Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) Transit Development Plan
2018 - 2027 Major Update
Final Report September 2017
Prepared for
Prepared by
HART | TDP i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ...... 1-1 Objectives of the Plan ...... 1-1 State Requirements ...... 1-2 TDP Checklist ...... 1-2 Organization of the Report ...... 1-4 Section 2: Baseline Conditions ...... 2-1 Study Area Description ...... 2-1 Population Trends and Characteristics ...... 2-3 Journey-to-Work Characteristics ...... 2-7 Labor Force and Employment ...... 2-7 Major Activity Centers and Employers ...... 2-9 Development Trends ...... 2-13 Tourist and Visitor Levels ...... 2-13 Roadway and Traffic Conditions ...... 2-14 Air Quality ...... 2-16 Transportation Disadvantaged Populations ...... 2-17 Land Use ...... 2-24 Implications – Baseline Conditions ...... 2-30 Section 3: Transit Accessibility and Travel Patterns ...... 3-1 Transit Accessibility with Existing HART Network ...... 3-1 HART Bus Rider Profile and Travel Patterns ...... 3-9 Regional Commuting Patterns ...... 3-16 Implications – Transit Accessibility and Travel Patterns ...... 3-18 Section 4: Existing Transit Services ...... 4-1 Review of Existing Services ...... 4-1 Implications – Potential Service Gaps and Latent Demand ...... 4-12 HART’s Use of Technology ...... 4-13 Implications – Use of Technology ...... 4-15 Section 5: HART Performance Review ...... 5-1 Six-Year Performance Trends ...... 5-1 Key Performance Indicators ...... 5-5 Quality of Service Trend ...... 5-9
HART | TDP ii
Implications – HART Performance Review ...... 5-12 Peer System Review...... 5-12 Implications – Peer Analysis ...... 5-25 Section 6: TDP Public Outreach Summary ...... 6-1 Input from Recent Outreach Efforts ...... 6-1 TDP Public Involvement Activities ...... 6-3 TDP Public Involvement Summary ...... 6-3 Bus On-Board Survey ...... 6-4 Phase II Public Workshops ...... 6-10 Phase III Public Workshops...... 6-16 Phase II Public Input Survey ...... 6-17 Phase II Grassroots Outreach Efforts ...... 6-29 Phase III Public Input Survey ...... 6-31 Phase III Grassroots Outreach Efforts ...... 6-35 Stakeholder Interviews ...... 6-35 Bus Operator/Supervisor Interviews ...... 6-38 Discussion Group Workshops ...... 6-41 Employer/Employee Outreach ...... 6-44 Section 7: Plans and Policy Review ...... 7-1 Plans Review ...... 7-1 Land Use Policy Review ...... 7-9 Implications – Land Use Policy Review ...... 7-9 Section 8: Goals and Objectives ...... 8-1 Goals/Objectives Update Guidance ...... 8-1 Mission ...... 8-1 Vision ...... 8-1 Goals and Objectives ...... 8-2 Section 9: Transit Demand Assessment ...... 9-1 Market Assessment ...... 9-1 Travel Flow Assessment ...... 9-7 Ridership Demand Assessment ...... 9-13 Section 10: Ten-Year Needs Plan ...... 10-1 Development of Transit Needs ...... 10-1 Service Needs ...... 10-2
HART | TDP iii
Capital/Infrastructure Needs ...... 10-12 Policy/Other ...... 10-13 Section 11: Setting Priorities ...... 11-1 Alternatives Evaluation Methodology ...... 11-1 Evaluation Criteria ...... 11-2 Alternatives Evaluation Results Summary ...... 11-8 Section 12: Funded 10-Year Transit Plan ...... 12-1 2018 TDP Base Year Network...... 12-1 2027 Funded TDP Network ...... 12-3 10-Year TDP Finance Plan ...... 12-13
List of Figures
1-1: HART Integrated Success Plan ...... 1-1 2-1: Population under Age 18 and Over Age 64, 2015 ...... 2-5 2-2: Demographic Characteristics, Hillsborough County ...... 2-6 2-3: Activity Centers in Hillsborough County ...... 2-10 2-4: Single-Family Detached Residential Units Permitted, 2004–2014 ...... 2-13 2-5: Hillsborough County Visitors (2009–2015) ...... 2-14 2-6: Tampa Bay Region’s Deficient Roads, 2012 ...... 2-15 2-7: Hillsborough County Non-Attainment Areas: Sulfur Dioxide (l) and Lead (r) ...... 2-16 2-8: Current Hillsborough County Jobs and Population ...... 2-25 2-9: Hillsborough County Jobs and Population, 2040, Suburban Dream Scenario ...... 2-26 2-10: Hillsborough County Jobs and Population, 2040, Bustling Metro Scenario ...... 2-27 2-11: Hillsborough County Jobs and Population, 2040, New Corporate Centers Scenario ..... 2-28 3-1: Ridership Growth and Travel Patterns ...... 3-1 3-2: Downtown Tampa Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed ...... 3-3 3-3: TIA Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed ...... 3-4 3-4: Westshore Mall Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed ...... 3-5 3-5: Brandon Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed ...... 3-6 3-6: MacDill AFB Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed ...... 3-7 3-7: University of South Florida Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed ...... 3-8 3-8: Gender Profile of HART Riders ...... 3-11
HART | TDP iv
3-9: Income Distribution ...... 3-12 3-10: Transfers Used to Reach Destination ...... 3-16 3-11: Regional Commuting Patterns ...... 3-17 4-1: HART Transit Services ...... 4-1 4-2: Recent Flamingo Fares App Reviews ...... 4-16 5-1: Annual Investment per Capita ...... 5-2 5-2: Riders per Revenue Hour ...... 5-2 5-3: Riders per Revenue Mile ...... 5-3 5-4: Operating Cost per Trip ...... 5-3 5-5: Ridership Productivity, 2008–2017 ...... 5-6 5-6: Operating Cost per Revenue Mile, 2008-2016 ...... 5-6 5-7: Collisions per 100,000 Revenue Miles, 2008-2017 ...... 5-7 5-8: Complaints per 100,000 Passengers & Passengers per Revenue Hour, 2008–2014 ...... 5-7 5-9: Mean Distance between Failures, 2010–2017 ...... 5-8 5-10: On-Time Performance and Passengers per Revenue Hour ...... 5-8 5-11: HART Net Promoter Score Trends ...... 5-9 5-12: Percent Answering Strongly Agree or Agree ...... 5-10 5-13: Cleanliness ...... 5-10 5-14: Perception of Safety ...... 5-11 5-15: NPS by Problem Resolution ...... 5-11 5-16: Peer Selection Process ...... 5-14 5-17: Annual Investment per Capita Peer Comparison ...... 5-22 5-18: Local Subsidy per Ride ...... r5-23 5-19: Riders per Revenue Hour ...... 5-23 5-20: Cost per Trip ...... 5-24 6-1 HART Rider Profile ...... 6-6 6-2: Frequency Using HART Service ...... 6-8 6-3: Transportation Options Other than Bus ...... 6-8 6-4: Service Improvement Results ...... 6-9 6-5: Most Desired Transit Improvements ...... 6-11 6-6: Most Desired Transit Improvements ...... 6-12 6-7: Most Desired Transit Improvements ...... 6-13 6-8: Coverage vs. Frequency Preference ...... 6-14 6-9: Quick Trip vs. Easy Access Preference ...... 6-14
HART | TDP v
6-10: 10-Year Priority Areas ...... 6-15 6-11: I would use HyperLINK if … ...... 6-15 6-12: Which of HART’s newest technology would you like to see improve/expand? ...... 6-16 6-13: Have you used HART transit services? ...... 6-18 6-14: How important are HART transit services to you? ...... 6-19 6-15: Do you think there is a need for additional/improved transit services in Hillsborough County? ...... 6-19 6-16: What type of service would you most like to see? ...... 6-20 6-17: What benefits do you believe could occur as a result of additional transit service in Hillsborough County and adjacent areas? ...... 6-20 6-18: What role do you see transit playing in alleviating traffic? ...... 6-21 6-19: Would you like HART to reduce bus coverage in sparsely populated/low ridership areas to have fast, frequent, and reliable bus service in densely populated/high ridership areas? ...... 6-21 6-20: What would make transit more appealing for you to use it more? ...... 6-22 6-21: Would you be willing to pay a $3.00 flat fee for an Uber or Lyft ride from your home/work to a bus stop? ...... 6-22 6-22: How do you prefer to get information to plan your transit trips? ...... 6-23 6-23: Level of Agreement ...... 6-24 6-24: Which motivates you the most to consider commuting alternatives such as public transit? ...... 6-25 6-25: In which local areas do you believe service frequency can be improved to attract more riders? ...... 6-25 6-26: In which regional areas do you believe service frequency can be improved to attract more riders? ...... 6-26 6-27: What is your age? ...... 6-26 6-28: Residence ZIP Codes ...... 6-27 6-29: Work ZIP Codes ...... 6-27 6-30: What is the range of your total household income for 2016? ...... 6-28 6-31: How often do you ride transit? ...... 6-31 6-32: Do any of the proposed changes directly impact your ability to use the system for your regular travel? ...... 6-32 6-33: Thinking about the trip that you make most using HART service, would your trip be shorter or longer on the proposed network? ...... 6-32
HART | TDP vi
6-34: When accessing the HART system from your home, will you have to walk farther to the nearest bus stop with the proposed 2018 network? ...... 6-33 6-35: Thinking about the HART route that you currently use the most, in the 2018 network, would this route come more or less frequently than it does today? ...... 6-33 6-36: Top Priority Potential Service Improvements ...... 6-34 6-37: Top Ranked Regional Connections ...... 6-34 6-38: Common Rider Complaints Reported by Operators ...... 6-38 6-39: If you already use HART for full or part of your commute, how often do you ride? ...... 6-46 6-40: How often do you ride HART or MetroRapid? ...... 6-47 10-1: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 15-min. or Better Frequency ...... 10-5 10-2: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 30 to 60-min. Frequency ...... 10-7 10-3: Routes Providing Connectivity between Major Hubs ...... 10-9 10-4: 2027 Needs Plan Regional Connections ...... 10-10 11-1: Community Input on 10-Year Transit Priorities ...... 11-3 11-2: 2017 DTA Assessment of 2027 Needs Network ...... 11-4 11-3: 2015 TOI Assessment of 2027 Needs Network ...... 11-5 11-4: Transit Accessibility of Downtown Tampa – Travel Time ...... 11-7 12-1: Total Population in Service Area and Population within 15-Minute Service ...... 12-10 12-2: Total Employment in Service Area and Employment within 15-Minute Service ...... 12-10 12-3: Total and Minority Population in Service Area ...... 12-11 12-4: Total and Low-Income Population in Service Area ...... 12-11 12-5: Total and Minority Population within 15-Minute Service ...... 12-12 12-6: Total and Low-Income Population within 15-Minute Service ...... 12-12 12-7: Annual Operating and Capital Costs (millions) ...... 12-16 12-8: Revenues Distribution ...... 12-16 12-9: 10-Year Ad Valorem Revenue Distribution (millions) ...... 12-17
List of Tables
1-1: TDP Checklist ...... 1-3 2-1: Population Projections for Hillsborough County ...... 2-3 2-2: Population Characteristics by Jurisdiction, Hillsborough County ...... 2-5 2-3: Journey-to-Work Characteristics, 2015 ...... 2-7 2-4: Hillsborough County’s Top Five Industries, 2015 ...... 2-7
HART | TDP vii
2-5: Labor Force Participation, Hillsborough County and Florida, 2015 ...... 2-9 2-6: Income Characteristics, 2015 ...... 2-9 2-7: Hillsborough County Major Activity Centers ...... 2-12 2-8: Top Public and Private Employers in Hillsborough County, 2015 ...... 2-13 2-9: Forecast Increase in Transportation Disadvantaged ...... 2-24 2-10: Population and Employment Characteristics, Hillsborough County ...... 2-28 2-11: Countywide Population and Employment Totals by Scenario ...... 2-29 2-12: School Enrollment Totals ...... 2-29 2-13: Hotel/Motel Totals ...... 2-30 3-1: HART Productivity and Level of Service, 2009 and 2014 ...... 3-10 3-2: Race & Ethnicity ...... 3-11 3-3: Age Distribution ...... 3-12 3-4: Employment Status...... 3-13 3-5: Trip Purpose ...... 3-14 3-6: Distance To/From Bus Stop ...... 3-14 3-7: Mode Used to Access/Egress HART Services ...... 3-15 3-8: Frequency of Transit Usage per Week ...... 3-15 3-9: 2014 Commuter Outflows ...... 3-17 3-10: 2014 Commuter Inflows ...... 3-18 4-1: Local Fixed-Route Services ...... 4-5 4-2: Express and Limited Express Route Services ...... 4-7 4-3: Flex Route Services...... 4-8 4-4: Streetcar Services ...... 4-8 4-5: HyperLINK Services ...... 4-8 4-6: Fare Descriptions...... 4-9 4-7: Local Alternative Travel Modes ...... 4-11 4-8: Regional Alternative Travel Modes ...... 4-11 5-1: HART 6-Year Performance Trend Analysis ...... 5-5 5-2: HART TDP Peer Profiles ...... 5-22 5-3: Summary of Peer System Comparison ...... 5-25 6-1: Public Involvement Activities Summary – 2017 ...... 6-4 6-2: Single-Transfer Route Combinations ...... 6-7 6-3: Two-Transfer Route Combinations ...... 6-7 6-4: Grassroots Outreach Event Summary ...... 6-29
HART | TDP viii
6-5: Grassroots Outreach Event Summary ...... 6-35 6-6: Route-Specific Improvements Identified by Operators ...... 6-40 6-7 Contacted Employers and Result ...... 6-44 7-1: Definition of Key Terms in Plans Review ...... 7-2 7-2: Plans Review ...... 7-3 9-1: Transit Service Density Thresholds ...... 9-2 9-2: Activity Zones by County ...... 9-8 9-3: 2019 Travel Flows – Average Daily Trips ...... 9-9 9-4: 2040 Travel Flows – Average Daily Trips ...... 9-11 9-5: 2027 Weekday Base No Build Network Summary ...... 9-16 9-6: 2027 Weekday 2018 COA No Build Network Summary ...... 9-16 10-1: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 15-min. or Better Frequency ...... 10-4 10-2: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 30 to 60-min. Frequency ...... 10-6 10-3: Regional Connections and Routes ...... 10-9 11-1: Alternative Evaluation Measures and Weights ...... 11-2 11-2: 2027 Needs Plan Ridership Summary...... 11-6 11-3: 2027 Needs Plan Revenues Miles Summary ...... 11-6 11-4: Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ...... 11-9 12-1: 2027 Funded Plan Improvements and Implementation Schedule ...... 12-6 12-2: 2027 Funded Plan Ridership Estimation Summary ...... 12-8 12-3: 2027 Funded and Needs Plans - Ridership Estimation Summary ...... 12-9 12-4: Percent of Service Area Populations within 15-Minute Service ...... 12-9 12-5: 10-Year TDP Funded Plan Costs and Revenues ...... 12-15 12-6: TDP Implementation Plan ...... 12-18 12-7: 10-Year TDP Unfunded Needs ...... 12-19
List of Maps
2-1: TDP Study Area ...... 2-2 2-2: Existing Population Density ...... 2-4 2-3: Existing Employment Density ...... 2-8 2-4: Hillsborough County Older Adult (65+) Population ...... 2-18 2-5: Hillsborough County Households Living in Poverty ...... 2-19 2-6: Hillsborough County Low-Income Households (< $25,000) ...... 2-20
HART | TDP ix
2-7: Hillsborough County Population with Disabilities ...... 2-21 2-8. Hillsborough County Limited English Proficiency ...... 2-22 2-9. Hillsborough County Vehicle Ownership ...... 2-23 4-1: Existing Transit Services ...... 4-4 9-1: 2017 DTA with Existing Network ...... 9-3 9-2: 2027 DTA with Existing Network ...... 9-4 9-3: 2015 TOI with Existing Network...... 9-6 9-4: 2019 Travel Flows ...... 9-10 9-5: 2040 Travel Flows ...... 9-12 10-1: Proposed 2027 Needs Network ...... 10-3 12-1: 2018 TDP Base Year Network...... 12-2 12-2: 2027 Funded TDP Network ...... 12-5
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Farebox Recovery Report ...... A-1 Appendix B: 2014 Congested Roadways ...... B-1 Appendix C: Capital Assets ...... C-1 Appendix D: Trend Analysis and Peer System Review ...... D-1 Appendix E: Public Outreach Materials ...... E-1 Appendix F: Relevant Land Use Policy Review ...... F-1 Appendix G: TBEST Model Inputs and Summaries & HyperLINK Estimation Methodology .... G-1 Appendix H: Performance Monitoring Recommendations ...... H-1
HART | TDP x
Section 1: Introduction
This Transit Development Plan (TDP) major update was initiated by the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) to refine a strategic guide for public transportation in the community over the next 10 years. The TDP represents the community’s vision for public transportation in its service area. A major TDP update also allows transit agencies to outline actions to be taken in the following year and set goals for subsequent years. As a strategic plan, the TDP identifies needs in an unconstrained fashion and highlights service improvements for which currently there is no funding. This major update covers the 10-year planning horizon from FY 2018 to FY 2027. Objectives of the Plan The main purpose of this study is to update the TDP for HART services in Hillsborough County and its connectivity to adjacent areas, as currently required by State law. Upon completion, the TDP will provide a 10-year plan for transit and mobility needs, cost and revenue projections, and community transit goals, objectives, and policies. It also should be noted that this plan was completed concurrently HART’s Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), an efficiency analysis that developed various near-term route/service adjustment recommendations for the current HART network. This TDP has incorporated the key findings/recommendations from the COA, as applicable. The TDP also is a key component of HART’s Integrated Success Plan, as shown in Figure 1-1. The Integrated Success Plan is the agency’s blueprint to deliver high quality customer service and value to its community. Figure 1-1: HART Integrated Success Plan
HART | TDP 1-1
Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that this HART TDP constitutes a single step as part of HART’s broader Integrated Success Plan. The previously mentioned COA is also included as part of the integrated plan along with the TDP. Figure 1-1 illustrates the full HART Integrated Success Plan. State Requirements As a recipient of State Public Transit Block funds, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requires a major update of Hillsborough County’s TDP every five years to ensure that the provision of public transportation is consistent with the mobility needs of the local communities. According to Rule 14-73.001–Public Transportation of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), “The TDP shall be the applicant’s planning, development and operational guidance document to be used in developing the Transportation Improvement Program and the Department’s Five Year Work Program.” The current TDP requirements were adopted by FDOT on February 20, 2007, and include the following:
Major updates must be completed at least once every 5 years, covering a 10-year planning horizon. A public involvement plan must be developed and approved by FDOT or be consistent with the approved Metropolitan/Transportation Planning Organization’s (MPO) public involvement plan. HART’s service area is within the metropolitan planning area boundaries of the Hillsborough MPO. FDOT, the Regional Workforce Development Board, and the MPO must be advised of all public meetings at which the TDP is presented and discussed, and these entities must be given the opportunity to review and comment on the TDP during the development of the mission, goals, objectives, alternatives, and 10-year implementation program. Estimation of the community’s demand for transit service (10-year annual projections) must use the planning tools provided by FDOT or a demand estimation technique approved by FDOT. An additional requirement for the TDP was added by the Florida Legislature in 2007 when it adopted House Bill 985. This legislation amended s. 341.071, F.S., requiring transit agencies to “… specifically address potential enhancements to productivity and performance which would have the effect of increasing farebox recovery ratio.” FDOT subsequently issued guidance requiring the TDP and each annual update to include a 1–2-page summary report on the farebox recovery ratio and strategies implemented and planned to improve it as an appendix item. The farebox recovery ratio report is located in Appendix A. TDP Checklist This 10-year plan meets the requirements for a TDP Major Update in accordance with Rule Chapter 14-73, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Table 1-1 is a list of TDP requirements from Rule 14- 73.001 and indicates whether or not the item was accomplished in this 10-year plan.
HART | TDP 1-2
Table 1-1: TDP Checklist
Public Involvement Process TDP Section √ Public Involvement Plan (PIP) drafted √ PIP approved by FDOT √ TDP includes description of Public Involvement Process Section 6, Appendix E √ Provide notification to FDOT √ Provide notification to Regional Workforce Board Situation Appraisal √ Land use Section 2 √ State and local transportation plans Section 7 √ Other governmental actions and policies Section 7 √ Socioeconomic trends Sections 2 & 3 √ Organizational issues Section 4 √ Technology Section 4 10-year annual projections of transit ridership using approved Section 9 √ model Assessment of whether land uses and urban design patterns Sections 7 & 9 √ support/hinder transit service provision √ Calculate farebox recovery Section 5, Appendix A Mission and Goals √ Provider's vision Section 8 √ Provider's mission Section 8 √ Provider's goals Section 8 √ Provider's objectives Section 8 Alternative Courses of Action √ Develop and evaluate alternative strategies and actions Section 11 √ Benefits and costs of each alternative Section 11 √ Financial alternatives examined Sections 11 & 12 Implementation Program √ Ten-year implementation program Section 12 √ Maps indicating areas to be served Sections 10 & 12 √ Maps indicating types and levels of service Section 10 √ Monitoring program to track performance Section 5, Appendix H √ Ten-year financial plan listing operating and capital expenses Section 12 √ Capital acquisition or construction schedule Section 12 √ Anticipated revenues by source Section 12 Relationship to Other Plans √ Consistent with Florida Transportation Plan Section 8 -12 √ Consistent with local government comprehensive plan Section 8 -12 √ Consistent with Hillsborough MPO long-range transportation plan Section 8 -12 √ Consistent with regional transportation goals and objectives Section 8 Submission √ Adopted by HART Board of Directors n/a √ Submitted to FDOT n/a
HART | TDP 1-3
Organization of the Report Section 2 summarizes the Baseline Conditions for Hillsborough County that were completed under Task 1b. This includes a review of the existing conditions, including a physical description of the study area and socioeconomic and journey-to-work characteristics. Land use trends, major transit trip generators and attractors, economic factors, major employers, tourism, land use, and existing roadway conditions are also explored. The Situation Appraisal is included as part of multiple sections throughout the TDP, beginning in Section 2, and these analyses are identified as “Implications” throughout the report. The Situation Appraisal reviews the current overall planning and policy environment within the county to better understand transit needs. This effort examines the strengths and weaknesses of the system as well as any existing threats to the provision of service in the county and key opportunities for addressing those threats and/or enhancing the transit-friendliness of the operating environment. Included in this section are reviews of existing socioeconomic trends, travel behavior, land use, public involvement, peer review/trend analysis, technology, and funding. Section 3 summarizes Transit Accessibility and Travel Patterns within the county and the region and reviews the two most recent on-board surveys that were completed in 2009 and 2014 as part of Task 1b-5. This section begins with an overview of accessibility within the HART network through the analysis of travel times to/from major activity centers. Subsequently, regional commuting patterns are reviewed for Hillsborough and adjacent counties. Section 4 summarizes Existing Transit Services within the county. The section begins by reviewing all current and planned public transportation services and facilities provided by HART, including a review of headways, hours of operation, fare structure, ridership trends, planned transit services, a review of the transportation disadvantaged services, facilities, and a vehicle inventory. Next, a review of other transit and transportation services available in both Hillsborough County and the region is provided. Section 5 provides the HART Performance Review for the existing system. The section summarizes the Trend and Peer Review Analysis using the most recent National Transit Database (NTD) data. Finally, this section includes a definition of the metrics as well as the peer specification process, followed by a brief summary table of metrics. Section 6 summarizes the extensive Public Involvement activities completed under Task 1a. The results of these outreach activities are reviewed in full and leveraged in subsequent efforts in the HART TDP that identify, evaluate, and prioritize the public transportation needs for Hillsborough County. Section 7 includes a Plans and Policy Review. Selected local plans from the last eight years were examined for relevance to current operating conditions. Pertinent regional and State plans were also considered in this process. The assessment of these plans will help to identify and assess applicable federal and State policies as well as local community goals and objectives relating to transit and mobility. Local municipal Comprehensive Plans, Long Range Transit Plans, and regional growth management plans were reviewed in closer detail and are subsequently summarized in this section. Section 8 sets forth Goals and Objectives to serve as a policy guide for implementation of the HART TDP. A review and update to the existing service, policy, and financial goals and objectives for the public transit services was completed to match the goals of the local community with respect to transportation and land use.
HART | TDP 1-4
Section 9 presents the results of a Transit Demand Assessment. This section summarizes the various demand and mobility needs assessments conducted as part of the HART TDP. The assessment techniques for forecasting ridership are summarized, followed by the results of each analysis. Also included is a market assessment that includes an examination of potential service gaps and latent demand using the Transit Orientation Index and the Density Threshold Assessment GIS-based analyses. These assessment techniques are summarized, followed by the results of each analysis used to assess potential demand for transit services in Hillsborough County. Section 10 presents the 10-Year Needs Plan in the form of service needs and capital/infrastructure needs. The identified service needs are proposed as part of a hierarchy of a high-frequency network, supported by a secondary network and ancillary services that serve as alternatives to traditional bus services. Key capital and infrastructure needs are also summarized that support HART’s mission of providing high-quality services to riders and continuing to look toward its future operating environment. Section 11, titled Setting Priorities, describes the alternatives evaluation methodologies used to develop and assess the transit alternatives, or proposed improvement types, identified for the HART TDP. These proposed alternatives represent the transit needs for the next 10 years developed without consideration of funding constraints. The identified service improvements are prioritized using an evaluation process developed to assess and phase the transit service alternatives. The resulting ranking of alternatives is used to develop the 10-year implementation plan presented in Section 12. Section 12 summarizes the 10-Year Funded Plan developed for HART’s fixed-route bus transit services. The Cost Feasible Plan identifies the funded service and capital improvements (as well as the unfunded needs), and includes a discussion of the revenue assumptions and capital and operating costs used.
HART | TDP 1-5
Section 2: Baseline Conditions
This section reviews the study area in the context of the TDP. The purpose of this section is to document existing base data to gain an understanding of the environment in which the transit system is operating. This information provides the foundation upon which to review trends and forecasting and helps identify areas of opportunity for development of future transit services. The following components were reviewed for consideration in the situation appraisal:
Population Journey-to-work characteristics Labor force and employment Income characteristics Major activity centers and employers Development patterns Tourist and visitor levels Roadway and traffic conditions Air quality Transportation disadvantaged populations Land use and scenario planning A series of user-friendly maps, figures, and tables is used to illustrate these baseline conditions in the remainder of this section. Data from various local, state, and national sources were used, including but not limited to, the US Census Bureau; the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida; FDOT; Hillsborough County and the county MPO; the Cities of Plant City, Temple Terrace, and Tampa; and the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA). These data were supplemented by other data available from local and regional agencies, as available. Study Area Description The study area for the TDP, as shown in Map 2-1, is all of Hillsborough County. The county is located in West Central Florida and bordered on the north by Pasco County, on the south by Manatee County, on the east by Polk County, and on the west by Pinellas County. Hillsborough County includes three cities: Tampa, Plant City, and Temple Terrace. Hillsborough County is the fourth most populated county in Florida, with 1.3 million residents spread across the county. The county covers 1,051 square miles of land area. The HART service area is 250 square miles and serves 52 percent of the population within the county at this time; 48 percent of the population is not served by traditional fixed-route transit or HARTPlus paratransit services at this time.
HART | TDP 2-1
Map 2-1: TDP Study Area
HART | TDP 2-2
Population Trends and Characteristics Hillsborough County’s population has grown by more than 2 percent per year in recent years. Although annual population growth rates have decreased in the short‐term, in part due to the Great Recession, recent data suggest that the county is experiencing a recovery in population growth; moreover, home sales are increasing and unemployment rates are decreasing. According to BEBR’s medium forecast, Hillsborough County is expected to add nearly 600,000 people between 2010 and 2040. Population According to BEBR, Hillsborough County ranks seventh among counties in population growth since the 2010 Census, having grown 7.8 percent. The county is ranked sixth in terms of the percent of population ages 17 and younger (23.7% or 308,220 residents). The county is ranked 57th in terms of the percent of population ages 65 and over (13% or 169,296 residents). The county is ranked sixth in terms of population density, with 1,020 residents per square mile. Table 2-1 shows the BEBR population forecasts for Hillsborough County.
Table 2-1: Population Projections for Hillsborough County
2010–2040 2010 2025 2040 Growth Low 1,129,226 1,358,000 1,440,300 211,074 Medium 1,129,226 1,543,100 1,823,200 593,974 High 1,129,226 1,728,300 2,206,100 976,874 Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040
Map 2-2 shows the existing population density for Hillsborough County.
HART | TDP 2-3
Map 2-2: Existing Population Density
HART | TDP 2-4
Of the three municipalities in Hillsborough County, Tampa has the highest population, with almost 10 times the population as the second most populous municipality, Plant City. As shown in Table 2-2, two of the three municipalities have experienced roughly 17 percent growth between 2000 and 2010, whereas Tampa has experienced over 10 percent growth; unincorporated Hillsborough County has grown by almost 30 percent. More recently, growth has slowed. Between 2010 and 2016, Hillsborough County grew by 6.7 percent; most of that growth—about 60,000 new residents—was in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Tampa gained 20,000 new residents in that same time period, a growth rate that dropped much less drastically than the rest of Hillsborough County.
Table 2-2: Population Characteristics by Jurisdiction, Hillsborough County
% Change 2016 % Change Jurisdiction 2000 2010 (2000–2010) (estimate) (2010–2016) Unincorporated 644,668 834,255 29.4% 894,110 7.2% Plant City 29,915 34,721 16.1% 35,970 3.6% Tampa 303,447 335,709 10.6% 356,410 6.2% Temple Terrace 20,918 24,541 17.3% 24,730 0.8% Total 998,948 1,229,226 23.1% 1,311,220 6.7% Source: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, population estimates 2015–2016
Age As shown in Figure 2-1, the average Hillsborough County resident is younger than the average Florida resident. Based on 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data, 25 percent of Hillsborough County’s population is under age 18 and 22 percent of Florida’s total population is under age 18. In addition, 12 percent of Hillsborough County’s population is over 64 years.
Figure 2-1: Population under Age 18 and Over Age 64, 2015
25.9% 22% 18% 12.7%
Under 18 Over 64
Hillsborough County Florida
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015
Figure 2-2 displays various demographic characteristics for Hillsborough County for 2015. Whereas most Hillsborough County’s demographics did not change significantly from 2010 to 2015, several key demographics that are related to transit usage have changed. Noteworthy is the increase in the Hispanic population, from 23.9 percent to 26.1 percent, and the increase in adults ages 65 and older, from 11.6 percent to 12.7 percent. According to a 2017 study by the American Public Transportation Association
HART | TDP 2-5
(APTA) that looked at the demographics of transit riders, transit riders are more likely than the general population to have a bachelor’s degree or more education. The percent of population that obtained a graduate degree or higher in Hillsborough County increased from 9.7 percent to 11.1 percent. Households with lower incomes (<$24,999) increased slightly as the poverty level decreased in the county. Figure 2-2: Demographic Characteristics, Hillsborough County
48.8% Male 48.8% 51.2% Female 51.2% 71.1% White 74.2% 16.6% Black 16.4% 12.3% Other 9.6% 51.8% Not of Hispanic Origin 55.2%
Race Ethnic Origin Gender Of Hispanic Origin 26.1% Hispanic
Origin by 23.9% 19.3% <15 years 20.1% 28.5% 15-34 years 28.8% 39.6% 35-64 years 39.5% 12.7% 65+ years 11.6% 4.9% Less than 9th grade 5.4% 7.6% No diploma 8.8% 2015 ACS 27.3% High school graduate 28.1% 2010 Census 20.2% Some college, no degree 19.4% 9.4% Associate degree 9.5% 19.5% Bachelor's degree 19.2% 11.1% Graduate or professional 9.7% 7.7% Less than $10,000 7.2% 5.4% $10,000 to $14,999 5.2% 11.4% $15,000 to $24,999 11.0% 42.8% $25,000 to $74,999 45.8% 11.5% $75,000 to $99,999 11.8% 21.2% $100,000 or more 19.0% 84.3% Above poverty level 83.4% 15.7%
Status Household IncomeBelow Education Level (Age 25+) poverty level Age Poverty 16.6%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census and American Community Survey, 2015.
HART | TDP 2-6
Journey-to-Work Characteristics Table 2-3 summarizes journey-to-work characteristics for Hillsborough County, Florida, and the US. An overwhelming majority of people who work in Hillsborough County drive alone to work. During the Great Recession, the mode share of the county’s residents commuting via public transit increased from 1.4 percent in 2000 to 1.7 percent in 2009 and returned with 1.4 percent in 2015. The rate of Hillsborough County residents driving alone to work is higher than that for Florida and the US, as a whole.
Table 2-3: Journey-to-Work Characteristics, 2015
Hillsborough Journey-to-Work Characteristics Florida US County Drove Alone 80.4% 79.6% 76.4% Carpooled 8.9% 9.5% 9.5% Public Transportation 1.4% 2.1% 5.1% Walked 1.6% 1.5% 2.8% Other Means 2.0% 2.2% 1.8% Worked at Home 5.5% 5.1% 4.4% Average Travel Time (minutes) 26.4 26.4 25.9 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015
Labor Force and Employment Hillsborough County has a diverse array of industry sectors. Its largest industry, Health Care and Social Assistance, employs nearly 80,000 people. As shown in Table 2-4, the top five industries in Hillsborough County employ nearly half of its total workforce. These industries’ employees, except Finance and Insurance, often work shifts outside of the traditional workday.
Table 2-4: Hillsborough County’s Top Five Industries, 2015
Number of Employees in Industry Hillsborough County Health Care and Social Assistance 79,847 Retail Trade 71,675 Educational Services 51,517 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 48,951 Finance and Insurance 48,613 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015
Map 2-3 shows where these jobs are located geographically in the county. As shown, Downtown Tampa has the highest concentration of jobs, followed by West Tampa and the University of South Florida (USF) area. Other areas include commercial areas along E Adamo Drive/W Brandon Boulevard in Tampa and Brandon, and along Anderson Road in Town ‘N Country.
HART | TDP 2-7
Map 2-3: Existing Employment Density
HART | TDP 2-8
Table 2-5 displays the percent of population ages 16 and older in the labor force and the percent unemployed. Hillsborough County has a higher percentage of total eligible persons in its labor force than Florida, with approximately 65 percent, compared to Florida’s 59 percent. During the Great Recession, Hillsborough County’s unemployment rate rose from 6.3 percent in 2008 to 10.7 percent in 2009 and to 12.1 percent in 2010. Although Hillsborough County’s unemployment rate was consistently higher than Florida’s between 2008 and 2010, it is now significantly lower.
Table 2-5: Labor Force Participation, Hillsborough County and Florida, 2015
Jurisdiction % Age 16+ % Ages 20–64 Unemployment Rate Hillsborough County 65.2 78.3 5.8 Florida 59.2 75.6 9.7 Source: American Community Survey, 2015 Income Characteristics Income and health insurance benefits data were also analyzed for Hillsborough County, as shown in Table 2-6. The median household income is approximately $50,000, with a per capita income of nearly $28,000. However, more than 16 percent of Hillsborough County’s population lives below the poverty level and does not carry health insurance. This is a slight improvement from 2000, when 19 percent of Hillsborough County residents were without health insurance.
Table 2-6: Income Characteristics, 2015
Income Characteristics Hillsborough County US Median household income $50,796 $53,889 Per capita income $27,764 $28,930 Median family income $83,042 $66,011 % below poverty level 16.8% 15.5% Population without health insurance 16.3% 13.0% Population with public health coverage 31.1% 32.1% Source: American Community Survey, 2015 Major Activity Centers and Employers Figure 2-3 illustrates the regional activity centers in Hillsborough County as identified in the TBARTA 2015 Regional Transportation Master Plan. The figure uses Tiers to indicate concentrations of employment, entertainment, educational, residential, commercial development, and freight activity.
Tier I – Activity centers expected to reach a net density of employment of at least 50 jobs per acre by year 2040 Tier II – Activity centers expected to reach a net density of 20-50 jobs per acre by 2040 Tier III – Activity centers reach a net density of employment of 4-20 jobs per acre by year 2040 Other elements considered in combination with employment density included residential density of 6– 10 people per acre, 1–5 five hotel rooms per acre, special uses, and recent development proposals as well as areas where development is incentivized.
HART | TDP 2-9
Areas supporting tourist activities and that attracted local population were factored into the Tier 1 designation:
Beaches and theme parks Special uses such as seaports, intermodal centers, airports, colleges, and universities Cultural and entertainment facilities Hospitals Regional shopping centers, especially where occurring in clusters Areas ripe for development, redevelopment, or incentivized development The four Tier 1 activity centers in Hillsborough County—Downtown Tampa, Westshore Business District, the USF area, and Ybor City—were reviewed and are summarized below. Figure 2-3: Activity Centers in Hillsborough County
Source: TBARTA 2015 Regional Transportation Master Plan, Activity Center Technical Memorandum Downtown Tampa Downtown Tampa is Tampa Bay’s major business center, with 50,000+ employees and 9+ million square feet of office space. In addition to major businesses, a 600,000-square foot convention center, hotels, and various entertainment/cultural venues, Downtown Tampa includes many housing options and the Downtown-based housing supply has increased steadily since the recession ended. The area is a key regional intermodal center, with a major transit hub for local services and rail and regional bus connections.
HART | TDP 2-10
Westshore Business District The Westshore Business District is located within Tampa’s boundaries and covers approximately 10 square miles. It is north of Kennedy Boulevard, west of Himes Ave, south of Hillsborough Ave, and west along the waters of Old Tampa Bay. The activity center is the largest office community in Florida, with more than 12 million square feet of commercial office space and approximately 4,000 businesses. Although the area’s population is nearly 12,000, the Westshore Business District employs nearly 100,000 workers and is home to Tampa International Airport (TIA). The airport is currently undergoing improvements based on the adopted Airport Master Plan Update, including an expansion of its Automated People Mover (APM) connection to its economy parking area, a new Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC), a possible connections to future regional transportation options. USF Area The area is home to USF, the Busch Gardens theme park, two hospitals (University Community Hospital and James A. Haley Veterans Hospital), and numerous office and business parks. The main USF campus is the centerpiece of the area and is located within the limits of the City of Tampa, sandwiched between the I-275 and I-75 corridors. It ranks in the top 25 of the nation’s public research universities and is one of the largest universities in Florida. The Tampa campus has 40,000+ students enrolled and employs almost 15,000 faculty and staff on the campus, which is spread out over 9.9 million square feet of land area. Ybor City The historic Ybor City neighborhood, just northeast of Downtown Tampa, was founded in the 1880s by Cuban immigrants and flourished in the cigar industry. Now, Ybor City is almost entirely an urban, built- up area. Commercial property comprises almost 50 percent of the land, institutional use (including the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Operations Center and a satellite campus of Hillsborough Community College) comprises 16 percent, residential use about 23 percent, and industrial use about 7 percent. According to a 2003 survey, the top five business types in the area were professional services (22.8%), retail (18.4%), manufacturing (14%), wholesale/distribution (13.2%), and restaurants & bars (11.4%). The TECO Line Streetcar System links Ybor City to Downtown Tampa via the Channelside District. Other Key Activity Centers in Hillsborough County Table 2-7 shows activity centers within Hillsborough County and their respective jobs per acre by 2040.
HART | TDP 2-11
Table 2-8: Hillsborough County Major Activity Centers
Jobs per Acre by 2040 Activity Center 50 or more 20–49 4–19 Downtown Tampa Westshore Business District USF Area Ybor City 50th St/I-4/Adamo Carrollwood Gandy/Rattlesnake Point Hillsborough Ave/Dale Mabry Hwy Independence Pkwy Corridor Kennedy Boulevard Corridor MacDill Air Force Base Netp@rk/Florida Fairgrounds Palm River/US 301 Plant City Port Redwing/Apollo Beach/Big Bend Road Corridor Port Tampa Bay Rocky Point Sabal Park/North Falkenburg Road Corridor South Shore/SR 674 Corridor Stadium/St. Joseph’s Hospital Temple Terrace I-275/Fowler Ave Anderson Road Corridor Britton Plaza Citrus Park New Tampa Northdale Seminole Heights Telecom Park/Hidden River
Major Employers As part of the existing conditions analysis, data on major employers in Hillsborough County were reviewed and summarized. The major industries in Hillsborough County include Education, Communication, Military, Government, Health Services, and Transportation. Table 2-8 lists the top employers in Hillsborough County.
HART | TDP 2-12
Table 2-8: Top Public and Private Employers in Hillsborough County, 2015
Number of Major Employer Employees Hillsborough County School District 25,915 MacDill Air Force Base 18,853 Hillsborough County Government 9,846 University of South Florida 8,968 Tampa General Hospital 7,819 Publix Super Markets 6,969 St. Joseph’s Hospital 5,869 HCA West Florida 4,171 City of Tampa 4,101 US Postal Service 3,154 Tampa Electric Company 2,443 Source: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, 2015
Development Trends To better understand the trends in development patterns, a review of recent residential development activities was conducted for Hillsborough County using residential housing permit data provided by the City-County Planning Commission. As shown in Figure 2-4, residential permitting decreased significantly around the Great Recession; however, more recent data indicate a stabilizing of the downward trend and even recovery as residential permitting is increasing. Figure 2-4: Single-Family Detached Residential Units Permitted, 2004–2014
9,000 9,200
6,080
4,080 3,900 3,200 3,150 2,200 2,000 2,200 2,200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, 2015 Tourist and Visitor Levels Tourism continues to be an important part of Florida’s economy. Hillsborough County promotes the development of tourist attractions and special events to enhance the community as a tourist and convention destination. As shown in Figure 2-5, the number of annual visitors has increased each year. The figure shows a recovery since the Great Recession, when the number of visitors decreased by 10 percent between 2005 and 2008.
HART | TDP 2-13
Visitors had a direct impact on wages and employment, contributing to more than $2.1 billion in wages and more than 48,000 jobs. Although domestic and in-state visitors make up the majority of the Hillsborough County tourism market, visitors from Canada, England, and Germany, who typically are more pro-transit, have been the top international markets, accounting for about 3 percent of the total market. Although that is a small percentage, the growth rate is high; over the past six years, the international market has grown at almost double the rate of the domestic market. Figure 2-5: Hillsborough County Visitors (2009–2015)
21.8 20.7
19 18.4 18 17.5 17
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: Hillsborough County Tourist Development Council, 2016 Roadway and Traffic Conditions As part of the existing conditions assessment, a brief review of the mobility conditions of the existing transportation network was reviewed based on the data available from the 2040 LRTP developed by the Hillsborough County MPO. Hillsborough County has 12,025 lane miles, which are maintained by the following agencies or jurisdictions: FDOT – 1,896 miles Hillsborough County – 6,920 miles City of Tampa – 2,800 miles Temple Terrace – 165 miles Plant City – 150 miles Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority – 94 miles The Tampa Bay Region is the 12th most congested metropolitan area in the US and the second most in Florida, after Miami. The region ranked 28th in the US for losses due to congestion, with $670 million wasted each year, and had the 19th longest traffic delays in the US, with 53,000+ hours spent each year stuck in traffic. As part of the recently-completed 2040 LRTP development process, each roadway was evaluated for performance and assigned a level of service (LOS) grade depending on congestion levels. The LOS designation “A” represents the least congested facilities and “F” represents the most congested facilities. Roadway deficiencies represent the portions of the existing network where congestion exceeds adopted LOS standards. Figure 2-6 shows the most congested corridors in the Tampa Bay Region. Based on traffic forecasts, if no further improvements are made, the most congested roadway corridors in Hillsborough County would include I-75, I-4, and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. A more updated list of 2014 congested roadways can be found in Appendix B.
