television 3 Notices on Buses 6 No Response 6 Other 1 Friends What was your range of total What is your age? household income for 2012? # Response # Response 15 16 to 24 25 $10,000 to $19,999 25 25-39 11 $20,000 to $29,999 27 40-59 6 $30,000 to $39,999 25 60 or older 4 $40,000 to $49,999 4 No Response 1 $50,000 or greater 44 Less than $10,000 5 No Response