HART | TDP 2-14
Figure 2-6: Tampa Bay Region’s Deficient Roads, 2012
Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040 Programmed Projects The most recently adopted long-term transit plan for Hillsborough County, the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), includes fixed guideway and traditional bus services as well as multimodal projects to achieve a more balanced transportation network and address deficient roadways. Six new MetroRapid routes and 30+ new or improved local/connecting routes are included in the plan. MetroRapid routes directly relate to the most heavily traveled and congested roadways (non-interstate) and are planned for TIA/Kennedy Boulevard, New Tampa (Bruce B. Downs Boulevard), Brandon to Downtown, Dale Mabry to MacDill Air Force Base (AFB), and Gunn Highway to Busch Boulevard. The LRTP also includes more than 20 new or improved express bus routes and 18 flex/circulator routes. The desired outcome is frequent bus service within walking distance of nearly half of the people and jobs in Hillsborough County, and somewhat frequent service within walking distance of nearly two-thirds of the people and jobs within Hillsborough County. Fixed guideway transit lines would connect Downtown Tampa with the USF area and the Westshore Business District, including TIA—three of the four Tier 1 activity centers in Tampa Bay. Waterborne transit between Port Redwing and MacDill AFB is also considered in the LRTP as fixed guideway transit.
HART | TDP 2-15
Air Quality In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed a set of proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the pollutant, ozone. The primary NAAQS standard for eight-hour ozone was reduced from 0.075 parts per billion (ppb) to 0.070 ppb. Hillsborough County is in borderline attainment for this new standard, currently measuring at 0.070 ppb. The measurements are averaged over three years, and one poor-performing year will move the county into non-attainment, a designation that would not be new. In 1977, Hillsborough County was determined to be exceeding the federal one-hour ozone standard and was classified as “nonattainment,” where it remained until 1995. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established a link between transportation funding and an area’s ozone status. In response to this federal action, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in coordination with state and local transportation and air quality agencies, devised a plan to reduce the transportation impact on the state’s air quality. Initial provisions of this plan subjected residents of Hillsborough County to mandatory vehicle emissions testing, and the federal government required the MPO to consider the air quality impacts of its transportation plans. In May 2004, EPA declared the entire state of Florida to be attaining the federal ozone standard. This marked the end of transportation planning mandates. Air quality is no longer a primary consideration in the development of transportation plans; however, the possibility of returning to ozone nonattainment still remains. Small portions of Hillsborough County are currently in non-attainment for sulfur dioxide and lead due to point (non-transportation) sources (Figure 2-7). The area in non-attainment for sulfur dioxide includes Gibsonton, Riverview, and the Alafia River in eastern Hillsborough County. The area that is in non- attainment for lead is in east Tampa and is bordered by the Palm River, 50th Street, and Interstate 75. About 20,000 Hillsborough County residents live in these two areas. Currently, the burden of reducing public exposure to transportation-related air pollution rests in voluntary emissions control programs. Figure 2-7: Hillsborough County Non-Attainment Areas: Sulfur Dioxide (l) and Lead (r)
Source: Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, 2017
HART | TDP 2-16
Transportation Disadvantaged Populations Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) persons are identified as those with disabilities, older adults, individuals with lower incomes, and children-at-risk. These characteristics make car ownership unrealistic or prohibitive, so TD persons rely on public transportation to access their destinations, including work, school, doctors, groceries, social meetings, etc. The estimated 2015 population for Hillsborough County is 1.3 million, with approximately 12.8 percent ages 65+, 12 percent with some type of disability, 17 percent living in poverty as defined by the US Census Bureau, and 25 percent of households earning $24,999 or less annually. Maps 2-4 through 2- 9 illustrate where the populations of older adults, persons below the poverty line, low-income households, and persons with disabilities live in Hillsborough County. The number and proportion of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons in Hillsborough County was assessed using the 2015 ACS estimates. The ACS data were reviewed to determine the number of people who speak English “very well” and “less than very well” for each Census block group within the county, as shown in Map 2-8. Approximately 10 percent of the Hillsborough County population ages 5+ speaks a language other than English. Many households in Hillsborough County are carless households, either because they do not have access to a vehicle or because they choose to not own a car. Map 2-9 shows a concentration of carless households near USF as well as near Downtown Tampa and suburbs such as Tampa Heights.
HART | TDP 2-17
Map 2-4: Hillsborough County Older Adult (65+) Population
Source: American Community Survey, 2015
HART | TDP 2-18
Map 2-5: Hillsborough County Households Living in Poverty
Source: American Community Survey, 2015
HART | TDP 2-19
Map 2-6: Hillsborough County Low-Income Households (< $25,000)
Source: American Community Survey, 2015
HART | TDP 2-20
Map 2-7: Hillsborough County Population with Disabilities
Source: American Community Survey, 2015
HART | TDP 2-21
Map 2-8: Hillsborough County Limited English Proficiency
Source: American Community Survey, 2015
HART | TDP 2-22
Map 2-9: Hillsborough County Vehicle Ownership
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model, 2010
HART | TDP 2-23
TD Population Trends and Projection In 2013, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at USF developed a new methodology to forecast paratransit services demand. All counties were directed to use this methodology when forecasting TD populations and demand in future Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plans (TDSPs). The methodology outlined in Table 2-9 forecasts an increase in TD population and demand for service at the same rate as the total population.
Table 2-9: Forecast Increase in Transportation Disadvantaged
Increase Increase
2020–2025 2025–2030 Transportation Disadvantaged Population 9.3% 7.9% Total Population 9.3% 7.9% Transportation Disadvantaged Trips 9.2% 9.2% Source: Hillsborough County Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan, 2016 Land Use Existing Land Use Land use and development patterns in Hillsborough County are addressed through Comprehensive Plans developed by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. Each jurisdiction— City of Tampa, City of Plant City, City of Temple Terrace, and unincorporated Hillsborough County— has its own Comprehensive Plan to reflect its unique character and vision. Following is a brief description of each jurisdiction’s vision and plan. City of Tampa Tampa’s Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2016 and focuses around a Livable City Vision: “The strategy for Tampa’s future focuses growth where it can realize the greatest social, environmental and economic benefits. Some parts of the city will mature and evolve but will see only limited physical change. Other parts of the city will experience significant change and grow in ways that benefit local areas, the county and the region.” One of its guiding principles is “a comprehensive high-quality, affordable mass-transit system that moves people quickly and conveniently.” The land use policies reflect this vision and support that guiding principle. City of Plant City Plant City’s Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2016 to address legislative mandates, correct inconsistencies, prioritize staff resources, update project status, and encourage future economic opportunities within Plant City. The plan and its policies do not address transit, as Plant City currently does not have transit service. City of Temple Terrace Temple Terrace’s Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2016. The city is adjacent to USF, I-75, and Tampa Executive Airport, whose strategic location will be an attractor for new businesses, industry, and residents. The plan focuses growth in particular areas of the city, including 56th Street and Busch Boulevard/Bullard Parkway, 56th Street and Fowler Ave, 56th Street and Fletcher Ave, and Harney Road/US 301. Higher-density mixed-use development is also encouraged along the major corridors.
HART | TDP 2-24
Although promoting higher-density development in certain areas, the stable single-family neighborhoods will be protected from encroachment through transitions in density and buffering. Unincorporated Hillsborough County The Comprehensive Plan for Unincorporated Hillsborough County was last updated in 2008 and is due for an update. At that time, development was encouraged to be designed and built in “clusters” of development with open space to conserve natural resources. The Urban Service Boundary was, and still is, intended to prevent intense development in the rural areas of the county by limiting sewer and water access. The Urban Service Boundary should also preserve the rural character, agricultural industry, and demand for more transportation infrastructure. Some of the suburban developments, such as those seen in Carrollwood and Westchase, can support transit services and are beginning to develop and redevelop in more transit-supportive patterns and densities. Future Land Use and Scenario Planning The Comprehensive Plans cited previously also look to the future and try to determine how and where cities will grow. The LRTP process influenced the Future Land Use seen in the various comprehensive plans. One of the first steps in the LTRP process is to develop a forecast of the geographic distribution of the county’s population and employment over the LRTP timeframe. These current population and job concentrations are shown in Figure 2-8, and future growth scenarios (as illustrated in Figures 2-8 through 2-11) are used to forecast future travel patterns. Figure 2-8: Current Hillsborough County Jobs and Population
Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040
HART | TDP 2-25
Because public policy and transportation investment decisions can influence how the county grows, the MPO planning staff, with the assistance of the Planning Commission and other community members and stakeholders, began the LRTP planning process by drafting a series of 2040 population and employment forecasts identified as “Alternative Futures” for Hillsborough County. These alternative forecasts start by using the population and employment data from 2010 as a base line. Then, population and employee growth based on population projections developed by FDOT and BEBR were allocated to show how population and employees could be distributed in the future based on different assumptions and community values. This effort resulted in the development of three alternative land use and transportation future scenarios for 2040, as described briefly below. Based on an extensive public engagement and preference survey process, a final preferred scenario was developed using elements of the following alternatives.
Suburban Dream – Shown in Figure 2-9, is primarily low-density residential growth with employment spread across the county. This vision, because it tends towards low-density residential development, will consume the most agricultural and rural land of the three. Figure 2-9: Hillsborough County Jobs and Population, 2040, Suburban Dream Scenario
Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040
HART | TDP 2-26
Bustling Metro – Shown in Figure 2-10, is a much higher-density approach to residential development, occurring closer to the urban centers. Employment is primarily in the existing economic centers. These factors result in little demand to expand the Urban Service Area boundary, and agricultural and rural lands are protected. Figure 2-10: Hillsborough County Jobs and Population, 2040, Bustling Metro Scenario
Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040 New Corporate Centers – Shown in Figure 2-11, envisions somewhat denser residential development, with most new jobs created in identified job centers. There may be a moderate need to expand the Urban Service Area boundary around the interstate highway and interchanges to accommodate these centers. Because much of the residential growth will continue in a suburban pattern, some agricultural and rural lands will be consumed by development.
HART | TDP 2-27
Figure 2-11: Hillsborough County Jobs and Population, 2040, New Corporate Centers Scenario
Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040 The data sets and scenarios represent a cooperative effort among the Hillsborough MPO, FDOT District 7, local municipalities, and the local government jurisdictions in Hillsborough County. The implications of these scenarios on planning for transit in Hillsborough County are described in a later section. The scenarios were evaluated for their potential impacts on and ability to accommodate growth in population, employment, school enrollment, and hotel room inventory. Table 2-10 shows each scenario’s ability to accommodate new people and jobs to Hillsborough County, and Table 2-11 summarizes the population and employment projections for the three different scenarios.
Table 2-10: Population and Employment Characteristics, Hillsborough County
Scenario 2010 2040 Growth Population 1,229,226 1,823,200 593, 974 Suburban Dream Employment 711,400 1,094,138 382,738 Population 1,229,226 1,631,750 402,524 Bustling Metro Employment 711,400 1,094,138 382, 738 Population 1,229,226 1,631,750 402,524 New Corporate Centers Employment 711,400 1,145,195 433,795 Population 1,229,226 1,815,964 586,738 Preferred Hybrid Scenario Employment 711,400 1,112,059 400,659 Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040
HART | TDP 2-28
Table 2-11: Countywide Population and Employment Totals by Scenario
Scenario 2010 2040 Growth Household population 1,207,161 1,790,382 583,221 Group quarters population 22,065 32,818 10,753 Suburban Dream Total population 1,229,226 1,823,200 593, 974 Total employees 711,400 1,094,138 382,738 Employment/population ratio 0.59 0.61 - Household population 1,207,161 1,602,379 395,218 Group quarters population 22,065 29,371 7,306 Bustling Metro Total population 1,229,226 1,631,750 402,524 Total employees 711,400 1,094,138 382,738 Employment/population ratio 0.59 0.68 - Household population 1,207,161 1,602,379 395,218 Group quarters population 22,065 29,371 7,306 New Corporate Total population 1,229,226 1,631,750 402,524 Centers Total employees 711,400 1,145,195 433,795 Employment/population ratio 0.59 0.71 - Household population 1,207,161 1,783,146 575,985 Group quarters population 22,065 32,818 11,219 Preferred Hybrid Total population 1,229,226 1,815,964 586,738 Scenario Total employees 711,400 1,112,059 400,659 Employment/population ratio 0.59 0.62 - Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040
Population growth also impacts school enrollment, which, in turn, impacts transportation and transit needs. Table 2-12 shows the school enrollment totals by scenario and by school type.
Table 2-12: School Enrollment Totals
Scenario 2010 2040 Growth K-12 enrollment 218,231 324,059 105,828 Suburban Dream Higher-ed. enrollment 84,863 118,165 33,302 Total school enrollment 303,094 442,224 139,130 K-12 enrollment 218,231 290,031 71,800 Bustling Metro Higher-ed. enrollment 84,863 105,757 20,894 Total school enrollment 303,094 395,788 92,694 K-12 enrollment 218,231 290,031 71,800 New Corporate Centers Higher-ed. enrollment 84,863 152,066 67,203 Total school enrollment 303,094 442,097 139,003 K-12 enrollment 218,231 324,055 105,824 Preferred Hybrid Scenario Higher-ed. enrollment 84,863 118,170 33,307 Total school enrollment 303,094 442,225 139,131 Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040
Estimating the number of hotels rooms (Table 2-13) is a proxy for estimating the increase in visitors and their demands on the county’s transportation network.
HART | TDP 2-29
Table 2-13: Hotel/Motel Totals
Scenario 2010 2040 Growth Suburban Dream 22,965 35,808 12,843 Bustling Metro 22,965 32,048 9,083 New Corporate Centers 22,965 32,048 9,083 Preferred Hybrid Scenario 22,965 35,809 12,844 Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040 Implications – Baseline Conditions Population Trends and Characteristics – In general, residential density is higher in Tampa and Temple Terrace than in the unincorporated areas of the county. With unincorporated Hillsborough County growing at a faster rate than the incorporated cities, providing efficient service to new and growing areas may be a challenge. In addition, high population growth rates, such as the 23 percent overall county growth experienced between 2000 and 2010, can be great for transit demand, but accommodating this demand will not be straightforward. Furthermore, younger residents generally have different expectations of what transit service should be, including that it should be flexible, modern, and connected to multimodal networks. A variety of reports document this growing desire to drive less and use transit more (APTA, “Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset,” 2016). Although more older adult residents tend to use transit less often and have different perceptions of its role, there exists an opportunity to provide crucial transit service to those who desire to age in place, reduce their automobile reliance, or who are physically unable to drive. Journey-to-Work Characteristics – Hillsborough County remains a predominantly car-centric region, so modifying the commuting habits of the majority will require a significant infrastructure change, culture change, and provision of transit service that is time and cost-competitive with the automobile. Furthermore, the observed phenomena of transit ridership growth that accompanies periods of economic recession is a cyclical dynamic that cannot be predicted and cannot be relied on for overall ridership growth. Labor Force and Employment – Transit service will need to respond to accommodate a variety of work schedules and trip destinations such that it adequately supports a diverse base of riders. Understanding the composition and geographic concentration of the labor force can lead to opportunities for Transportation Demand Management, the application of strategies and policies to reduce or redistribute travel demand. Major Activity Centers and Employers – First mile/last mile connections and services, such as the Downtowner in Downtown Tampa, make transit more attractive and viable for employees in major jobs centers, especially where there are not presently sufficient transit connections. These services should vary by mode, frequency, and type to capture the various markets within and connecting to Hillsborough County’s activity centers. Tourist and Visitor Levels – Visitors, both domestic and international, have needs and expectations of the area’s transit network. The Hillsborough County Tourist Development Council developed a strategic plan in 2016 that listed “visitor-friendly transportation” as an aspirational goal. In pursuit of this goal, it will be important to understand visitor travel flows and which of the major activity centers they frequent the most. Furthermore, developing partnerships with hotels, expanding airport connections,
HART | TDP 2-30
preserving intercity bus connections, and exploring the potential for seasonal services may be vital to meeting tourist and visitor needs. Finally, ensuring that the HART network maps, schedules and signage are clear is a crucial way to ensure that visitors are aware of the transit services in the area. Roadway and Traffic Conditions – Transit in mixed traffic is still subject to the impacts of congestion; however, offering travel options in congested areas provides commuters who normally endure traffic in their own vehicles another choice. Alternatively, fixed-guideway transit, such as water ferry service, removes commuters from road congestion during at least large portions of their trips and can make transit more time- and cost-competitive with automobile travel. Additionally, transit signal priority, in conjunction with other signal coordination plans, can lead to improved travel times in congested areas such as along major north-south or east-west corridors. Air Quality – HART recently invested in Compressed Natural Gas vehicles and earned a Certification for Environmental Sustainability and Management System, the first-ever certification awarded in Florida. DQS Inc., a global auditing firm, awarded the certification through the International Organization for Standardization, and HART became only the 13th agency in the US to receive such a standard. In the event that air quality standards are relaxed, then there will be a reduced mandate for creating healthier transportation options. TD Populations – Older adult residents live in all areas of Hillsborough County, although it is easy to note Sun City Center on Map 2-4, a large, sprawling retirement community in south Hillsborough County near US 301 and I-75. Areas with a higher concentration of households living below the poverty level include the USF area and west and northwest of TIA, are shown on Map 2-5. These areas generally overlap the same areas with a higher concentration of low-income households, as shown on Map 2-6. HART generally serves the areas with a higher concentration of transportation disadvantaged populations, as shown on Map 2-7. Current Land Use – Land use and development patterns in Hillsborough County are addressed through Comprehensive Plans. Each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan reflects its unique character and vision and provides a planning framework to get there. These documents are a good indicator of current conditions concerning development, jobs, population, and areas for conservation. Land use and transportation should be discussed at the same time, especially when examining changes to a transit system with new or expanded transit routes or considering new development or redevelopment for a jurisdiction. Future Land Use – For the Preferred Growth Scenario from the Imagine 2040 LRTP to be implemented, a mix of transportation improvements will be needed countywide. Some new town centers with a mix of places to live, work, and shop would be necessary at rail and bus stations as well as within older commercial areas. Corporate centers should be connected by new express toll lanes (with possible transit within these lanes) in order to expand and grow along interstate highways.
HART | TDP 2-31
Section 3: Transit Accessibility and Travel Patterns HART’s ridership has been growing at a consistently higher rate than that experienced by Hillsborough County or City of Tampa population during the last 20 years. Despite the few periods in which HART experienced a decrease in ridership growth rates, overall ridership itself has grown since 1996, as shown in Figure 3-1. For example, a look at the HART ridership and population in Hillsborough County and Tampa during the last 20 years indicates that HART’s ridership has sustained a growth rate of almost more than double the rate of county population growth. Ridership growth has also reached a rate far beyond the rate of population growth experienced in the City of Tampa. At the same time that HART transit ridership increased at a higher rate, people commuting to other adjacent counties to work has also increased, indicating increasing demand for regional transit connections in addition to the growing demand for transit within the county. Figure 3-1: Ridership Growth and Travel Patterns
In 2014, 34% of workers in Hillsborough 120% County commuted regionally to work
100%
80% In 2004, 30% of workers in Hillsborough County commuted regionally to work 60%
40%
20%
0%
This section summarizes a transit accessibility and travel pattern assessment conducted to provide HART with an understanding of its riders and their potential travel needs locally and regionally. A review of accessibility with transit is summarized followed by a review of travel trends and needs of HART transit users and non-users to help HART efficiently add or modify its transit services in the next 10 years locally and regionally. Transit Accessibility with Existing HART Network An analysis was conducted to identify the degree of accessibility to a selected set of key locations in Hillsborough County via the current HART system. The extent to which a given location is accessible
HART | TDP 3-1
via transit can provide valuable information on how the current system may impact travel patterns of current and potential HART riders. Using population and service area data from FDOT’s Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST), travel time analysis for current and potential HART transit users was conducted and is summarized below. The analysis examines the percent of the county’s areas/population that is within a gradient of travel sheds ranging from 0 minutes up to 2 hours in travel time. The six high activity centers analyzed to determine how accessible they are to other populated areas of the county are:
Downtown Tampa TIA Westshore Mall Brandon MacDill AFB USF For these locations, accessibility was measured in the AM peak with a ¼-mile walk access to transit. It is important to note that the total travel time to access any of the locations includes not just the time on- board the bus, but also the following:
Wait time to board the first bus (maximum of 15 minutes) If transfer is needed to reach the destination, walk time after getting off the first bus and walking to a transfer stop If transfer is needed to reach the destination, wait time to transfer to another bus Walk time to transit from origin employer locations and origin Census Block centroids The accessibility/travel patterns analysis is summarized below and in Figures 3-2 through 3-7. The maps in the following sections include the existing route network as well as other key interstates and roadways. For any areas not colored according to the legend, it can be inferred that they are beyond the two-hour travel time shed or are not populated areas.
HART | TDP 3-2
Downtown Tampa The Downtown area roughly coincides with HART’s network center, more commonly identified as the Marion Transit Center, where many of HART routes converge. Overall, accessibility to the areas surrounding Downtown Tampa is greater than to the respective areas outlying each of the five other centers. Approximately 3 percent of the county’s population lives within a 30-minute transit ride from Downtown Tampa, and 25 percent lives within a 60-minute ride. Approximately 12 percent and 45 percent of the county’s employment is located within a 30-minute and 60-minute transit ride from Downtown Tampa, respectively. Figure 3-2: Downtown Tampa Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed
< 10 Min.
1 Hour
HART | TDP 3-3
Tampa International Airport The TIA area is located west of the Downtown Tampa area and currently is directly served by only one HART route (Route 30), which connects to nearby routes as well as to the Northwest Transfer Center (NWTC) and the Westshore Plaza Transfer Center before continuing on to the Marion Transit Center. Accessibility to the surrounding areas falls off considerably once routes reach either of the two primary transfer centers. Approximately 1 percent of the county’s population lives within a 30-minute transit ride from the airport, and 6 percent lives within a 60-minute ride. Approximately 4 percent and 20 percent of the county’s employment is located within a 30-minute and 60-minute transit ride from the airport, respectively. Figure 3-3: TIA Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed
< 10 Min.
1 Hour
HART | TDP 3-4
Westshore Mall The Westshore Mall area is located west of Downtown Tampa and south of the airport. Four HART routes and a FLEX area serve the area and connect at the nearby Westshore Plaza Transfer Center and the secondary West Tampa Transfer Center. Accessibility to the surrounding areas is greatest in between the two transfer centers and somewhat lower to parts of central Tampa. Approximately 0.5 percent of the county’s population lives within a 30-minute transit ride from the Westshore Mall, and 7 percent lives within a 60-minute ride. Approximately 3 percent and 20 percent of the county’s employment is located within a 30-minute and 60-minute transit ride from the Westshore Mall, respectively. Figure 3-4: Westshore Mall Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed
< 10 Min.
1 Hour
HART | TDP 3-5
Brandon The Brandon area is located east and slightly south of Tampa. Four HART routes and a FLEX area serve the area and connect at the nearby Westfield Brandon Transfer Center. Accessibility to the surrounding areas is fairly high within the immediate area and is moderate to southern parts of the county as well as to areas north to I-75. Approximately 1 percent of the county’s population lives within a 30-minute transit ride from Brandon, and 8 percent lives within a 60-minute ride. Approximately 3 percent and 8 percent of the county’s employment is located within a 30-minute and 60-minute transit ride from Brandon, respectively. Figure 3-5: Brandon Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed
< 10 Min.
1 Hour
HART | TDP 3-6
MacDill AFB MacDill AFB is located in South Tampa. Three HART routes serve the area and connect at the nearby Britton Plaza Transfer Center. Accessibility to the surrounding areas is high in the South Tampa area, but more moderate along north-south routes into central Tampa. Approximately 1 percent of the county’s population lives within a 30-minute transit ride from MacDill AFB, and 5 percent lives within a 60-minute ride. Approximately 2 percent and 6 percent of the county’s employment is located within a 30-minute and 60-minute transit ride from MacDill AFB, respectively. Figure 3-6: MacDill AFB Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed
< 10 Min.
1 Hour
HART | TDP 3-7
University of South Florida The USF area is located northeast of Downtown Tampa. Ten HART routes and a MetroRapid route serve the area and connect at the nearby University Area Transit Center (UATC). Accessibility to the areas surrounding USF is fairly high and second only to Downtown accessibility. Approximately 5 percent of the county’s population lives within a 30-minute transit ride from USF, and 18 percent lives within a 60-minute ride. Approximately 10 percent and 25 percent of the county’s employment is located within a 30-minute and 60-minute transit ride from USF, respectively. Figure 3-7: University of South Florida Accessibility/Transit Travel Shed
< 10 Min.
1 Hour
HART | TDP 3-8
HART Bus Rider Profile and Travel Patterns As a new rider survey was not conducted for this TDP, an analysis of HART’s 2009 and 2014 on-board survey findings was conducted in an effort to use already-available rider data to identify key trends in rider profile and travel patterns. Results from these comprehensive efforts were carefully analyzed as they relate to this TDP. The commuting trends of the general commuting population was developed via a review of regional commuting patterns using data from the 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES), available from the US Census Bureau. Results from the rider and general commuting patterns assessment conducted for the TDP are summarized below. Both the 2009 and 2014 on-board surveys were administered in-person to transit users aboard HART buses. Surveys assist in informing HART about its customers, how they access and use bus service, and what types of improvements they would like to see. Findings from these rider surveys also help HART consider where resources should be allocated or adjusted in the next 10 years. Whereas many similar questions were asked during the two survey efforts, only selected and comparable survey responses were analyzed for this TDP to address two questions: who are HART’s customers and how do they access and use HART bus services? There are some slight differences in the way in which questions where phrased between the two surveys, as the objective in 2009 was to obtain travel data for regional planning models and the primary objective in 2014 was to obtain rider profiles. To provide additional context beyond the two surveys of HART customers, data for Hillsborough County, Florida, and the US are also provided where available. Hillsborough Countywide data were retrieved from the US Census Bureau’s ACS from 2013. Other referenced sources include the 2007 APTA Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Characteristics and an Assessment of Public Transportation Markets based on the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) conducted by CUTR in 2012. Findings Summary and Trends Prior to review of the detailed survey results, LOS and ridership productivity for HART were reviewed and are summarized below to illustrate how the HART customer experience has changed between the two surveys. Table 3-1 compares the service provided and associated ridership in 2009 with 2014 during the same month. It is important to note there were the same number of weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays in April 2009 and 2014.
HART | TDP 3-9
Table 3-1: HART Productivity and Level of Service, 2009 and 2014
HART Service 2009 2014 % Change Fixed Route Bus Ridership 939,367 1,257,728 33.9% HART Flex Ridership n/a 7,960 n/a Wheelchairs on Fixed Route 3,761 4,854 29.1% Bikes on Buses 15,921 17,940 12.7% U-Pass Program 26,683 42,560 59.5% Weekday Average Bus Ridership 36,306 48,686 34.1% Weekday Average Bus Express Ridership 1,056 1,274 20.7%
Ridership Demand Demand Ridership Saturday Average Bus Ridership 18,821 24,124 28.2% Sunday Average Bus Ridership 10,533 15,523 47.4%
Bus Vehicle Hours 50,599 56,122 10.9% Bus Revenue Hours 47,386 52,837 11.5% Bus Vehicle Miles 686,078 735,388 7.2% Service Level of Bus Revenue Miles 603,657 657,727 9.0%
In 2014, HART bus services carried 34 percent more riders and 12 percent more revenue hours of service than in 2009. This increase in usage of the system resulted in more passengers carried per revenue hour of service provided. Buses were likely operating with higher passenger loads (i.e. more full), which can impact perceptions of the quality of service. Bus routes have been realigned since 2009, and additional night and evening service has been implemented. HART served more wheelchair users, carried more bicycles, and experienced a higher use of U-PASS by university students and faculty/staff. All of this utilization outpaced the increase in the amount of service on the road. In addition to these improvements, a significant number of bus stop enhancements increased access to the bus system. Increased use of the wheelchair lift and bike rack on buses have the potential to impact on-time performance. Since 2009, new bus services—HARTFlex, MetroRapid, and, more recently, HyperLINK—have been introduced, resulting in more options for customers. Although the impact on total ridership has been modest, new customer markets have been added, which has the potential to influence trip origins and destinations and other travel behavior. HART Rider Profile Gender According to the 2014 survey, HART ridership has trended to slightly more male, the opposite of the 2009 survey that found slightly more female riders than male, as shown in Figure 3-8. Hillsborough County’s general population is the inverse of the 2014 survey findings and, nationally, surveys have documented an even greater female-to-male ratio of transit users.
HART | TDP 3-10
Figure 3-8: Gender Profile of HART Riders
Male 53.3% Female 51.3% 51.3% 48.7% 48.7% 46.7%
2009 Riders 2014 Riders Countywide Profile Source: 2009 and 2014 on-board survey; ACS 2010-2014 5-year Estimates Race and Ethnicity Fewer survey respondents in 2014 identified themselves as non-Hispanic white than in 2009. As shown in Table 3-2, the 2009 survey does not provide the level of detail on race and ethnicity that the 2014 does, and the majority of differences in the responses fall within the survey margin of error. In 2009, transit users in Florida identified as 38.2 percent Hispanic, 36.8 percent non-Hispanic black, and 21.5 percent non-Hispanic white. In 2013, 26 percent of Hillsborough County residents identified themselves as Hispanic.
Table 3-2: Race & Ethnicity
Race & Ethnicity 2009 2014 Difference White 28.7% 25.3% -3.4% Black 48.5% 49.2% 0.7% Hispanic* 17.6% 18.0% 0.4% Asian 1.7% 1.6% -0.1% Other 3.4% 5.9% 2.5%
*Includes any respondent that identified as Hispanic origin; all race categories listed are non-Hispanic. Age The 2014 survey found that bus service use among those ages 55+ increased faster than those under age 55 since 2009. As shown in Table 3-3, there was a marked split in survey respondent ages, with groupings of those aged 55+ increasing and those aged <55 proportionally decreasing. The proportional decline in youth and those considered to be of working age indicates a possible shift in use of the system towards older individuals since 2009. HART customers aged 55+ were still a smaller proportion of total riders than this same age group countywide. The rise in customers aged 55+ mirrors the same group in the Hillsborough County population, which rose from 20.8 percent in 2009 to more than 24 percent in 2013. Under age 55, the HART customer age breakdown was very similar to national surveys of transit users.
HART | TDP 3-11
Table 3-3: Age Distribution
Age 2009 2014 Difference Over 75 0.9% 1.4% 0.5% 65–74 2.4% 4.2% 1.8% 55–64 10.3% 12.7% 2.4% 45–54 20.7% 19.6% -1.1% 35–44 18.3% 17.8% -0.5% 25–34 21.5% 20.7% -0.8% 24 and under 26.0% 23.6% -2.4%
Income The 2014 survey identified a consolidation of customer annual incomes between $10,000 and $49,999, with fewer earning below $10,000 and above $50,000. As shown in Figure 3-9, in total, 41.9 percent of transit users in Florida had an annual income under $15,000, 45.5 percent from $15,000 to $49,999, and 12.7 percent $50,000 and higher, nearly 3 times as high as HART bus customers.
Figure 3-9: Income Distribution
7.8%
44.6% 33.6% 42.1%
Under $10,000
$10,000 to $49,999
49.8% 61.7% $50,000 or more 50.2%
5.5% 4.7%
2009 Survey 2014 Survey Hillsborough County
Source: 2009 and 2014 on-board survey; ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates
HART | TDP 3-12
Employment Status The employment status of HART customers was relatively unchanged between the 2009 and 2014 surveys and is shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Employment Status
Employment Status 2009 2014 Difference Employed Full Time 42.0% 39.7% -2.3% Employed Part Time 19.1% 17.7% -1.4% Other Employed 0.0% 2.8% 2.8% Not Employed/Full Time Student 31.7% 32.5% 0.8% Retired 7.2% 7.2% 0.0%
Student Status HART users identifying themselves as a “current student” decreased from 30.3 percent in 2009 to 24.1 percent in 2014, representing an overall decrease of 6.2 percent of riders who are students. Vehicle Availability The percent of customers with a vehicle at home available to make a trip was relatively unchanged from 2009 to 2014. A total of 65 percent of HART users had no vehicle available to them. In 2014, only 7.1 percent of Hillsborough County residents were identified as having no vehicle available in their household, up from 6.7 percent in 2009. Nationally, surveys of users of transit such as bus found that 61.9 percent did not have a vehicle available. Trip Characteristics Trip Purpose As shown in Table 3-5, there were a relatively minor changes in trip purpose since 2009. Trip origins from home represented the biggest increase in all origins, increasing to nearly 9 percent. Shopping trips as a destination increased by 7 percent. It is unknown whether many of the previously categorized “other” trips in 2009 may have been otherwise attributed to shopping and recreation, minimizing the significant increases in 2014. The distribution of origins and destinations is difficult to compare, as the way the question was asked was trip-specific and the identification of home trips did not reveal round- trip purpose. It can be reasoned that origins and destinations identified as “home” should be proportionally distributed to the other trip categories to reveal round-trip purpose. This would raise work- trip share to approximately 44 percent in 2009 and 43 percent in 2014. In 2009, transit use in Florida for work and work-related trips was 27.4 percent. Nationally, work trips on transit constituted 59.2 percent of all trips taken.
HART | TDP 3-13
Table 3-5: Trip Purpose
Trip Purpose 2009 2014 Difference Work 24.5% 21.1% -3.4% Medical 5.7% 3.9% -1.8% Social 5.2% 4.8% -0.4% School (K–12) 3.7% 2.7% -1.0% College 6.0% 4.3% -1.7% Recreation 1.3% 3.4% 2.1% Trip Origin Shopping 5.0% 9.3% 4.3% Home 41.8% 50.6% 8.8% Other 6.8% N/A N/A Work 27.9% 25.7% -2.2% Medical 5.4% 4.4% -1.0% Social 5.4% 5.9% 0.5% School (K–12) 3.9% 2.5% -1.4% College 5.7% 4.0% -1.7% Recreation 0.7% 4.0% 3.3% Shopping 6.7% 13.7% 7.0% Trip Destination Home 36.3% 39.8% 3.5% Other 8.1% N/A N/A
Distance Traveled to Access the Bus System According to the survey, the walk distance to and from the HART bus system for customers slightly decreased in 2014 and the distance driven to access and egress the system increased, as shown in Table 3-6. The increase can be explained by the expansion of express bus service and increasing vehicle ownership.
Table 3-6: Distance To/From Bus Stop
2009 2014 Walk 2.5 blocks 2.4 blocks Accessing HART Bus Bicycle 5.6 blocks 5.5 blocks Drive & park 4.4 miles 5.8 miles Walk 2.5 blocks 2.2 blocks Egressing HART Bus Bicycle 3.2 blocks 4.6 blocks Drive & park 3.7 miles 5.8 miles
First and Last Mile Modes Most customers accessed and egressed the bus by walking and getting dropped off in 2014 than in 2009 and is shown in Table 3-7. The presence of an “other” category somewhat limited the conclusions that can be made from this survey question. Nationally, walking to and from roadway-based transit rates at approximately 90 percent, similar to HART.
HART | TDP 3-14
Table 3-7: Mode Used to Access/Egress HART Services
2009 2014 Difference Walked 85.0% 90.0% 5.0% Bicycled 4.0% 2.4% -1.6% Drove 0.5% 0.4% -0.1% Access Mode Dropped off 3.4% 6.7% 3.3% Shared ride 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Other 6.8% 0.1% -6.7%
Walked 85.0% 93.4% 8.4% Bicycled 4.0% 2.4% -1.7% Drove 0.5% 0.3% -0.2% Egress Mode Picked up 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% Shared ride 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Other 6.8% 0.1% -6.7%
Frequency of Use Based on the surveyed trips, responses indicated a decrease in the highest frequency of bus system use by customers (6 or more days per week). Table 3-8 lists the responses for the 2009 and 2014 on- board surveys.
Table 3-8: Frequency of Transit Usage per Week
2009 2014 Difference 6 days or more 31.7% 25.2% -6.5% 5 days 34.9% 32.9% -2.0% 4 days 11.1% 12.7% 1.6% 3 days 6.1% 9.1% 3.0% 2 days 5.4% 7.6% 2.2% 1 day 3.4% 3.5% 0.1% Less than one per week 5.4% 7.1% 1.7% First time riding 2.0% 1.9% -0.1%
Transfers Needed to Reach Destination Based on the surveyed trip, customer responses indicated a significant decrease in the need for a transfer to reach their destination. In 2009, more than 70 percent of trips required at least one transfer; in 2014, only 45 percent of all trips required a transfer. This information was derived in both surveys from a question asking a customer to list, in order, the bus routes required to complete the trip they were on, and is summarized in Figure 3-10. As the question appears to be consistently phrased between surveys, additional research may be required to identify potential reasons for this decrease in transfer responses or activity. Nationally, 50 percent of roadway-based transit requires at least one transfer, which is more in line with the 2009 findings.
HART | TDP 3-15
Figure 3-10: Transfers Used to Reach Destination
2 or more transfers 10.1%
2 or more transfers 21.4% Zero 1 29.2% transfer 33.4% Zero 56.5%
1 transfer 49.5%
2009 2014
Regional Commuting Patterns To assess regional trends and patterns of commuters, an analysis using 2014 LEHD LODES data, known as “On the Map” and provided by the US Census Bureau, was completed. This analysis provides geographic commuting patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations based on composite information of local unemployment insurance earnings data, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data concerning where workers live and work, firm characteristics such as industry, and survey data. Figure 3-11 shows regional commuting patterns by commuter outflow from Hillsborough County and inflow into the county using 2014 LODES data. Two-thirds of the residents in Hillsborough County work in the county and one-third commute outside the county. The commuters who leave Hillsborough County commute primarily to Pinellas County (9.5%) and secondarily to Orange, Polk, and Pasco counties (3.3%, 3.1%, and 2.6%, respectively), as listed in Table 3-9. Most of the commuters going to these counties drive to St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Orlando, Lakeland, Tarpon Springs, or Central Pasco County. Commuters in Hillsborough County travel as far north as Duval County and as far south as Miami-Dade County to work. Pinellas County had the highest percent of commuter inflow into Hillsborough County in 2014, at 9.3 percent, followed by Pasco County at 8.5 percent, as shown in Table 3-10. Commuters traveled from as far south as Miami-Date County and as far north from Duval County for work-related purposes.
HART | TDP 3-16
Figure 3-11: Regional Commuting Patterns 53,836 14,585 Pasco
52,087 Pinellas Net Inflow of 59,105 67,000 Daily 17,059 Commuters Polk 23,974
Manatee 7,562 11,259
Table 3-9: 2014 Commuter Outflows
Number of County Percent Workers Hillsborough 362,264 65.7% Pinellas 52,087 9.5% Orange 18,408 3.3% Polk 17,059 3.1% Pasco 14,585 2.6% Duval 9,429 1.7% Broward 8,681 1.6% Miami-Dade 7,562 1.4% Manatee 7,521 1.4% Sarasota 5,396 1.0% All other locations 48,032 8.7%
HART | TDP 3-17
Table 3-10: 2014 Commuter Inflows
Number of County Percent Workers Hillsborough 362,264 57.2% Pinellas 59,105 9.3% Pasco 53,836 8.5% Polk 23,974 3.8% Orange 14,919 2.4% Manatee 11,259 1.8% Broward 9,420 1.5% Hernando 7,498 1.2% Miami-Dade 7,460 1.2% Sarasota 6,997 1.1% All other locations 77,078 12.2%
Implications – Transit Accessibility and Travel Patterns The review of transit accessibility indicates that not all of the major regional activity areas are similarly accessible. The Downtown Tampa area, followed by the USF area, has the highest accessibility for both local population and employment locations. Generally, for all of the assessed areas, it was revealed that there is greater transit accessibility north-south than along east-west corridors. Additionally, there are a handful of locations within the network that can be associated with drop-offs in the accessibility score (i.e., extended travel times due to transfer center stops) and, therefore, hamper the overall accessibility of the HART network. It is apparent that the lack of high accessibility to some of these major regional activity centers presents a challenge to expand HART’s ridership base beyond the areas that are currently highly accessible. The trends analyzed indicate an efficient bus service that carries 34 percent more riders in 2014 with an increase of only 12 percent in additional revenue service hours. Programs such as U-Pass have performed well, indicating an opportunity to increase ridership/attract student populations. Although HART is currently serving a greater number of older adults, it may also have added more travelers who are using wheelchairs, which can sometimes increase bus travel times. The service has become easier to use, as walking distances to and from bus stops have decreased in addition to the number of transfers required to reach a destination. However, HART will need to monitor how the growing need to accommodate wheelchair and bicycle users will impact its prioritization of capital investments as well as on-time performance. In addition, the review of regional travel behavior indicates the continued need for more regionally- connected transit services to Pinellas County and especially to Pasco County due to its explosive growth as a bedroom community for Hillsborough. HART will continually be challenged by the need to provide services locally and regionally to those dependent on public transportation to access work, shopping, educational services, etc., as well as providing services that can attract new discretionary riders. In addition, if regional services such as those provided by PSTA (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority) and HART are able to significantly cut travel times along congested corridors, it may help HART to attract regional discretionary riders. However, ridership trends indicate a growing need to prioritize regular fixed-route service, as ridership in fixed-route service has grown faster than express service.
HART | TDP 3-18
Section 4: Existing Transit Services This review of the existing public transportation services in Hillsborough County is conducted to provide an understanding of the range of options currently available to the public to meet their transportation needs, assist in determining what transit service and capital needs still exist in Hillsborough County, and identify where resources should be considered for future allocation to meet the needs of the community. This section first presents an overview of HART transit services and other transit providers in Hillsborough County. In addition, a review of a key component of HART’s success, its use of technology, is also assessed. Review of Existing Services HART has been providing various transportation services in Hillsborough County since 1979. HART operated a total of 46 total routes, which provided approximately 14,081,260 passenger trips for fixed Local and Express routes in 2016. Additionally, 93,411 and 158,090 passenger trips were provided in 2016 via the flex route and paratransit modes, respectively. Figure 4-1 summarizes existing HART services and is followed by a summary of HART’s existing transit service/mode options. Figure 4-1: HART Transit Services
12
1 29 Express HARTPlus 1 Routes 5 3 HyperLINK BRT-Lite Local Routes ADA Streetcar 6 Express Community Ride-hailing Route Paratransit Route 27 Fixed- and Flex Routes Areas MetroRapid Route Van Service 6 Limited 2 Downtown Express
High Frequency Transit Low Frequency Transit
HART | TDP 4-1
The majority of HART’s fixed-route service, as measured by revenue hours, is bus local and express services, accounting for 83.5 percent of the service, followed by paratransit at 12.4 percent, flex service at 2.4 percent, and streetcar at 1.7 percent. The majority of HART routes run seven days per week, with some routes reducing services on Saturday and Sunday. Most weekday routes operate starting from 4:30 AM and ending at various times during the night, with 10–60-minute headways.
Fixed-Route Services Local Service The majority of fixed-route bus service is within the City of Tampa, but service also reaches into Town ‘N Country, Citrus Park, Carrollwood, Temple Terrace, Brandon, and limited parts of the South Shore area including Gibsonton and Sun City Center. There are 9 designated transit/transfer centers and 23 park-and-ride lots, mostly located within Flex Zones. At the UATC near USF, HART connects its services to the USF Bull Runner, a free on-campus circulator service. All HART fixed-route buses are low-floor and ramp-equipped for easy wheelchair access and also have bicycle racks. Express Service HART operates a network of 12 express routes connecting park-and-ride lots in lower-density areas of the county. These express routes operate a limited number of peak travel hour trips with limited stops. Park-and-ride lots extend the range of the service, enabling patrons to drive to a stop and leave their cars during the day at no additional charge. Streetcar Service HART operates a streetcar service known as the TECO Line Streetcar under contract with Tampa Historic Streetcar, Inc. The service extends a total of 2.7 miles and links Ybor City, Channelside, and Downtown Tampa. In-Towner HART began operating a new downtown circulator service in July 2015 that was modified to a fare-free service in October 2015. The service runs a loop starting at the Marion Transit Center to Harbor Island and then back along Franklin Street and Florida Avenue during peak hour travel periods and operates with 15-minute headways. Flex Service Flex service is a hybrid of traditional local fixed-route service and demand-response service. Currently, HARTFlex operates five flex routes on a regular route and schedule that are allowed to deviate or flex
HART | TDP 4-2
into a specific area upon advance reservation. Flex service is designed for communities that exhibit demand for transit service but have lower-than-traditional population and employment densities. Two HART flex routes operate Monday through Friday, and three operate Monday through Saturday. HyperLINK HART also offers HyperLINK, a new subsidized ride-hailing/ridesharing pilot program that provides shared rides to local bus stops. The service is intended to connect riders from the first/last mile to the bus stop. Rides on HyperLINK currently are provided at $3 one-way, payable by cash or credit. The service works through a mobile app that allows passengers within a three-mile radius of designated bus stops in the USF, Carrollwood, and Brandon areas to request these van rides. This innovative transit solution by HART has extended the footprint of its network directly to the doorsteps of people living in its HyperLINK zones. Paratransit Service In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, HART provides HARTPlus, a complementary ADA paratransit service for eligible passengers with disabilities. Persons are eligible for service if they have physical, cognitive, emotional, visual, or other disabilities that prevent them from using HART’s fixed-route bus system. HARTPlus services are available only where HART bus routes operate (within ¾-mile of regular bus routes). Map 4-1 illustrates the existing HART bus service network, including local, express, streetcar, and flex routes operated by HART, transfer centers, and park-and-ride lots. Tables 4-1 through 4-5 list the transit route characteristics by peak and off-peak hours for both weekdays and weekends for all fixed- and flex-route services. An inventory of additional resources is presented in Appendix C that includes the vehicle fleet and other capital resources by maintenance class.
HART | TDP 4-3
Map 4-1: Existing Transit Services
HART | TDP 4-4
Table 4-1: Local Fixed-Route Services
Route Route Name Peak Headway Off-Peak Headway Evening/Night Headway Hours No. Weekday 4:00 AM – 1:01 AM Weekday 20 min Weekday 20 min Weekday 15-60 min 1 Florida Ave Saturday 6:15 AM – 11:05 PM Weekend 30 min Weekend 30 min Weekend 15-50 min Sunday 6:15 AM – 9:24 PM Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30-60 min Weekday 4:25 AM – 12:53 AM 2 Nebraska Ave Weekend 30 min Weekend 30 min Weekend 30-60 min Weekend 5:15 AM – 12:52 AM Palma Ceia/ 4 Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 5:45 AM – 8:37 PM South Tampa Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30-60 min Weekday 5:05 AM – 12:47 AM 5 40th Street Weekend 60 Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:35 AM – 10:18 PM Weekday 20-30 min Weekday 10-25 min Weekday 25-50 min Weekday 4:50 AM – 1:25 AM 6 56th Street Weekend 30 min Weekend 25-35 min Weekend 35-70 min Weekend 6:15 AM – 1:09 AM West Tampa/ Citrus Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 4:40 AM – 10:46 PM 7 Park Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:30 AM – 8:28 PM Progress Village/ Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 4:45 AM – 11:27 PM 8 Brandon Weekend 50-70 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 55-65 min Weekend 6:20 AM – 9:52 PM Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 4:30 AM – 10:03 PM 9 15th Street Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 7:00 AM – 8:58 PM 10 Cypress Street Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 5:05 AM – 7:07 PM Weekday 20 min Weekday 20 min Weekday 20-60 min Weekday 4:00 AM – 12:59 AM 12 22nd Street Weekend 30 min Weekend 30 min Weekend 30-60 min Weekend 6:35 AM – 10:25 PM Weekday 45-65 min Weekday45-60 min Weekday 40-50 Weekday 4:55 AM – 9:00 PM 14 Armenia Ave Saturday 30-50 Saturday 40-55 min Saturday 45 min Saturday 6:35 AM – 9:29 PM Weekday 25-40 min Weekday 25-30 min Weekday 20-60 min Weekday 4:40 AM – 10:59 PM 15 Columbus Drive Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:45 AM – 8:22 PM Weekday 40-55 min Weekday 40-45 min Weekday 35-40 min Weekday 5:30 AM – 8:42 PM 16 Waters Ave Saturday 40 min Saturday 40 min Saturday 40 min Saturday 5:35 AM – 7:47 PM Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 5:05 AM – 10:53 PM 18 30th Street Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 5:55 AM – 9:07 PM Weekday 20-30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday3 30-70 min Weekday 4:10 AM – 1:16 AM 19 Port Tampa Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:35 AM – 10:32 PM Note: Peak headways are defined as between 6-9 AM & 3:30-6:30 PM
HART | TDP 4-5
Table 4-1: Local Fixed-Route Services (cont.)
Route Evening/Night Route Name Peak Headway Off Peak Headway Hours No. Headway Weekday 35 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 4:30 AM – 1:02 AM 30 Town ‘N Country/ Airport Weekend 30 min Weekend 30 min Weekend 30 min Weekend 6:35 AM – 1:13 AM 31 S. Hillsborough Co. Weekday 40-80 min Weekday 75 min Weekday 50 min Weekday 5:10 AM – 8:03 PM Weekday 30-35 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30-35 Weekday 4:55 AM – 12:20 AM 32 Dr. MLK Jr. Boulevard Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 7:05 AM – 10:56 PM Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 4:50 AM – 10:59 PM 33 Fletcher Ave Saturday 45 min Saturday 45 min Saturday 45 min Saturday 6:00 AM – 10:20 PM Sunday 60 min Sunday 60 min Sunday 60 min Sunday 6:10 AM – 8:01 PM Weekday 25-35 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 25-75 min Weekday 4:50 AM – 12:54 AM 34 Hillsborough Ave Saturday 30 min Saturday 30 min Saturday 30 min Weekend 6:00 AM – 10:16 PM Sunday 60 min Sunday 60 min Sunday 60 min Dale Mabry Hwy/ Weekday 30 min Weekday 25-30 min Weekday 30-40 min Weekday 5:25 AM – 10:18 PM 36 Himes Ave Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:10 AM – 8:54 PM Weekday 15-50 min Weekday 25-35 min Weekday 15-65 min Weekday 5:05 AM – 10:33 PM 37 Brandon/Netp@rk Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:05 AM – 7:38 PM Weekday 30-35 min Weekday 30 min Weekday 20-55 min Weekday 4:30 AM – 12:00 AM 39 Busch Boulevard Saturday 30 min Saturday 30 min Saturday 30 min Saturday 7:00 AM – 10:32 PM Sunday 65 min Sunday 65 min Sunday 65 min Sunday 7:10 AM – 8:32 PM 41 Sligh Ave Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 5:05 AM – 7:47 PM Weekday 30-35 min Weekday 25-30 Weekday 25-30 min Weekday 4:30 AM – 10:08 PM 45 Rome Ave Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 60 min Weekend 6:15 AM – 8:44 PM Downtown/Brandon/ Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 6:00 AM – 8:44 PM 46 Dover Park-and-Ride Saturday 60 min Saturday 60 min Saturday 60 min Saturday 6:00 AM – 8:47 PM UATC/Temple Weekday 60-65 min Weekday 60 min Weekday 55-60 min Weekday 4:50 AM – 11:18 PM 57 Terrace/Netp@rk Saturday 60 min Saturday 60 min Saturday 60 min Saturday 5:30 AM – 10:14 PM In-Towner Downtown Weekday 6:00 AM – 8:55 AM, 96 Weekday 15 min Tampa-Weekday 3:30 PM – 6:25 PM In-Towner Downtown 97 Saturday 30 min Saturday 11:00 AM – 7:21 PM Tampa-Weekend Note: Peak headways are defined as between 6-9 AM & 3:30-6:30 PM
HART | TDP 4-6
Table 4-2: Express and Limited Express Route Services
Route No. Route Name Headway Weekday Hours 6:00 AM – 7:35 AM, 20X Pasco/Lutz Express 45 min 4:30 PM – 6:08 PM 6:10 AM – 7:27 AM, 21LX 56th Street Limited Express 30-45 min 4:30 PM – 6:15 PM 6:20 AM – 7:40 AM, 22X Dover/Brandon Express 30 min 4:45 PM – 6:11 PM 5:10 AM – 7:24 AM, 24X FishHawk/Riverview/South Tampa Express 10-35 min 3:10 PM – 6:15 PM 5:25 AM – 7:21 AM, 25LX South Brandon/South Tampa Limited Express 10-50 min 3:10 PM – 6:25 PM 5:55 AM – 7:42 AM, 27LX Riverview/FishHawk/South Brandon Limited Express 15-30 min 4:40 PM – 6:26 PM 6:35 AM – 7:20 AM, 28X East County Express 1 trip per peak period 5:05 PM – 5:53 PM 5:45 AM – 7:34 AM, 47LX South County Limited Express 25-30 min 4:40 PM – 6:29 PM 6:01 AM – 7:45 AM, 51X New Tampa/Pasco Express 26-30 min 4:45 PM – 6:29 PM AM and PM peak 60 min, 53LX South County/Brandon Limited Express off-peak 60-70 min, 6:55 AM – 8:41 PM evening/night 60 min 6:15 AM – 7:37 AM, 61LX Northwest Limited Express 30 min 4:45 PM – 6:36 PM 5:20 AM – 9:26 AM, 200X Clearwater Express 35-105 min 4:40 PM – 6:43 PM MetroRapid North/South 15-30 min 5:00 AM – 8:00 PM
Note: Express operate on weekdays only
HART | TDP 4-7
Table 4-3: Flex Route Services
Route No. Route Name Headway Hours Weekday 60 min Weekday 6:00 AM – 7:50 PM 570 Brandon Flex Saturday 60 min Saturday 8:00 AM – 8:50 PM 571 South County Flex Weekday 60 min Weekday 6:05 AM – 7:57 PM Weekday 60 min Weekday 5:25 AM – 9:15 PM 572 Northdale Flex Saturday 60 min Saturday 6:45 AM – 6:30 PM 573 Town ‘N Country Flex Weekday 60 min Weekday 5:15 AM – 6:57 PM 574 South Tampa Flex Weekday 60 min Weekday 6:00 AM – 7:23 PM
Table 4-4: Streetcar Services
Route No. Route Name Headway Hours Mon-Thurs 12:12 PM – 10:35 PM, Weekday 20-30 min 800 TECO Line Streetcar Fri-Sat 10:50 AM – 2:10 AM Weekend 20-30 min Sun 11:50 AM – 8:55 PM
Table 4-5: HyperLINK Services
Connecting Routes Base Stop Hours 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 18, 21x, 33, 45, 57, and 30 mins before & after service in University HART UATC MetroRapid designated zone begins 1, 14, 16, 20X, 33, 36, 39, 45, and HART Fletcher at Dale Mabry Hwy 30 mins before & after service in Carrollwood HARTFlex Northdale Super Stop designated zone begins HART Brandon Westfield Transfer 8, 31, 32, 37, 46, 22X, 25LX,27LX, 30 mins before & after service in Brandon Center and HART Brandon Hospital 53LX, HARTFlex Brandon Route designated zone begins Stop
HART | TDP 4-8
Fares The base fare for HART local and limited express routes is $2.00, $3.00 for Express routes, $1.00 for Flex routes, $3.00 for HyperLINK trips, and $4.00 for HARTPlus routes. Discounts are provided for older adults, youth, passengers with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, and adult students through participating educational institutions. With the exception of Medicare cardholders, passengers must have a HART discount permit or paratransit permit to ride for a discounted fare (proper identification is required upon initial request of any discount permit). Various ride cards that store multiple rides are available for purchase, as well. Passengers under the age of 4 and not taller than the yellow height line provided in the vehicles ride for free when accompanied by a paying adult. The current HART fare structure is shown in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Fare Descriptions
Fare Category Fare Local & Limited Express Cash Fare $2.00 Discounted Cash Fare (local only) $1.00 1-Day Local Unlimited Ride $4.00 1-Day Discount Unlimited Ride $2.00 10 Pack 1-Day Local Unlimited Ride $37.00 10 Pack 1-Day Discount Unlimited Ride $18.50 31-Day Local Unlimited Ride $65.00 31-Day Discount Local Unlimited Ride $32.50 3-Day Visitor $11.75 3-Day Visitor/Group (bulk purchase 200 or more) $9.50 Flex Cash Fare $1.00 1-Day Unlimited Ride $2.00 HyperLINK $3.00 In-Towner FREE Express Cash Fare $3.00 Discounted Cash Fare (limited & regular) $1.50 1-Day Express Unlimited Ride $6.00 1-Day Discount Express Unlimited Ride $3.00 10 Pack 1-Day Express Unlimited Ride $53.00 10 Pack 1-Day Discount Express Unlimited Ride $26.50 31-Day Express Unlimited Ride $95.00 31-Day Discount Express Unlimited Ride $47.50 HART/PSTA Passport $85.00 ADA Paratransit HARTPlus One Way Cash Fare $4.00 10 Ride HARTPlus Pass $40.00
HART | TDP 4-9
Facilities and Infrastructure HART maintains a number of different facilities to accommodate the provision of its fixed-route bus, demand-response, and streetcar services in the Tampa Bay area. HART’s fixed-route and demand- response services currently are provided from the facility located on 21st Avenue in Tampa. HART’s administration and streetcar operations and maintenance functions are located at HART’s Ybor City facility. The main HART operations and maintenance facility at the 21st Avenue location includes numerous bus facilities and infrastructure including, but not limited to, the following key components:
20 numbered repair bays 2 fuel positions 3 bus wash bays (two drive-through and one gantry type) 211 bus parking spaces HART owns or maintains numerous other transit facilities in various locations throughout the Hillsborough County area, including:
23 park-and-ride lots 2 transit centers: o Marion Transit Center (MTC) o University Area Transit Center (UATC) 7 transfer centers: o Britton Plaza o Westshore Plaza o West Tampa o Westfield - Brandon o Yukon o Netp@rk o Northwest Marion Street Transitway South County Intermodal Terminal Southern Transportation Plaza Approximately 3,057 bus stops Approximately 561 passenger shelters HART currently experiences vehicle overcrowding in the existing operations and maintenance facility, and the situation is expected to worsen with the anticipated expansion of the fleet. HART is considering a new satellite facility that would service 200 vehicles (a combination of new vehicles and existing vehicles from the 21st Avenue site). A feasibility and site location study was recently completed to provide basic programming and budget information for a new satellite operations and maintenance facility. The new site would comprise a combination of standard transit vehicles and paratransit vans. HART has expressed an interest in phasing the new facility to start with all vans (up to 100), with the additional expansion of 100 buses occurring later. The existing facility at 21st Avenue will remain in operation and serve as the main Administration, Operations, and Maintenance Facility.
HART | TDP 4-10
Other Transit Services in Hillsborough County A review was conducted to identify other providers of transit services in Hillsborough County in addition to HART. A summary of these private and public transportation providers is presented in this section, including taxi and ride-hailing services and local and regional transit providers. Local Transit Alternatives Several alternative transit/transportation options have become available since the last HART TDP Major Update in 2012. Table 4-7 includes an inventory of the alternative intra-city modes now available in Hillsborough County.
Table 4-7: Local Alternative Travel Modes
Service Provider Location and Description Service Details
Tampa Downtown Tampa electric vehicle Downtowner Operates from 6 AM to 11 PM M–F Downtown shuttles are hailed by flagging down Shuttle and 11 AM to 11 PM on weekends Partnership on-street or via smartphone app Downtown Tampa, Ybor City, South Available 24 hours per day with On-Demand Coast Bike Tampa, West Tampa, Harbor & various membership options Bike Share Davis Islands including pay as you go $15 all-day ($10 after 6 PM) hop- on/hop-off fare: Private Water Hillsborough River, Downtown M–Th 11:30 AM to 9:45 PM Water Taxi Taxi Tampa, Harbor & Davis Islands F 11:30 AM to 11:15 PM Sa 11:30 AM to 12 AM Su 11:30 AM to 10:15 PM
Regional Transit Alternatives Intercity travel from Hillsborough County to the rest of the state is served by rail and bus. Since the last HART TDP Major Update, Mega Bus provides service along with the other providers in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8: Regional Alternative Travel Modes
Service Provider Location and Description Service Details Type Downtown Tampa on Offers service to thousands of destinations Greyhound Bus Polk Street nationwide Silver Star Palmetto: southbound service Passenger Tampa Union Station, Amtrak from Tampa to Miami, northbound service Train Downtown Tampa from Tampa to New York City Destinations include Naples, Tallahassee, Marion Transit Center in Red Coach Bus Gainesville, Ocala, Orlando, and multiple Downtown Tampa and USF locations in Miami Marion Transit Center in Destinations include Orlando, Miami, and Mega Bus Bus Downtown Tampa and Mango Ft. Lauderdale park-and-ride Tampa Bay Between Downtown Tampa Water Ferry $10 each way, 2 round trips per day Ferry* and St. Petersburg *Pilot program is expected to end in April/May 2017.
HART | TDP 4-11
Taxi and Application-based Ride-hailing Services Several taxi companies operate in Hillsborough County, including but not limited to United Cab Company, Yellow Cab of Tampa, Checker Cab of Tampa, and Cab Plus, which operate under the rules of the Public Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC moved forward with a regulatory framework providing rules for application-based ride-hailing companies, such as Uber and Lyft, operating in Hillsborough County in late 2016. Now in 2017, the Florida State Legislature may soon have the opportunity to sign a bill that outlines the final requirements, which are still a topic of on-going discussion. This development is relevant to HART as transit agencies, both in the region and across the country, consider ways that emerging app-based ride-hailing (ride-sourcing and ridesharing) services may complement public transit. Implications – Potential Service Gaps and Latent Demand Concurrent with this TDP, a comprehensive operation analysis (COA) was completed to provide HART with an opportunity to identify and leverage service gaps/latent demand and address key operational performance needs. Findings from the COA were reviewed and incorporated into the TDP as applicable to develop the short-term strategic vision for transit services in Hillsborough County and the region. HART has unique challenges for filling the service gaps and addressing latent demand for transit in Hillsborough County. These gaps are associated with, but not limited to, the following areas:
Absence of East-West Frequency – North-south routes operate with more regular and robust frequency than routes moving east-west and also operate with less than 30-minute frequencies during peak periods, whereas the east-west routes generally do not. This makes transfer activity focused at transfer centers, often creating circuitous routes and lengthening travel times. A more regular east-west frequency would improve connections in the network. Lack of Frequent Connectivity between Major Activity Centers – The lack of connectivity between major activity centers, such as Downtown Tampa, USF, and TIA, relates to the lack of east-west frequency in the system as a whole. Connections among these three areas have been studied extensively for years in the Tampa Bay area and it has been concluded that latent demand exists. The need has yet to be filled by fast-connecting fixed-route transit. HART should explore options to capitalize on demand for regional travel by connecting two or more of the activity centers to better serve existing and potential transit riders more effectively. Incomplete Corridor Service – Some routes that have a corridor identity deviate or truncate before reaching key activity centers with high latent demand. Connecting to these new areas could attract new ridership and existing ridership may be better served. A few examples include: o Route 1 – Florida Avenue: This is one of the busiest routes in the HART network; however, it does not extend south to the Central Business District (CBD). Conversely, far to the north on Florida Avenue in the USF area, Route 33 serves Florida Avenue north of Fletcher and Route 1 travels east to Nebraska Avenue and then north before reaching the UATC. These movements can be confusing to new and potential transit users. o Route 14 – Armenia Avenue: This route serves much of West Tampa on a north-south corridor and offers excellent travel times; however, it travels along several unproductive segments from the Marion Transit Center to reach Armenia Avenue. This corridor is served by four separate routes in Tampa, with a large service gap from north of I-275 to north of Kennedy Boulevard. The “SOHO” entertainment district, on South Howard Avenue and
HART | TDP 4-12
south of Kennedy, includes numerous food and beverage locations with limited parking. Providing connections to this area would be an attractive option for employees and patrons. o Route 30 – Town ‘N Country/Airport: This route serves Kennedy Boulevard between Westshore and Downtown Tampa, a corridor that experiences significant congestion throughout the day on many segments, but travels south and then east upon entering the CBD in Downtown Tampa. This alignment misses several major job centers by several blocks before traveling north to Marion Transit Center via the Marion Transit Way. Accommodating Existing and Future Developments near the Urban Core – As land use patterns in the urban core continue to promote a more walkable environment and create perceptions of parking scarcity, the need and desire for transit may increase. More frequent service may help to capture the latent demand in these areas. Some notable developments that can help transit usage include the following: o West River Redevelopment on Main Street and N Boulevard o The Heights Development near N Tampa Street and Palm Avenue o Several dense developments in CBD o Encore and other planned developments in northeast CBD o Strategic Property Partners development in Channel District in southern CBD HART’s Use of Technology HART has continued to use technology as an effective tool to provide the services summarized previously in this section. HART has implemented several projects that have provided enhanced information for monitoring and assessing the service and ridership patterns. In addition to these projects, HART has implemented state-of-the-art technology that takes advantage of the growing use of mobile apps. The technology has also provided other important benefits, including increasing operational efficiency, improving accessibility of information, and improving the customer service experience. Some recently implemented projects include the following:
One Bus Away – Launched in August 2013, riders can now determine arrival and departure times for all fixed-route buses from their phones via the app or text message, as well as online from a regular computer. The service also includes details on whether buses are operating on schedule. In 2015, the system added a touch-tone option that enables riders to access the same information via landline or basic cell phone without a data plan. In July 2016, the app was upgraded to include a Trip Planner that offers flexible options for passengers to plan their travel using the first transit agency-provided, app- enabled trip planner. Free Wi-Fi on Buses – Launched in April 2016, riders can now use free Wi-Fi service on all fixed-route buses (for HARTFlex, HARTPlus, and TECO Line Streetcar, this upgrade is scheduled for 2017). The roll-out of the Wi-Fi service also serves to prepare buses for the farebox and Smart Card system upgrades planned for later in the year and supports the use of the new Smart Card app. New Farebox System and Smart Card System Installation – The new farebox system will allow customers to pay their fare with the new Flamingo Fares mobile app that allows users to pay using preloaded funds. Alternatively, a plastic card can be preloaded with funds for fares.
HART | TDP 4-13
Flamingo Fares Regional Fare Card – On September 5, 2016, HART and PSTA implemented a pilot fare system that allows bus passengers to use an app or preloaded fare card for rides in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. The pilot program will run through March 4, 2017. Called “Flamingo Fares,” the pilot includes HART and PSTA bus services including HARTFlex, Jolley Trolley, Looper Trolley, and the TECO Line Streetcar, but not for HARTPlus or PSTA DART services. The pilot fare system allows patrons to book a three-day, unlimited regional pass (valid for three consecutive days) for $11. The three-day pass is a test of the technology; in the future, the app will allow the purchase of a variety of pass options, including 1-day, 31-day, etc. After the pilot period, data from both agencies will be analyzed to identify and work out concerns that may need to be addressed before the full system is implemented in 2018. This system is set to become available in Pasco, Polk, Manatee, Citrus, Sarasota, and Hernando counties in the near future, as well. HyperLINK Ride-hailing – On November 14, 2016, HART became the first transit agency in the nation to launch HyperLINK, a subsidized ride-hailing/ ridesharing service that is meant to eliminate any barriers to accessing a bus stop (such as rain). Currently done with regular vans, HART envisions using Tesla electric vehicles for this service in the near future. Bus riders can book a ride home, and a driver will meet them at the bus stop. Each $3 ride is payable by cash or credit. The service is accompanied by an app that allows passengers within a three-mile radius of designated bus stops in the USF, Carrollwood, and Brandon (December) areas to request van rides. Alternately, users can book a ride by phone. The service is wheelchair accessible. Air Porter – In partnership with TIA, FDOT, and HART, Air Porter is a proposed technology-driven premium transit service that connects Downtown Tampa to TIA, the Carillon employment center, and Downtown St. Petersburg. Service will run from 6 AM to 9:30 PM, with 15-minute headways during AM and PM peak hours and 30-minute headways throughout the rest of the day. The service will feature its own app, with possible integration with the OneBusAway app. The app will allow patrons to purchase single ride or round-trip tickets using their mobile phone and can prepay by credit card via the app. Technology will provide patrons with real-time arrival information, including the location of the vehicle. Real-time flight updates will be provided from TIA. Fare rates are yet to be determined. HART expects to make this one of the first apps to allow riders to request pick-up electronically, which will ensure that the vehicle operator is notified.
HART | TDP 4-14
Downtown Autonomous Circulator Service – HART has received funds to operate the state’s first autonomous circulator. Funding will be available for an Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Circulator Service connection between the Marion Transit Center and Downtown Tampa. The circulator will be a 0.6-mile, low- speed, controlled-access stretch along the Marion Street Transitway. This project would be one of the first of its kind in the US using autonomous technology. It is envisioned that two AV circulators will run from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays with 8–10 minute headways. The electric vehicles, such as those pictured, could accommodate six standing and six seated passengers. Pilot of Connected Vehicle Technology – Tampa was awarded a $17 million contract from the US Department of Transportation to begin testing cars along Meridian Drive and Lee Roy Selmon Expressway. The Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority (THEA) Connected Vehicle (CV) Pilot Deployment Program is a partnership with FDOT, HART, and other public and private organizations, such as Siemens, in a pilot program for connected vehicle technology. The project aims to reduce the number of cars on the road and improve the safety and efficiency of those that are in use by having connected vehicles communicate with traffic signals, parked cars, pedestrians, etc. In Tampa, THEA and its partners will install 40 wireless communication roadside units on the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway Reversible Express Lanes (REL), Meridian Avenue, Channelside Drive, and other Downtown Tampa roadways. On-board units will be installed in 10 HART buses, 10 TECO Line Streetcar trolley cars, and 1,500 privately-owned vehicles. THEA and its partners will also develop mobile apps to enhance pedestrian safety. Implications – Use of Technology HART has invested and should continue to invest in technology improvements to enhance the user experience while on- and off-board.
Related to first/last mile connections, HyperLINK stands out as it is considered the first time a transit agency has used app-based ride-hailing/ridesharing rather than Uber/Lyft services to provide first/last mile connections. An often-discussed issue for transit service, which is particularly important in Florida’s hot and mercurial climate, is the lack of mobile application- based, ride-hailing services which can provide easier access to and from transit stops. HART should explore improving and expanding the HyperLINK application to other areas to tap into suburban areas or other markets with limited service, so that trips to and from bus stops may be subsidized or discounted. App-based ride-hailing could be used as part of a congestion management program to reduce SOV travel at more of a regional level and by lessening the demand for parking. This service may be a way to replace existing fixed-route service where ridership is low. Reallocating fixed-route service elsewhere and subsidizing or discounting trips from previously-served zones via ride-hailing applications may provide a better use of public resources and could be a more attractive option for potential transit users. Ride-hailing technology also has the potential to assist in reducing the high cost of paratransit service in
HART | TDP 4-15
suburban areas. However, the relatively high cost per trip and the difficulty of finding reliable service providers may slow its growth as an effective travel alternative until those concerns are addressed. The availability of Wi-Fi will complement customer service and enhance efficiency on farebox collection using the new smart card app. This improvement has the potential to attract additional youth and discretionary riders. Additionally, Wi-Fi on buses will provide better GPS data for dispatchers to know bus locations, thus improving overall efficiency and customer service. Because of the appeal of the HyperLINK service, there is potential for introducing clientele who are tech-savvy to alternative modes of transportation. Trust and reliability are key to user experience. HART and PSTA have made strides in making fares easier to access by implementing technology improvements such as Flamingo Fares and HyperLINK. HART will need to consider user reviews on the reliability of the app and provide additional resources for customer service to address app errors. HART should consider additional marketing of such new technologies, as appeal could attract new riders in discretionary markets, such as millennials. The launch of several apps (Flamingo Fares, HyperLINK, OneBusAway, Air Porter) may confuse users. If apps do not quickly address technical errors early on, their use and popularity might decline, as potential users could read prior ratings before choosing to download an app. HART should consider focusing resources into one trip-planning app that integrates all apps and minimizes technical errors. HART must also be mindful of ensuring accessibility and equality of service with the apps. Low-income travelers who are unable to drive due to limited mobility and international visitors may have barriers such as access to a US credit card for payment, a smartphone with roaming data, or a smartphone with sufficient memory to download those apps. HART should ensure that other means of fare payment and other means of obtaining information for these types of users are made available. Figure 4-2: Recent Flamingo Fares App Reviews
The Downtown Tampa AV circulator also has the potential to attract new riders through the appeal of riding the latest vehicle technology, especially as density continues to grow in the downtown. As a low-speed, restricted-access roadway, the Marion Street Transitway acts as a high quality test corridor from a technical perspective while also connecting parking and transit on the north end to employment destinations to the south with frequent, consistent
HART | TDP 4-16
service. Frequent service will be key to ensuring productive performance. The corridor is already serving as a high technology testbed for THEA’s CV demonstration. Two transit- related CV applications are being tested—transit signal priority and vehicle right-turns in front of buses. The two efforts can co-exist on the Marion Street Transitway and may offer a one-of-a-kind opportunity to operate them together in the future. As density increases and parking lots are eliminated from Downtown, this can promote an overall quality of walkability in the Downtown, which could also promote transit use in the long run. There are unknowns in operating costs and operation, but lessons learned will pave the way for future innovations in transit services.
HART | TDP 4-17
Section 5: HART Performance Review To assess how efficiently HART supplies fixed-route transit service and how effective those services meet the needs of the area, a trend analysis of key service performance indicators was conducted for its fixed-route services over a six-year period. Three types of analyses were conducted using available HART data from various sources. This section summarizes these performance reviews conducted as part of the TDP, including the following:
Six-Year Performance Trends – This includes a review of selected service performance trends for HART for the last six years. To complete the trend analysis, data from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) were used, which includes the most recent validated data from the National Transit Database (NTD) (fiscal years 2010–2016). Various performance measures were used to present the data that relate to overall system performance. A selected set of performance measures that are key to assessing recent trends is presented below; however, a wide range of general, effectiveness, and efficiency measures were analyzed to clearly understand the overall performance of HART. Key Performance (KPI) Indicator Trends – HART maintains a history of its KPI, which have been tracked annually since 2006. These trends are used as part of HART’s performance review, each with goals that are determined annually. The KPI consist of five indicators divided into four categories: Ridership Productivity, Efficiency, Safety, Quality of Service, and On-Time Performance. Quality of Service Trends – In recent years, HART has developed a process-oriented and engaging approach to improving its quality of service. HART evaluates its quality of service through a series of rider surveys by comparing the responses of riders throughout each “wave” of surveys. The effort is branded by HART as “Voice of the Customer.” To date, four waves of surveys have been completed. HART management will maintain the scorecard once the program has been developed and implemented. In addition, a peer review analysis was conducted to compare HART’s performance at a given point in time with other transit systems. Systems with similar operating characteristics that HART aspires to emulate were selected. The performance indicators included in this analysis help evaluate and benchmark the effectiveness and efficiency of HART services. 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 HART’s performance over time when compared to other systems with similar characteristics. Each analysis is summarized in detail in the remainder of this section. Six-Year Performance Trends The following highlights key trends that were selected to assess HART’s performance. Annual Investment per Capita The annual investment per capita, reported as the operating expense per capita, reflects the efficiency of the operating costs of the transit system per person within the service area. This is a measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. As of 2016, HART annual investment per capita
HART | TDP 5-1
increased by 12.5 percent, indicating an increase in effectiveness. Much of that increase took place after 2014. Figure 5-1: Annual Investment per Capita
$80
$75
$70
$65
$60 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Riders per Revenue Hour Riders per revenue hour, reported as passenger trips per revenue hour, is a measure used to quantify service consumption and can help evaluate the amount of resources consumed in providing service. This metric measures service effectiveness. Riders per revenue hour has decreased by 12.1 percent overall, indicating a decrease in effectiveness, with declines beginning after 2013. Figure 5-2: Riders per Revenue Hour
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Riders per Revenue Mile Passenger trips per revenue mile is calculated by dividing transit boardings by revenue miles. It is a measure of the consumption of the supply of revenue service provided. Similar to riders per revenue hour, riders per revenue mile decreased 11.6 percent during the six-year period, indicating that the system experienced decreased effectiveness in the consumption of its supplied service between 2011 and 2016. HART experienced slight declines beginning in 2014 despite increases to annual investment per capita that occurred at the same time.
HART | TDP 5-2
Figure 5-3: Riders per Revenue Mile
2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating Cost per Trip Operating cost per passenger trip measures the cost efficiency of transporting riders. This measure is often considered a key indicator of comparative performance since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. HART experienced a 16.3 percent increase in operating costs per trip overall since 2011, indicating a decrease in cost efficiency. Figure 5-4: Operating Cost per Trip
$4.80 $4.60 $4.40 $4.20 $4.00 $3.80 $3.60 $3.40 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Six-Year Trends Summary The following summary provides highlights from the six-year performance trend analysis conducted as part of the TDP:
Service Supply – Vehicle miles per capita (service supply) increased by 12.1 percent overall, indicating that HART’s supply of services increased during the analysis period. Service Consumption – Despite increases to service supply, service consumption measured by passenger trips per capita, per revenue mile, and per revenue hour have decreased over the six-year period. This trend indicates that use of HART service has been declining over the last six years, as ridership is not growing commensurate to improvements to service supply. Cost Efficiency – Operating expense with respect to annual cost per capita, per revenue mile, and per passenger mile each experienced increases of at least 10 percent over the six-year period. This indicates that HART is declining in its overall cost efficiency. Farebox recovery, revenue miles per total vehicles, and average fare have increased, however, indicating improvements to operating ratios and vehicle utilization.
HART | TDP 5-3
Table 5-1 summarizes the results of the trend analysis of HART’s fixed-route system in terms of the percent that each performance measure changed between 2011 and 2016. More detailed results of the trend analysis can be found in Appendix D.
HART | TDP 5-4
Table 5-1: HART 6-Year Performance Trend Analysis
% Change Desired Indicators Status 2011–2016 Trend Service Area Population 6.5% - - Service Area Size (square miles) 4.9% - - Passenger Trips -3.3% - - Passenger Miles 3.2% - - Vehicle Miles 8.1% - - Revenue Miles 9.5% - -
General General Vehicle Hours 17.1% - - Route Miles 5.7% - - Total Operating Expense 19.8% - - Vehicles Available for Maximum Service 5.8% - - Total Gallons Consumed 12.5% - -
Vehicle Miles per Capita 1.5% Improving Passenger Trips per Capita -9.2% Not Improving Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile -11.6% Not Improving Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour -12.1% Not Improving Number of Vehicle System Failures 17.6% Not Improving Effectiveness Effectiveness Revenue Miles between Failures -6.9% Not Improving Operating Expense per Capita 12.5% Not Improving Operating Expense per Passenger Trip 16.3% Not Improving Operating Expense per Passenger Mile 16.1% Not Improving Operating Expense per Revenue Mile 9.5% Not Improving Farebox Recovery (%) 1.6% Improving
Efficiency Efficiency Revenue Miles per Total Vehicles 3.5% Improving Vehicle Miles per Gallon -3.9% Not Improving Average Fare 25.9% Improving
Key Performance Indicators For more than 10 years, HART has recorded its KPI and corresponding goals that it believes are important for achieving its mission, goals, and objectives. The following reviews the KPI results and summarizes how well HART has achieved its goals over the past 10 years. Ridership Productivity The goal of achieving high ridership productivity is measured by passengers per revenue hour. This measure is previously mentioned and reviewed, and is not analyzed in terms of trend here. HART achieved its goals in prior years, from 2009 to 2014; however, beginning in 2015, it did not meet its goal. Since 2015, the annual goal has been set by using the resulting performance of the prior year as a benchmark. The most recent goal set for FY 2017 was greater than or equal to 21.8 passengers per revenue hour and was narrowly missed (21.3).
HART | TDP 5-5
Figure 5-5: Ridership Productivity, 2008–2017
30
25 25.0 25.0 24.2 23.2 23.7 20 21.3 21.8 21.3 20.2 20.4 15
10
5
0 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Passengers per Revenue Hour Actual Passengers per Revenue Hour Goal
Efficiency The HART goal for efficiency is measured by operating cost per revenue mile. Operating expense per revenue mile can indicate whether a transit service is being delivered in a cost-efficient manner. HART has intermittently met its goals in the past 10 years, but not in the more recent years of 2013, 2015, and 2016. Several of the goals were set by using the prior year’s performance. For example, the goal for FY 2017 was set to $7.10, which was the resulting performance for FY 2016. FY 2017 data, however, were not available to determine whether this goal has been met. Based on the trend analysis, HART has increasingly become less cost efficient, as the operating cost per revenue mile has increased by nearly 10 percent in the past six years, as indicated by 2011–2016 NTD data. Figure 5-6: Operating Cost per Revenue Mile, 2008-2016
$8.00
$7.50
$7.00 7.3 6.9 7.1 6.8 $6.50 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.6 $6.00
$5.50
$5.00 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Operating Cost per Revenue Mile Actual Operating Cost per Revenue Mile Goal
Note: 2017 data not available.
HART | TDP 5-6
Safety HART’s goal for safety is measured by collisions per 100,000 revenue miles. In general, HART has met its safety goal annually with the exception of 2010 and 2011. The goal was set to less than or equal to 0.55 collisions per 100,000 revenue miles for FY 2017 and was met. Figure 5-7 depicts the trend for the collisions per 100,000 revenue miles for HART over the past 10 years. Figure 5-7: Collisions per 100,000 Revenue Miles, 2008-2017
0.6
0.5 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.47 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.3
0.2
0.1
0 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Safety Actual Safety Goal
Quality of Service HART’s goal for a high quality of service is defined by two measures: complaints per 100,000 passengers and mean distance between failures. HART has met its quality of service goal with respect to complaints per 100,000 passengers for more than half of the period, with the exception of 2013 and 2014. Figure 5-8 shows HART’s performance and compares it to the respective annual passengers per hour. The complaints per 100,000 passengers has generally increased as the number of passengers has increased. Figure 5-8: Complaints per 100,000 Passengers & Passengers per Revenue Hour, 2008–2014
16 30 14 25 12 13.07 13.43 20 10 11.17 11.55 8 15 8.03 8.23 6 6.63 10 4 5 2 0 0 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 YTD
Complaints per 100,000 Passengers Passengers per Revenue Hour
HART | TDP 5-7
The second quality of service KPI is measured by mean distance between failures. HART added the KPI in FY 2010. The goal in FY 2017 was set to greater than or equal to 7,749 miles and was met by a large margin. In four of the past eight years, HART has met its KPI goal and came close in three other years, indicating that HART is somewhat meeting this quality of service goal, but still has room for improvement. Figure 5-9: Mean Distance between Failures, 2010–2017
9000 8976 8000 8606 8435 7774 7000 7371 6000 6242 6516 6289 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Mean Distance Between Failures Actual Mean Distance Between Failures KPI
On-Time Performance The on-time performance KPI was added in FY 2011. This goal has been generally satisfactorily met since its implementation, with the exception of FYs 2012 and 2017. In FY 2016, HART had on-time performance of 81.5 percent and subsequently raised its bar for higher on-time performance in FY 2017 to greater than or equal to 81.5 percent. That goal was almost reached, at 81.2 percent. Figure 5-10: On-Time Performance and Passengers per Revenue Hour
76% 30 75.3% 74% 25 72% 72.0% 20 70% 70.6% 70.5% 15 69.3% 68% 67.9% 10 66% 67.0%
64% 5
62% 0 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 YTD On-Time Performance Passengers per Revenue Hour
HART | TDP 5-8
Quality of Service Trend In addition to the review of key service performance indicators presented previously, a trend analysis for the overall quality of HART services was conducted. In recent years, HART has aggressively prioritized its customer service to improve its service. As a part of the review of HART’s quality of service performance, four “waves” of bus rider surveys, branded by HART as “Voice of the Customer,” were reviewed. These surveys were administered by HART between August 2015 and January 2017 to gauge customer attitudes and perceptions on its services. More than 500 surveys were completed by customers on HART buses on all routes during all service periods. This following section reviews the rider characteristics and service trends based on customer responses. Respondent Profiles and Ridership Basics Across the various waves, approximately 33 percent of HART riders were under age 30, more than half were between ages 18 and 39, and approximately 66 percent had annual incomes less than $25,000 (54% for Wave 1 and slightly above 70% for Waves 2, 3, and 4). Additionally, approximately 58 percent of HART riders were male and approximately 52 percent were African-American (ethnicity data were collected in Wave 3 only). The majority of riders used the bus regularly and for work purposes. The most common trip purpose noted in the first three waves was for travel to work, which was reported by 46 percent, 66 percent, and 71 percent of respondents, respectively. Among the customers surveyed, the percent of those using HART service at least five days per week was approximately 66 percent; for those using HART service at least three days per week, the average was 21 percent. A number of respondents on all surveys indicated that they were transit-dependent (71%, 74%, 79%, and 67%). Among the minority of riders who use the HART service for discretionary reasons, convenience and economics were the most frequently cited reasons for using HART service. Net Promoter Score The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a measure of how likely riders are to recommend HART service to friends and family; the score rose markedly between the successive waves, starting at 21 percent and rising to 31 percent, 35 percent, and 48 percent. It is helpful to note that the industry average for an NPS usually hovers just above 10 percent. Figure 5-11: HART Net Promoter Score Trends
50% 48% 45% 40% 35% 35% 31% 30% 25% 21% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
HART | TDP 5-9
Impressions and Satisfaction with HART Service More than 80 percent of respondents agreed that HART route locations were convenient. More than two-thirds of riders were satisfied with the frequency of the service and the days on which the buses operate. Additionally, almost 75 percent agreed that bus trip times were reasonable and that the buses usually ran on-time. More than 75 percent of riders agreed that it is acceptable to wait up to five minutes for a bus. Figure 5-12: Percent Answering Strongly Agree or Agree
84% 90% 79% 77% 77% 74% 76% 74% 80% 70% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% Wave 1 30% Wave 2 20% Wave 3 10% 0% The bus gets me to my Transferring to another bus to The bus usually runs on time destination in a reasonable complete my trip is simple, amount of time easy, and timely
Satisfaction with Information Respondent satisfaction with the ease of acquiring and the general timing of information distribution remained flat throughout the respective waves. Approximately 90 percent agreed that it was easy to access route and schedule information, approximately 80 percent agreed that it was easy to find out if the buses were running on schedule, and approximately 70 percent agreed that HART provided timely and effective communication regarding service changes. The top four methods of receiving route information across all waves included print material, OneBusAway Tampa, the HART website, and the customer service call center. Cleanliness Approximately 80 percent of riders agreed that bus drivers are generally helpful, knowledgeable, and courteous. However, the percent of riders who noted that HART buses and shelters are clean fell by nearly 20 percent from Wave 1 to Wave 3, indicating an increased need for maintenance. Figure 5-13: Cleanliness
80% 74% 69% 70% 67% 61% 59% 56% 60% Wave 1 50% Wave 2 40% Wave 3
30% The bus is clean Bus shelters are clean
HART | TDP 5-10
Perception of Safety The percent of customers who felt that HART was concerned for the safety of their customers increased from 81 percent to 88 percent between Wave 1 and Wave 3. Similarly, the percent of customers who agreed that they felt safe and secure waiting for the bus increased, indicating an improvement to HART’s quality of service with respect to safety. Figure 5-14: Perception of Safety
100% 88% 88% 90% 81% 81% 78% 80% 77%
70% Wave 1 60% Wave 2 50% Wave 3 40% The buses are driven safely and HART I feel safe and secure waiting for my is concerned for my safety bus
Customer Service The percent of customers who agreed that their calls were answered promptly declined from 68 percent in Wave 1 to 52 percent in Wave 2, but rose to 84 percent in Wave 3. However, 80 percent of the nearly 30 percent of riders who had contacted customer service in the past three months felt that their issue was resolved. Combined with the NPS responses, customers whose problems were not resolved were less likely to recommend the HART service. Figure 5-15 plots the NPS of customers who felt that their problems were resolved, or not resolved, as compared with the overall NPS for the respective waves. Figure 5-15: NPS by Problem Resolution
60% 50% 46% 38% 37% 40% 35% 30% 31% Wave 1 20% 21% Wave 2 10% Wave 3 0% Wave 1 Overall NPS Problem Not Resolved Problem Resolved -10% Wave 2 Overall NPS -8% -8% -20% Wave 3 Overall NPS -30% -40% -50% -41%
HART | TDP 5-11
Implications – HART Performance Review Key takeaways from the trend analysis include the following:
Five-Year Performance Trends – The divergent directions of increasing costs and spending contrasted with recent declines in ridership present a challenge for HART going forward. Although declines in ridership may not necessarily be a result of a HART policy or action, the increases in spending and costs should at the very least be tied to growing ridership. The increase in service supply suggests that HART has taken actions to continue to evolve its network in recent years, but the combination with decreasing cost efficiency suggests that exploring alternatives to growing ridership is needed if ridership growth is not experienced within the newly served areas soon. Key Performance Indicator Trends – HART has done an excellent job at meeting its quality- of-service and operational KPIs in recent years. Although HART cannot say the same for ridership productivity or operating costs, its commitment to a quality product may pay off in the long run. HART can capitalize on its performance successes via marketing campaigns and awareness to demonstrate its superior product. However, now that a certain quality level has been achieved, riders will now expect the same level of quality or better going forward. Quality-of-Service Trends – Considering that two-thirds of HART riders are from households earning under $25,000 per year, the HART rider base is still overwhelmingly represented by low-income populations. Furthermore, many of these households comprise minority individuals; for instance, more than 50 percent are African American. This distribution indicates that a strong ridership base exists and will continue to use HART going forward, especially when considering how the most recent survey results show that roughly 70 percent of the riders use HART to travel to work. This also means that approximately 30 percent of current riders are not transit- dependent, demonstrating that a healthy segment of discretionary riders also exists. Growing this latter segment will be a key priority for HART going forward. Overall Satisfaction with Quality of Service – More than 80 percent of riders expressed an overall satisfaction with HART’s quality of service. Additionally, more than 95 percent of riders agreed that service quality improved or stayed the same from 2015 to 2016. However, customer perceptions of on-time performance fluctuated throughout successive surveys, which suggests a disparity in the quality of service on some routes. Therefore, HART may need to consider how individual routes and particular times of day are deviating from route schedules. With regard to customer service experiences, the trend around whether customers are having their issues resolved when they call into customer service is unclear. The outcomes of these calls have a strong impact on the overall NPS score for HART’s services, so this is a key area on which HART should continue to focus. Peer System Review In addition to the trend analysis, a peer system review was conducted to assess how HART compares to similar transit agencies and agencies it wishes to emulate. In addition to these peers, the selected Florida transit agencies, Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) and Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), were designated as benchmark peers. This peer review will be complemented by an extended peer system review being conducted as a part of the concurrent COA. To complete this peer system review, data from the FTIS were used, which includes validated NTD data for FY 2015. Various performance measures were used to present the data that relate to overall system performance.
HART | TDP 5-12
The selection process for the peer system review is described first, followed by a presentation of highlights from the peer review analyses involving four key performance indicators. Summary results are provided at the conclusion of this section. Peer System Selection The fixed-route peer system selection was conducted using 2015 NTD data available in the FTIS database. These data were then compared with 2015 data for HART. The pool of possible peers was first assessed based on geography (within the southeastern US) and subsequently scored through an objective assessment of eight standard variables in the NTD:
Average speed (Revenue Miles/Revenue Hours) Passenger trips Revenue miles Service area population Service area population density Total operating expense Vehicles operated in maximum service Revenue hours This list of potential peers was reviewed by HART to select the peers. Additional peers were also included by the project team to represent HART’s vision of what it would like to achieve in the future. Figure 5-16 depicts the process used to select the final group of peer systems.
HART | TDP 5-13
Figure 5-16: Peer Selection Process
HART | TDP 5-14
Peer Characteristics The following section introduces the selected peers and highlights features that make them comparable to HART. Jacksonville Transportation Authority JTA was established in 1955 as the Jacksonville Expressway Authority and officially became JTA in 1971 when the expressway authority merged with several private bus companies. Like HART, JTA is located in Florida and is considered a benchmark peer. JTA has a similar fleet size of motor buses when operating in maximum service. Additionally, the system has average speed, total revenue miles, service area population, total operating expense, and total revenue hours similar to HART. The majority of JTA’s operating expenses (77%) are funded from local revenue sources, followed by fare revenues (14%).
JTA Operating Funding Sources 2 First Coast Flyer BRT Routes 27 Local Bus Routes 6 Express Routes Skyway
HART | TDP 5-15
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Pinellas County’s transit system dates to 1903 when the first streetcar line traveled from St. Petersburg to Disston City (now Gulfport). In 1984, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) became the Pinellas County public transit provider. Like HART, PSTA has a similar operating characteristics in terms of revenue miles, service area population, vehicles operated in maximum service, and revenue hours, and has somewhat comparable average system speed, annual passenger trips, and total operating expense. More than half of PSTA’s operating funding sources are from local revenues, followed by fares, which fund 23 percent of operating costs. Operating Funding Sources
38 Local Bus Routes 7 Express Routes 7 Community Shuttles
HART | TDP 5-16
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) is the bi- state regional transportation authority serving the Kansas City metropolitan area. The transit agency’s jurisdiction includes seven Kansas City Metropolitan Area counties—Cass, Clay, Jackson, and Platte in Missouri, and Johnson, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte in Kansas. KCATA is the only transportation authority in the Kansas City UZA. KCATA has a robust transit system, with 77 Metro bus routes, several bus rapid transit (BRT) routes, and a streetcar. KCATA has a similar motorbus fleet size when operating in maximum service. The majority of operating fund sources come from local funds (67%), followed by federal assistance (15%).
Operating Funding Sources
77 Metro Bus Routes 4 Express Routes 1 MAX BRT (Main & Troost) 1 KC Streetcar RideKC: Bridj (Demand- Response)
HART | TDP 5-17
Transit Authority of River City Transit Authority of River City (TARC) is the public transportation system serving Greater Louisville and Clark and Floyd counties in southern Indiana. It has several operating characteristics similar to HART including average system speed, passenger trips, service area population, total operating expense, and vehicles operated in maximum service. TARC also operates with somewhat comparable revenues miles and revenue hours. Nearly 60 percent of TARC’s operating funds come from local revenue sources, followed by fare revenues (20%). Operating Funding Sources
34 Bus Routes 8 Express Routes
HART | TDP 5-18
Charlotte Area Transit System Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) has served the Charlotte metropolitan area since 2000. CATS operates a combination of commuter fixed-route bus, light rail (LYNX Blue Line), bus rapid transit (the Sprinter), a streetcar line (CityLYNX Gold Line), and vanpool services. CATS has a similar average system speed and vehicles operated in maximum service, and has somewhat comparable total operating expense and revenue hours as HART. Nearly 64 percent of CATS’ operating funds come from local revenue sources, followed by fare revenues (22%).
Operating Funding Sources
6 Community Circulators 41 Local Bus Routes 18 Express Routes 2 Airport Connectors 1 Light Rail Route Sprinter BRT
HART | TDP 5-19
Memphis Area Transit Authority The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) is the public transportation provider for the Memphis, Tennessee, area, which includes Memphis, other parts of Shelby County, and West Memphis. The agency offers fixed-route bus, paratransit, and rubber-tired and vintage rail trolleys. MATA has a somewhat comparable service area population to HART, but, in general, it is a smaller and more compact system. MATA’s local portion of operating revenues is smallest of the peer systems, totaling nearly 40 percent of operating funds expended. MATA receives a high proportion of federal and state revenues compared to the peer group.
Operating Funding Sources
30 Local Routes 3 Trolley Routes
HART | TDP 5-20
Hampton Roads Transit The Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads operates Hampton Roads Transit (HRT). HRT serves six cities: Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach. HRT is unique in that HRT contracts with each city in the service area separately, and each city determines how much service is to be provided in their area. This is why there could be more frequent service in some cities compared to others. HRT has a similar average system speed and annual passenger trips, and has a somewhat comparable total operating expense as HART. HRT’s local portion of operating revenues is one of the smallest of the peer systems, totaling 40 percent of operating funds expended. Like MATA, HRT receives a high proportion of federal and state revenues compared to the peer group. Operating Funding Sources
56 Local Routes 8 MAX Express Routes 3 Seasonal VB Wave Routes 7 Commuter Routes
HART | TDP 5-21
Table 5-2 compares modal characteristics of the peer group to HART. Table 5-2: HART TDP Peer Profiles
Transit System Location VOMS Rail BRT BRT Vanpool Vanpool Demand Demand Monorail Monorail Motorbus Motorbus Response Response Streetcar/Light Commuter Bus HART Tampa, FL 162 JTA Jacksonville, FL 158 PSTA St. Petersburg, FL 160 KCATA Kansas City, MO 168 TARC Louisville, KY 176 CATS Charlotte, NC 173 MATA Memphis, TN 119 HRT Hampton, VA 233
Key Indicators The following summarizes key indicators of the peer system review. Annual Investment per Capita The annual investment per capita, reported as the operating expense per capita, reflects the efficiency of the operating costs of the transit system per person within the service area. This is a measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. As of 2015, HART stands at 14 percent below the peer group mean of $87.20 per capita. With respect to its Florida peers, HART is not doing as well compared to JTA, but is performing at a slightly higher annual investment per capita as PSTA. Figure 5-17: Annual Investment per Capita Peer Comparison
KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120
Operating Expense Per Capita Linear (Peer Mean)
HART | TDP 5-22
Local Subsidy per Rider The local subsidy per rider, calculated as the operating expense supported by local funds over the number of passenger trips, reflects one way of measuring the local cost per transit ride. In other words, this is a measure of the financial commitment to transit by the community in terms of the amount of transit rides taken. As of 2014, HART stands at 27 percent below the peer group mean of $2.93 per passenger trip. With respect to most peers, with the exceptions of KCATA and JTA, which are considerably above the mean, HART is reasonably close to many of the other peers. Figure 5-18: Local Subsidy per Rider
KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL
$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5
Local Subsidy per Rider Linear (Peer Mean)
Riders per Revenue Hour Passenger trips per revenue hour is a measure used to quantify service consumption and can help evaluate the amount of resources consumed in providing service. This metric measures service effectiveness; however, service hours are a better representation of the resources consumed when providing service. HART is operating better than many of its peers, at 6.1 percent above the peer mean. HART is also more efficient that its peer systems in Florida. Figure 5-19: Riders per Revenue Hour
KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour Linear (Peer Mean)
HART | TDP 5-23
Operating Cost per Trip Operating expense per passenger trip measures the efficiency of transporting riders, both on how service is delivered and how it is consumed. This measure is often considered a key indicator of comparative performance since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. HART is 13.7 percent below the peer group mean of $5.38 per passenger trip. With respect to the Florida peers, HART is doing well compared to JTA but is operating less efficiently than PSTA. Figure 5-20: Cost per Trip
KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL
$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Linear (Peer Mean)
Peer Analysis Summary In addition to the key indicators noted above, a more detailed peer analysis was conducted to compare HART’s performance using 2015 NTD data. A total of 22 new indicators were analyzed for the peer analysis and are divided into three categories:
General Performance Measures – Indicate the quantity of service supply, passenger and fare revenue generation, and resource input. Effectiveness Measures – Indicate the extent to which the service is effectively provided; they can be used to implement goals toward improving the quality of service and customer satisfaction and increasing the market share of transit. Efficiency Measures – Indicate the extent to which cost efficiency is achieved, i.e., costs in relation to benefit; can be used to implement goals toward long-term viability and stability of the service. Table 5-3 summarizes the peer review analysis of performance indicators prepared for HART. The detailed analysis, including charts and graphs for each indicator, which are in Appendix D.
HART | TDP 5-24
Table 5-3: Summary of Peer System Comparison
% from Indicators Performance Mean Service Area Population -5.5% − Service Area Size (sq. mi.) -44.4% − Passenger Trips -1.5% − Passenger Miles 6.6% − Vehicle Miles -17.4% − Revenue Miles -20.3% −
General General Vehicle Hours -5.9% − Route Miles -8.7% − Total Operating Expense -12.1% − Vehicles Available for Maximum Service -28.7% − Total Gallons Consumed 0.0% −
Vehicle Miles per Capita -12.1% Can Improve Passenger Trips per Capita 5.1% Good Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile 24.3% Good Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour 6.1% Good Number of Vehicle System Failures -0.5% Neutral Effectiveness Effectiveness Revenue Miles between Failures -45.5% Can Improve
Operating Expense per Capita -13.7% Good Operating Expense per Passenger Trip -13.3% Good Operating Expense per Passenger Mile -21.6% Good Operating Expense per Revenue Mile 10.1% Can Improve Farebox Recovery (%) 24.8% Good
Efficiency Efficiency Revenue Miles per Total Vehicles 11.9% Good Vehicle Miles Per Gallon 0.0% Neutral Average Fare 10.7% Good
Implications – Peer Analysis Key takeaways from the peer analysis review include the following:
Key Indicators – The peer system review of key indicators show that, with respect to cost efficiency, HART is operating better than its peer systems, with the exception of CATS and PSTA. Opportunities remain for HART to increase its efficiency by reducing operating costs. HART is operating at a satisfactory level of efficiency in comparison to its peers, but has room to improve its efficiency to a level like CATS. HART could enhance its efficiency by working to increase ridership levels to those of CATS, which has the highest annual passenger trips in the peer group. HART could look into improving its cost efficiency by route optimization and improving its maintenance processes.
HART | TDP 5-25
General Performance Measures – HART placed below the peer mean for most general performance measures, with the exception of passenger miles. When below the peer mean, HART was varying distances from the mean. The measure with the largest distance from the peer mean was service area size, which is consistent with the other performance measures that indicate HART is overall a smaller transit agency (e.g., lower vehicle miles, revenue miles, vehicle hours, route miles, and overall operating expense). Effectiveness Measures – HART places well above the peer mean for most effectiveness measures, including passenger trips per capita, passenger trips per revenue hour, and, most notably, passenger trips per revenue mile. This indicates that, overall, HART is providing an effective service, especially in terms of the amount of service. HART placed close to the peer mean for number of vehicle miles, but ranked poorly in revenue miles between failures, indicating a possible lower quality of service. Efficiency Measures – Cost efficiency measures provide varying indications of how effective that resources are used. For most of the operating expense measures examined, HART placed better than the peer means by at least 13 percent, with the exception of operating expense per revenue mile. This suggests that HART’s system could benefit from a more compact system with fewer revenue miles. HART’s farebox recovery is approximately 25 percent above the mean, indicating that fares cover a comparably larger portion of operating expenses than the peer systems. This may be partially due to higher average fares, which are 10.7 percent higher than the peer mean.
HART | TDP 5-26
Section 6: TDP Public Outreach Summary
The purpose of this section is to summarize Phase II of the public involvement activities undertaken as part of the 10‐year HART TDP. The goal of the public involvement activities is to increase the likelihood of active participation from citizens and stakeholder agencies during the development of the updated plan. Input from the public is critical since the plan provides a strategic guide for public transportation in the community over the next 10 years. Current legislation requires that HART provide documentation of its Public Involvement Plan to be used in the TDP process. Pertinent language from the TDP rule is as follows: The TDP preparation process shall include opportunities for public involvement as outlined in a TDP public involvement plan, approved by the Department, or the local Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Public Involvement Plan, approved by both the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. — Florida Rule 14‐73.001
Public involvement is an ongoing process in which feedback from the public is continuously received and accumulated through the compilation of the TDP. Specific public involvement activities described in this section include workshops with private citizens and elected officials, discussion groups, and rider and general public surveys to receive public feedback and comments. This section summarizes these public involvement activities and findings. Input from Recent Outreach Efforts The purpose of this section is to summarize transit-related input from recent local and regional outreach efforts identified to consult as part of this TDP. This review summarizes and highlights the common themes, goals, and sentiments collected from the communities during the development of their respective plans. This preamble to public outreach analysis was included to ensure that any recently- completed efforts were consulted to the greatest extent practicable as part of the TDP public involvement plan in order to construct a more complete and holistic picture of public preferences on transit in Hillsborough County. The recently-completed plans and studies reviewed include the following:
Hillsborough County Post-Referendum Analysis South Shore Transit Circulator Study Imagine 2040: Hillsborough County MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan TBARTA Regional Transportation Master Plan Go Hillsborough Tampa Bay Express Design Charrettes Northwest Hillsborough Transit Study Cross Bay Ferry Pilot Project Brandon Corridor & Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project InVision: Tampa Streetcar
HART | TDP 6-1
Highlights of Recent Efforts Input on common values, themes, and vision on transit from the recent outreach efforts previously summarized in this report are presented below. Summaries for individual efforts can be found in Appendix E. Values Within Hillsborough County, geography is an important consideration for transit investments. For instance, residents living in unincorporated Hillsborough County largely expressed skepticism towards light rail, whereas residents living in Tampa generally supported it. However, the phased implementation of express bus and/or BRT was generally supported throughout the county. In addition, a key variable that influenced resident value judgements, which emerged during the recent Go Hillsborough outreach, was the allocation of future transportation funding. The prevailing allocation preference was that any new local source of funding should be shared between road and transit projects. The greatest transportation challenges facing Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods were the lack of availability of transit options, poor pedestrian and bicycle safety, and traffic congestion. The most important factors cited that would improve mobility in the Downtown areas included:
High frequency service Connections between jobs and urban neighborhoods Access to cultural destinations/entertainment The most commonly-desired connections with Downtown Tampa included the Westshore area (including TIA), Seminole Heights, and South Tampa. Themes/Vision Residents often viewed Tampa and Hillsborough County as sprawling, car-centric, and dispersed areas, leading them to doubt the value of the current bus system and the overall effectiveness of mass transit. Additionally, many residents within the county agreed that driving was their only mobility option, indicating a clear lack of reliable and convenient travel alternatives. In contrast, there exists a significant desire for improved transit service, an openness towards light rail for the region, and agreement on the need for new funding sources for transit and transportation. Safety and efficiency of the area’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure was also a recurring theme across recent outreach efforts. Residents desire safer bicycle lanes, better sidewalk connectivity (i.e., fewer sidewalk gaps), and greater connectivity between bicycle and pedestrian networks to existing transit facilities. Residents in the South Shore area of Hillsborough County (Apollo Beach, Gibsonton, Ruskin, Riverview, Sun City Center, and Wimauma) desired more connections and options, including connector service within their part of the county, flexible routes to other parts of the county, and a connection to any future high-speed ferry service. Residents in Northwest Hillsborough County also desired greater service frequency and route extensions. When looking to the future to identify the county’s long-term transit needs and priorities, Hillsborough County residents desired the following types of transit projects:
Greater service frequency and route extensions with local bus service
HART | TDP 6-2
Projects serving the greater Downtown Tampa area, including some sort of fixed guideway transit (i.e., light rail, BRT) from Downtown to TIA, Westshore, and USF An elaborate bus feeder system to main premium transit lines In addition, during the six-month pilot of the Cross Bay Ferry, many area residents, including those from Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, expressed that it was very important for Tampa Bay to create a regional ferry system. Respondents also placed significant weight on the ability for ferries to relieve congestion as well as promote tourism and economic development. TDP Public Involvement Activities HART has developed a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) to be used during the FY 2018–2027 TDP update process to formally document all planned public outreach activities. The plan provides numerous opportunities for public involvement as well as involvement on the part of local agencies and organizations. In accordance with current Florida Rule 14‐73.001, the PIP was developed to be consistent with the MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) and was approved by FDOT for the development of the HART FY 2018–2027 transit plan. A copy of the PIP can be found in Appendix E. Numerous types of public involvement techniques were selected for inclusion in the PIP to ensure the active participation of citizens in the community. These public involvement activities are presented in the remainder of this section. TDP Public Involvement Summary The following public involvement activities that gauged public perception of transit services in the county are summarized in the remainder of this section:
Bus on-board survey Public workshops Public input survey Grassroots outreach efforts Stakeholder interviews Bus operator/supervisor interviews Discussion group workshops Employer/employee outreach Surveys were distributed at most of these events to gather a wide range of opinions from the general public to develop a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the perception of HART services. Public events were advertised through flyers, notices, and social media and were posted in English and Spanish. Flyers used to advertise these events are provided in Appendix E. Each event included a survey distributed to those in attendance. The surveys were collected and aggregated to develop a comprehensive analysis of answers to the questions asked and recommendations for improvements from users and non‐users of HART services, bus operators, and stakeholders. Table 6‐1 summarizes the public involvement activities that took place as part of this TDP.
HART | TDP 6-3
Bus On-Board Survey The public involvement plan of this TDP uses HART’s most recent bus on-board survey completed in 2014. This resource-saving strategy was used by HART, as the data are recent and comprehensive enough for the purposes of this TDP. The 2014 survey was administered in-person to transit users during their trips. On-board surveys are useful for gathering various information about riders and their trips. This section provides a review of the 2014 survey effort to better inform the TDP update of current rider and trip characteristics. Who Rides HART? To understand what riders want and need, establishing who they are and understanding why they use the service is essential before determining what improvements may provide the most value to riders. A detailed breakdown of HART riders is presented in Figure 6-1. The typical rider of a HART bus is a 39- year-old African American male or female who earns just under $18,000 annually and has a household size of three. Non-Hispanic Whites made up the second largest ethnicity reported during the survey effort. Nearly 86 percent of survey respondents spoke English in their household, and 13.5 percent reported speaking Spanish. More than 57 percent of riders reported being employed full-time (>35 hours per week) or part-time (<35 hours per week). Approximately 53 percent of those who reported being employed stated that they were in service sector occupations. More than 24 percent of respondents were students, and almost 77 percent of students were enrolled in college or technical schools. Almost 35 percent of respondents indicated that they had a high school degree, and more than 44 percent indicated they owned a smart phone. Table 6-1: Public Involvement Activities Summary - 2017
Attendance / Task Timeframe Status Outreach Discussion Groups Bus Riders 3/8/2017 Completed 9 Community Groups 3/15/2017 Completed 11 Transportation & Land Use 3/21/2017 Completed 9 Business & Neighborhood Leaders 3/23/2017 Completed 10 Subtotal 39 Public Workshops MacFarlane Park Senior Center 3/28/2017 Completed 15 Brandon Regional Library 3/29/2017 Completed 20 Town ‘N Country Library 3/30/2017 Completed 29 HCC South Shore Campus 6/19/2017 Completed 5 CDC of Tampa 6/27/2017 Completed 19 Kate Jackson Community Center 7/6/2017 Completed 15 University Area CDC 7/10/2017 Completed 9 Subtotal 112 Surveys Public Input Survey Feb-May 2017 Completed 414 Alternatives Ranking Survey Jun-Jul 2017 Completed 201 Subtotal 615
HART | TDP 6-4
Table 6-1: Public Involvement Activities Summary – 2017 (cont.)
Attendance / Task Timeframe Status Outreach Grassroots Outreach TDP Outreach at MTC - 1 4/18/2017 Completed 50 TDP Outreach at MTC - 2 4/18/2017 Completed 39 TDP Outreach at MTC - 3 4/20/2017 Completed 30 TDP Outreach at MTC - 4 4/20/2017 Completed 9 EcoFest Outreach at Lowry Park 4/22/2017 Completed 20 HyperLINK Tesla Launch at USF 4/24/2017 Completed 25 Bike/Walk Tampa 6/14/2017 Completed 10 TDP Outreach at MTC AM & PM 6/20/2017 Completed 42 TDP Outreach at UATC AM & PM 6/21/2017 Completed 48 TDP Outreach at NTC AM & PM 6/22/2017 Completed 22 TDP Outreach at Waterworks Park 6/25/2017 Completed 30 TDP Outreach at MTC AM & PM 6/27/2017 Completed 52 TDP Outreach at UATC AM & PM 6/28/2017 Completed 37 TDP Outreach at Town ‘N Country 6/28/2017 Completed 1 TDP Outreach at WTTC AM & PM 6/29/2017 Completed 60 TDP Outreach at Brandon AM & PM 7/6/2017 Completed 70 TDP Outreach at Netp@rk AM & PM 7/7/2017 Completed 58 TDP Outreach at Britton Plaza AM & PM 7/11/2017 Completed 65 TDP Outreach at Yukon AM & PM 7/12/2017 Completed 53 TDP Outreach at MacDill AFB 7/12/2017 Completed 34 TDP Outreach at Sheraton Tampa East 7/15/2017 Completed 0 TDP Outreach at Brandon Mall 7/15/2017 Completed 23 TDP Outreach at Mt. Olive A.M.E. Church 7/17/2017 Completed 2 Subtotal 780 Targeted Discussions Stakeholders Feb-May 2017 Completed 6 Bus Operators 5/2/2017 Completed 22 Subtotal 28 Social Media/Web/Email Facebook Reactions/Comments 3/22/2017 Completed 384 Facebook Live Video Views 4/28/2017 Completed 4,922 Twitter Engagements 3/16/2017 Completed 1,690 TDP Webpage Visits 3/15/2017 Completed 3,697 Email List Members Reached 3/22/2017 Completed 9,855 Subtotal 20,548 Subtotal 1,574 (Excluding social media/web/email) Total 22,122
HART | TDP 6-5
Figure 6-1 HART Rider Profile
American Indian or Alaska Native (Non‐Hispanic) 0.5% Black/African American (Hispanic) 1.8% Black/African American (Non‐Hispanic) 49.2% White (Hispanic) 16.2% White (Non‐Hispanic) 25.1% Asian (Non‐Hispanic) 1.6% Other Pacific Islander (Hispanic) 3.3% Other Pacific Islander (Non‐Hispanic) 1.0% Male 51.3% Female 48.7% $50,000 or more 4.7% $35,000 to $49,999 5.8% $25,000 to $34,999 13.6%
Household $15,000 to $24,999 23.1% Income Gender $10,000 to $14,999 19.2% 2013 Under $10,000 33.6% 75 years or older 1.4% 65 to 74 4.2% 55 to 64 12.7% 45 to 54 19.6% 35 to 44 17.8% 25 to 34 20.7% 18 to 24 20.4% 15 to 17 2.6% Under 15 0.6% 4 or more
HH Age 28.3% of
in 3 19.3% 2 23.9%
Number 1 28.4% Persons
Travel Characteristics Travel characteristics inform transit agencies where, when, why, and how riders use their services and can assist in guiding service modifications to better suit the riding public. The most common fare used (47.7%) was the 1-day pass, followed by the monthly pass (16.7%). More than 56 percent of passengers did not transfer on their surveyed trip, and more than 33 percent reported making one transfer to reach their destination. Table 6-2 shows the top 20 single transfer route combinations in the HART system during the 2014 on-board survey. Table 6-3 displays the two-transfer route combinations, which were 8.3 percent of the total transfer activity recorded during the on-board survey.
HART | TDP 6-6
Table 6-2: Single-Transfer Route Combinations One-Transfer Combination Counts by Total by by Route Number Direction Combination 36 7 168 331 36 7 163 1 2 190 316 1 2 126 2 9 216 284 2 9 68 39 34 164 272 39 34 108 1 39 213 243 1 39 30 36 34 143 235 36 34 92 7 34 198 219 7 34 21 16 9 110 210 16 9 100 6 2 121 203 6 2 82 1 16 171 198 1 16 27
Table 6-3: Two-Transfer Route Combinations Two-Transfer Combination by Total for Route Number Combination 1 2 400-MetroRapid 91 30 6 32 62 5 6 12 47 12 6 5 17 1 15 14 46 1 19 39 46 1 39 18 46 1 5 6 46 1 57 6 46 12 5 1 46 16 1 12 46
HART | TDP 6-7
Most of the trips surveyed were between home and work, with 71.6 percent origins and 65.6 percent destinations. More than 90 percent of respondents walked more than two blocks to/from the bus stop to make their trip. In total, 65 percent of respondents indicated that they had no access to a vehicle at home. As shown in Figure 6-2, 58 percent of respondents indicated that they use HART services five or more days per week. Figure 6-3 displays the responses to how they would make the trip if not by bus. As shown, more than 40 percent would opt to ride with someone else, and just under 20 percent would not make the trip. Figure 6-2: Frequency Using HART Service
32.9%
25.2%
12.7% 9.1% 7.1% 7.6% 3.5% 1.9%
First time Less than 123456 days or riding once a week more
Figure 6-3: Transportation Options Other than Bus
40.3%
19.3% 15.1% 11.2% 7.4% 6.5%
0.2%
Walk Drive Ride with Bicycle Taxi Wouldn't Other someone make this trip
Service Improvements One of the most important portions of the on-board survey is customer evaluation and preferred service improvements. HART riders, similar to most transit users, preferred more frequent service on existing routes, more service on weekend days, later service on existing routes, and more routes/service. Some other noteworthy improvements mentioned in the “Other” category were better bus cleanliness, better driver attitude, and reduced fare. Figure 6-4 shows the results of the service improvements section of the on-board survey.
HART | TDP 6-8
Figure 6-4: Service Improvement Results
More frequent service on existing routes 57.6%
More service on weekend days 48.1%
Later service on existing routes 46.9%
More routes/service 38.6%
Better connections to other counties/areas 25.6%
Wi-Fi on board 24.0%
More benches and shelters at bus stops 23.6%
Better sidewalk connections to bus stops 9.7%
Improved security at stops and on buses 8.3%
Other 7.8%
More bike racks at bus stops 6.0%
Key Highlights Who Rides HART? Based on the findings of the 2014 onboard survey, the typical rider of a HART bus was a 39-year-old African American male or female who earned just under $18,000 annually and has household size of 3. Approximately 86 percent of survey respondents spoke English in their household, and almost 14 percent reported speaking Spanish. More than 57 percent of riders reported being employed full-time or part-time. Approximately 53 percent who reported being employed stated that they were in service sector occupations. Travel Characteristics The most common fare used (47.7%) was the 1-day pass, followed by the monthly pass (16.7%). More than 56 percent of passengers did not transfer on their surveyed trip, and more than 33 percent reported making one transfer to reach their destination. Two-transfer route combinations accounted for roughly 8 percent of the total bus activity recorded during the onboard survey. Most of the trips surveyed were between home and work, with approximately 72 percent of origins and 66 percent of destinations. More than 90 percent of respondents walked more than two blocks to/from the bus stop to make their trip. In total, 65 percent of respondents indicated that they had no access to a vehicle at home, and 58 percent indicated that they used HART services 5 or more days a week. Service Improvements HART riders, similar to most transit users, preferred more frequent service on existing routes, more service on weekend days, later service on existing routes, and more routes/service, in order of descending priority.
HART | TDP 6-9
Phase II Public Workshops As part of the process to identify how the transit system can improve the services it offers, three open house public workshops were held in March 2017 that focused on identifying what HART was doing well and how it can better serve current and potential riders. The workshops were promoted through the HART TDP website page, HART’s Facebook page, emails to community groups and interested individuals, and flyers that were distributed on HART buses and at transit centers. Attendees at the workshops were a blend of individuals who came exclusively to the event and passers-by who decided to devote some of their time to the discussion. Additionally, the workshops were informal, with participants arriving and leaving as they pleased; a loop presentation also was played during these workshops. A variety of large display boards were used to communicate with attendees that included a map of HART’s existing transit services and facilities, a map of population and employment projections for 2027, a synopsis of survey results to show transportation priorities by area, a series of six maps showing travel time accessibility, and an interactive exercise that posed questions to attendees such as “Do you want more frequency or more coverage?” The following is a summary of the workshops. MacFarlane Park – David Barksdale Senior Citizen Center The first public workshop was held at the David Barksdale Senior Citizen Center, 1801 N. Lincoln Avenue, Tampa, from 4:00–6:00 PM on Tuesday, March 28, 2017. The workshop was attended by 15 participants who asked questions, provided input through an interactive dot exercise, and/or completed the on-line survey.
The following list and Figure 6-5 are a summary of the major themes discussed at the David Barksdale Public Workshop on the existing and future transit services of Hillsborough County, based on information obtained from those who chose to participate in the interactive dot exercise.
Premium Transit Service – Several comments were made mentioning the need for high capacity, faster service such as BRT. Frequency – Increased frequency was a topic of high interest to many who attended the workshop. Several attendees commented that the frequency of existing service needs to be increased.
HART | TDP 6-10
Weekend Service – A few attendees indicated that they would like to see more service on the weekends. Early/Later Service – Participants also mentioned that they would like to see transit service run earlier in the day and later at night. Coverage Area – Increasing the coverage of service in Hillsborough County was less important to those attending the workshop.
Figure 6-5: Most Desired Transit Improvements
Premium transit 41.7%
More frequent bus service 33.3%
More weekend service 8.3%
More early/later service 8.3%
More coverage area added 8.3%
Brandon Regional Library A second public workshop was held at the Brandon Regional Library, 619 Vonderburg Drive, Brandon from 4:00–6:00 PM on Wednesday, March 29, 2017. The workshop was attended by 20 participants who asked questions, provided input through an interactive dot exercise, and/or completed the on-line survey.
HART | TDP 6-11
The following list and Figure 6-6 are a summary of the comments received at the Brandon Regional Library Public Workshop on the existing and future transit services of Hillsborough County, based on information obtained from those who chose to participate in the interactive dot exercise.
Premium Service – Several comments were made mentioning the need for high capacity, faster service such as BRT. Frequency – Increased frequency was cited by many who attended the second workshop. Early/Later Service – Participants mentioned that they would like to see transit service run earlier in the day and later at night. Figure 6-6: Most Desired Transit Improvements
Premium transit 46.2%
More frequent bus service 23.1%
More HART Flex 15.4%
More early/later service 7.7%
More coverage area added 7.7%
Town N’ Country Library Public Workshop The third public workshop was held at the Town N’ Country Library, 7606 Paula Drive, Tampa from 4:00–6:00 PM on Thursday, March 30, 2017. The workshop was attended by 29 participants who asked questions, provided input through an interactive dot exercise, and/or completed the on-line survey. Facebook Live was employed during this workshop, which involved HART staff discussing the TDP update via Facebook Live and providing a demonstration of the display boards. The video, which remained posted during and after the event, garnered more than 3,000 views, 20 shares, and 18 comments. The following list and Figure 6-7 are a summary of the comments received at the Town ‘N Country Library Public Workshop on the existing and future transit services of Hillsborough County, based on information obtained from those who chose to participate in the interactive dot exercise.
HART | TDP 6-12
Frequency – Many attendees expressed a desire for greater service frequencies on existing routes. Weekend Service – Several attendees expressed that they would like to see more service on the weekends and later hours. Premium Service – Amid discussions around frequency, comments were made about the need for high capacity, faster service such as BRT to meet the demand for greater frequency. Coverage Area – Increasing the coverage of service in Hillsborough County, but not necessarily at the same level of service, was important to those attending the workshop. Figure 6-7: Most Desired Transit Improvements
More frequent bus service 35.0%
More weekend service 20.0%
Premium transit 15.0%
More coverage area added 15.0%
More HART Flex 10.0%
More HART HyperLINK 5.0%
Summary of Phase II Public Workshops Taken as a whole, the public workshops were very effective at engaging a diverse group of participants and allowing them to speak freely and offer valuable constructive criticism and aspirations for the HART network entering the next 10 years. One of the most important findings across all workshops was the overwhelming support for a network with greater frequency. Almost 80 percent of attendees agreed that frequency was more important than network coverage; the full breakdown is shown in Figure 6-8.
HART | TDP 6-13
Figure 6-8: Coverage vs. Frequency Preference
Additionally, a majority of participants noted that they would be willing to walk farther to access the bus if it meant that they could connect to their final destination via a short trip (less travel time on the bus). The full set of responses to this question, summarized in Figure 6-9, were more divided than the responses to the frequency vs. coverage question, yet the results are still supportive of the idea of a fast connecting bus route network, which may require removing/moving some current stops to improve travel time. Figure 6-9: Quick Trip vs. Easy Access Preference
When provided with the opportunity to select their top priority service focus for the next 10 years, participants revealed an array of preferences, many of which still supported the initial theme of desiring a network with greater frequencies. The top three priorities identified include fast connections between major hubs (27%), high frequency service in key areas (25%), and Uber/Lyft for off-service hours (22%). The remaining responses are summarized in Figure 6-10.
HART | TDP 6-14
Figure 6-10: 10-Year Priority Areas
Participants also had the opportunity to weigh in specifically about their opinions of the HyperLINK service. The cost of the service as well as its current areas of operation were identified as the two largest barriers to using HyperLINK. The full set of preferences is summarized in Figure 6-11. Figure 6-11: I would use HyperLINK if …
It was easier to use, 18.5%
It was cheaper, 42.6%
It served my neighborhood, 38.9%
Finally, participants were asked to identify which of the new technologies introduced by HART they would most like to see expand and be improved upon. More than 37 percent of respondents agreed that OneBusAway should be the focus, 29 percent identified autonomous vehicles as a 10-year technology priority, and the remaining 21 percent and 12 percent supported HyperLINK and Flamingo Fares as priorities, respectively. The responses are summarized in Figure 6-12.
HART | TDP 6-15
Figure 6-12: Which of HART’s newest technology would you like to see improve/expand?
Flamingo Fares, 12.0%
OneBusAwa y, 37.3% HyperLINK, 21.3%
Autonomous Vehicles, 29.3% Phase III Public Workshops The goal of the third phase of public involvement is to gather feedback from the public on the proposed changes to improve and grow HART’s transit system. As part of this effort, four open house public workshops were held during June—July 2017. The workshops were promoted through the HART TDP website page, HART’s Facebook and Twitter sites, emails to community groups and interested individuals as well as flyers that were distributed on HART buses and at transit centers. The workshops were informal, with participants arriving and leaving as they pleased. A formal presentation was made at each workshop, via a PowerPoint presentation. A variety of large display boards were also used to communicate with attendees that depicted HART’s existing transit services, estimated travel times via transit, the proposed 2018 services network, and proposed 2027 transit needs. During the workshops, participants were asked to complete two surveys: a Proposed HART 2018 Network Survey and a 10-Year Transit Priorities Survey. The following is a summary of the individual workshops. HCC South Shore Campus Public Workshop The first public workshop was held at the HCC South Shore Campus, 551 24th Street NE, Ruskin, FL 33570, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM on Monday, June 19, 2017. The workshop was attended by 5 participants who asked questions and provided input on the proposed service changes. Based on the surveys completed during the workshop, participants expressed the need for HART to secure adequate funding to implement the South Shore Circulator plan and the desire for service to be provided on Big Bend Road. There were also comments requesting to expand the proposed services into eastern Hillsborough County, as well as adding weekend and holiday service to the proposed routes where it is currently not offered. CDC of Tampa Public Workshop The second public workshop was held at the CDC of Tampa, 1907 E. Hillsborough Avenue #100, Tampa, FL 33610, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM on Tuesday, June 27, 2017. The workshop was attended by 27 participants who asked questions and provided input on the proposed changes.
HART | TDP 6-16
A key theme that emerged as part of the surveys completed during this session was the need to preserve service for Palmetto Beach residents, specifically that Routes 46 and 41 not be removed from the Desoto Park area. Other comments indicated that more frequent service and more direct routes to major transit centers be considered in the development of the TDP’s final recommendations. Finally, some participants expressed the need for HyperLINK service in New Tampa and that the service area radius would need to be greater than the standard one-mile length in order to provide the greatest benefit to area residents. Kate Jackson Community Center Public Workshop The third public workshop was held at the Kate Jackson Community Center, 821 S. Rome Ave, Tampa, FL 33606, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM on Thursday, July 6, 2017. The workshop was attended by 16 participants who asked questions and provided input on the proposed changes. Social media was utilized during this workshop to record a Facebook Live presentation by HART’s TDP project manager, Steve Feigenbaum. Two noteworthy themes that arose during this workshop included the need for expanded transit service to MacDill AFB, as well as for premium transit service, such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and rail in the county. There were also comments that suggested the value of incorporating health and lifestyle data into future TDPs. University Area CDC Public Workshop The fourth public workshop was held at the University Area CDC, 14013 North 22nd Street, Tampa, FL 33613, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM on Thursday, July 6, 2017. The workshop was attended by 9 participants who asked questions and provided input on the proposed changes. Social media was utilized during this workshop in a similar manner to the prior workshop to record a Facebook Live presentation by HART’s director of government and community relations, Marco Sandusky. Participants expressed their preference that service north of Fletcher Avenue be preserved in the proposed TDP, particularly Route 57. There were also comments requesting that new services running from New Tampa and Riverview into Highland Oaks be evaluated. Finally, participants expressed that emphasis should continue to be placed on connecting major hubs, such as Downtown St. Petersburg, Downtown Tampa, the airport, and the University of South Florida. Phase II Public Input Survey A public input survey also was deployed to gather information about the public’s perception of transit issues and needs in HART’s service area. The survey was promoted at the three public workshops, on the HART TDP website page, on HART’s Facebook page, in a HART newsletter email blast with 10,000+ recipients, and via HART TDP business cards and flyers. HART staff also traveled to local transit centers and area events to talk to the public about the TDP and request that they participate in the survey through tablet and hard-copy administered surveys. The survey consisted of 17 questions that gathered socio-demographic information of the survey respondents as well as attempted to gauge their perception of public transit. Questions also were asked to measure the importance of public transit to the participant. The survey provided the ability for respondents to provide an email address so they could be added to the TDP project update email list. In total, 414 surveys were completed. Participants had the option to skip questions, but, on average,
HART | TDP 6-17
about 85 percent of questions were answered. The following summarizes results from the survey. A copy of the survey instrument is provided in Appendix E. Respondent Awareness and Support of HART Service The majority of survey respondents had used HART services. More than 78 percent of respondents had used HART previously, and 21.8 percent had not used HART services, as shown in Figure 6-13. Figure 6-13: Have you used HART transit services?
No, 21.8%
Yes, 78.2%
When participants were asked how important a role HART services fulfill or could provide to their mobility needs, more than 77 percent indicated that HART services must be provided; approximately 15 percent indicated that the services might be useful; 3 percent indicated that the service does not matter to them; 3 percent stated that HART services were not needed; and the remainder stated that they were not sure whether the service was useful. The results are summarized in Figure 6-14. Almost all respondents (94.2%) agreed that there was a need for additional/improved transit services in Hillsborough County. Approximately 2 percent stated that there was no need for additional/improved transit service, and the remaining 3.7 percent did not know. Figure 6-14: How important are HART transit services to you?
It is not needed, 2.9% Not sure it is useful, 1.4% It does not matter to me, 3.1%
It might be useful, 14.7%
It must be provided, 77.8%
HART | TDP 6-18
Figure 6-15: Do you think there is a need for additional/improved transit services in Hillsborough County?
I don't know, 3.7% No, 2.1%
Yes, 94.2%
When asked to rank the types of additional/improved transit services they would most like to see, 37 percent of respondents had a strong preference for more frequent bus service. Premium transit received more than 30 percent of top priority votes for additional/improved transit services. Less commonly identified as top priorities were more coverage area (13.4%), more weekend service (6.3%), more early/later service (5.7%), more HART HyperLINK (4.3%), and more HART Flex (2.8%). These responses are summarized in Figure 6-16. Figure 6-16: What type of service would you most like to see?
More frequent bus service 37.2% Premium transit 30.4% More coverage area 13.4% More weekend service 6.3% More early/later service 5.7% More HART HyperLINK 4.3% More HART Flex 2.8%
Benefits and Role of Transit Participants largely agreed that additional transit service in Hillsborough County and its adjacent areas would provide a variety of benefits. Respondents were asked to identify the top three benefits; the most commonly identified were more access to jobs (71.4%), increased mobility for those without a car (64.9%), and more travel options (53.5%). All responses are summarized in Figure 6-17.
HART | TDP 6-19
Figure 6-17: What benefits do you believe could occur as a result of additional transit service in Hillsborough County and adjacent areas?
More access to jobs 71.4%
Increases mobility for people without cars 64.9%
More travel options 53.5%
Less traffic on area roads/freeways 46.8%
Improves local economy 34.6%
Less need for parking 30.0%
Saves energy, gasoline 24.9%
Improves quality of the air we breathe 18.6%
Other 5.1%
I don't believe any benefits would occur 1.4%
When asked whether traffic congestion was a problem in Hillsborough County and what role they saw transit playing in alleviating the problem, more than half of respondents (56.6%) expressed that transit would help relieve congestion and more than one third (34.7%) expressed that it may provide some help. The remaining responses are shown in Figure 6-18. Figure 6-18: What role do you see transit playing in alleviating traffic?
Traffic congestion is not a It may create some additional traffic problem, 2.4% issues, 2.4%
It has no effect, 3.8%
It will relieve congestion, 56.6% It may provide some help, 34.7%
In weighing the trade-offs between a high frequency core network and one that provides expansive geographic coverage, approximately 47 percent of survey respondents stated that bus coverage should be reduced in sparsely populated/low ridership area to provide fast, frequent, and reliable bus service in densely populated/high ridership areas. However, approximately 28 percent did not agree that coverage should be reduced, and the remaining 25 percent were not sure.
HART | TDP 6-20
Figure 6-19: Would you like HART to reduce bus coverage in sparsely populated/low ridership areas to have fast, frequent, and reliable bus service in densely populated/high ridership areas?
Not sure, 25.1%
Yes, 47.1%
No, 27.8%
Fare and Information Preferences When asked what would make transit more appealing, participants had a strong preference for bus service that comes every 10–15 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, which received 42 percent of top priority votes. Additionally, respondents indicated that once onboard a bus, they prefer that a trip take 30 minutes rather than 60 minutes, which received more than 23 percent of top priority votes for how to make transit more appealing. Less commonly identified as a top priority were travel without transfers (17.1%), a tap-and-go fare card (10.9%), and a fare reduction to $1.50 from $2.00 (6.9%). These responses are summarized in Figure 6-20.
Figure 6-20: What would make transit more appealing for you to use it more?
The bus comes every 10-15 minutes instead of 42.0% every 30 minutes
Once on the bus, the trip takes 30 minutes instead 23.1% of 60 minutes
If the route allows you to reach your destination 17.1% without a transfer
Instead of paying in cash, you have the option to 10.9% pay with a tap-and-go fare card
The fare is reduced to $1.50 instead of $2.00 6.9%
Respondents largely agreed that they would be willing to pay a $3.00 flat fare for a ride such as Uber or Lyft to take them from their home/work to a bus stop (42.5%). Several participants said they would rather walk or bike to the bus stop (25.8%), and the remainder said that such a fare was too expensive
HART | TDP 6-21
(31.8%), although a subset said they would consider the service it if was cheaper (20%). These preferences are summarized in Figure 6-21. Figure 6-21: Would you be willing to pay a $3.00 flat fee for an Uber or Lyft ride from your home/work to a bus stop?
No, that is expensive, 11.8%
Yes, If it is a bit cheaper Yes, 42.5% than that, 20.0%
No, I would rather walk or bike to the bus stop, 25.8% The HART app known as OneBusAway was identified as the primary source for 67.5 percent of respondents for how they prefer to get information to plan their transit trips. The HART website (56.6%) and Google Transit maps (50.3%) were the next most preferred information channels. The remainder of the responses are summarized in Figure 6-22.
Figure 6-22: How do you prefer to get information to plan your transit trips?
HART App: OneBusAway 67.5%
HART website 56.6%
Google Transit maps 50.3%
Bus stop sign 32.2%
Social media (Facebook/Twitter) 16.9%
Library 9.8%
HART | TDP 6-22
Preferences and Priorities As shown in Figure 6-23, participants strongly agreed that public transportation is an important part of solving local and regional transportation problems (74%) and that an effective public transportation system is important for the local economy (71%) and improves the quality of life in the area (62%). Respondents either disagreed (29%) or strongly disagreed (52%) that public transportation is only for those without access to an automobile. Figure 6-23: Level of Agreement
4% 5% 10%
62% 29% 71% 74%
24% 52% 20% 16% 7% 4% 3% 5% 7% 6% An effective public Public transportation is an Public transit really Public transit is only for transportation system is important part of solving improves the quality of life those without access to important for the local our local and regional in the area. an automobile. economy. transportation problems.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Agree/ Disagree
When respondents were asked what most motivates them to consider alternatives such as public transit for their commute, 78 percent believed that transit would help them avoid traffic jams at peak commute hours. Approximately 46 percent stated that having a network of park-and-ride lots to park their car and catch the bus would motivate them to consider transit, and approximately 42 percent expressed that an Uber-like ridesharing system to facilitate the first/last mile of their trip would motivate them to consider transit. The full responses are summarized in Figure 6-24.
HART | TDP 6-23
Figure 6-24: Which motivates you the most to consider commuting alternatives such as public transit?
I can avoid traffic jams at peak commute hours 78.0%
Having a network of park-and-ride lots to park my 45.7% car and catch the bus
Having a Uber-like ridesharing system to go first 42.3% and last mile of my trip
I get free/discounted bus passes from my employer 41.1%
I get tax benefits for using transit 25.7%
From a list of nine local areas, more than 50 percent of participants expressed that they would like to see current service frequency improved to attract potential riders in the Brandon area. New Tampa (44%) and South Tampa (40.9%) also received more than 40 percent of votes as areas that should be given more frequent service to help attract more riders. The full list of locations is summarized in Figure 6-25. Figure 6-25: In which local areas do you believe service frequency can be improved to attract more riders?
Brandon 50.6%
New Tampa 44.0%
South Tampa 40.9%
Town 'N Country 27.1%
Plant City 26.9%
Westchase 26.9%
Northdale 20.3%
Seffner 18.6%
Ruskin 18.0%
From a list of five regional areas in which they would like to see current service frequency improved to attract potential riders, respondents were more split. St. Petersburg received the highest number of votes (29.5%), but no other single location received more than 20 percent. The “Other” option was selected by almost 24 percent of respondents, and most written-in responses included areas within
HART | TDP 6-24
Hillsborough County that reiterated their response preferences in the prior question or a combination of the regional areas. The results are summarized in Figure 6-26 Figure 6-26: In which regional areas do you believe service frequency can be improved to attract more riders?
St. Petersburg 29.5%
Other 23.9%
Wesley Chapel 16.8%
Lutz/Land 'O Lakes 13.9%
Clearwater 9.1%
Oldsmar 6.8%
Figures 6-27 shows the age profile of survey respondents. Most passengers were ages 25–40 (37.8%); many were 41–60 (36.5%), and some were older than 60 (14.9%). The fewest passengers were 18–24 (9.9%) or 17 and under (0.8%). Figure 6-27: What is your age?
18 to 24 years, 17 years or 9.9% under, 0.8%
Over 60 years, 25 to 40 years, 14.9% 37.8%
41 to 60 years, 36.5% As shown in Figure 6-28, respondents resided throughout the Hillsborough County area, with the highest concentration of participants in the Tampa and Temple Terrace areas. Of the 72 ZIP codes provided by respondents, the top codes that had at least 10 responses were charted. Participants also worked in a variety of areas of Hillsborough County. Downtown Tampa and Northwest Tampa represented the greatest proportion of responses. Of the 43 ZIP codes provided by respondents, Figure 6-29 shows those that had at least 5 responses.
HART | TDP 6-25
Figure 6-28: Residence ZIP Codes
33604 7.9% 33511 6.9% 33617 6.3% 33605 5.4% 33612 5.1% 33614 4.8% 33610 4.5% 33602 3.9% 33603 3.9% 33647 3.9% 33606 3.3% 33613 3.3% 33615 3.0% 33609 2.4% 33624 2.1% 33619 2.1% 33578 2.1% 33634 1.8% 33611 1.8% 33510 1.8%
Figure 6-29: Work ZIP Codes
33602 25.9% 33607 13.5% 33606 6.7% 33610 6.2% 33612 5.2% 33605 4.7% 33511 4.1% 33620 4.1% 33603 3.1% 33604 3.1% 33617 3.1% 33619 3.1% 33618 2.6% 33609 2.1% 33629 1.6% 33616 1.6% 33614 1.6%
HART | TDP 6-26
Approximately 33 percent of participants indicated that their household income was $75,000 or more, and approximately 25 percent had a household income of less than $20,000, suggesting that the survey reached a wide spectrum of opinions on public transit with respect to household income. Figure 6-30: What is the range of your total household income for 2016?
$30,000 - $39,999, 7.4%
$40,000 - $49,999, 8.6% $75,000 or greater, 32.7%
$20,000 - $29,999, 11.7%
$50,000 - $74,999, 14.3%
Less than $20,000, 25.2%
Of the 414 respondents, 227 provided email addresses to be added to the TDP project update list; 15 provided additional input and comments. Key Highlights The majority of survey respondents had used the HART system previously (78%) and believed that the service must be provided (78%). Additionally, more than 94 percent agreed that there was room to improve the existing service. When asked to rank the types of additional/improved transit services they would most like to see, respondents had a strong preference for more frequent bus service, which received more than 37 percent of top priority votes. Additionally, premium transit received more than 30 percent of top priority votes for additional/improved transit services. In weighing the trade-offs between a high frequency core network and one that provides expansive geographic coverage, approximately 47 percent of respondents agreed that bus coverage should be reduced in sparsely-populated/low-ridership areas to provide fast, frequent, and reliable bus service in densely-populated/high-ridership areas. When asked what would make transit more appealing, participants had a strong preference for bus service that comes every 10–15 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, which received 42 percent of top priority votes. Participants expressed that they would like to see current service frequency improved to attract potential riders in Brandon (50%), New Tampa (44%), and South Tampa (40.9%). Of five regional areas where they would like to see current service frequency improved to attract potential riders, respondents indicated St. Petersburg as the highest, at approximately 29 percent; no other single location received more than 20 percent of respondent votes.
HART | TDP 6-27
Phase II Grassroots Outreach Efforts In the attempt to capture a diversity of opinions and perspectives with respect to HART services, several outreach events were held to collect survey input from new audiences and raise awareness about the ongoing 10-year TDP update. These efforts were conducted on six occasions at three locations in Tampa and are summarized in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4: Grassroots Outreach Event Summary Event Date Attendance MTC Morning Event 4/18/2017 50 MTC Afternoon Event 4/18/2017 39 MTC Morning Event 4/20/2017 30 MTC Afternoon Event 4/20/2017 9 EcoFest Outreach at Lowry Park 4/22/2017 20 HyperLINK Tesla Launch at USF Marshall Student 4/24/2017 25 Center
During these outreach events, 148 flyers were distributed to commuters and event attendees, and 119 attendees were engaged in conversation related to the TDP update. In total, 61 paper surveys were completed and collected; key highlights of responses are summarized below.
Respondents were strong supporters of providing HART services; many acknowledged that there is room for improvement of transit services in Hillsborough County. The most requested additional services included more frequent bus service, more weekend service, and early/later service; many also supported an increase in HART coverage area. Locations most frequently identified as needing additional bus service included New Tampa, South Tampa, Westchase, and Brandon. The top two regional areas were St. Petersburg and Clearwater. Overall, respondents agreed that transit provides the following benefits: more access to jobs, less traffic on area roadways, energy/gasoline savings, air quality improvements, and increased mobility for people without cars. Respondents believed transit could relieve or provide some help in alleviating area traffic. Respondents overwhelmingly supported the provision of HyperLINK services in areas where fixed-route coverage may be reduced, but many expressed that they would prefer fares to be less than $3.00 per ride.
HART | TDP 6-28
Respondents expressed a preference for regular fares to be reduced to $1.50 from $2.00 and preferred that buses come every 10–15 minutes. HART’s OneBusAway App and the HART website were the top two most frequently identified means of acquiring trip information. A high proportion of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that public transit is only for those without access to an automobile. Respondents expressed that they could be motivated to use transit if service avoided traffic jams at peak commute hours, if there was a network of park-and-ride lots, or if free or discounted passes were available from their employer. In summary, the perspectives gathered during the outreach events were an important contribution to the diversity of the public outreach respondent samples. Although few new patterns or prevailing preferences were revealed during these efforts, the results provide key substantiation of other public outreach findings. Key Highlights Key themes that emerged as part of the six grassroots outreach events held from April 18–24, 2017, are summarized as follows:
Respondents strongly supported that HART services must be provided. Preferences were for more frequent bus service, more weekend service, and early/later service; however, many respondents also supported an increase in HART’s coverage area. Locations most frequently identified as needing additional bus service included: o New Tampa o South Tampa o Westchase o Brandon o St. Petersburg region o Clearwater region Respondents agreed that transit provides the following benefits: o More access to jobs o Less traffic on area roadways o Saves energy/gasoline o Improves quality of air o Increases mobility for people without cars There was high support for the provision of HyperLINK services in areas where fixed-route coverage may be reduced. Respondents expressed that they could be the most motivated to use transit if: o Service avoided traffic jams at peak commute hours o There was a network of park-and-ride lots o Free or discounted passes were available from their employer
HART | TDP 6-29
Phase III Public Input Survey A second public input survey was used in the last phase of the TDP outreach, Phase III, to gather public opinion on the proposed 2027 transit needs for HART. The survey was promoted at the four public workshops, on the HART TDP website page, on HART’s Facebook page, and via flyers at grassroots outreach events. As part of the grassroots outreach, HART staff traveled to local transit centers and area events to talk to the public about the TDP and request that they participate in the survey. The survey consisted of 12 questions that gathered public preferences on transit priorities and regional connections, as well as gauged how the proposed alternatives would impact their current use of the HART network (i.e., would they have to walk farther to access the bus or would their travel time be changed). In total, 201 surveys were completed. Participants had the option to skip questions, but, on average, about 70 percent of questions were answered. The following summarizes results from the survey. Response Summary Among survey respondents, approximately 35 percent indicated that they use HART services 4-6 days per week. The second most common response was every day (28%). The full set of responses are summarized in Figure 6-31. Figure 6-31: How often do you ride transit?
40% 35.0% 35% 30% 27.9% 25% 20% 14.2% 15% 12.2% 10.7% 10% 5% 0% Never One Day a 2-3 Days a 4-6 Days a Every Day Week or Less Week Week
When asked whether any of the proposed changes directly impact their ability to use the HART system for regular travel, respondents overwhelmingly replied that one or more changes would affect their regular transit use (74.1%). Figure 6-32 summarizes the breakdown of responses to this question.
HART | TDP 6-30
Figure 6-32: Do any of the proposed changes directly impact your ability to use the system for your regular travel?
No, 25.9%
Yes, 74.1%
With regard to travel time, respondents were asked to consider whether the transit trip they take the most often using HART would be impacted by the proposed network. Approximately 60 percent of respondents indicated that their most frequent trip would take more time on the new proposed network. The remaining responses are summarized in Figure 6-33. Figure 6-33: Thinking about the trip that you make most using HART service, would your trip be shorter or longer on the proposed network?
70% 59.7% 60%
50%
40%
30% 24.9%
20% 15.5%
10%
0% Shorter Longer Stays the Same
Regarding access to the network, respondents were asked whether they will need to walk farther to the nearest bus stop on the proposed network than they do in the current HART system. A majority of 55 percent indicated that they will not have to walk farther. The full results for this question are summarized in Figure 6-34.
HART | TDP 6-31
Figure 6-34: When accessing the HART system from your home, will you have to walk farther to the nearest bus stop with the proposed 2018 network?
Yes, 45.0%
No, 55.0%
Turning to travel time, respondents were asked whether the route they use the most often would operate more or less frequently in the proposed network. Approximately 53 percent indicated that the route they use the most often would operate less frequently, whereas the remainder of the respondents were fairly split between the options of more frequently and no change. The full responses are summarized in Figure 6-35. Figure 6-35: Thinking about the HART route that you currently use the most, in the 2018 network, would this route come more or less frequently than it does today?
60% 52.9% 50%
40%
30% 23.0% 24.1% 20%
10%
0% More Frequently Less Frequently No Change
Respondents were asked to allocate a fictitious HART budget worth $100 to the following service improvements, in any distribution they preferred. The improvements that respondents most frequently provided fictitious financial support for included high-frequency service in key areas (26.8%), fast connections between major hubs (21.8%), and infrastructure improvements (12.9%). The full results are summarized in Figure 6-36.
HART | TDP 6-32
Figure 6-36: Top Priority Potential Service Improvements
High-Frequency Service in Key Areas 26.8%
Fast Connections Between Major Hubs 21.8%
Infrastructure Improvements 12.9%
Regional Connections/Adding Service 8.8%
Technology Improvements 8.0%
Affordable Ferry Service Connecting Region 7.5%
Uber/Lyft for Off-Service Hours 7.5%
HyperLINK in More Areas 6.6%
The final question of the survey asked respondents to identify one or more top priorities for future regional connections from a provided list. The most commonly indicated area was St. Petersburg (59.2%). The full set of responses are provided in Figure 6-37. Figure 6-37: Top Ranked Regional Connections
70%
59.2% 60%
50% 45.4%
40% 31.5% 30% 25.4%
20% 16.2%
10%
0% Lakeland St. Pete Clearwater Beach Manatee County Pasco County
HART | TDP 6-33
Phase III Grassroots Outreach Efforts To collect public feedback with respect to the proposed transit priorities for the next 10 years, several outreach events were held to advertise the developed service alternatives and collect survey input, summarized previously in the Phase III Public Input Survey. These efforts were conducted on 17 occasions at 15 locations in Tampa and are summarized in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Grassroots Outreach Event Summary Event Date Attendance Bike/Walk Tampa 6/14/2017 10 MTC Morning and Afternoon Events 6/20/2017 42 MTC Morning and Afternoon Events 6/21/2017 48 MTC Morning and Afternoon Events 6/22/2017 22 Waterworks Park 6/25/2017 30 MTC Morning and Afternoon Events 6/27/2017 52 UATC Morning and Afternoon Events 6/28/2017 37 Town ‘N Country 6/28/2017 1 WTTC Morning and Afternoon Events 6/29/2017 60 Brandon 7/6/2017 70 Netp@rk Morning and Afternoon Events 7/7/2017 58 Britton Plaza Morning and Afternoon Events 7/11/2017 65 Yukon Morning and Afternoon Events 7/12/2017 53 MacDill AFB 7/12/2017 34 Sheraton Tampa East 7/15/2017 0 Brandon Mall 7/15/2017 23 Mt. Olive Church 7/17/2017 2
Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews provide a one-on-one forum to gather input from policy and agency or community leaders concerning the vision for public transportation in their community. Interviews were conducted in February, March, April, and May 2017 with the following stakeholders:
Ram Kancharla, Vice President of Planning and Development, Port Tampa Bay Mark Sharpe, Executive Director, Innovation Place Cindy Stuart, Board Member, Hillsborough County Public Schools Gloria Mills, Council Member, Florida Rehabilitation Council for the Blind Ed Turanchik, Legal Counsel, Akerman LLP Janet Zink, Assistant Vice President of Media and Government Relations, TIA Key Highlights A list of eight questions was developed for the interviews, and each stakeholder was asked the same questions. The input received during these interviews was reviewed, and major themes identified and summarized as follows.
Weak Role, but Strengthening Along with Support – The current perceptions of the role of HART and the support of its services were considered to be moderate at best; however, all stakeholders agreed that support and awareness have grown as the agency has offered better
HART | TDP 6-34
quality and more innovative services and greater engagement with the community in recent years. Many stakeholders agreed that the role of transit, generally speaking, is to provide mobility options that facilitate access to employment, education, and training opportunities for residents. Some stakeholders believe that transit is a catalyst for growth and is a requisite for a city to be considered prosperous. Stakeholders also agreed that support for transit is divided within the HART community and often is not aligned effectively to secure a project’s passage or receipt of funding. Stakeholders expressed that more support is required from politicians to reverse this trend. Finally, stakeholders remarked that the quality and consistency of HART service has been improving in recent years, which is vital to preserving existing and garnering new support.
Organizational Strength Meets Innovative Prowess – Stakeholders commended HART’s leadership and initiative in recent years, in particular its promotion of ridership, introduction of new services (such as regional fare cards), and consistent reliance on community input. Additionally, stakeholders conveyed that there is high level of respect for the HART leadership in the county and that the organization is doing an excellent job at bringing new ideas to the table. The campaign “Beyond the Bus” was mentioned a few times in the context of noting how HART is attempting to combat some negative perceptions of transit service. It was noted that HART was doing a good job at identifying new technologies and service offerings, which should position them well for the future.
Needs Follow-Through and Alignment to Needs – Given the recent tumultuous environment around transit planning, some stakeholders emphasized that, at some point, HART needs to select projects and deliver on them. Some stakeholders complained about opinions within the County about Tampa’s low national ranking as a transit provider. Stakeholders mentioned that they saw many opportunities for HART to improve its services. It was acknowledged that HART was on a trajectory to correct many of its inefficiencies, but stakeholders emphasized some ways to realign service more closely with community needs and expedite an inevitable network transformation, such as taking into account locations and schedules of schools, better educating potential riders about services, enhancing marketing efforts, and conducting an honest assessment of the HART services that are performing below the network average to determine how to better reallocate some while providing an alternative, scale-appropriate service to the existing service area. A few stakeholders believe that HART should focus some resources solely on performance improvement and not let this goal be restrained by equity concerns. Stakeholders mentioned that there should be a variety of innovative services deployed in the coming years that can preserve the equity component of the system while allowing other resources to be reallocated toward improving efficiencies in the network core.
County Areas and Strategic Regional Alignments – Stakeholders were split among their opinions of HART’s current level of geographic coverage. Some mentioned that unincorporated areas of the county, including New Tampa, north of USF, South County, Brandon, and FishHawk, should receive more service. However, some emphasized that service needs to fit more appropriately with the level of activity associated with these areas. For example, schools
HART | TDP 6-35
are not adequately addressed in population or employment density analyses. Other stakeholders emphasized the need for HART services to fit into the County’s land use strategy because the development pattern is the core dynamic of the city into which HART should be fitting. A few stakeholders mentioned that sprawl is not the pattern of growth they want to see going forward, but where it already exists, transit services need to be strategically designed to meet the needs of potential riders. Stakeholders emphasized their belief that transit services can be provided in a variety of forms and meet all needs of the various parts of the county while not contributing to congestion (e.g., premium transit provided on arterials and parallel local service on separate roads).
Greater Modal and Nodal Connectivity – Stakeholders cited a need for greater connectivity between travel modes, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Additionally noted was a need to consider key nodes such as schools and community centers in the county, which are becoming greater every year as the population continues to grow. Other stakeholders emphasized that land use and transit planners need to do a better job at coordinating to facilitate these connections upfront and prevent gaps or rework when possible. Following a well- coordinated approach, stakeholders believe that premium and demand-appropriate transit services can be provided that are time-competitive with driving (e.g., premium, non-roadway transit to South County areas, ferry service across the Bay).
New Riders and Increased Frequencies – Overwhelmingly, stakeholders emphasized that new markets of riders need to be targeted to ensure ridership growth (as opposed to more trips by existing riders or trips from similar riders). Additionally, they emphasized that market potential exists in suburban areas, and this demand can be satisfied by adding new, non-fixed route services, although it was noted that riders may need to warm up to the idea via vanpool service or other alternatives before directly using a regular shuttle. Some stakeholders cited a need for greater education and awareness campaigns on both existing services and future services to ensure ridership growth. All stakeholders supported increasing frequencies on core routes. Making the HART service convenient and comfortable (i.e., Wi-Fi, charging stations, interior climate) will be key to attracting new riders. Stakeholders mentioned that new service offerings and innovations, if advertised appropriately, would be key to attracting new riders.
Concentrate on the Core and Innovate in the County – Stakeholders agreed that there are larger benefits to be gained and rider populations to be found by strengthening the core network and its frequencies by reallocating resources from other county areas. Some strategies for reducing resource demands outside of the core include focusing on commuter needs and not providing all-day service and on experimenting and deploying new innovative service offerings such as HyperLINK and other demand-responsive transit modes.
Technology is the Future – A high level of support was expressed for the use of technology wherever appropriate. Ranging from informational apps to ride-hailing apps, the need for these new services is already great and will grow. Voucher programs and other new ideas to fill geographic and temporal service gaps were identified as key ways to leverage technology in
HART | TDP 6-36
transit service. A few stakeholders mentioned that HyperLINK or other similar services should be deployed more widely and can potentially replace some existing express services.
Looking Forward – Stakeholders reiterated that it is important for HART to remain involved with community dialogues but needs to expand these outreach efforts to include input from land use professionals. Otherwise, stakeholders believe that HART will be caught waiting to see how the rest of the county develops and then be forced to respond too late. Additionally, HART needs to accelerate its progression along the trajectories of high technology adoption and the deployment of innovative transit services. Bus Operator/Supervisor Interviews HART bus operators were asked to participate in a discussion group workshop and short survey on May 2, 2017. The workshop provided multiple opportunities for operator input, including in-person group discussions and the survey. Surveys also were administered to operators who were unable to attend the discussion in person. Results are summarized below. Common Rider Complaints Operators reported a range of common complaints from riders and provided comments. When riders complained of needing later service, operators reported that riders preferred 24-hour service or that service be extended to 2:00 or 3:00 AM. Comments noted for “Other” included that buses are too cold, the PA system is poor, there is no Sunday express service, more Sunday service is needed, and that the fareboxes are unreliable. The remainder of the responses are summarized in Figure 6-38. Figure 6-38: Common Rider Complaints Reported by Operators
Bus is late 22.4% Need more frequent service 17.1% Need more later service 11.8% Bus is not clean 9.2% Need better connections to other counties 6.6% Bus schedule too hard to understand 5.3% Need better sidewalk connections to bus stops 5.3% Bus doesn't go where I want 5.3% Other 3.9% Safety/security at bus stop 3.9% Need more bus shelters/benches 2.6% Need express service 2.6% Safety/security onboard bus 2.6% Bus is not comfortable 1.3%
Do you think these complaints are valid? On the whole, most drivers agreed that the rider complaints they hear are valid, the most common of which include the need for greater service frequencies, poor connections to other buses and sidewalks,
HART | TDP 6-37
dirty, smelly buses, and insufficient lighting that can prompt safety concerns. Other rider complaints included not enough bus shelters, static-ridden PA systems, and cold buses. Some operators expressed that they did not believe that all rider complaints were valid and were unfounded, such as late buses can be due to patrons not having their fares ready and not the operator or HART, noting that these complaints may come from riders who do not know how to use the HART system or that they are minor complaints. What do riders like about HART? Operators reported a wide array of compliments heard frequently from riders, including that the operators are nice, courteous, patient, safe, prompt, and professional. Other compliments about HART, though reported to a lesser degree by operators, included affordable fares, comfortable buses, and helpful service information. Operators reported that riders are appreciative that they have a convenient ride to get where they need to, and only sometimes do operators report that riders request that courtesy stops be a little closer to their destination. A minority of riders reported that they do not hear any compliments from riders or that they do not hear enough of any one compliment to report here. Do you know of any safety or operating problems on any routes? The feedback regarding operating problems and safety was split between those about the entire HART network and those specific to particular routes or segments of corridors. Some of the most frequently mentioned problems applied to the full HART network include:
Insufficient climate control – some buses are too hot and others too cold. Late night buses are not safe for riders or operators. Many stops are poorly lit and appear unsafe early morning and at night. Many routes run through unsafe neighborhoods. The homeless population living at bus stops/shelters is a problem. Bus stops located right before traffic lights block traffic. Trees and stop signs often do not provide enough clearance for buses. Some vehicle headlights are too dim. Additionally, a variety of more specific safety and operating problems were identified by operators, many of which were related to buses not having enough operating clearance at bus stops and making turns. More specifically:
Route 37 turning onto Moon Avenue – the street is too narrow. Route 57 turning onto 42nd Street – the street is too narrow when there are bikes on the bus rack. Route 12 needs ADA ramps on the north and southbound sides at the intersection of 22nd Street and Busch Boulevard. Bus stops at Yukon and Florida need to be made safer. Taking immediate left-hand turns after a bus stop is unsafe (i.e., Route 39 at Busch and Route 1 at Fletcher).
HART | TDP 6-38
Please provide any specific service improvements to HART bus routes. Operators provided a few key service recommendations that applied to the entire HART network as well as to specific routes. Generally speaking, operators advocated for more frequent service, more time for patrons to make bus transfers, more service to growing communities, and revising all schedule times. Additionally, a few operators mentioned that bus stop signs are too close to the road and prevent buses from pulling up to the curb. Route-specific service improvements are summarized in Table 6-6. Table 6-6: Route-Specific Improvements Identified by Operators Route Recommended Improvement Increase service frequency, add operator break, remove current stops on same block as Route 2 MetroRapid stop Route 4 Increase service frequency, add operator break Route 5 Increase service frequency, add operator break, increase rush hour frequency Route 6 Increase service frequency, service should end earlier, increase rush hour frequency Route 8 Eliminate half of route or all of Progress Village local Route 9 Reassess bus running time Route 31 Needs more time at Brandon Mall instead of Amazon, add break for operator at Brandon Mall Route 33 Increase service frequency Needs more Sunday service, needs more time at EOL, turn right onto 42nd Street instead of Bruce Route 57 B. Downs Route 400 Eliminate and increase Route 2 service frequency to 10 minutes New Add 15-minute service along Fowler and Fletcher between Nebraska/Hidden River-Morris Bridge Service Rd
Please describe any feedback you have received on new technology services HART uses. Most operators reported that riders really appreciate the new technology/service offerings and fare payment systems. Additionally, they reported that patrons appreciate the on-board Wi-Fi. However, some of the feedback was mixed; for example, some operators reported positive reviews of the OneBusAway app, and others reported that riders complained of its inaccuracy. Other mixed feedback was directed at the lack of reliability for the new fare card system, with riders sometimes complaining that it does not consistently charge fares. As for the Flamingo Fares card, most operators reported only positive remarks from the riders, but they personally struggled with checking the app to see if a fare was paid. What do you like best about being a HART operator? HART operators reported enjoying both the nature of their job as a bus operator and having HART as their employer. Operators consistently reported enjoying their interaction with riders and indirectly helping the community and, more importantly, that they are providing a quality public service. Other operators enjoy the actual driving component of the job, in particular handling the challenges of the road. Additionally, some operators enjoy being able to travel across the county to see how it is growing and changing over time. As for being a HART employee, operators appreciated the benefits, the stability of the job, and the respect they get from their managers. Please provide any other comments that could help improve HART services. Operators provided further emphasis on a few points summarized in the preceding questions as well as some novel topics not covered. The topics for which operators reiterated their support included:
HART | TDP 6-39
Cleaner buses Correcting of bus schedule time points and adding time for operator breaks Repair of the many PA systems that are defective or difficult to understand The newly-discussed topics included:
A need to listen better to driver complaints regarding patrons Moving some benches at old bus stops to stops without benches and reducing confusion over bus stop locations A need for more supervisors to work on the weekends More breakrooms for drivers at EOLs Greater respect from HART, better compensation for operators Key Highlights Key themes that emerged throughout in-person discussions and 22 surveys are assembled below. The perspectives of bus riders are critical to the development of this TDP, and the operator survey participants believe that they are important to HART’s efforts over the next 10 years.
Operators Support Rider Complaints – Overwhelmingly, operators corroborated that common rider complaints were valid, including buses running late, more frequent service and later service needs, and bus cleanliness. Other complaints that operators substantiated and expanded upon were lack of safe connections to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, not enough bus shelters, and poor quality bus PA systems. Positive Rider Feedback – Operators reported that many riders consistently said that operators were helpful, professional, and courteous, and that riders appreciated the affordability of the service, the comfort of the buses, and the availability of service information. Common Operating Problems – Operators acknowledged a variety of operating and service- related problems, including concerns about adequate turning radii, obstructions such as tree branches and bus stop signs, and safety concerns for passengers stemming from lack of lighting, homeless populations at bus stops, and late night service. A variety of routes were identified with specific service change recommendations that are noted in the Bus Operator/Supervisor Interviews section. Technology is Appreciated by Riders – Based on feedback from riders, operators passed along positive feedback for the variety of new technologies that HART has implemented including Flamingo Fares, regional fare cards, and OneBusAway app, although the latter two were also reported to be inconsistent in their quality of information. Discussion Group Workshops As part of the public involvement efforts, four discussion group workshop were held to gauge existing and future public transportation needs in Hillsborough County. The meeting were held between March 8 and March 23, 2017, at three locations in Tampa. Attendees participated in discussions so HART could learn more about the public transportation needs and issues facing riders, community leaders, and businesses. The following section provides key highlights and unique themes discussed across all of the discussion group workshops.
HART | TDP 6-40
Key Highlights The overall input received from the attendees is summarized as follows:
Positive Perception Despite Latent Awareness – HART’s services were considered needed by all discussion groups due to their provision of vital transportation that connects residents to jobs and the community and provides the benefits of freedom, independence, and a healthier lifestyle, all while being an affordable mode of travel. Participants noted that transit should serve a key role in supporting employment centers and, thereby, supporting economic development. Transit has great potential to guide the future growth of Hillsborough County, but participants agreed that HART was not fully capitalizing on this potential. There was a noted disconnect between this positive perception and support for transit when compared to the level of awareness of HART services. A large number of participants were unaware of many new HART services, including HyperLINK, Yellow Taxi Cab Voucher Program, OneBusAway app, and HARTFlex. Separate from their desire to know about these services was a clear directive for HART to better market and advertise its existing services, new services, and informational efforts such as rider training. Participants emphasized that getting the word out to community leaders and employers is vital to ensuring that existing and potential riders have the necessary knowledge of HART services. If HART were committed to attracting new riders, effective marketing would be needed to persuade travelers to break their current travelling habits.
Meeting Community Needs but Expectations High – Overall, participants commended the HART organization for its adoption of new innovative transit modes and technologies, as well as smaller-scale improvements such as adding bus stops to shorten walking distances or extending service hours. However, there was a perception in the community that many of the requests and complaints they are passing along to HART were not being heeded in a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, some participants suggested that the full gamut of public opinions was not being captured due to the challenges of sampling all rider perspectives. Participants emphasized that HART needed to continually reach out to the public and its riders to ensure that staff understands the HART experience from more intimate perspectives.
HART is Excelling Given its Resources but Needs to Focus on Trip Purpose – Participants acknowledged that HART had done a good job given the resource constraints it faced in recent years and has successfully extended service hours and provided on-time service, comfortable buses, greater intermodal connectivity, expansion of HARTFlex, adoption of app technology, and pursuit of new innovative modes of transit. Conversely, the criticisms of what HART could do better tended to revolve around the theme of catering transit services to the appropriate level
HART | TDP 6-41
of demand and trip purpose so that resources are used more efficiently. By catering services to rider needs, HART has the potential to expand its service area using innovative solutions, extending service hours even further for second and third shift workers, and upgrading bus stop facilities to further ensure their safety, comfort, and intermodal connectivity. Additional areas for improvement included enhancing marketing and rider training programs, improving information distribution modes (not relying solely on phone apps), coordinating with other agencies and stakeholders to tie transit into economic development goals, and expanding training programs for frontline workers such as bus operators and call center representatives to improve the rider experience.
Differentiate Transit to Attract New Riders – Overwhelmingly, participants agreed that there were shared principles that could attract riders of all kinds. By differentiating transit from automobile travel through the avoidance of traffic, easy connection to employment areas and recreation areas such as beaches, and preservation and strengthening of the customer experience, HART’s ridership could be expected to grow in the coming years. Specific projects cited were ferry service, more BRT service with exclusive lanes, rubber-wheeled trolleys for neighborhood service, and a modernized Downtown streetcar, all of which would help to differentiate transit. To preserve the customer experience, participants expressed that making sure that riders were the number one priority for HART, and that riders believe this to be the case, would be an effective means of demonstrating that HART provides quality service and that such a reputation will continue to inspire more ridership.
Support for Core Service with Compensating Reliability – Participants were split on the discussion between preferring a high frequency core network to an expansive service area, the scale tilted towards the high frequency core, but one that is supported by reliable peripheral services. Participants were concerned about the removal of service from current areas far from the core; however, riders were open to the possibility that if lower-frequency service were to be provided, it would be welcomed if it was reliable, on-time, and convenient (i.e., HyperLINK can pick riders up wherever they are). As long as commuters were included in the peripheral network and demand- responsive modes replaced current service areas, participants advocated for the overwhelming benefits of a high-frequency core network. Services such as HyperLINK were identified as a key means to augmenting the core network.
Underserved Areas – Key areas that participants noted were not being served or adequately served by the HART network include South County, West Tampa, Westchase, New Tampa,
HART | TDP 6-42
Lutz, Palmetto Beach, Town N’ Country, Wimauma, Gibsonton, East Tampa, Seminole Heights, Sulphur Springs, and Plant City. Specific locations include Brandon Mall, Brandon Career Source, The Shops at Wiregrass, and the Amazon facility in Ruskin.
Looking to the Future – Participants reiterated the importance of providing transit service that avoids traffic (i.e., east-west BRT service with exclusive lanes) and that reliable and affordable service is imperative. Additionally, participants noted that catering transit services to unique rider needs was a key way to save resources that can be identified to improve service elsewhere. Finally, some discussion groups emphasized the need for HART to continue to grow its political capital and partnerships with employers and to pursue alternative sources of funding to ensure the organization has diverse external support. Employer/Employee Outreach As part of the Public Involvement Plan, obtaining feedback and input on public transportation options available to local employers and their employees was a key component of this public involvement effort. In total, 13 major employers were identified for engagement through interviews and an employee survey to better understand their corporate commuting policies and employee habits, with particular attention paid to their use of transit. Despite reaching out to all employers on multiple occasions via both phone and email, many declined to respond; of those that did respond, most could not be persuaded to participate in the TDP employer or employee survey. For some employers, the unwanted hassle of working with their legal department to approve the survey for distribution was prohibitive; for others, the challenge was in reaching the correct decision-maker who had the knowledge to distribute the surveys. Efforts to enlist employers into the process worked with TBARTA, which has a very active employer outreach program, to acquire the appropriate employer contact information. However, the new contact information continued to lead to the same result, a lack of interest in participation. Table 6-7 Contacted Employers and Result Employers Contacted Outcome Amazon Declined to participate Busch Gardens Declined to participate Citigroup Initially interested, but declined due to legal/other concerns Disney Call Center Initially interested, but declined due to legal/other concerns Hillsborough Community College Declined to participate Humana Medical Declined to participate MacDill AFB Participated Progressive Insurance Declined to participate USAA Declined to participate University of South Florida Participated by providing data from its own survey Verizon Wireless Corporate Declined to participate Center Veterans Administration Declined to participate TIA Declined to participate
The Disney Call Center and Citigroup both initially expressed interest; however, they were deterred by the internal approval process required to administer the survey to employees. The University of South
HART | TDP 6-43
Florida respected the goal of the survey; however, it declined to participate as it was concurrently administering its own employee survey through the Center for Urban Transportation Research and did not want to duplicate efforts on the part of respondents. Partial, preliminary results of USF’s study are included in a subsequent section for transit-related questions. MacDill AFB MacDill AFB agreed to participate in both the employer and employee surveys. MacDill employs more than 18,000 individuals, most of which are full-time employees. In addition to completing the questionnaire, it also provided the home ZIP codes for employees. The summary of the MacDill AFB employer survey is provided in the next section. MacDill AFB has several employees who participate in a transit voucher program that covers every government employee working on base, military and civilian. Once employees apply, they receive pre- loaded debit cards that reload on the 10th of every month to use for transit and vanpool programs. The current program does not cover government contractors. Key highlights for the employer and employee surveys are reviewed below and a summary of the full results is presented in Appendix E. Employer Questionnaire Highlights MacDill AFB employs approximately 18,000 employees on-site, the medical clinic averages 700 patients per day, and approximately 300 visitors are admitted from the public. During the interview, MacDill expressed that ensuring quality transportation connections with other areas of Tampa and employee residences was a top priority and one that influences the quality of life of its employees. It supports low-cost modes of transportation as alternatives to single-occupant travel choices and also mass transit because greater use of shared modes to and from MacDill AFB would result in fewer delays at the security gates, which currently presents security concerns. Present HART service to MacDill AFB includes Route 4, which circulates through the administrative core of the base; Route 36, which runs onto the base and connects with Route 4; and Routes 24X and 25LX, which provide express service directly from eastern Hillsborough County to MacDill AFB. Looking to the future, MacDill expressed that they would be interested in additional transit connections to the base as well as routes that circulate between worksites on the base. Furthermore, it was very interested in learning how HART plans to connect to the proposed high-speed ferry service. In particular, they would like to be part of the conversation around how employees can reach the ferry service in the East and South County areas and potential last mile connections on the base. There are areas on the AFB where commute parking is at a premium and this demand is expected to increase as the mission of the AFB expands, especially considering that the majority of employees work during the same core hours of 7:30 AM–4:30 PM. Therefore, although there are long-term parking plans, these remain unfunded, so MacDill is hoping to be able to rely on public transit as a solution to reduce parking demand in the near-term. Employee Survey Highlights An employee survey was deployed through Survey Monkey to gather information on employee perceptions of transit and their commuting habits. The survey consisted of 32 questions to gather socio- demographic information of the survey respondents and to determine their perception of public transit. Questions were also asked to gauge the importance of public transit to the participant. A total of 26 surveys were completed by employees of MacDill AFB.
HART | TDP 6-44
The majority of respondents agreed that public transit is a reasonable alternative to driving a car (92.3%), and slightly fewer agreed that transit was a reasonable alternative for their current commute (69.2%). However, about 80 percent of respondents agreed that HART services must be provided and improved. Only 8 percent agreed that improvements were not needed. Despite these high levels of support, more than 96 percent of respondents also have a car available for commuting, more than 42 percent have access to a park-and-ride service, another 31 percent have access to carpooling/vanpooling services, and 27 percent can take the bus directly to work. Approximately 85 percent end up choosing to drive their own vehicle, and approximately 12 percent use HART services. Interestingly, the majority of commutes are less than one mile (80.8%) and the next most common distance is within five miles (11.5%). Fortunately, the majority of commutes are within 10 minutes (46.2%); and the next most common commute time is also short, within 20 minutes (23.1%). Approximately 85 percent of employees agreed that it is very easy or easy to find parking at work (50% and 34.6%, respectively), and all parking fees are incurred by the employer. Almost three-quarters of commuters are very satisfied or satisfied with their current commute; however, the most common complaints include traffic (80.8%), commute distance or time (53.8%), far distance to bus stops from residences (38.5%), and the high cost of gas and car ownership (38.5%). As shown in Figure 6-39, of those who already use HART for full or part of their commute, 37.5 percent rode 5–7 days per week, and 25 percent ride 1 or 2 days per week or occasionally. Figure 6-39: If you already use HART for full or part of your commute, how often do you ride?
Occasionally, 12.5%
5 - 7 days a week, 37.5%
1 -2 days a week, 25.0%
3 - 4 days a week, 25.0% Additionally three-quarters of respondents have used the service for 3 years or less. However, only 54 percent of these riders agreed that HART routes fit their travel needs. Respondents who did not use HART services mentioned more park-and-ride facilities (60.0%) and more frequent bus service (45.0%) as possible motivators to begin using the services. University of South Florida An employee survey was conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) and deployed through Survey Monkey to gather information regarding the commuting habits of the USF population. Questions were also asked to gauge the use of the HART network, among other alternative travel modes. The survey was administered to a randomized sample of undergraduate and graduate students and all faculty/staff members. A total of 3,361 responses were received, of which 1,585
HART | TDP 6-45
originated from students, 1,634 from faculty/staff, and the remaining 142 identified otherwise. Key highlights are reviewed below and a selection of the full survey results is presented in Appendix E to mirror the employee survey developed for the TDP and to summarize findings pertinent to HART. Faculty/Staff and Student Survey Highlights The majority of survey respondents identified as staff or undergraduate students (34.9% and 32.1%, respectively), accounting for 67 percent of the total respondent pool. When asked how far they lived away from campus, the majority of respondents reported living 1–5 miles from campus (26.9%), and the next most common response was 10–20 miles (26.5%). When respondents were asked whether they use HART services, the majority of respondents expressed that they do not use these services, but said that they were familiar with them (84.3% overall). Among those that did use HART services (5.3% overall), students were twice as likely compared to faculty/staff to have used them (7.6% and 3.4%, respectively). For respondents that had used HART services, the most commonly cited frequency of use was 2+ times per week (30.4% overall), suggesting that students, faculty, and staff that ride HART are regular riders. Figure 6-40 summarizes the range of respondent utilization rates for HART services.
Figure 6-40: How often do you ride HART or MetroRapid?
34.5% 2 or more times per week 22.0% 30.4%
15.5% About once per week 10.0% 13.7%
17.3% About 2 to 3 times per month 16.0% 16.8%
8.2% About once per month 16.0% 10.6%
24.5% Once to a few times per semester 36.0% 28.6%
Students Faculty/Staff Total
When respondents were asked whether they use Bull Runner services, the majority of respondents expressed that they did not use these services, but said that they were familiar with them (76.6% overall), a lower rate than respondents who are familiar with HART services. Among those who did use these services (21.5% overall), students were more likely compared to faculty/staff to have used them (27.0% and 17.0%, respectively), both of which are higher rates than for HART services.
HART | TDP 6-46
Section 7: Plans and Policy Review
Several organizations in Hillsborough County conduct efforts to address local and regional transportation issues and intermodalism in addition to HART and the Hillsborough MPO, working toward creating a transportation system that is more multimodal in scope. This section reviews transit plans and policies at the local, regional/state, and federal levels of government. Various transportation planning and programming documents are summarized, with an emphasis on issues that may have implications for HART. Effort also was placed on reviewing a selected set of plans in Hillsborough County related to land use to summarize and call attention to community goals, objectives, and policies that may have implications for current and future transit services. Plans Review The following local, regional, and federal plans and studies were reviewed to understand current transit policies and plans with potential implications for HART service:
Local Plans o City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan o City of Plant City Comprehensive Plan o City of Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan o Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan o Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan o Unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan o HART 2015 TDP Minor Update o Access Pasco PCPT TDP Major Update PSTA 2016–2025 TDP Major Update o Hillsborough MPO 2035 Needs Assessment o Rapid Transit Investment Plan o HART Alternatives Analysis o Bruce B. Downs Boulevard Transit Assessment o USF to Wesley Chapel Corridor Study o Westshore Multimodal Center Location Study and Strategic Plan o InVision Tampa o Airport Master Plan Update o Bus Toll Lane Concept and Feasibility Study o Gandy Connector LRTP Amendment Evaluation o Hillsborough County Post-Referendum Analysis o Downtown Transit Assets and Opportunities Study o Tampa Historic Streetcar Extension Study o Imagine 2040 Plan – Hillsborough MPO LRTP o Tampa Bay Express Lanes Master Plan o Go Hillsborough Planning Documents/Outreach Summary o USF Campus Master Plan o Brandon Corridors and Mixed-use Centers Pilot Project o Northwest Hillsborough County Transit Study Regional Plans o Water Transit Feasibility Studies Phases I and II
HART | TDP 7-1
o Greenlight Pinellas Plan o Tampa Bay Transit: Connecting a Regional Spine o Tri-County Access Plan (TCAP) Update o Express bus in Tampa Bay Express Lanes Study o TBARTA Master Plan o TBARTA Transit Vision Plan o Pinellas MPO LRTP o Westshore to Inverness/Crystal River Study o Tampa Bay TMA Regional Priorities o Inaugural TBARTA Regional Transportation Master Plan State Plans o State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged 5-Year/20-Year Plan o Florida Transportation Plan: Horizon 2060 (FTP) Federal Policy o Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act The transportation planning and programming documents reviewed are summarized in Table 7-2 by their geographic applicability, type of plan, responsible agency, overview of the plan/program, and key considerations for the situation appraisal. Table 7-1: Definition of Key Terms in Plans Review
Acronym Definition AA Alternatives Analysis AMP Airport Master Plan BRT Bus Rapid Transit CBD Central Business District CDP Corridor Development Plan CMP Campus Master Plan CP Comprehensive Plan DMP Downtown Master Plan EDP Economic Development Plan FDOT Florida Department of Transportation LRT Light Rail Transit LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization PCPT Pasco County Public Transportation PSTA Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority RPC Regional Planning Council TBARTA Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority TDP Transit Development Plan TECO Tampa Electric Company THEA Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority TIA Tampa International Airport TMA Transportation Management Area USF University of South Florida USF PATS USF Parking and Transportation Services
HART | TDP 7-2
Table 7-2: Plans Review
Most Type Geographic Responsible Plan Title Recent of Plan/Program Overview Key Considerations/Implications for TDP Applicability Agency Update Plan Identifies two groups of regional corridors that are examined to understand current mobility levels and Inaugural understand present and future demand. Since traffic and mobility issues extend beyond county lines, there is TBARTA The Master Plan defines networks of high capacity TBARTA & a greater need to focus on corridors beyond individual area plans. Citing transportation as the top issue Regional FDOT District 7 2009 RPC corridors that deserve attention in order to improve FDOT D7 affecting the region's economic competitiveness, the inaugural plan pushes continued interagency Transportation mobility within the region. coordination, land use working groups, continuous public meetings, a prioritization of corridors, and the Master Plan initiation of detailed corridor studies to begin implementing the Master Plan. Hillsborough Hillsborough Identifies multimodal projects that will help Explores the market potential for high-speed rail to Orlando, short distance rail connecting Downtown Tampa County and the MPO 2035 Hillsborough accommodate future growth in Hillsborough County with USF, Wesley Chapel, New Tampa, and North and Central Tampa, long distance rail connecting Tampa Cities of Tampa, 2009 Other Needs MPO and the Cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant with Brooksville, Land O’ Lakes, Lakeland, Plant City, Bradenton, and Sun City Center, regional bus services Temple Terrace, Assessment City. (including express services), and water transit services. Plant City Emphasizes how transit can reduce the need for expensive right-of-way acquisition, curtail the growth of congestion, as well as the growth of road construction. Key nodes targeted for rapid light rail transit services Presents new and expanded service that would be included Downtown Tampa, USF, Westshore, TIA, Brandon, and South Tampa. Additionally, key corridors Rapid Transit City of Tampa, Hillsborough implemented to improve mobility within the City of 2009 Other were also highlighted for the MetroRapid service. Investment Plan Brandon MPO Tampa and over to Brandon if funding was available Additionally, general accountability and oversight were part of the key recommendations including a proposed to HART. inter-local agreement language with an oversight committee guided by experts in finance, accounting, and transportation, not affiliated with government agencies. The HART AA picks up where the 2002 Tampa Rail HART Hillsborough The primary corridors of study remain unchanged from the original AA, and the modes examined include bus Project and the 1993 Commuter Rail Feasibility Alternatives County, City of 2010 AA HART system improvements, guideway buses, BRT, LRT, and Diesel Multiple Unit railways. The primary regional studies left off due to lack of existing and proposed Analysis Tampa anchors analyzed include USF, Ybor City, Downtown Tampa, and the Westshore Business District. funding sources. Bruce B. Downs Explores the feasibility of integrating premium transit Explores the options of BRT and LRT services operating on a four-foot raised median on the road once Boulevard Hillsborough City of Tampa 2010 CDP service into the proposed Bruce B. Downs expanded. The plan explores both a Median Transit Way with a six-lane or eight-lane road configuration as Transit MPO Boulevard expansion. well as an Off-Road Transit Way with a six-lane or eight-lane road configuration. Assessment The importance of this corridor study is supported by the projection that the estimated growth in employment USF to Wesley Hillsborough Evaluates transit options for the extension of at USF is almost 50% in the next 20 years. The study provided two alternatives of BRT and LRT that followed Chapel Corridor County, City of 2010 CDP TBARTA premium transit service between the USF area and similar alignments along Busch Blvd from I-275 to 40th St through USF campus north along Bruce B Downs Study Tampa the Wesley Chapel area. Blvd to Wiregrass. Furthermore, the study proposed express bus routes as an interim solution. Water Transit Hillsborough Hillsborough Feasibility 2011 & County & Evaluates the feasibility of waterborne passenger Determined that all of the proposed services are technically feasible and provided two phases for a dozen County & St. CDP Studies Phases 2012 Hillsborough service to major destinations in Tampa Bay. possible routes. Petersburg 1 and 2 MPO Identifies potential sites for a new multimodal center Hillsborough Using eight guiding principles, four potential sites out of a studied twenty-two were identified for multimodal Westshore within the Westshore Business District that could MPO, FDOT, center locations including: Multimodal serve local and express bus, BRT, a future rail TBARTA, City • Westshore Plaza, Redevelopment of the North Parking Garage Center Location City of Tampa 2012 CDP system, and serve as a hub for regional transit of Tampa, & • Parcels north of I-275 from Trask Street to Manhattan Ave Study and routes coming from Pinellas County across the Westshore • Area adjacent to Jefferson High School Strategic Plan Howard Frankland Bridge and Pasco County Alliance • Parking Garages along Trask Street at Cypress Street coming down the Suncoast/Veterans Expressway.
HART | TDP 7-3
Table 7-2: Plans Review (cont.) Most Type Geographic Responsible Plan Title Recent of Plan/Program Overview Key Considerations/Implications for TDP Applicability Agency Update Plan This study does not identify transit alternatives but pushes for a few consensus items regarding transportation in the city and urges future studies to improve connectivity, perceptions, and satisfaction with transit services. A planning document for the City of Tampa within Key lessons learned are outlined below: InVision Tampa City of Tampa 2012 DMP City of Tampa two miles of the CBD that looks at opportunities to • Transit is not seen as a viable transportation option by “choice” riders make the city a more livable place for all people. • Streetcar functions more as a tourist attraction that does not effectively serve the local population • There is no perceived easy and effective local circulator getting people around the CBD • There are destinations outside the CBD that people want to be connected to by means other than car A planning document for the TIA that provides a blueprint for short-, intermediate, and long-term Examines how airport transit can better interface with regional transportation systems. Since the prior update Hillsborough development of the Airport and takes into in 2005, it had been determined that an expansion of public transit to connect with the airport transit system Airport Master County consideration changes that have occurred since the could not run through the airport, but ideally alongside existing roads in a reserved area. Most of the City of Tampa 2013 AMP Plan Update Aviation completion of the last Master Plan in 2005. Includes potentially feasible corridors are along the east side of the airport and have been deferred to consult Authority expansion of Automated People Mover connections corresponding MPO and FDOT plans and corridors studies to determine the best possible alignment of a to economy parking lot, a new rental car facility, and potential airport rail expansion. regional transit. Bus Toll Lane Examines the feasibility of operating premium transit Identifies a handful of key corridors that could support managed lanes and explores how toll revenues will Hillsborough Concept and 2013 CDP THEA service within managed lanes (toll lanes) on cover operating costs and would potentially count towards the local financial commitment required to receive County Feasibility Study Veterans Expressway, I-275, I-4, and I-75. some federal funding. In conclusion, the study recommends conducting a pilot project for toll lanes. Gandy Evaluates the Gandy Connector as part of an This study does not identify transit alternatives but examines the possible alignment of the road from the Lee Connector LRTP Hillsborough amendment to the LRTP that leverages public Roy Selmon Expressway at Dale Mabry Highway to the Gandy Bridge. A slight majority of the public City of Tampa 2013 LRTP Amendment MPO opinion to help determine if the project should be responded that the connector would be a good idea, a quarter of the public graded the traffic on Gandy Evaluation kept. Boulevard as a C, and more than a third said that they rely on the route to commute to work. The study finds that many residents feel that driving is their only mobility option and also ranks street and Analyzes community transportation preferences and Hillsborough road maintenance as the highest priority for new projects, conversely new transit service was the lowest needs for the Hillsborough MPO using a three- County Post- Hillsborough Hillsborough priority. However many agreed that a demonstration rail line to a major employment center would be a 2013 Other phased effort to prepare a plan that the community Referendum County MPO priority, therefore the proposed project considers using Diesel Multiple Unit on existing freight rail tracks will support, as well as identify potential funding Analysis owned by CSX between Downtown Tampa and USF. An alternative explores using managed lanes to sources. operate BRT on I-275, serving Downtown Tampa, Westshore, and TIA. The plan includes bus, passenger rail, regional connections, community access, and transit This collection of documents was used to educate the public in advance of a referendum that would have supportive development concepts. It is comprised of shifted PSTA’s primary funding source from ad valorem to sales tax revenue. The extent of the potential Greenlight Pinellas County 2013 Other PSTA the following technical memoranda: the Pinellas AA, improvements included bringing the core rapid bus service to 15-minute headways on all service days, Pinellas Plan PSTA’s Community Bus Plan, Greenlight Pinellas regional express routes to Tampa, TIA and Pasco County, as well as passenger rail from downtown St. Financial Plan, and light rail station development Petersburg through the Gateway and Downtown Clearwater areas. concepts. A major TDP update for the county that emphasizes The plan emphasized the need for a dedicated funding source for any of the proposed express services, new transit improvements and additions in key corridors. transit center, or park-and-ride facilities to come to fruition. Express services were recommended between PCPT TDP A cost feasible plan is outlined as well as a "Double USF/Wesley Chapel, from Westshore along SR52 and SR580, as well as on US19 from Tarpon Springs to Pasco County 2013 TDP PCPT ("Access Pasco") the Ridership" plan given greater funding. The plan Little Road. A new transit center was proposed on US19 in order to serve as PCPT's main hub in west Pasco also focuses on connections with Hillsborough and County. Park-and-ride facilities were proposed at the Suncoast Parkway and SR 54, Wiregrass area, SR 52 Pinellas Counties. and I-75, US 19, and SR 52.
HART | TDP 7-4
Table 7-2: Plans Review (cont.)
Most Type Geographic Responsible Plan Title Recent of Plan/Program Overview Key Considerations/Implications for TDP Applicability Agency Update Plan The plan does not identify transit alternatives but demonstrates that investment in fixed guideway transit is key and the most important connections are between Pinellas County and Downtown Tampa and Downtown Tampa to Pasco County. Additionally, the following "TBARTA Critical Core Projects" are considered critical to future regional transit: A planning document that studies transit Tampa Bay • Gateway Connector & 118th Avenue Express: connecting the Bayside Bridge, St. Petersburg-Clearwater Hillsborough technologies for the regional spine connecting Transit: International Airport, the Greater Gateway business district, US 19, and I-275 County & Pinellas 2014 RPC TBARTA Downtown St. Petersburg and Greater Gateway Connecting a • Howard Frankland Bridge Replacement with potential for express lanes and premium transit County area; the Westshore area, Downtown Tampa, and Regional Spine • Extension of the TIA People Mover to future Consolidated Rental Car Facility and future Westshore USF; and Wesley Chapel. Intermodal Center. • I-275/SR 60/Memorial interchange improvement • I-275 express lanes to support roadway and premium transit connecting Greater Gateway to Westshore and Downtown Tampa A study in response to legislative changes (MAP- Hillsborough FDOT & 21) that examined the travel needs of the region’s The responses from the public supported the notion that, in Hillsborough and Pasco counties, residents County, Pasco Hillsborough, transportation disadvantaged population to serve viewed regional transit as a priority; however, they want to expand local service first. Therefore, the TCAP TCAP Update 2014 RPC County & Pinellas Pinellas, Pasco needs beyond traditional public transportation recommended that the transit agencies develop a regional paratransit service, expand the regional express County MPOs services and ADA complementary paratransit services, and expand existing fixed-route services to new areas. services. A planning document intended to synthesize Examines the potential use of existing freight rail lines and interstate right‐of‐way specifically reserved for Downtown previous planning efforts and identify short- and Hillsborough transit. Specifically the study looks at ways to reuse existing infrastructure and relevant transit assets Transit Assets long term recommendations as well as key MPO & Tampa including the CSX railways, existing Tampa TECO Line Streetcar Track, a FDOT-owned site for a Downtown and City of Tampa 2014 EDP decisions and next steps for moving forward to Downtown Intermodal Center, Marion Street Transit way, and planned I-275 multimodal transit envelope. The Opportunities integrate separate transit systems into one regional Partnership recommendations propose short- and long-term phases for implementation and uses Diesel Multiple Unit rail Study system that connects TIA, Downtown Tampa, and technologies instead of light rail for cost savings. USF. A major LRTP element that continues the policy framework established by previous plans and Hillsborough studies for a countywide multimodal transportation The plan identified fixed guideway projects as part of the cost-feasible project list in all three investment MPO LRTP (i.e., Hillsborough Hillsborough 2014 LRTP system. Reviews eight funding scenarios that scenarios. These projects include connecting Downtown Tampa to USF, Ybor City, and the Westshore Imagine 2040 County MPO consider three investment levels for transportation District; TIA to the Westshore District; as well as a fixed guideway transit center at the Westshore District. Plan) projects: no new revenue, a ½-cent sales tax, and a one-cent sales tax. A study that conducts a high-level, conceptual This high-level study examines an extension of the streetcar service from the existing terminus at Franklin Tampa Historic assessment of extending the current streetcar and Whiting Streets north along one or a combination of north‐south streets to the Marion Transit Center. The Streetcar City of Tampa 2014 CDP HART through the heart of Downtown Tampa to the study also points out that right-of-way acquisition will increases the costs and timeframe for any potential Extension Study Marion Transit Center. implementation. A state plan that evaluates using express lanes on Tampa Bay 18 segments of I-275, I-75, and I-4. The plan The plan recommended a staged-implementation approach with seven starter projects: five segments on I- Hillsborough Express Lanes 2015 CDP FDOT compares 2012 traffic volumes with 2040 traffic 275, one segment on I-4, and one segment on I-75. An additional consideration of this study was the County Master Plan projections developed from the regional traffic importance for HART to connect to the Westshore Intermodal Facility that FDOT recently acquired. model to identify highway capacity needs.
HART | TDP 7-5
Table 7-2: Plans Review (cont.)
Most Type Geographic Responsible Plan Title Recent of Plan/Program Overview Key Considerations/Implications for TDP Applicability Agency Update Plan
The study selected three Preferred Options that serve Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties with alignments on I-275 and I-75 between Downtown St. Petersburg and Wesley Chapel. It recommended Express Bus in A follow-up to the Master Plan that examines the Hillsborough Hillsborough stations at SR 56, Fletcher Ave, Downtown Tampa, Westshore District, Greater Gateway Area, and Tampa Bay feasibility of operating premium express bus within County & Pinellas 2015 CDP MPO & FDOT Downtown St. Petersburg to Fletcher Ave/USF Area. Express Lanes the Tampa Bay Express lanes on I-275, I-75, and County D7 The study also sought to design stations wide enough to allow enough room for express busses, incorporate Study I-4. transit with interstate express lanes to secure project funding, as well as select corridors with significant transit use and/or potential for transit use.
This update acknowledges that growth in the Tampa Bay region is expected to grow 43 % by 2040 and as a An update to the Master Plan that serves as the result commute times are expected to double by 2040. Since the majority of cross-country travel occurs regional LRTP. The plan continues to examine high between Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties, the plan identifies regional and future priority projects to TBARTA Master capacity corridors that deserve attention in order to District 7 2015 RPC TBARTA target in the coming year(s). A single regional plan is necessary to move forward with a regional Plan improve mobility within the region. Additionally, this transportation vision that begins with these priority projects: I-275/SR 60/Memorial Interchange, SR 54/56 update incorporates the region's six MPO LRTP Corridor Improvements, Gateway Express, Howard Frankland Bridge, Tampa Bay Express Starter Projects, adopted Cost Feasible Plans and Needs Plans. and Westshore Multimodal Center and Connections to Downtown Tampa & Airport.
A vision plan extending to the year 2040 that Regional transit service by 2040 and beyond includes: explores possibilities for regional fixed-guideway TBARTA Transit • Regional Fixed Guideway: service operating on rail or within a dedicated transit lane District 7 2015 RPC TBARTA services, regional premium transit or express Vision Plan • Regional Premium Transit: BRT or express bus service in express lanes or water ferry (or similar) service, as well as regional commuter transit • Regional Commuter Transit: commuter express bus service (or similar) services.
A minor update of the TDP that explores action The updated TDP does not include rail such as modern streetcar, light rail, and commuter rail. Instead it Hillsborough plans for bus-centric network using two funding recommends three new Metro Rapid (BRT) routes and nine new express routes. Because a funding source HART TDP 2015 TDP HART County scenarios (status quo and additional funding from for premium transit has not been identified, the various funding plans focused on current transit assets and Go Hillsborough) similar investments to meet public transportation needs. The objectives that came out the public involvement included doubling transit service, developing a Go Hillsborough modernized streetcar through Downtown Tampa, and investing in a rail connection to the Westshore/airport This planning effort consisted of a yearlong public Planning area and/or USF. The outreach found that geography is an important consideration for transit investments Hillsborough Hillsborough engagement effort to build consensus around a Documents/ 2015 Other because residents living in unincorporated Hillsborough County are skeptical of light rail, whereas residents County County Community Transportation Plan for Hillsborough Outreach living in the City of Tampa generally support it. Additionally, incremental implementation of express bus County. Summary and/or BRT is generally supported throughout Hillsborough County. And lastly, that any new local source of transportation funding will need to be shared between road and transit projects. Proposed transit service serving 14 stations and 12 park-and-ride lots for the following alternatives: • Downtown Tampa, Westshore, Veterans-Suncoast, and SR 54/US 19 alignment Westshore to Hillsborough A corridor study that evaluates various options for • Downtown Tampa, Westshore, Veterans-Suncoast, US 98, US 10, Crystal River and Lecanto alignment TBARTA & Inverness/Crystal County, Citrus 2015 CDP premium transit service from the Westshore area to • Downtown Tampa, Westshore, Veterans-Suncoast, SR 50, Brooksville, US 41, and Inverness alignment FDOT D7 River Study County the Crystal River area. The study alternatives evaluation was guided by FTA guidelines for Alternative Analyses as closely as possible, such that the preferred alternative can be used at a later date as a starting point to advance this corridor under MAP-21 or future project development.
A major update to the LRTP that includes the The 2040 Transit Vision Plan includes the following services: Regional express from Downtown Tampa Pinellas MPO Pinellas County, 2015 LRTP Pinellas MPO county's 20-year vision of transportation projects for through Westshore to the Gateway Area via I-275, Clearwater Beach via SR 60, and Oldsmar via Tampa LRTP City of Tampa the community. Rd/Hillsborough Ave.
HART | TDP 7-6
Table 7-2: Plans Review (cont.)
Geographic Most Recent Type of Responsible Plan Title Plan/Program Overview Key Considerations/Implications for TDP Applicability Update Plan Agency Incremental expansion of transit is identified as the most realistic path to improving regional service because funding is limited and the referendum did not pass in 2014. Some key transit A major update to the TDP that serves as the guide for the alternatives proposed include: Pinellas bus-centric network while exploring new transit modes and • Regional Fare Collection Project that includes a SmartCard/Mobile Pay: universal fare PSTA TDP County, City of 2015 TDP PSTA technologies. The TDP outlines three funding scenarios: No payment system for the eight transit agencies in Tampa Bay Tampa New Revenue, Incremental Expansion, and Vision. • BRT from Downtown St. Petersburg to Pinellas County Beaches • Clearwater Beach to TIA Express • Downtown St. Petersburg to TIA Express Hillsborough A planning document that works to develop regional The study prioritizes and amends already proposed projects. Some of the top priorities include Tampa Bay TMA County & Tampa Bay consensus priorities for the TMA, especially in the allocation of Tampa Bay Express Phase 1, the Westshore Multimodal Center and Connections to Regional 2016 RPC Pinellas TMA federal and state funds. The plan also helps the metro area Downtown & Airport, the CSX Rail Corridors, a Regional Farebox System, and Regional Priorities County speak with one voice and collectively decide priorities. Express Bus services. Resulting from extensive public outreach and coordination with local and state agencies, the plan has been revised to Two objectives outlined with respect to transit include coordinating with HART, TBARTA and City of Tampa City of Tampa, address the major transportation, land use, and capital project the Hillsborough County MPO to provide Transit Level of Service “D” or better fixed route Comprehensive City of Tampa 2016 CP Hillsborough needs facing the community. The plan also focuses growth transit service at bus stops within 0.25 miles of 80% of homes and businesses within the City Plan County and change to specific parts of the city while strengthening of Tampa. The second was to work with the same groups as well as FDOT and neighboring and protecting residential neighborhoods from development jurisdictions to identify, preserve, and acquire right-of-way for transit corridors. pressure. Pinellas County The comprehensive plan addresses land use, transportation, The plan provides goals for improving the quality of open space, public areas, and mobility Pinellas Pinellas Comprehensive 2008 CP capital projects, public facilities, and economic development options as well as leveraging the variety of historical, cultural, and other assets of the county County County Plan goals, among others for the county. into an integrated approach at attracting residents to live and stay in Pinellas. The City of Plant City has outlined a variety of bicycle and pedestrian network goals for the City of Plant Resulting from extensive public outreach and coordination coming decades. For transit, the plan reviews how the Strawberry Connector could be re- City of Plant City City, with local and state agencies, the comprehensive plan has instated as a downtown circulator (discontinued 2006). To do so it has to be done in Comprehensive Plant City 2016 CP Hillsborough been revised to address the major transportation, land use, coordination with HART and TBARTA to maximize its regional applicability. Additionally, the Plan County and capital project needs facing the community. plan reviews how a current rail connection is being assessed in conjunction with TBARTA to improve regional connectivity. City of Temple City of Temple Resulting from extensive public outreach and coordination The City of Temple Terrace has outlined a multimodal transportation district to encompass its Terrace Temple Terrace, with local and state agencies, the comprehensive plan has full city limits as well as instituted a set of policies to encourage bicycle/pedestrian networks, 2016 CP Comprehensive Terrace Hillsborough been revised to address the major transportation, land use, complete streets, and coordination between HART and USF to ensure that the area reaches its Plan County and capital project needs facing the community. goal of having a high level of connectivity. Hillsborough Resulting from extensive public outreach and coordination The plan includes a detailed discussion of the results of the public involvement and how it County Hillsborough Hillsborough with local and state agencies, the comprehensive plan has influenced the stated goals and objectives for the coming years. The plan includes specific 2016 CP Comprehensive County County been revised to address the major transportation, land use, guidance for each of the sub-areas of the county (e.g. cities and unincorporated areas) in their Plan and capital project needs facing the community. respective separate plans. The plan includes a detailed listing of the key issues identified in the Evaluation and Appraisal Pasco County The comprehensive plan addresses land use, transportation, Report along with references to where they are addressed in the respective elements. Comprehensive Pasco County 2013 CP Pasco County capital projects, public facilities, and economic development Additionally, major accomplishments of Pasco County since the last Comprehensive Plan Plan goals, among others for the county. update are provided. Unincorporated To ensure that the character and location of projects and facilities can support economic Resulting from extensive public outreach and coordination Hillsborough development and the protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, Hillsborough Hillsborough with local and state agencies, the comprehensive plan has County 2016 CP safety and welfare posed by hazards, congestion and environmental degradation, a variety of County County been revised to address the major transportation, land use, Comprehensive goals and policies have been established for the unincorporated areas of the county to strive and capital project needs facing the community. Plan towards in the coming decades. The strategic plan for USF's Tampa campus highlights the The plain aims at expanding and strengthening pedestrian and bicycle travel areas throughout goals and challenges ahead with regard to transportation USF Campus University of campus, including by closing a few areas off to vehicle traffic. The plan also proposes possible USF Campus 2015 CMP needs, future development projects and land use, Master Plan South Florida expansions of parking infrastructure as well as the network for the Bull Runner and its infrastructure and other supportive elements of the goal of connectivity with the HART system. providing education.
HART | TDP 7-7
Table 7-2: Plans Review (cont.) Most Geographic Type Responsible Plan Title Recent Plan/Program Overview Key Considerations/Implications for TDP Applicability of Plan Agency Update Brandon Hillsborough The in-progress study has so far analyzed trip patterns using StreetLight data which uses Corridors and The purpose of the study is to better coordinate the envisioned land County and anonymized data from mobile devices to measure mobility patterns and identified major Mixed-Use Brandon 2017 CDP use pattern with planned transportation improvements along major Hillsborough employment centers, main gates, and thoroughfares while also breaking down the Brandon Centers Pilot corridors within the Brandon Study Area. MPO area into discrete analysis zones. Project The plan provides a closer look at the baseline conditions, current The study proposes possible changes to the transit and paratransit network (including flex Northwest Hillsborough transit networks, and the proposed improvements from the TDP routes) as well as identifies three main scenarios of connecting greenways and trails to the Hillsborough Hillsborough 2017 Other MPO and that apply to the study area. The study had a separate public current and proposed transit network. The specific changes to the transit network include County Transit County HART outreach effort in the attempt to identify possible changes or increasing the frequency on Routes 34 and 16 local routes, realigning and expanding the Study additions to transit service. 61LX, and a possible new route on Ehrlich Road/Bearss Ave. Florida State of Florida Commission Transportation The purpose is to accomplish cost-effective, efficient, unduplicated Develop and field-test a model community transportation system for persons who are for the Disadvantaged Florida 2007 State and cohesive transportation disadvantaged services within its transportation disadvantaged; create a strategy for the Florida CTD to support the development Transportation 5-Year/20-Year respective service area. of a universal transportation system. Disadvantage Plan d (CTD) The plan requires, as part of Florida Statutes, the pursuit to make Florida’s economy more competitive, communities more livable. The FTP supports the development of state, regional, and local transit services through a FTP: Horizon Looks at a 50-year transportation planning horizon, calls for a Florida 2005 State FDOT series of related goals and objectives, emphasizing new and innovative approaches by all 2060 fundamental change in how and where State investments in modes to meet the needs today and in the future. transportation are made.
• Increases dedicated bus funding by 89% over the life of the bill. • Provides both stable formula funding and a competitive grant program to address bus and bus facility needs. • Reforms public transportation procurement to make federal investment more cost effective Enacts five years of funding for the nation’s surface transportation and competitive. infrastructure, including transit systems and rail transportation • Consolidates and refocuses transit research activities to increase efficiency and FAST Act USA 2015 Federal USDOT network. Provides long-term certainty and more flexibility for states accountability. and local governments, streamlines project approval processes, • Establishes a pilot program for communities to expand transit through the use of public- and maintains a strong commitment to safety. private partnerships. • Provides flexibility for recipients to use federal funds to meet their state of good repair needs. • Provides for the coordination of public transportation services with other federally-assisted transportation services to aid in the mobility of older adults and individuals with disabilities.
HART | TDP 7-8
Land Use Policy Review Local plans related to Hillsborough County’s land use were collected and reviewed to summarize and call attention to community goals, objectives, and policies that may have implications for current and future transit services. HART’s awareness and participation in these plans, policies, and efforts is imperative to ensure that the community’s needs are addressed in the development of plans and strategies. In addition to awareness and participation, partnerships with these agencies could provide many benefits to HART such as expedited transportation planning and transit development efforts, collaborative implementation strategies for projects, and additional revenue sources. For example, using tools such as the Hillsborough County Vision Map as well as the transit-supportive policies from recent comprehensive planning efforts will help HART address agency needs and future transit development. One of the most critical issues in transit planning in the Tampa Bay Region is developing strategies to assist local providers in sustaining existing service in light of critical funding challenges. With more funding, existing service will not only be sustained but could also be strengthened to allow for more frequent service that operates for longer hours and allows more people to have transit as a mobility option. Appendix F provides a snapshot of Hillsborough County’s jurisdictions and their current land use and transit-related policies. The summaries are meant to help tell the story of Hillsborough County’s community goals as well as the implications for HART’s future transit development. Implications – Land Use Policy Review Countywide Vision – The areas proposed for inclusion into the Urban Service Area as well as lands being considered for future annexation into Plant City or Temple Terrace should be considered for future service changes. In addition, future major capacity projects and transit improvements should be considered for future TOD. Areas of Opportunity – Downtown, High Intensity Urban, and Urban Areas of Opportunity should be examined for future transit development and enhancement. These areas include Downtown Tampa, Ybor City, Tampa Heights/Riverside Heights, Westshore, areas north of TIA, the USF area, and the Greater Brandon area. City of Plant City – Although none of the future land use goals for Plant City speak of transit, an emphasis is placed on achieving a well-balanced set of land uses that are served by a convenient and efficient transportation network while also protecting and preserving the character and “hometown charm” of Plant City. This should be considered when identifying targeted businesses and industries that will bring economic growth and higher paying jobs. City of Tampa – The Tampa Comprehensive Plan outlines strategies for redevelopment that support multimodal transportation by encouraging development that supports transit, bicycling, and walking as well as automobile travel. One of the City’s Guiding Principles identifies “a comprehensive, high-quality, affordable mass-transit system that moves people quickly and conveniently” as a major emphasis. Additionally, “a vibrant Downtown” as well as “a place that offers opportunity for its elderly and youth equally” are two other descriptors within the Guiding Principles that are directly related to the public transit system.
HART | TDP 7-9
The Central Business District, Westshore District, and USF District are three of the City of Tampa’s Planning Districts that have stated goals to drive them towards becoming more livable and sustainable parts of the city. One of six major goals for these districts is to “improve mobility.” As stated previously, the Tampa Comprehensive Plan contains various transit supportive policies, specifically within Land Use Goal 7, and allows for the flexibility and creativity needed to lead to successful TOD in and around future transit stations. Mixed use corridors and urban villages are among the land use strategies that are being employed to create a more transit supportive environment. Mixed-use corridors are identified as those areas with the greatest opportunity to support the gradual transformation of road corridors where intensification is possible to encourage new housing and job opportunities while improving the pedestrian environment. The mixed-use corridors consist of many transit emphasis corridors. These areas are examples of corridors that are conducive to transit and include:
North/South Corridors:
Westshore Boulevard from Kennedy Boulevard to Spruce Street/TIA Dale Mabry Highway from MacDill AFB to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard Howard/Armenia Aves from Swann Ave/South Tampa to Fowler Avenue Florida Avenue from Downtown Tampa to Fowler Avenue Nebraska Avenue from Downtown Tampa to Fowler Avenue 40th Street from south of Columbus Drive to Fowler Avenue 50th Street from Adamo Drive to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard Bruce B. Downs Boulevard from east of Bearss Avenue to Cross Creek Boulevard
East/West Corridors:
Gandy Boulevard (the entire length within Hillsborough County) Kennedy Boulevard/Adamo Drive from I-275/Westshore to Downtown Tampa and then from Channelside to 26th Street in Ybor City Columbus Drive from Dale Mabry Highway to west of Palm River Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard from TIA to 40th Street Hillsborough Avenue from the Veterans Expressway to 40th Street Busch Boulevard from Armenia Avenue to 50th Street Fowler Avenue from Florida Avenue to 50th Street Fletcher Avenue from 22nd Street to 50th Street
The Urban Villages consist of the Channelside District, Seminole Heights, Davis Islands, East Tampa, Hyde Park, Central Park, Tampa Heights, West Tampa, Ballast Point, and Ybor City. As suggested in the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment of these corridors and urban villages should be supported by quality transit services combined with urban design and traffic engineering standards to promote safe, comfortable, and attractive streets. While there is no uniform program for transforming the corridor villages, a framework of change will be tailored to the individual corridors through studies and or “community planning through form-based code” processes that involve local residents, businesses, and other stakeholders.
HART | TDP 7-10
City of Temple Terrace – One of the future land use goals for Temple Terrace, “Ensure that land use patterns and development encourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation use, and make these transportation options a safe and convenient choice,” acknowledges the City’s support of public transportation and multimodal transportation. In addition, one future land use goal promotes 56th Street and Busch Boulevard/Bullard Parkway as the City’s downtown area and another future land use goal focuses on improving four multimodal corridors to provide access for all modes of travel and enhance the look and feel of both corridors through streetscaping. Any future transit service expansion should include connections to these corridors, including partnerships with USF’s Bull Runner service and the Tampa Innovation Alliance (now known as “Innovation Place”). Under Housing Goals, Objectives, and Policies (HSG Goal 1) within HSG Policy 1.1.3, it is noted that special attention should be devoted to creating zoning districts and development standards that provide for innovative residential development built upon walkable, transit-oriented, sustainable principles, where appropriate. Imagine 2040 LRTP (Preferred Growth Scenario) – Frequent bus service and safe walkways and bikeways could expand access to a first line of rail or premium transit. For this scenario to be implemented, a mix of transportation improvements will be needed countywide. Some new town centers with a mix of places to live, work, and shop would be necessary at rail and bus stations as well as older commercial areas. Corporate centers should be connected by new express toll lanes (with possible transit within these lanes) in order to expand and grow along interstate highways.
Imagine 2040 LRTP (Goals, Objectives, and Policies) – HART may want to focus special attention on the major employment centers within Hillsborough County to prioritize future transit projects; improving connections to these centers may enhance the region’s economic vitality since Hillsborough County is the business center of the region. To support an integrated transportation system with efficient connections between modes, multimodal improvements must be supported and implemented to address any system gaps or deficiencies. This applies to the entire county, but specifically at major intersections and popular pedestrian and bicycle corridors. This may increase the percentage of people using alternative modes of transportation and promote better connectivity to major commercial, recreation, and employment centers.
HART | TDP 7-11
Section 8: Goals and Objectives
HART’s mission as well as its long-term vision strive to efficiently remedy the breadth of existing mobility needs in the county while simultaneously looking towards meeting the future needs of the area. To address the mobility needs of existing passengers and other residents and to enable Hillsborough County to be more competitive with other regions of the country and retain the quality of life that is important to residents, it is apparent that HART must aggressively pursue a variety of objectives in order to significantly enhance its transit service. However, although the regional and state macro economies continue to strengthen, a variety of financial limitations continue to present significant challenges for HART’s transit program. Goals and objectives are an integral part of HART’s TDP, as they provide the policy direction to achieve the community’s vision while helping guide the agency through these financial limitations. This section presents the goals and objectives to support the community’s vision for transit services over the next 10 years. The TDP goals and objectives presented here were updated based on the review and assessment of existing conditions, feedback received during the public involvement process, and the applicable policy directions from local plans and policies. Goals/Objectives Update Guidance The following sources were used to guide the update of the adopted TDP goals and objectives for the next 10 years:
Various findings from the Situation Appraisal identified the key issues that are affecting HART today and will affect HART over the next few years. Input received from the public and stakeholders relating to the needs and direction of transit in Hillsborough County and the immediate region. Findings from plan and policy reviews based on recommendations, goals, and objectives included in other agency plans to ensure consistency with other planning efforts at the national, regional and local levels. In addition, input from HART staff based on numerous discussions on the TDP and COA was also used. The updated goals and objectives are presented following the Mission and Visions statements for HART. Mission Provide safe, innovative, and cost-effective public transportation services that enhance the quality of life in our community.
Vision To make transit a relevant and viable travel option for residents within the HART service area.
Guiding Principles for Vision Plan Service on existing routes should be enhanced to make the service more attractive, be competitive with the automobile, and address future growth needs. New service should be provided to areas not currently served.
HART | TDP 8-1
A variety of service types are needed to serve the different development patterns in the county, including local and express bus, flex routes, circulators, and paratransit service for persons with disabilities. Connections to other counties are important, although enhanced dedicated funding for these services is critical. Continued improvements are needed to enable all passengers, including those with mobility limitations, to access fixed-route bus stops, including bus stop landing pads, sidewalk connections, and safe intersection crossings. To make the service more attractive to those with other travel options, new technologies are important, including fareboxes that accept credit and debit cards, enhanced customer information, and transit signal priority at intersections. Despite some support for high-capacity services such as light rail, the current focus should be on less costly services, such as enhanced bus service, BRT, and express bus service using dedicated lanes. Funding is a major issue that must be addressed carefully given the widely opposing views on the issue. Goals and Objectives An updated set of goals have been developed to address the key challenges facing HART today and over the next 10 years. For each goal, a series of objectives are presented, outlining how each goal will be achieved. In the following section, any blue-colored text denotes potential additions of objectives, and any red-colored text denotes modifications of objectives, as compared to the prior Major TDP Update. Goal 1: Continue to Enhance the Financial Condition Objectives Manage system costs effectively. Regularly evaluate system/route productivity and implement route, area, and/or system- based efficiency improvements. Seek additional funding for services and programs. Identify and evaluate other opportunities to enhance revenues. Incentivize private-sector and community transit investments. Goal 2: Improve Mobility and Accessibility Objectives Provide faster, more frequent services (bus every 10-15 minutes during peak travel times) in areas with high existing ridership and higher population and employment densities streamlining routes and facilities. Provide basic, low-frequency (bus every 30-60 minutes) transit service in areas of low existing ridership and lower density. Increase transit ridership by maximizing operational performance and efficiency. Participate in planning efforts evaluating strategies to serve a greater portion of the county’s mobility needs by focusing on high-capacity corridors.
HART | TDP 8-2
Coordinate with surrounding transit providers and regional agencies to address customer needs and connectivity, in particular as part of the identified regional spine and gateway areas. Improve access to employment centers. Complete accessibility improvements at stops and facilities. Ensure that the service addresses the mobility needs of transit dependent passengers. Coordinate with local jurisdictions, planning agencies and the development community to encourage transit-supportive development patterns and investments. Connect transit services with mixed use centers. Support community initiatives that align affordable housing with transit service. Goal 3: Enhance Customer Focus Objectives Continue to improve service reliability and on-time performance. Expand fare payment options. Enhance the user-friendliness of customer information and expand its availability while ensuring that traditional modes of communication are not neglected. Expand focus on customer service on all fronts (customer service center, buses, and transit centers). Expand the application of transit signal priority (TSP) to applicable corridors. Seek funding to implement energy and environmental initiatives. Goal 4: Develop Effective Partnerships Objectives Coordinate with other transit agencies and governmental agencies on consortium purchases. Pursue partnership opportunities with the business community, particularly with large employers and employment centers. Coordinate with the City of Tampa in its pursuit of achieving a higher level of transit service to at least 80% of homes and businesses in the city. Coordinate with the City of Tampa in its pursuit of preserving and acquiring right-of-way for transit corridors. Support transit projects that promote economic development and job creation. Promote regional and local cooperation on transit issues and needs. Goal 5: Deliver Capital Projects Objectives Prioritize multimodal accommodations when planning transit centers and ROW uses. Ensure that fleet, facilities, and infrastructure are maintained in a good state of repair. Seek funding to implement energy and environmental initiatives. Pursue the modernization of the TECO Streetcar service.
HART | TDP 8-3
Goal 6: Maximize the Safety and Security of Employees, Passengers and the Public Objectives Maintain an up-to-date and comprehensive System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). Maintain an up-to-date and comprehensive System Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan (SSEPP). Reduce the number of accidents. Continue to implement improvements at facilities and stops to enhance safety and security throughout the system. Use appropriate planning and design criteria to promote community cohesion and avoid or minimize negative impacts to residential neighborhoods.
Goal 7: Foster a Thriving Internal Environment
Objectives Pursue the expansion of HART’s wellness program as well as partnerships within the community to enhance HART’s brand as a healthy lifestyle choice. Identify the means to ensure that HART staff remain engaged with the local community on a regular basis. Develop a model for local employers to use for educating and encouraging employees on transit use and possible commuter benefits/incentives programs.
Goal 8: Embrace Innovative Practices and Systems Objectives Pursue the adoption of innovative technologies and innovations immediately and remain at the forefront of the adoption curve. Invest to position HART as a pioneer of new technologies across the organization by supporting technology-driven transit services such as HyperLINK and other novel services. Implement programs and technology to make the service more attractive and easier to use.
HART | TDP 8-4
Section 9: Transit Demand Assessment
The purpose of this section is to summarize the demand and mobility needs assessment conducted as part of the 10-year TDP for HART. When combined with the baseline conditions assessment, performance reviews, and findings from public outreach and relevant plan reviews, the demand assessment yields the building blocks for evaluating the transit needs for the next 10 years. The assessment techniques are summarized below, followed by the results of each technical analysis used to assess the demand for transit services in Hillsborough County. Transit demand and mobility needs were assessed using the following techniques:
Market Assessment – Two market assessment tools were used to assess demand for transit services for the next 10 years. The tools assessed traditional and discretionary transit user markets in Hillsborough County for various time periods. Travel Flow Analysis – A daily travel flow analysis was conducted using the most recent available origin−destination data from the Tampa Bay regional travel demand forecasting model to identify the extent of travel between key travel hubs/activity centers within and adjacent to Hillsborough County. Ridership Demand Assessment – Projected ridership demand for existing and proposed 2018 fixed-route transit networks were analyzed to gauge the route-level and system-wide demand, assuming the maintenance of 2018 transit service levels and facilities. The projections were prepared using TBEST, the FDOT-approved ridership estimation software for TDPs. Market Assessment The TDP market assessment includes an evaluation from two different perspectives: the discretionary rider market and the traditional rider market, the two predominant ridership markets for bus transit service. Analytical tools for conducting each market analysis include a Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) for the discretionary market and a Transit Orientation Index (TOI) for the traditional market. These 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 below. Discretionary Rider 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 DTA conducted uses industry- standard thresholds to identify the areas within Hillsborough County that experience transit-supportive residential and employee density levels today as well as in the future. Hillsborough County socioeconomic dwelling unit and employment data developed as part of the adopted 2040 LRTP were used to conduct the DTA. Using these data through a process of data interpolation, the existing (2017) and future (2027) dwelling unit and employment data were analyzed. Three density thresholds, developed based on industry standards/research, were used to indicate whether an area contains sufficient density to sustain some level of fixed-route transit operations:
HART | TDP 9-1
Minimum Investment – reflects minimum dwelling unit or employment densities to consider basic fixed-route transit services (i.e., local fixed-route bus service). High Investment – reflects increased dwelling unit or employment densities that may be able to support higher levels of transit investment (i.e., increased frequencies, express bus) than areas meeting only the minimum density threshold. Very High Investment – reflects very high dwelling unit or employment densities that may be able to support more significant levels of transit investment (i.e., very high frequency services, premium transit services, etc.) than areas meeting the minimum or high density thresholds.
Table 9-1 presents the dwelling unit and employment density thresholds (in terms of TAZ) associated with each threshold of transit investment. Table 9-1: Transit Service Density Thresholds
Level of Transit Dwelling Unit Density Employment Density Investment Threshold1 Threshold2 Minimum Investment 4.5–5 dwelling units/acre 4 employees/acre High Investment 6–7 dwelling units/acre 5–6 employees/acre Very High Investment ≥8 dwelling units/acre ≥7 employees/acre
1 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.
Maps 9-1 and 9-2 illustrate the results of 2017 and 2027 DTA analyses conducted for Hillsborough County, identifying areas that support different levels of transit investment based on existing and projected dwelling unit and employment densities. These maps also illustrate the existing HART transit route network to gauge how well the current transit network covers the areas of Hillsborough County that are considered supportive of at least a minimum level of transit investment. The 2017 DTA analysis indicates that the discretionary transit markets are derived mainly from employment densities than from population. The data show that the “High” and “Very High” discretionary transit market demand areas primarily include Downtown Tampa, the Kennedy Boulevard corridor, Westshore, Ybor City, USF, TIA, Brandon, and the area south of Orient Park. Areas that meet “High” and “Very High” dwelling unit density thresholds include parts of Downtown Tampa, Hyde Park, Westshore, Palma Ceia, Harbor Island, Pinecrest West Park on Dale Mabry Highway, the area between Busch Boulevard and Waters Avenue east of Dale Mabry Highway, and the areas west and north of USF along both sides of Fletcher Ave. Several areas with rental-driven ridership are anticipated to go from High to Very High, such as West Tampa, Westshore, South Westshore north of Gandy Boulevard, and University Square south of Fowler Ave. As shown in these two maps, the existing “High” and “Very High” employment-based thresholds align well with the existing route structure. There are a few areas of high employment that are not served or are only minimally served by the current HART network. Some of these areas include areas north of the Selmon Expressway/South of Orient Park, Citrus Park, Drew Park, and Tampa Palms. However, due to the elimination of several routes/segments with HART’s proposed 2018 system revisions, some of these areas will temporarily lose fixed-route transit services that will eventually be restored as part of the 2027 Funded Plan.
HART | TDP 9-2
Map 9-1: 2017 DTA with Existing Network
HART | TDP 9-3
Map 9-2: 2027 DTA with Existing Network
HART | TDP 9-4
Traditional Rider Market A traditional rider market refers to population segments that historically have had a higher propensity to use transit or are dependent on public transit for their transportation needs. Traditional transit users include older adults, youth, and households that are low-income and/or have no vehicles. For some individuals, their ability to drive is greatly diminished with age and they must rely on others for their transportation needs. Likewise, younger persons not yet of driving age but who need to travel to school, employment, or for leisure may rely more on public transportation until they reach driving age. For lower- income households, transportation costs are particularly burdensome, as a greater proportion of income is used for transportation-related expenses than it is for higher-income households. Households with restricted income, particularly those with no private vehicle, are more likely to rely on public transportation for travel. A Transit Orientation Index (TOI) was developed to assist in identifying areas of the county where these traditional rider markets exist. To create the TOI for this analysis, demographic data from the ACS Five- Year Estimates (2011–2015) were analyzed at the block group level for the following demographic and economic variables:
Population age 65 and over (older adults) Population under age 15 (youth) Population living below the poverty level ($25,000 or less annual income for a 4-person household) Households with no vehicles available (zero-vehicle households) The block groups were then categorized according to each one’s relative ability to support transit based on the prevalence of specific demographic characteristics. Using data for these characteristics and developing a composite ranking for each census tract, each area was ranked as “Very High,” “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” or “Very Low” in their respective levels of transit orientation. Map 9-3 illustrates the 2015 TOI, reflecting areas throughout the county with varying traditional market potential. Also shown is the existing transit route network to show how well HART covers those areas. Based on this analysis, the areas west and north of USF, north of Downtown Tampa, south of Orient Park, Drew Park, and Tampa Palms are among the areas with the highest transit orientation (depicted in dark blue). These areas are characterized as having a high index of households exceeding the average levels for the four characteristics explained previously. Additional areas with “Very High” transit orientations, yet have smaller geographic footprints, include West Tampa, Ybor and College Hills, Seffner, and Lowry Park.
HART | TDP 9-5
Map 9-3: 2015 TOI with Existing Network
HART | TDP 9-6
Travel Flow Assessment A travel flow analysis also was conducted as part of the transit needs assessment to identify the extent of daily travel between the key travel origins and destinations in and around HART’s service area. The regional travel demand forecasting model, which provides a large quantity of information on recent travel data, including zone-to-zone travel patterns, was used. The analysis provide an understanding of the magnitude of daily person trips between key locations/areas that can be helpful in planning/distributing future transit service delivery. As part of the analysis, the model information was grouped to reflect larger zones, and matrices were produced that provide trip information between those zones and that can be used to identify commuter travel markets that may need additional/improved transit service. This section summarizes the methodology used and the findings that may assist in identifying travel flows/patterns within Hillsborough County, in addition to travel patterns between Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. Analysis Methodology A methodology was developed for the travel flow analysis that use Cube Voyager (model interface software for analyzing model files) and GIS software platforms to conduct the analysis. The travel demand model used in this methodology is the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model, version 8.1.1 (TBRPM 8.1), Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) model. Model scenarios used are the 2019 Existing plus Committed (EC) year and the 2040 LRTP Cost Affordable Plan. The first part of the analysis methodology involved the creation of Origin-Destination (O/D) trip tables for Hillsborough County and also between Hillsborough and Pinellas and Pasco Counties, based on model output for the years 2019 and 2040. This was achieved by identifying centroids by county and creating a “pick list” of county-assigned Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) for querying O/D zones from the model data. Thereafter, the model output matrices for the time-of-day periods used in the model were used to identify trips between zones for passenger vehicles, by time of day. Cube Voyager Matrix scripts were written to summarize daily peak period tables within each of the output matrices. Cube Voyager Matrix scripts were also written to summarize daily person trip demand for all trip purposes, including university, taxi and airport, but excluding truck and external trips. Daily person trip data were extracted for peak period travel and off-peak travel and summarized into one daily O/D matrix. The above processes were repeated for the 2040 Cost Affordable LRTP roadway network. In addition, TAZs were combined and the O/D trip counts were aggregated to create larger O/D zones, referred to for the purpose of this analysis as “activity zones.” The list of the activity zones analyzed is shown in Table 9-2.
HART | TDP 9-7
Table 9-2: Activity Zones by County
Hillsborough Pasco Pinellas Big Bend Corridor Connerton Clearwater Downtown Broadway Corridor / Railyard Dade City Clearwater Mall Citrus Park E New Port Richey Countryside Mall Downtown / USF St. Petersburg / Downtown Hudson Albert Whitted Airport Harney Corridor / Tampa Executive Airport I-75 & SR 52 Gateway Area Hidden River / Telecom Park I-75 & SR 56 Grand Central Area I-4 Emerging Activity Center Lacoochie Area Mid-County Industrial Area MacDill AFB / Port Tampa Land O’ Lakes Oldsmar Area New Tampa N W Pasco Pinellas Beaches Plant City New Port Richey St. Petersburg / Clearwater Area Plant City West Odessa Tarpon Springs Area Port Manatee San Antonio Tyrone Square Area Port of Tampa / 50th Street Corridor Seven Springs Port Redwing Suncoast & SR 54 Sabal Park / N Falkenburg Corridor Wesley Chapel Southshore Emerging Activity Center Zephyrhills TIA / Anderson Road Corridor Tri-County Bus Park USF / Hospitals / Busch Gardens West Brandon S Falkenburg Corridor Westshore / Rocky Point
Analysis Summary A summary of average daily trip flows between activity zones for 2019 and 2040 are shown in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, respectively, and Maps 9-4 and 9-5 illustrate the travel flow analysis results. The tables and maps both show the top ten trip pairs that occur within Hillsborough County, the top three trip pairs that occur between Hillsborough County and Pasco County, and the top three trip pairs that occur between Hillsborough County and Pinellas County.
HART | TDP 9-8
Table 9-3: 2019 Travel Flows – Average Daily Trips
Rank From To Trips Hillsborough County Trips 1 Downtown Westshore/Rocky Point 46,851 2 Westshore/Rocky Point Downtown 44,250 3 Westshore/Rocky Point TIA/Anderson Road Corridor 17,651 4 TIA/Anderson Road Corridor Westshore/Rocky Point 16,303 5 North Falkenburg Corridor West Brandon 14,335 6 West Brandon North Falkenburg Corridor 12,705 7 Broadway Corridor/Railyard Downtown 10,171 8 Downtown USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens 10,165 9 West Brandon Downtown 10,102 10 North Falkenburg Corridor Downtown 9,514 Hillsborough-Pasco Trips 1 I-75 & SR 56 USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens 5,031 2 Land O’ Lakes USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens 3,687 3 USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens I-75 & SR 56 3,320 Hillsborough-Pinellas Trips 1 Westshore/Rocky Point St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area 10,341 2 Downtown St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area 6,005 3 Pinellas Beaches TIA/Anderson Road Corridor 5,332
As shown in Table 9-3 and Map 9-4, a significant amount of 2019 travel would occur between Downtown Tampa and the Westshore/Rocky Point area. Other high volume trip pairs in Hillsborough County include Westshore/Rocky Point to and from TIA/Anderson Road Corridor and West Brandon to and from the North Falkenburg Corridor. The most popular trips between Hillsborough and Pasco would occur between the USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens area in Hillsborough and I-75 & SR 56 and Land O’ Lakes in Pasco County. The most trips between Hillsborough and Pinellas occur between Westshore/Rocky Point and the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area, Downtown Tampa and the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area, and between TIA/Anderson Road Corridor and the Pinellas Beaches.
HART | TDP 9-9
Map 9-4: 2019 Travel Flows
Table 9-4 lists the average daily trips of the 2040 travel flows while Map 9-5 illustrates the 2040 travel flows. The top six trip pairs within Hillsborough County indicate no change between 2019 and 2040. As in 2019, a significant amount of travel is expected to continue to occur between Downtown Tampa and Westshore/Rocky Point, between Westshore/Rocky Point and TIA/Anderson Road Corridor and between West Brandon and the North Falkenburg Corridor. Other popular trip pairs in Hillsborough County would occur between the Southshore Emerging Activity Center and the Big Bend Corridor, and between Port of Tampa and Downtown. The most popular trips between Hillsborough and Pasco would
HART | TDP 9-10
occur between I-75 & SR 56 and the USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens area, between Zephyrhills and the USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens area, and between Land O’ Lakes and the USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens area. The most popular trips between Hillsborough and Pinellas would occur between Westshore/Rocky Point and the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area, Downtown Tampa and the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area, and between TIA/Anderson Road Corridor and the Pinellas Beaches. Table 9-4: 2040 Travel Flows – Average Daily Trips
Rank From To Trips Hillsborough County Trips 1 Downtown Westshore/Rocky Point 57,791 2 Westshore/Rocky Point Downtown 54,136 3 Westshore/Rocky Point TIA/Anderson Road Corridor 22,799 4 TIA/Anderson Road Corridor Westshore/Rocky Point 17,393 5 N Falkenburg Corridor West Brandon 17,089 6 West Brandon N Falkenburg Corridor 14,993 7 Southshore Emerging Activity Center Big Bend Corridor 14,212 8 N Falkenburg Corridor Downtown 13,170 9 Port of Tampa Downtown 12,590 10 Broadway Corridor/Railyard Downtown 12,310 Hillsborough/Pasco Trips 1 I-75 & SR 56 USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens 5,716 2 Zephyrhills USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens 5,541 3 Land O’ Lakes USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens 4,598 Hillsborough/Pinellas Trips 1 Westshore/Rocky Point St. Petersburg-Clearwater Area 18,401 2 Downtown St. Petersburg-Clearwater Area 10,484 3 Pinellas Beaches TIA/Anderson Road Corridor 8,192
HART | TDP 9-11
Map 9-5: 2040 Travel Flows
In summary, the vast majority of the top travel O/D pairs in 2019 would remain as top pairs through 2040, indicating continued travel demand between those activity centers. While all of these top pairs are forecasted to experience increases in travel flows some will change rankings as a result of travel flow increases/decreases between other existing top pairs, or due to newly emergent top pairs, as the case in South Hillsborough County. The Broadway Corridor/Railyard to Downtown pair will fall to a lower ranking in 2040 as well as the Land O’ Lakes to USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens pair. Additionally, the North Falkenburg Corridor to Downtown pair will rise to a higher ranking in 2040.
HART | TDP 9-12
The growth of absolute travel in these areas suggests that viable transit connections are warranted on all major roadway corridors if transit needs to be presented as a viable alternative. For areas that show an increase in travel as a future key origin or destination, HART will need to continually evaluate its levels of service along the applicable corridors. This would ensure that the relative changes in travel flows are also accompanied by parallel changes in transit service availability. Perhaps most noteworthy among the travel flow predictions for 2040 is the emergence of some entirely new top origin and destination pairs. Within Hillsborough County, the following trip pairs will require both service expansions and new transit services:
Southshore Emerging Activity Center to Big Bend Corridor Port of Tampa to Downtown Finally, across the Hillsborough-Pasco County border, travel flows between Zephyrhills and USF/Hospitals/Busch Gardens are expected to increase substantially by 2040, adding to the travel demand already generated by the Wesley Chapel and Land O’ Lakes areas. Currently, there are no existing or planned HART services that connect directly to Zephyrhills. Ridership Demand Assessment As another component of the transit demand assessment, projected transit ridership demand for the existing and approved 2018 fixed-route transit networks were analyzed using the ridership forecast data from TBEST, the FDOT-approved ridership estimation software for TDPs. This analysis was completed to gauge the route-level and system-wide demand, assuming the maintenance of existing or implementation of 2018 transit service levels and facilities. TBEST is a comprehensive transit analysis and ridership-forecasting model that is 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:
Transit Network Connectivity – Refers to 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 – Refers to service frequency and to 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 less reliable and, in turn, utilization decreases. Time-of-Day Variations – TBEST accommodates peak-period travel patterns by rewarding peak service periods with greater service utilization forecasts. Route Competition and Route Complementarities – TBEST 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 service to major destinations, or transfer locations and schedule, benefit from that complementary relationship. The following section outlines the model input and assumptions used, includes a description of the TBEST scenario runs performed using the model, and summarizes the ridership forecasts produced by TBEST.
HART | TDP 9-13
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 HART system in TBEST are presented below.
Transit Network – The base HART transit route network was created to reflect 2017 base conditions. The HART fixed and express bus routes were developed using the TBEST General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) Network Import tool. The imported routes contain all necessary model input parameters including route alignments for each unique trip path per route and direction, stop locations, stop name and description, service span, headway, and in-vehicle travel time. Stop-level special generators were added at locations serving universities, shopping malls, and military (MacDill). Park-and-ride locations were also coded into the TBEST network. HART also provided observed average daily ridership numbers as input into the TBEST model validation process. Demographic Data – The demographics used as the base input for the TBEST model are derived from Census 2010 geography and population characteristics, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2011-2015), 2014 InfoUSA employment data, and 2016 parcel-level land use data from the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR). Using these data inputs, the model captures market demand (population, demographics, employment, and land use characteristics) within ¼-mile of each stop. Population and Employment Growth Rates – TBEST uses a socio-economic data growth function to project population and employment data. A population growth rate and an employment growth rate were calculated using the Hillsborough MPO’s 2040 LRTP socioeconomic data projections. As applied, the growth rates do not reflect fluctuating economic conditions as experienced in real time. TBEST Model Limitations – According to Rule 14-73.001 Florida Administrative Code, TBEST is the FDOT-approved model for transit ridership forecasting as part of TDPs in Florida. It has long been a desire of FDOT to have a base 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. However, while TBEST is an important tool for evaluating improvements to existing and future transit services, model outputs do not account for latent demand for transit that could yield significantly higher ridership, and, correspondingly, model outputs may over-estimate 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. It should also be noted 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. HyperLINK Estimations - HyperLINK ridership estimations were calculated outside of TBEST as the model framework is calibrated to simulate fixed-route transit and, thus, does not support HyperLINK zone-based transit service. Appendix G contains documentation on the HyperLINK ridership estimation methodology.
HART | TDP 9-14
The HART model utilizes the most recent TBEST Land Use Model 2016 structure, which is supported by parcel-level data developed from the Florida DOR statewide tax database. The DOR parcel data contain land use designations and supporting attributes which allow the application of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)-based trip generation rates at the parcel level as an indicator of travel activity.
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 are comparative for evaluation in actual service implementation decisions. Consequently, it is important for the transit agency to integrate sound planning judgment and experience when interpreting TBEST results.
Using the above inputs, assumptions, and actual HART ridership data, the TBEST model was validated and ridership projections were created for the following networks:
2017 Base Network 2018 COA Network (Fall 2017 implementation) 2027 Base No-Build Network (originating from the 2017 Base Network) 2027 COA No-Build Network (originating from the 2018 COA Network) 2027 Needs Plan Network (results presented later in this report) 2027 Funded Plan Network (results presented later in this report)
For each scenario, the generated ridership forecasts were developed that reflected the estimated level of service utilization based on population and employment growth and proposed service changes (if implemented). The remainder of this section analyzes the ridership projections from the No-Build scenarios while the result from the Needs and Funded Networks are presented later in this report. The route-level ridership projections for these model scenarios are presented in Appendix G. 10-Year Ridership Projections with Existing and 2018 COA Networks This section summarizes the 10-year ridership demand for the existing and 2018 COA networks, or “no- build” scenarios, to gauge the demand if either the current or approved 2018 COA service levels are maintained for the next 10 years. The 2018 COA network, developed as part of the multi-year system review, is an efficient network with a relatively smaller service area footprint that has been developed to meet current service demand and budget constraints. The COA-recommended 2018 network service changes will be implemented in Fall 2017.
Using the existing (2017 Base) and COA Networks, the TBEST evaluation included the following no- build scenario evaluations:
2027 Base No-Build Network (originating from the 2017 Base Network) 2027 COA No-Build Network (originating from the 2018 COA Network)
If the current network is maintained without implementing the proposed COA Network, Table 9-5 summarizes the projected number of average weekday riders and 10-year growth by route type in the
HART | TDP 9-15
2017 Base Network and the 2027 Base No-Build Network. In summary, if HART continues the current network, average weekday ridership is expected to increase 11.1% percent by 2027. Table 9-6 summarizes the projected number of average weekday riders by route type for the 2018 COA and 2027 COA No-Build networks if the approved 2018 COA network is implemented. TBEST projects more than 27 percent ridership growth with the lower cost COA network.
Table 9-5: 2027 Weekday Base No Build Network Summary
Route 2017 Weekday 2027 Weekday Absolute Ridership Growth Grouping Ridership Ridership Ridership Change Rate Local 47,063 52,233 5,170 11.0% Express 1,064 1,161 97 9.1% MetroRapid 2,280 2,558 278 12.2% HyperLINK 55 65 10 19% Total 50,462 56,017 5,555 11.1%
Table 9-6: 2027 Weekday 2018 COA No Build Network Summary
Route 2018 Weekday 2027 Weekday Absolute Ridership Growth Grouping Ridership Ridership Ridership Change Rate Local 37,424 46,947 9,073 24.% Express 2,623 3,497 874 33.3% MetroRapid 1,756 2,828 1,072 61% HyperLINK 74 88 14 19% Total 41,877 53,360 11,033 27.4%
Evaluation of the TBEST No Build model scenario results indicates that, while the service changes implemented in the 2018 COA Network are estimated to result in a short-term ridership decrease relative to the current 2017 Base Network, the 2018 COA Network, which costs less to operate, is projected to have a higher ridership growth potential of 27.4 percent over the next 10 years in contrast to the 11.1 percent generated from the 2017 Base Network. This increased ridership growth with the proposed cost-efficient 2018 COA Network indicates a positive outcome for HART’s efforts for service consolidation in the core and service along high density/high ridership corridors.
HART | TDP 9-16
Section 10: Ten-Year Needs Plan
Developed in consideration of community guidance/direction and the appraisal of HART’s planning and operating environment, the transit improvements needed to realize the community’s vision for a high- frequency and well-connected network are summarized in this section. These proposed improvements for HART’s transit services represent the transit needs for the next 10 years that were developed without consideration for funding constraints. This section summarizes the process for developing those needs for the 10-year TDP Needs Plan, followed by detailed lists of service needs and supporting capital/infrastructure needs identified for the next 10 years. The service improvements are then prioritized using an evaluation process for developing the 10-year implementation and financial plans, as presented in subsequent sections of this report. Development of Transit Needs The 10-year TDP Needs Plan consists of improvements to enhance existing HART services in the core service areas, connect the areas outside of the core to the core network, and add technologies and modes to expand the scope of HART’s services. These alternatives reflect the transit needs of the community and have been developed based on information gathered through the following methods:
Situation Appraisal – Prior to developing the 10-year transit plan, a situation appraisal was conducted to analyze existing data, plans, polices, and conditions to gain an understanding of the environment in which HART is currently operating. This included analyses of demographic and socioeconomic forecasts/trends, transit accessibility, travel patterns, and major activity centers. A variety of plans and policies pertinent to the TDP and many other related resources, including the ongoing Premium Transit Feasibility Study, also were reviewed. This comprehensive data review process and subsequent assessment of the possible implications was conducted in tandem with a thorough review of the current performance of the HART network. Only with a full picture of HART’s operating environment could a clear vision for the TDP be developed. Community Outreach – As part of the needs assessment, a substantial cross-section of the public’s preferences and aspirations for transit also were captured through a variety of forums that spanned several months during the TDP process. This TDP outreach helped identify key values held by different groups within the community and sought to coalesce specific patterns and themes in order to paint a cohesive vision/defined direction for the future of HART’s services. The outreach revealed a preference for bus service that operates at much higher frequencies, even if it will require a slightly longer walk to/from a bus stop. Better and quicker point-to-point accessibility is a key priority among riders and non-riders, alike. The support for frequency improvements has shown to be overwhelmingly higher than for HART serving additional new areas. While there were travel needs specific to certain communities, themes central to all respondent groups were identified so that the TDP could prioritize how to design future transit services overall. The priorities collected during the public outreach were a key weighting factor in ranking the alternatives that were included in the final TDP recommendations.
HART | TDP 10-1
Demand Assessment – The demand and mobility needs assessment, as presented in Section 9, also was used in the development of 10-year TDP needs for HART. Transit demand and mobility needs were assessed using transit market and travel flow assessments and a ridership demand assessment using TBEST. When combined with the baseline conditions assessment, performance reviews, public involvement feedback, and the review of relevant plans and studies, the service gaps and demand assessment yields the building blocks for evaluating the transit needs for the next 10 years. Findings from these three analysis efforts, along with input from the HART Board, its planning/policy committees, and staff, were used to develop the transit service and capital needs for the next 10 years, as summarized below. Service Needs To create a comprehensive set of transit alternatives to meet the wide variety of mobility needs throughout the county, a collection of services/modes were included, ranging from high frequency services to on-demand ride-hailing services, and from autonomous vehicles to ferry services, as discussed below. The transit needs developed without consideration of funding constraints that aim to realize the community’s vision for a high-frequency and well-connected network are summarized below.
High-Frequency Core Network – A grid of high-frequency routes interweaving throughout high- ridership/high density-corridors at every 12 to 15 minutes Enhanced Connectivity between Major Hubs – Fast connectivity between USF, Downtown Tampa, TIA, and other major hubs Regional Connections – Connections to Lakeland, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Oldsmar, and west and central Pasco County Passenger Ferry Service – Expanding on the recently-tested Cross Bay Ferry concept to introduce a ferry service that will provide an additional and possibly faster connection between Downtown Tampa, MacDill AFB, South County, and Downtown St. Petersburg Autonomous Vehicles in Downtown – Autonomous vehicles operating on Marion Street Transitway beyond the initial planned pilot and doubling its services to also connect other areas in downtown to the Marion Transit Center Alternatives to Traditional Bus Outside of the Core – Expanded use of HyperLINK service to cover low-ridership, low-density areas and acting as a feeder network for the high-frequency core route network Ride-hail for After/Later Hours – Voucher program for using ride-hailing services (or transportation network companies) as a way to get around when regular service is not available
Map 10-1 presents the TDP Needs Plan for HART for the next 10 years. The map uses a range of colors to clearly identify the high frequency core, and the mix of fixed-route and ride-hail based services outside of the core, feeding the core route network operating every 15-minutes or less.
HART | TDP 10-2
Map 10-1: Proposed 2027 Needs Network
HART | TDP 10-3
High-Frequency Core Network As revealed during public outreach events, the need for high-frequency, well-connected transit services are the highest priorities for the next 10 years. Each of the proposed route enhancements and additions not only seeks to fulfill this need, but aims to strengthen the general attractiveness of the HART network to current and potential riders, improving the ability for transit to function as a mobility and economic catalyst within the region. Phased in over the 10-year period, a variety of significant frequency improvements have been identified along both existing and new transit corridors. The increased operating frequencies are designed to provide riders ample north-south and east-east interwoven travel options that intersect at many transit stops and transfer centers in order to provide easy transfer opportunities and rapid travel throughout the high-frequency core network. The core network of high-frequency services is complemented by a network of lower-frequency services to ensure that riders can reach less-densely populated areas of the county, as well. High-Frequency Grid The core network of routes operating as a high-frequency grid underpins the TDP’s 10-year plan for the HART system. By carefully considering the public input and operating environment, this high-frequency grid, operating at 15-minute headways or better, has been optimized to provide enhanced service within the most dense and highest ridership corridors in HART’s current service area. The routes that comprise this grid are presented in Table 10-1. Within the high-frequency grid, one objective of the proposed alignments is to permit HART bus stops where two or more high-frequency routes meet to function as a “super stop” whereby riders can easily and quickly find a way to travel in their desired direction and avoid unneeded transfer times. Table 10-1: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 15-min. or Better Frequency
Primary Frequency (min.) Route Description Direction Current 2027 1 Florida Avenue N-S 20 15 6 56th Street N-S 20 10 12 22nd Street N-S 20 15 14 Armenia/Howard Avenue N-S 45 15 15 Columbus Drive E-W 25 15 16 Waters Avenue E-W 40 15 30 Kennedy Boulevard E-W 35 15 32 Dr. MLK Jr. Boulevard E-W 30 15 33 Fletcher Avenue E-W 30 15 34 Hillsborough Avenue E-W 25 15* 36 Dale Mabry Highway N-S 30 15* 37 Brandon/Netp@rk E-W 15 15 39 Busch Boulevard E-W 30 15 96 In-Towner N-S 15 15 400 Metro Rapid (Nebraska Avenue) N-S 15 12 401 Hidden River (E Fletcher Avenue) E-W 30 15 *The service beyond Sheldon Road will be at 30-min. frequency, alternating between going to Oldsmar and NWTC The high-frequency grid serves as the foundation of the proposed HART network and this grid is
HART | TDP 10-4
complemented by the secondary and non-traditional transit services operating outside the core network area.
North-South Core Grid Lines – Routes 1, 6, 12, 14, 36, 96, 400 East-West Core Grid Lines – Routes 15, 16, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 401
Figure 10-1: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 15-min. or Better Frequency
15-min. Frequency
Low-Frequency Secondary Network A network of low-frequency services are proposed as part of the TDP in order to perform the critical function of bringing riders to and from the high-frequency grid by providing secondary transit service to areas farther from the Downtown core that are comparably less-densely populated. The alignments of the secondary network routes operate at 30-60-minute headways and have been carefully integrated in the high-frequency grid so that fast connections are not only possible, but become the standard of service by 2027. These secondary routes consist of local fixed-routes as well as a handful of express and limited express services that have been preserved/reconfigured from existing routes, as well as added where employment and population growth is anticipated, to ensure that commuters have reliable transit options.
North-South Support Network – Routes 5, 9, 17, 19, 36, 42, 45, 97, 20X, 31LX, 51X, 53X,
HART | TDP 10-5
61X, 65X, 275X East-West Support Network – Routes 7, 8, 11, 34, 38, 46, 49, 58, 28X, 60X, 200X, 360X, I- 4X, Big Bend
Table 10-2: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 30 to 60-min. Frequency
Primary Frequency (min) Route Description Direction Current 2027 5 40th Street N-S 30 30 7 West Tampa E-W 30 30 8 Progress Village/Brandon E-W 30 30 9 15th Street N-S 30 30 11 Main-Spruce Street E-W - 30 17 Port to Britton Plaza Transfer Center N-S 60 60 19 MTC to Britton Plaza Transfer Center N-S 30 30 34 Hillsborough Avenue (Past Sheldon Road) E-W - 30* 36 Dale Mabry Highway (extension) N-S - 30* 38 Dr. MLK Jr. Boulevard/Mango E-W 60 60 42 University Area Connector N-S - 30 45 Rome Avenue N-S 30 30 46 Brandon Mall-Dover Road E-W 60 60 49 Sligh Avenue E-W 60 30 58 UATC-Citrus Park Connector E-W - 30 97 In-Towner N-S 30 30 20X Pasco/Lutz Express N-S 45 30 28X East County Express E-W 45 45 31LX South County Limited Express N-S - 30 51X New Tampa/Pasco Express N-S 30 30 53X South County-Brandon Express N-S 60 30 60X NWTC-TIC-Downtown-Brandon Express E-W - 30 61X Northwest Express N-S 30 30 65X New Tampa-Wesley Chapel Express N-S - 30 200X Clearwater Express E-W 35-105 60 275X UATC-MTC-TIA Express N-S - 30 360X MacDill AFB-Downtown-Brandon Express E-W - 30 I-4X Lakeland Express E-W - 60 BB Big Bend Circulator E-W - 60 *partial route frequency
HART | TDP 10-6
Figure 10-2: TDP Needs Plan Routes with 30 to 60-min. Frequency
30-min. Frequency
60-min. Frequency
HART | TDP 10-7
Enhanced Connectivity between Major Hubs Many of the key activity centers will be connected via the proposed high-frequency grid network, including USF, TIA, Downtown Tampa, Westshore, MacDill AFB, and Brandon Mall. This increased transit connectivity between major hubs also enhances a rider’s ability to make reliable regional connections. In addition, express service connections between major hubs improve the speed of that connectivity and the ease of travel for many riders. For example, the 275X transports passengers to/from UATC through Downtown Tampa to the Airport with limited stop activity. Additionally, the 60X and 360X bring passengers to/from Brandon through Downtown Tampa, with the 60X then heading to TIA and the Northwest Transfer Center, and the 360X heading to MacDill AFB. The high frequency grid and its secondary feeder networks aim to reduce the travel time between these major activity centers. The routes connecting the key hubs are listed below and also illustrated in Figure 10-3.
USF-Downtown Tampa: Routes 5, 6, 9, 12, 275X, 400. USF-TIA: Route 275X Downtown Tampa-TIA: Routes 30, 60X, 275X, Airporter Downtown Tampa-Westshore: Routes 30, Airporter, 60X, 275X Downtown Tampa-MacDill AFB: Routes 24X, 25LX, 360X Brandon-MacDill AFB: Routes 24X, 25LX, 360X Brandon-Downtown Tampa: Routes 8, 360X, 60X Brandon-TIA: Route 60X
HART | TDP 10-8
Figure 10-3: Routes Providing Connectivity between Major Hubs
15-min. Frequency
20-min. Frequency
USF 30-min. Frequency
60-min. Frequency
TIA
Downtown Westshore Brandon
MacDill AFB
Regional Connections The proposed needs plan includes a range of regional connections that are provided through secondary network services, including regular, express and limited-express type services. These regional connections link HART riders to Lakeland, St. Petersburg, Clearwater/Clearwater Beach, Oldsmar, and west and central Pasco County. While these connections may operate at lower frequencies, the attractiveness of these services is strengthened by the proposed high-frequency grid in the core areas. The regional connections and the routes that serve them are summarized in Table 10-3, below and illustrated in Figure 10-4 on the following page. Table 10-3: Regional Connections and Routes
Regional Connection County Connected Routes Lakeland Polk I-4X, 28X St. Petersburg Pinellas Airporter Clearwater Pinellas 200X Oldsmar Pinellas 34 Odessa Pasco 61X Land O’ Lakes Pasco 20X Wesley Chapel Pasco 51X, 65X
HART | TDP 10-9
Figure 10-4: 2027 Needs Plan Regional Connections
Odessa Land O’ Lakes Wesley Chapel
Oldsmar Lakeland
Clearwater
15-min. Frequency
20-min. Frequency
30-min. Frequency
St. Petersburg 60-min. Frequency
HART | TDP 10-10
Autonomous Vehicles in Downtown Looking to the future, the TDP has prioritized the continuation and expansion of the proposed Autonomous Vehicle (AV) service on the Marion Street Transitway. The TDP supports the existing AV proposal to operate the service as a pilot project in this location due to the high number of fixed-route and express connections available at the Marion Transit Center and with the In-Towner service throughout Downtown Tampa. Additionally, after a few successful years of operation beyond the pilot period, the TDP recommends doubling of the initial provisions of AV service by expanding into other parts of the Downtown. A downtown AV service would address current mobility needs in downtown, create a new transit option less reliant on recurring operating dollars and act as a catalyst project for further autonomy in transportation throughout the Tampa Bay region. Finally, the service would also fulfill a critical need to connect the transit services in the northern sections of downtown to the employment destinations farther south. A strong step towards ensuring that HART remains on the leading edge of transit technology, namely the emerging sector of AV technology, would include the implementation of a pilot service in 2018 and its subsequent expansion over time. The recommended autonomous vehicle, “Olli,” is equipped with more than 30 sensors and Cloud-based cognitive computing abilities that enable the vehicle to analyze and learn from transportation data used to guide routes and interact with passengers, all by leveraging IBM’s Watson computing system. Presently, there are a handful of pilot programs that use Olli vehicles, including Miami-Dade Transit, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the University of Las Vegas. In the long term, the pursuit of these vehicles can help to moderate against rising operational costs for transit agencies by avoiding additional labor costs as HART’s services expand. Passenger Ferry Service One of the transit priorities identified as part of the TDP community outreach is to expand on the recently-tested Cross Bay Ferry concept in order to implement a ferry service that will provide an additional and possibly faster connection between Downtown Tampa, MacDill AFB, South County, and Downtown St. Petersburg. The proposed ferry service would consist of these four docking points in its proposed form and regularly circulate commuters, tourists, and other riders around the Tampa Bay area. Input from the public involvement effort has indicated a need for a water borne transportation system to connect areas, especially the South Shore area in south Hillsborough County to MacDill AFB. The ferry may not only provide an additional travel option, but also may contribute to a reduction in congestion on the overland roads connecting these major activity hubs. Additionally, it is possible that the ferry service may provide faster travel times between these locations, depending on the technology used. Alternatives to Traditional Bus Service To achieve and complement the high-frequency grid network discussed previously, the community output revealed the willingness to use a transit system that allowed for creative means of accessing the core network. In particular, riders and non-riders alike indicated the acceptability of using services such as HyperLINK, if they adequately serve/connect their neighborhoods to the bus network. As long as the services are reliable and affordable, the ability to connect to a higher-frequency service easily was the
HART | TDP 10-11
preferred service delivery in the coming decade. These preferences, along with the potential cost savings from not having to run a bus regardless of ridership demand and the desire to be creative, would advance HART’s goals of providing better transit services to the residents of Hillsborough County. Two options recommended as alternatives to fixed route transit are summarized below. HyperLINK Alternatives to Traditional Bus outside the Core To expand the geographic footprint of HART’s services, the TDP prioritizes an expanded use of HyperLINK services to cover the low-ridership, low-density areas and act as a feeder network for the high-frequency and secondary fixed-route networks. HyperLINK services fulfill a tertiary level of transit service that supplements the higher-frequency network’s ability to transport riders efficiently throughout the county. The responsive, request-based service is proposed to operate within a total of 15 zones within Hillsborough County (adding 11 new HyperLINK zones over the TDP’s planning horizon). The new zones listed below, combined with the four zones currently operating in Brandon, Carrollwood, and USF areas, would complement the remainder of the HART network by providing a mobility option for riders travelling to/from the following major areas.
South County: 3 zones Town ‘N Country: 3 zones Brandon: 1 zone South Tampa: 1 zone Seffner: 1 zone Palmetto Beach: 1 zone New Tampa/Wesley Chapel: 1 zone
Ride-hail for After/Later Hours In order to complement the fixed-route services of the HART network, particularly after regularly scheduled fixed-route bus service ends for the day, the TDP has recommended a voucher program for riders to use available ride-hailing services. This can be established via a partnership with one or more transportation network companies to provide riders a flexible, reliable means of travelling when regular services are no longer available. An after-hours, ride-hailing service-based travel option also provides HART the flexibility to choose to save on operating costs for regular fixed routes with low evening or late night ridership. Capital/Infrastructure Needs Key capital/infrastructure needs for the next 10 years are summarized in the following sections. Bus Stop Infrastructure and Accessibility The TDP identifies the need to address the bus stop infrastructure and ADA accessibility compliance needs for new transit services and upgrade bus stops for existing services, where appropriate. It is important to preserve and improve the quality and safety of bus stop amenities to ensure rider comfort and attractiveness of transit services. The plan sets aside annual financial allocations for HART to improve infrastructure and accessibility at bus stops, including adding/replacing benches, shelters,
HART | TDP 10-12
bicycle storage facilities, and other infrastructure needed to improve the rider experience at bus stops and potentially attrct new riders. Enhancing bus stop infrastructure will also provide greater awareness to the community regarding HART services, especially along major roadways. HART should continue to work together with other local agencies to improve bus stop safety and ADA accessibility compliance for existing and future bus stops. Satellite Operations and Maintenance Facility Given that the Needs Plan is projecting a net increase in revenue service vehicles from current levels, expansions/additions to the existing inventory of maintenance facilities are included as a capital need for the TDP. The 10-year Needs Plan recommends adding a new Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facility and, in scale, the “Large Facility” scenario as identified in HART’s O&M Facility Study is recommended. In this scenario, the ideal site would be located near major arterial streets and be in the range of 24-27 total acres with compressed natural gas utility access. This proposed facility will be able to accommodate approximately 100 buses, 100 paratransit vans, and 16 service vehicle parking spaces. Autonomous Vehicle Infrastructure To expand the proposed AV service beyond the Marion Street Transitway as proposed in the Needs Plan, a number of infrastructure investments will be required. These will include installing additional vehicle charging stations for the electric AVs and necessary corridor retrofits to better accommodate AV services. These may include additional shelters, pull-over bays, covered waiting areas with leaning posts, re-grading of roadway surface, and signage and striping. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/Technology The TDP Needs Plan also includes an array of ITS/technology improvements, which are consistent with HART’s proposed ITS Plan. These projects include improvements that utilize technology to make transit travel more efficient, safe, and productive. Some of the major improvements include the upgrade and replacement of the existing CAD/AVL system, farebox replacements, implementation of regional smart card technology, and mobile surveillance technology. Other projects, such as installing APCs, passenger information systems, and mobile communication, are also included. The TDP recognizes that these technology investments will play an important role in HART’s mission to enhance serving the mobility needs of its riders. Policy/Other These additional supplementary needs include various general improvements that are not necessarily route‐specific or capital‐related and are drawn primarily from public involvement input and situation appraisal performed as part of the TDP. It should be noted that these policy-related improvements are not an exhaustive list for HART for the next 10 years. HART’s policies are set by the HART Board and may address many aspects of the organization. The policy-related improvements/initiatives listed below are intended for the advancement of the TDP implementation and may represent only a subset of the overall policy initiatives ongoing/planned for HART. Marketing/Awareness HART’s visibility and attractiveness to the community is key to increasing awareness, especially for discretionary riders (riders who have a choice of whether to drive or ride transit). While HART has an
HART | TDP 10-13
effective and successful marketing/awareness program, an expansion of the current marketing program is recommended, due primarily to the 2018 re-imagining of the route network. Based on input from the various discussion groups, participants indicated that HART could be doing more to spread awareness of its services, especially for new modes/services like HyperLINK and on the availability of the OneBusAway rider app. Any additional efforts, combined with current branding and marketing, should continue to help attract new discretionary transit riders as well as others who may not be familiar with how to use transit in the community. Other marketing/awareness efforts should continue, to including:
Enhancing the user-friendliness of the HART website Increasing the use of news/social media outlets to inform the community on the benefits of the new high-frequency network When implemented, ensuring that the public is aware of and know how to utilize new services like HyperLINK, the ferry, and the AV circulator, and including those in popular trip planning tools Increasing coordination with larger employers to convey the benefits and gains to them and their employees from using transit and encouraging businesses to work with HART
HART also should continue expanding its ongoing travel training education efforts to include school‐ age children, the next generation of the commuters in the area, who may not otherwise know about or how to use HART’s services. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) With HART potentially transforming some of its current fixed-route service areas outside of the core to HyperLINK zones and using ride-hail services to serve some of the later trips, coordination with TBARTA will be important going forward. TBARTA, the FDOT-sponsored agency that was created by the Florida State Legislature in 2007 to develop and implement a Regional Transportation Master Plan for the five-county West Central Florida region, provides commuter assistance with ride-share and ride- matching services to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips or redistribute them to other transportation alternatives. With its collaboration with HART, bus riders would continue to have the emergency ride home option, in which users can get partially reimbursed for taxi, rental car, or ride-hail expenses in the event that one of these services needed to be used to get home from work in an emergency situation. Land Development Code/Policies Land development patterns currently challenge the ability to develop effective transit/TDM policies. Land use and transportation, when planned concurrently, can lead to more efficient land use that complements transit. HART, in partnership with TBARTA, should continue to work cooperatively with area local governments to help them modify their policies and regulations by adopting more multimodal- supportive land uses and land development regulations to enhance the overall transit connectivity within the county. As many areas in the county have ongoing or upcoming new infill/redevelopment or greenfield developments, HART should engage with the cities and Hillsborough County to strengthen the existing land development codes and ensure enacting land development policies that promote and support the transit mode in an enhanced way such that a more balanced overall transportation system will result for the entire community.
HART | TDP 10-14
Section 11: Setting Priorities
This section summarizes the process and results of the service alternatives evaluation conducted for the HART TDP. Because a wide range of needed improvements are identified, ranging from increased frequency to implementation of ferry services, and funding may not be available to implement them all, it is important for HART to prioritize these improvements in order to develop a phased and funding- feasible implementation plan for the next 10 years. Alternatives Evaluation Methodology As performance/market data may not be available or applicable for all of the proposed alternatives, a qualitative/quantitative hybrid methodology was developed to evaluate and prioritize the needs presented in the previous section. To prioritize and program these service improvements for potential implementation, it is important to weigh the benefits of each service improvement against the others. By conducting an alternatives evaluation, HART can better prioritize projects and allocate funding using an objective service implementation process. The remainder of this section identifies and defines the evaluation criteria to be used in prioritizing the service improvements developed for the HART TDP and the methodology by which those criteria should be applied. Four evaluation categories were identified for use in the methodological process to rank the alternatives:
Community Support – A key reason for the success of any improvement is its acceptance and support by the community it serves and impacts. The findings previously summarized from the extensive public outreach effort were reviewed to gauge public interest. Transit Markets – Success of any route relies heavily on how productive it is. Two GIS-based technical analyses conducted as part of the demand assessment (summarized previously) were reviewed to assess the potential demand from discretionary and traditional markets on applicable Needs Plan improvements. In addition, a review of ridership demand, measured in terms of forecasted ridership, was also conducted based on information on route ridership trends. Connectivity – Connectivity between key hubs plays a critical role as HART focuses on enhancing and expanding its network to meet the demands of creating a truly multimodal transportation system. Funding Potential – Funding is often the most restrictive factor and is, therefore, one of the most heavily weighted criteria as funding for community transportation is primarily linked to the routes for which funding is applied. Table 11‐1 lists these evaluation categories and their corresponding criteria, the associated measure of effectiveness, and the assigned weighting for each category. A description of the elements in the table follows. Using these criteria, each of the alternatives were then assigned a qualitative measure of Very High, High, Medium, or Low in order to determine their overall priority, as presented later in this section.
HART | TDP 11-1
Table 11-1: Alternative Evaluation Measures and Weights
Category Criteria Description Weight Community Level of interest in specific alternatives during public Public Input 35% Support outreach.
Traditional General overlap in “High” or “Very High” Transit Orientation Market Index (TOI), Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) General overlap in areas that meet the “minimum” Density Transit Discretionary Threshold Assessment (DTA) tier for employment or dwelling 20% Markets Market unit density Ridership Ridership forecasts obtained from TBEST Potential
Local/Regional Connectivity Connectivity to adjacent counties, regional and local hubs 15% Hub Connectivity
Funding Likelihood of securing long-term funds 30% Potential
Evaluation Criteria Community Support An extensive public outreach process was conducted for the HART TDP 10-year planning effort and resulted in numerous opinions and suggestions on transit services from the public, including transit users, nonusers, operators, as well as stakeholders, community leaders, employers, and business, academic, social, and medical organizations. Based on a review of input from the overall public outreach effort, interest in a particular type of service was identified as ranging from “very high” to “low” for the alternatives evaluation process. Participants during the third phase of public outreach were asked how they would prioritize transit improvements proposed in the 2027 Needs Plan. Consistent with HART’s vision for premium service in core areas, high-frequency service in high density/high ridership areas was identified as the top priority for HART, followed by fast connections between major local hubs. As shown in Figure 11-1, a combined 49 percent of the public indicated that high-frequency service and fast connections between key hubs were their top priorities.
HART | TDP 11-2
Figure 11-1: Community Input on 10-Year Transit Priorities
HyperLINK in More Areas, 7% High-Frequency Uber/Lyft for Off- Service in Key Areas, Service Hours, 7% 27%
Affordable Ferry Service Connecting Region, 8%
Technology Improvements, 8%
Regional Connections/Adding Service, 9% Fast Connections Between Major Hubs, Infrastructure 22% Improvements, 13%
Transit Markets For the evaluation of alternatives, results from the assessments of transit demand that were conducted and summarized previously, including the traditional and discretionary markets and forecasted ridership also were used. Based on the review of these transit markets, the alternatives were assigned a ranking of Very High, High, Medium, or Low for the transit market criterion. The following summarizes each transit market type and the subsequent findings.
Discretionary Market The assessment of the discretionary transit user market (people who can drive but decide to take transit) was reviewed based on results from the DTA. Figure 11-2 illustrates some key findings of the discretionary market assessment. The proposed high-frequency core network connects the high employment densities surrounding the TIA, Downtown Tampa, Brandon and the USF/Busch Gardens areas. The areas that do not have high employment or population densities are generally served by the secondary, lower frequency network that feeds the core network and also supports the enhanced connectivity between major hubs. Several HyperLINK routes on the west side of Hillsborough County serve areas with population densities needing minimum transit investment (i.e., the intended low-density, low ridership areas that may be attracted to new services such as HyperLINK).
HART | TDP 11-3
Figure 11-2: 2017 DTA Assessment of 2027 Needs Network
High and Very High Employment and Dwelling Unit Density in USF/Hospitals/Busch Very High Gardens Employment Density surrounding TIA Very High Employment Density in Falkenburg
Very High Employment and Dwelling Unit Density in Downtown Tampa
2017 DTA
Traditional Market The assessment of transit demand in the traditional transit users market (transit-dependent riders such as low-income and zero-vehicle households, older adults, and youth) was also reviewed. As illustrated in Figure 11-3, the high-frequency core network effectively connects most pockets with high transit orientation. In addition, the mix of routes with low and high frequencies in the proposed 2027 needs network effectively connects key hubs to most of the areas with a high transit orientation, e.g., the areas in Hillsborough County that tend to have a high proportion of households with zero-vehicles or low- incomes or have high proportions of youth or adults 65 years and older.
HART | TDP 11-4
Figure 11-3: 2015 TOI Assessment of 2027 Needs Network
High older population HyperLINK and core and zero-car HH area network serves a High TOI with high poverty and zero-car High zero-car HH area and HH area mix of blocks with high poverty, older adults, and youth populations
High poverty and High poverty zero-car HH area and zero-car HH
2015 TOI
Note: HH = households
HART | TDP 11-5
Ridership Potential The ridership potential from local, express, and HyperLINK services with the proposed 2017 Needs Plan also was reviewed as part of the evaluation. The TBEST ridership forecasts, which use existing and future stop-level ridership data to estimate potential transit markets, were used in order to compare how ridership levels might change with the introduction of new services or service modifications. Within TBEST, ridership was projected for the proposed service improvements under the 2027 Needs Plan network scenario and the results indicated that this network would result in more than a 93 percent increase in weekday total boardings (from 41,877 to 81,010) over the next 10 years, as shown in Table 11-2. The data also show that revenue service miles also will be increased to help achieve this growth, with an increase of 88 percent over the same period (revenue mile increases for the 2027 Needs Plan are shown in Table 11-3). Local routes will experience the highest performance gains with nearly an 86 percent ridership increase and with about a 64 percent increase in service miles Express route ridership is expected to increase by 209 percent, but with a significant (339%) increase in revenue service miles. In addition to these summary data, route-level TBEST ridership projections are included in Appendix G. Table 11-2: 2027 Needs Plan Ridership Summary
Route 2018 Weekday 2027 Weekday Absolute Ridership Growth Grouping Ridership Ridership Ridership Change Rate Local 37,424 69,539 32,115 85.8% Express 2,623 8,097 5,474 208.7% MetroRapid 1,756 3,058 1,302 74.1% HyperLINK 74 316 242 320% Total 41,877 81,010 39,133 93.4%
Table 11-3: 2027 Needs Plan Revenues Miles Summary
Route 2018 Weekday 2027 Weekday Absolute Change Growth Rate Grouping Revenue Miles Revenue Miles Local 19,267 31,654 12,236 64.3% Express 2,429 10,671 8,242 339.3% MetroRapid 1,768 1,768 0 0% Total 23,465 44,093 20,478 87.9%
In addition, the service area impact from the proposed HyperLINK improvements in the 2027 Needs Plan also was measured to gauge the growth in HyperLINK service delivery. The 2027 Needs Plan increases the HyperLINK coverage from 25 percent of Hillsborough County population in 2018, to 78 percent by 2027, with the addition of 11 new HyperLINK service zones. In 2027, the proposed HyperLINK zones would cover a service area with 1,061,087 in total population, thus, providing an additional 702,557 residents with improved access to transit when compared to 2018.
HART | TDP 11-6
Connectivity Based on conclusions drawn from the public involvement input, faster connections between major hubs is a desired attribute for future HART routes. These data from the outreach and the findings from the travel flow analysis, conducted using the regional travel demand forecasting model output data and summarized previously as part of the needs assessment, also were used to identify the extent of current and future travel needs between the key local and regional hubs. The findings show the need for a network that provides faster and more abundant connections within Hillsborough County and the region, including Downtown Tampa, Westshore, TIA, Brandon, South County, and some hubs in Pasco and Pinellas counties.
Applicable alternatives Figure 11-4: Transit Accessibility of Downtown Tampa – Travel Time were reviewed for potential connectivity to local and regional hubs and evaluated based on their ability to facilitate connections between major local and regional hubs within Hillsborough County and the adjacent Pasco, Polk, and Pinellas Counties. In addition, an accessibility review also was conducted to identify the degree of access to the top local activity centers/hubs within the 2027 Needs Plan network, including USF, Downtown Tampa, TIA, Westshore, Brandon, and MacDill AFB. The TBEST- based analysis determined how long it takes to get to key hubs via the proposed 2027 fixed route network. Figure 11-4, for example, illustrates how long it would take for a rider using the 2027 Needs Plan network to get to Downtown Tampa from different areas of the network service area.
HART | TDP 11-7
Funding Potential Funding potential carried the most weight after community input when prioritizing the 2027 Needs Plan improvement categories. The ongoing reduction in funding for transit operations combined with any impacts on County property tax revenues from the proposed Homestead Exemption policy revision puts HART’s local funding levels in a less certain position in the future. Therefore, a subjective assessment of the funding realities was needed. Therefore, the potential for identifying other sources of funds that could help make the implementation and operation of various Needs Plan improvements was included as key criteria. The funding potential for each of the Needs Plan improvement categories was evaluated based on the possibility of securing eligible sources at federal, state, and/or local levels that are relevant to HART’s transit services. In addition to considering current and past operating and capital funding sources that have been successful to date, the potential for new funding from those typical sources as well as new private sources/partnerships were also reviewed. Alternatives Evaluation Results Summary Each Needs Plan alternative was evaluated using the criteria and process summarized previously, and the detailed results of the evaluation are presented in Table 11-4. As shown, the six improvements were given a ranking of Very High, High, Medium, or Low based on the qualitative/quantitative evaluation process discussed previously. Next, an overall ranking was calculated by assigning a score to each of the ratings, where Very High received the highest score, and then summing the respective scores for each improvement. For example, “Enhanced Connectivity between Major Hubs” was ranked as “High,” “Very High,” “High,” and “Medium” for the respective criteria and, once these rankings were combined into a single score, it met the threshold of an overall priority of “Very High.” As indicated previously, while a multitude of data were reviewed, including market data and demand forecasts, setting transit priorities for the next 10 years still weighed heavily on the direction/vision set by the community and the realities of impending financial constraints to realize that vision within the plan timeframe. Consistent with the community’s vision for HART services, high-frequency service in high density/high ridership areas was identified as the top priority for HART, followed by fast connections between major local hubs. In developing the funded TDP and the corresponding implementation plan, these priorities will be balanced with the funding realities to determine to what degree that community vision can be realized over the next decade.
HART | TDP 11-8
Table 11-4: Alternatives Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Connectivity Overall Improvement Description Market (Local/ Community Funding Priority Demand Regional Support Potential Hubs) High-Frequency A grid of high-frequency routes crisscrossing high-ridership/high- Core Network density corridors at every 12 to 15 minutes
Enhanced Connectivity Increased frequency on connector routes between USF, between Major Downtown Tampa, and TIA
Hubs Alternatives to traditional bus outside of the core; expanded use HyperLINK of HyperLINK mostly covering the low-ridership, low-density areas and acting as a feeder network for the high-frequency core route network Ride-hail for Voucher program for using ride-hailing services (or transportation After/Later network companies) as a way to get around when regular service Hours
is not available
AV in Autonomous vehicles operating on Marion Street Transitway Downtown beyond the initial pilot and doubling its services to also connect
other areas in downtown to Marion Transit Center
Expanding on the recently-tested Cross Bay Ferry concept to Passenger provide a ferry service that will provide an additional and possibly Ferry faster connection between Downtown Tampa, MacDill AFB, South County, and Downtown St. Petersburg
HART | TDP 11-9
Section 12: Funded 10-Year Transit Plan
This section presents the Funded 10-year Transit Plan, including the phased implementation program and corresponding finance plan for HART transit services. The recommended transit services and capital plan included in the funded service plan for the next 10 years are summarized in detail. As HART has re-imagined its service delivery to focus more on a frequent and connected network, an additional evaluation also is conducted to compare the impacts of the Funded Plan network, the proposed 2018 network, and the Needs Plan network presented previously. This additional evaluation reviews the growth in expected ridership and impacts on service area population/employment and low- income/minority population segments to provide a snapshot on the comparative effectiveness of the Funded Plan. In addition, a summary of the financial plan also in presented, including the assumptions and projections of the operating and capital costs for the funded 10-year plan. The expected revenues for the recommended plan are also reviewed, followed by the financial and implementation plans for the recommended 10-year period. 2018 TDP Base Year Network Development of the TDP base year (2018) network included an “all-hands-on-deck” effort to focus on immediate service improvements for HART riders as well as operating productivities and efficiencies for HART. This was facilitated through the completion of the 2017 COA, an in-depth analysis and evaluation of the current HART network and individual routes to determine where near-term improvements can be made to make transit operations more effective and efficient across the network. Guiding Principles The following guiding themes were established through coordination with HART staff, the TDP/COA project team, and the HART Board to assist in fostering an environment in which the analytical and planning goals and outcomes would be reflective of the expectations and priorities of community stakeholders, HART patrons, and the general public.
Improve existing rider travel times Prioritize frequency on core routes vs. coverage everywhere Provide more directness of travel and avoid duplication Incorporate changes that will encourage more peak-hour ridership Achieve greater efficiency—doing more with less
Map 12-1 presents the proposed 2018 TDP base year network for HART. The fixed-route services are color-coded by their peak operating headways.
HART | TDP 12-1
Map 12-1: 2018 TDP Base Year Network
HART | TDP 12-2 FY 2018 HART Network Service Enhancements The revised 2018 HART network resulted from painstaking efforts by HART to carefully filter every route segment through these guiding principles while still seeking to minimize adverse impacts on its riders. While the resulting network may eliminate unproductive segments/routes, it also refocuses many of those resources to serve HART’s riders with enhancements, including:
High Frequency Service on Core Routes – Implement 12- to 15-minute frequency service on Route 1 and MetroRapid, and provide service every 20 minutes on Routes 6, 12, and 34 Shorter Trip Times – Reduce travel time on Routes 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 19, 30, 33, 36, 39, and 45 More Direct Service – Provide more directness of travel on Routes 6, 7, 11, 19, 30, 33, 60X, and 360X
Cost efficiencies resulting from the approved 2018 network also will help HART continue its mission of taking people to places that enhances their lives, forward. It also sets the foundation for creating a high-frequency core network, consistent with the community’s vision/direction for HART over the next 10 years. Additionally, the proposed network focuses where existing and planned density in the core service area is likely to generate transit ridership due to the proximity and directness of travel now possible on the route network. 2027 Funded TDP Network Building on the re-imagined 2018 HART network presented previously, this plan reflects the improvements that are expected to be implemented over the next 10 years to continue progressing toward a high-frequency transit network that is attractive to all riders. The funded network of services summarized herein require only modest increases in the current revenue streams and two additional new non-local sources that can reasonably be expected to be attained by HART, as summarized later in the finance plan. The service, capital/infrastructure, and policy/other improvements included in the Funded Plan are summarized below. Service Improvements High-Frequency Grid – From the frequency-focused network proposed for implementation in 2018, and building on and towards a high-frequency grid network, the service improvements as part of the 2027 funded network include the addition of 8 routes with 15- minute service. In total, 10 routes with 15-minute or better frequency will be included in the 2027 funded network, as summarized below. o 5 Routes North-South, including Routes 1, 6, 12, 36 and MetroRapid o 5 Routes East-West, including Routes 15, 30, 32, 34, and 39 Low-Frequency Secondary Bus Network – To perform the critical function of bringing riders to and from the high-frequency grid, a network of routes would operate in areas that are comparably less-densely populated or have shown lower ridership demand. As with the needs plan, the alignments of the secondary network routes operate at 30- to 60-minute headways and have been carefully integrated into the high-frequency grid so that fast connections are not only possible, but become the standard of service by 2027. This
HART | TDP 12-3 secondary route network is a carefully planned set of local and some of express/limited express routes and is a crucial step toward ensuring that riders can reliably access the high- frequency network. Network of HyperLINK Zones – Building on the successes of the current HyperLINK service, HART’s app-based, ride-hail service will be expanded to other areas as an efficient way to serve low-density areas and emerging areas for potential fixed-route service in the future. The 2027 Funded Plan network will also replace current HARTFlex routes with HyperLINK, resulting in a total of 15 HyperLINK service areas. The new areas that are planned to receive HyperLINK service include South County, Palmetto Beach, Riverview, West Park, Big Bend, Town ‘N Country, South Tampa, East Brandon, Citrus Park, and Seffner/Mango. All Routes Seven Days a Week – With the addition of more weekend service on Routes 11 and 31, and Sunday service on Routes 14 and 16, all of the fixed-route services in the HART network will provide weekend service by 2027. This achievement fulfills a critically voiced public need so that riders can travel to/from work and around the county on weekends. New/Restored Services in South County and Other Areas – Due to the need to minimize unproductive routes/segments to conserve funds as part of the 2018 HART network design, some services were eliminated from the approved 2018 network. Some of these services will be reconfigured and added back in over time as part of the 2027 Funded Plan network. These include fixed-route service from Brandon to South County on US 301 and SR 674; connections to International Plaza and West Park; fixed-route service on Dale Mabry Highway north of Fletcher Avenue to replace the removal of Northdale Flex; and service to Oldsmar in Pinellas County. Ride-hail for After/Later Hours – The Funded Plan also recommends a voucher program for riders to use ride-hailing service after regularly scheduled fixed-route bus services ends for the day. Should HART implement this program, it would be funded by some of the savings from the reduced late night services. However, implementing this improvement requires establishing partnerships with one or more transportation network companies and may involve policy decisions by HART Board on using TNCs in Hillsborough County. Map 12-2 displays the funded 2027 HART transit network, a mix of fixed-route services and HyperLINK service areas. It should be noted that the proposed AV Pilot, which is expected to be in service by 2018 is not included as no funding has been identified to continue it throughout the 10- year TDP period. Followed by the map, the previously outlined service improvements in the Funded Plan are summarized, including the potential implementation period for each improvement.
HART | TDP 12-4
Map 12-2: 2027 Funded TDP Network
HART | TDP 12-5 Table 12-1: 2027 Funded Plan Improvements and Implementation Schedule
Type of Service Vehicle Implementation Improvement Change Need Year Implement 2018 Base/COA Network Network Change None 2018 Route 6 Weekday Frequency from 20 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 2 2019 Route 34 Weekday Frequency from 20 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 3 2019 Route 11 Main to International Plaza New Route 2 2019 South County HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2020 Route 49 West Park to East Tampa New Route None 2020 Route 32 Weekday Frequency from 30 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 4 2020 Route 30 Weekday Frequency from 30 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 3 2021 Downtown/Harbour Isl./Palmetto Beach HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2021 Route 12 Weekday Frequency from 20 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 4 2022 Route 36 Weekday Frequency from 30 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 4 2022 Route 33/36 Northdale extension (replace 572 Flex) New Route None 2022 Route 15 Weekday Frequency from 30 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 4 2023 Riverview/Gibsonton HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2023 Route 39 Weekday Frequency from 30 to 15 Minutes Increase Frequency 5 2024 Route 53 on US 301/SR 674 connecting to Brandon New Route 5 2025 West Park HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2025 Big Bend HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2025 Town 'N Country HyperLINK (replace 573 Flex) New HyperLINK None* 2026 South Tampa HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2026 Route 31 Weekday Frequency from 60 to 30 Minutes Increase Frequency 2 2026 Route 31 Saturday and Sunday Service Weekend Service None 2026 Route 14 Sunday Service Weekend Service None 2027 Route 16 Sunday Service Weekend Service None 2027 Route 11 Saturday and Sunday Service Weekend Service None 2027 East Brandon HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2027 Citrus Park HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2027 Seffner/Mango HyperLINK New HyperLINK None* 2027 *Purchased transportation. No vehicles necessary. Capital/Infrastructure Improvements Vehicle Replacement/Acquisition – The Funded Plan includes the replacement of 76 vehicles for the current fleet and the addition of another 38 new vehicles to provide the services previously summarized. Table 12-1, presented previously, summarized the individual vehicle needs by each proposed improvement, as applicable. The plan assumes that there will be no vehicle needs for additional HyperLINK services as they will be provided by an outside vendor as purchased transportation. Satellite Maintenance Facility – While fully funding the $75.5 million “Large Facility” scenario recommended in HART’s Operations and Maintenance Feasibility Study is not
HART | TDP 12-6
financially feasible, the 2027 Funded Plan has included the preliminary engineering for the facility. The TDP recognizes the need to house and maintain additional vehicles associated with the previously reviewed service improvements. Bus Stop Infrastructure and Accessibility – The 2027 Funded Plan includes budget to address the need to add new bus stop infrastructure for new transit services as well as upgrade the bus stops for existing facilities, where appropriate. Among other benefits and needs discussed previously, such as enhanced awareness for HART services, it is important to preserve and improve the quality of bus stop amenities to ensure rider comfort. Policy/Other Improvements The general improvements that are not necessarily route‐specific or capital‐related that are included in the 2027 Funded Plan are presented below. Again, it should be noted that these policy-related improvements are not an exhaustive list for HART for the next 10 years as HART’s policies are set by the HART Board and may address many aspects of the organization.
Continue/Enhance Transit Marketing Program – Due to the perceived complexity of and/or lack of understanding of the benefits of the 2018 network by the public, the strengthening of HART’s already effective and successful marketing/awareness program is recommended. Some of the improvement efforts should include enhancing HART’s website user-friendliness, increasing the use of news/social media outlets to inform the community about the benefits of the new high-frequency network and how to use it effectively, and increasing coordination with larger employers on HART services. Coordinate More with TBARTA on Commuter Assistance – With the expansion of HyperLINK to many areas and using ride-hail services to serve some of the later trips, increased coordination with TBARTA on utilizing its transportation demand management (TDM) services is recommended. Advocate for Transit-Supportive Land Uses – HART should continue to work cooperatively with area local governments, as well as engage with the cities and Hillsborough County to strengthen the existing land development codes and ensure enacting land development policies that require transit infrastructure when developments occur within walking distance of existing or planned transit services included in this TDP. Continue/Improve System-wide and Route‐Level Performance Monitoring – Performance monitoring programs track the performance and efficiency of routes and the system as a whole and are a tool used by transit agencies for ensuring the provision of the most efficient and effective transit service. Currently HART has a monitoring program that uses various measures to evaluate performance of its routes on a regular basis. Using the recommendations presented in Appendix H, HART should consider improving its program to include additional performance measures and/or thresholds.
HART | TDP 12-7
Funded Plan Evaluation Throughout the development of the 2027 Funded Plan, a variety of matrices were used to measure the recommended network’s effectiveness and impact on local populations. This was done to ensure that the 2027 Funded Plan was designed to provide high-frequency service to the greatest number of riders as possible, while also balancing the need to serve key transit-dependent populations and not just transit-friendly areas of the county. Ridership Demand Using TBEST, ridership was projected for the proposed service improvements in the 2027 Funded Plan network scenario and the results indicated a 60.6 percent increase in weekday total boardings (from 41,877 to 67,072) between 2018 and 2027. Table 12-2 summarizes the Funded Plan projected average weekday riders by route type and the projected increase from 2018 to 2027. Table 12-2: 2027 Funded Plan Ridership Estimation Summary
10- Year Route 2018 Weekday 2027 Weekday Absolute Ridership Grouping Ridership Ridership Ridership Change Growth Local 37,424 58,118 21,698 55.3% Express 2,623 5,763 3,140 119.7% MetroRapid 1,756 2,893 1,137 64.7% HyperLINK 74 298 224 300% Total 41,877 67,072 26,199 60.1%
The significant ridership growth with the Funded Plan may indicate that existing and choice riders may be responding to the high frequency core and the better connected network. The local routes would experience gains with a 55.3 percent ridership increase with only a 31.2 percent increase in service miles provided. Express route ridership also is estimated to increase, by 119.7 percent with a marginal (36.8%) increase in service miles. Express route service to/from USF/Downtown and the Airport show high performance relative to prior Express route service. Table 12-3 shows the projected weekday riders by route grouping for the 2018 COA, 2027 Needs, and 2027 Funded Plan networks. The table shows the percent change for the 2027 Needs and 2027 Funded networks when compared with the 2018 COA. Major service changes to Local, Express, MetroRapid, and Hyperlink in both networks result in ridership gains that are consistent with both regional population and employment growth and the level of service upgrades. In addition to these fixed route ridership improvements, the Funded Plan also results in an expansion in HyperLINK coverage from 25 percent of Hillsborough County population in 2018, to 74 percent covered in 2027. The Plan adds 11 new HyperLINK service zones to serve a total of 1,004,087 Hillsborough County residents, providing an additional 645,557 residents with improved access to transit when compared to the coverage with the 2018 COA Network.
HART | TDP 12-8
Table 12-3: 2027 Funded and Needs Plans - Ridership Estimation Summary
Percent Change 2027 Percent Change Route 2018 COA 2027 Needs (2018 COA to Funded (2018 COA to Grouping Network Network 2027 Needs) Network 2027 Funded) Local 37,424 69,539 86% 58,118 55% Express 2,623 8,097 209% 5,763 120% MetroRapid 1,756 3,058 74% 2,893 65% HyperLINK* 74 316 327% 298 303% Total 41,877 81,010 93% 67,072 60%
Demographics Impact As a baseline for the plan comparison, the population and employment levels for the respective 2018 COA, 2027 Funded Plan, and 2027 Needs Plan networks were also reviewed. The first comparison drawn as part of this evaluation is the proportion of total population and employment in the service area located within the quarter-mile buffer of any 15-minute service. As shown in Figures 12-1 and 12-2, the 2027 Funded Plan would increase the proportion of the population receiving 15-minute service from approximately 14 percent of the service area population in 2018, to almost 38 percent in 2027. Furthermore, the proportion of employment located within the buffer for 15-minute service would also drastically increase from approximately 23 percent in 2018, to above 45 percent in the 2027 Funded Plan. Subsequently, a review of the total minority and low-income populations within the service area also was conducted to ensure that the service expansions continue to benefit these population groups proportionally to the entire network. As shown in Table 12-4 and Figures 12-3 and 12-4, the service expansions in the 2027 Funded Plan are projected also to serve a greater proportion of minority and low-income populations than the 2018 COA network. Table 12-4: Percent of Service Area Populations within 15-Minute Service
HART 2018 TDP 2027 TDP 2027 Measure Network Funded Needs Total Population Served 14.1% 37.8% 44.3% Total Employment Served 23.1% 45.4% 49.7% Total Minority Population Served 23.1% 60.4% 71.5% Total Low-Income Population Served 15.6% 32.9% 37.3%
HART | TDP 12-9
Figure 12-1: Total Population in Service Area and Population within 15-Minute Service
Total Population 505,999 Total Population within 15-min. 474,284
394,488
224,012 179,305
55,794
HART 2018 TDP 2027 Funded TDP 2027 Needs
Figure 12-2: Total Employment in Service Area and Employment within 15-Minute Service
Total Employment 429,913 Total Employment within 15-min. 393,298
335,662
213,830 178,435
77,469
HART 2018 TDP 2027 Funded TDP 2027 Needs
HART | TDP 12-10
Figure 12-3: Total and Minority Population in Service Area
Total Population
Minority Population 505,999 474,284
394,488
184,819 193,109 153,140
HART 2018 TDP 2027 Funded TDP 2027 Needs
Figure 12-4: Total and Low-Income Population in Service Area
Total Population
Low-Income Households 505,999 474,284
394,488
70,617 55,152 67,616
HART 2018 TDP 2027 Funded TDP 2027 Needs
In addition, populations within 15-minute service were also analyzed to identify the impact on minority and low-income populations. Table 12-4 tells us that the percentage of minority populations within 15-minute service rises from 23 percent of the total 15-minute population to approximately 60 percent in the 2027 Funded Plan, while for low-income populations it rises from approximately 15 percent to 33 percent by 2027. Figures 12-5 and 12-6 depicts the minority and low-income populations along with the total population within a 15-minute service area. For example, under the 2027 Funded Plan,
HART | TDP 12-11
more than 62 percent of the population within 15-minute service (179,302) can be considered a minority individual (111,594). Figure 12-5: Total and Minority Population within 15-Minute Service
Total Population within 15-min. 224,012
Minority Population witnin 15-min. 179,305
138,063
111,594
55,794 35,385
HART 2018 TDP 2027 Funded TDP 2027 Needs
Figure 12-6: Total and Low-Income Population within 15-Minute Service
Total Population within 15-min. 224,012 Low-Income Households within 15- min. 179,305 Low-Income Population within 15- min.
67,228 55,794 56,669
21,994 22,223 26,364 8,625
HART 2018 TDP 2027 Funded TDP 2027 Needs
HART | TDP 12-12
10-Year TDP Finance Plan The remainder of this section summarizes the assumptions used to develop the TDP financial plan, followed by a summary of costs and revenues and an implementation schedule for the 10-year Funded Plan. The summary shows annual costs for the service and capital/infrastructure improvements that are programmed for implementation within the next 10 years and supporting annual revenues that are reasonably expected to be available. Operating Cost Assumptions Numerous assumptions were made to forecast transit operating costs from 2018 through 2027. These assumptions are based on a variety of factors, including service performance data from HART, discussions with HART staff, and information from other recent Florida TDPs. The key operating cost assumptions are summarized below.
Annual operating costs for fixed-route services were developed using current HART cost per revenue hour data. Based on the most recent operating cost per revenue hour data, the cost for future operating enhancements is assumed at $104 per revenue service hour. Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the last 10 years, from 2007 to 2016, an average annual inflation rate of 1.8 percent was used for all operating cost projections. Additionally, the base year cost of complementary ADA paratransit services was assumed at $5,429,230 based on the 2016 annual cost to operate the service. No change in cost is assumed other than an annual growth of 1.8 percent. Capital Cost Assumptions Several assumptions were developed to project the costs for the capital/infrastructure needed to support the implementation of the Funded Plan presented previously. These capital cost assumptions are summarized below.
New vehicles planned to be purchased under the Funded Plan include those necessary to replace vehicles within the existing fleet that have reached the end of their useful life and additional vehicles needed to implement the new service. The Funded Plan includes the replacement of 76 vehicles and addition of another 38 new vehicles to provide the new/expanded services. Vehicles are assumed to cost $515,000 (2018$). The vehicle unit costs are based on information provided by HART. The plan allocates $500,000 annually to add new bus stop infrastructure for new transit services as well as upgrade existing facilities to meet ADA accessibility requirements, where appropriate. An annual growth rate of 3 percent was used for capital cost projections, based on the data available from recent transit plans in Florida, data published by FDOT, and discussions with HART staff. Funding/Revenue Assumptions Several funding-related assumptions were also utilized to project streams of revenues to support the Funded Plan implementation. Revenue assumptions and projections for the plan are based on information from HART’s FY 2017 Budget, discussions with HART staff, historical farebox performance data, and information from/on transit industry/FDOT funding programs.
HART | TDP 12-13
The basic structure/composition of HART’s mix of funding sources today are expected to continue for the next 10 years, while there may be some fluctuations in local ad valorem-based transit revenues due to budget cuts or as a result of the proposed Homestead Exemption rule changes. The following additional key assumptions were used to project the 2027 Funded Plan revenues.
A 10-year total of $9.4 million in new FDOT Service Development Grant revenues are assumed to fund a number of improvements in the Funded Plan. With Route 34 expanding regionally by connecting to Oldsmar in Pinellas County, a total of $13.6 million in new FDOT Urban Corridor Grant revenues for Alternate Route 34 (the run that serves Oldsmar every 30 minutes) is assumed for the next 10 years. A revenue inflation rate of 2 percent was used for applicable operating revenue projections, based on discussions with HART staff. Based on historical HART fare revenue data, a farebox recovery ratio of 21.98 percent was used to project future fare revenues from the proposed new transit services. The plan assumes $1 million in new FTA capital grants to fund the preliminary engineering costs (Phase II cost) for a satellite maintenance facility for HART. 10-Year Cost/Revenue Summary Table 12-5 summarizes the annual operating and capital costs and supporting revenues for the 2027 TDP Funded Plan, presented previously. As shown, the 2027 Funded TDP would cost $820 million to operate and includes another $73 million in capital costs. The operating costs would be funded with a mix of local, state, and federal sources and fare-based revenues generated by existing and added transit services. The operating plan shows a surplus starting in FY 2018 and running through FY 2027, amounting to a total of $26.8 million. While the corresponding capital plan reflects a funding deficit, it also is assumed to be funded with transfers of eligible operating surplus and capital grants from various applicable federal programs, including FTA formula funds, the FTA State of Good Repair Grant program, etc.
HART | TDP 12-14
Table 12-5: 10-Year TDP Funded Plan Costs and Revenues
Cost/Revenue 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 10-Year Total Operating Operating Cost Implement Revised COA Bus Network $61,714,232 $64,878,914 $65,862,361 $66,828,093 $68,010,950 $69,214,744 $70,439,845 $71,686,630 $72,619,866 $73,706,794 $684,962,430 Maintain ADA Paratransit $5,429,230 $5,525,327 $5,623,126 $5,722,655 $5,823,946 $5,927,030 $6,031,938 $6,138,704 $6,247,359 $6,357,937 $58,827,251 Service/Frequency Improvements $0 $1,637,884 $3,454,091 $4,702,063 $6,922,775 $8,415,680 $10,404,289 $11,825,572 $13,582,101 $15,207,872 $76,152,328 Total Operating Cost $67,143,462 $72,042,125 $74,939,578 $77,252,811 $80,757,671 $83,557,454 $86,876,072 $89,650,905 $92,449,326 $95,272,604 $819,942,009 Operating Revenue Fare Revenues - Existing Services $4,811,350 $4,907,577 $5,005,729 $5,105,843 $5,207,960 $5,312,119 $5,418,362 $5,526,729 $5,637,264 $5,750,009 $52,682,942 Fare Revenues - New Services $0 $360,007 $759,209 $1,033,513 $1,521,626 $1,849,767 $2,286,863 $2,599,261 $2,985,346 $3,342,690 $16,738,282 Pass Revenues $12,867,024 $13,124,364 $13,386,851 $13,654,588 $13,927,680 $14,206,234 $14,490,358 $14,780,166 $15,075,769 $15,377,284 $140,890,318 Advertising Income $770,885 $786,303 $802,029 $818,070 $834,431 $851,120 $868,142 $885,505 $903,215 $921,279 $8,440,980 Interest Income $86,155 $87,878 $89,636 $91,429 $93,257 $95,122 $97,025 $98,965 $100,945 $102,964 $943,377 Other Income $486,218 $495,942 $505,861 $515,978 $526,298 $536,824 $547,560 $558,511 $569,682 $581,075 $5,323,948 Ad Valorem Tax Revenue $37,667,826 $38,421,182 $39,189,606 $39,973,398 $40,772,866 $41,588,323 $42,420,090 $43,268,492 $44,133,861 $45,016,539 $412,452,183 Ad Valorem Transfers ($2,183,481) ($2,227,151) ($2,271,694) ($2,317,128) ($2,363,470) ($2,410,740) ($2,458,955) ($2,508,134) ($2,558,296) ($2,609,462) ($23,908,512) Federal Operating Grants $12,588,840 $12,840,617 $13,097,429 $13,359,378 $13,626,565 $13,899,097 $14,177,079 $14,460,620 $14,749,832 $15,044,829 $137,844,286 State Operating Grants $5,943,801 $6,062,677 $6,183,931 $6,307,609 $6,433,761 $6,562,437 $6,693,685 $6,827,559 $6,964,110 $7,103,393 $65,082,964 Local Operating Funding $663,000 $676,260 $689,785 $703,581 $717,653 $732,006 $746,646 $761,579 $776,810 $792,346 $7,259,665 New FDOT Service Development $0 $526,091 $962,737 $991,619 $1,090,645 $1,011,258 $1,041,596 $965,722 $1,374,724 $1,415,966 $9,380,358 New FDOT Urban Corridor (Hillsborough-Oldsmar) $0 $0 $0 $1,847,661 $1,880,365 $1,913,647 $1,947,519 $1,981,990 $2,017,071 $2,052,773 $13,641,027 Total Operating Revenue $73,701,618 $76,061,748 $78,401,110 $82,085,540 $84,269,637 $86,147,213 $88,275,970 $90,206,964 $92,730,333 $94,891,685 $846,771,819
Annual Revenues Minus Costs $6,558,155 $4,019,623 $3,461,532 $4,832,730 $3,511,966 $2,589,759 $1,399,897 $556,059 $281,007 ($380,918) $26,829,809 Rollover from Prev. Year $0 $6,558,155 $10,577,778 $14,039,310 $18,872,039 $22,384,006 $24,973,765 $26,373,662 $26,929,721 $27,210,727 Operating Fund Surplus $6,558,155 $10,577,778 $14,039,310 $18,872,039 $22,384,006 $24,973,765 $26,373,662 $26,929,721 $27,210,727 $26,829,809 $26,829,809 Capital Costs Vehicles $6,180,000 $6,365,400 $2,185,454 $18,570,895 $22,605,844 $2,388,105 $3,074,685 $3,166,925 $1,304,773 $0 $65,842,081 Replacement Buses - Maintain Existing Service $6,180,000 $2,652,250 $0 $16,882,632 $16,809,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,524,356 Replacements - ADA Paratransit Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional New Bus Vehicles $0 $3,713,150 $2,185,454 $1,688,263 $5,796,370 $2,388,105 $3,074,685 $3,166,925 $1,304,773 $0 $23,317,725 Other Capital/Infrastructure $500,000 $515,000 $530,450 $1,639,091 $562,754 $579,637 $597,026 $614,937 $633,385 $652,387 $6,824,667 Phase II Satellite Maintenance Facility $0 $0 $0 $1,092,727 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,092,727 Bus Stop Infrastructure and ADA Accessibility $500,000 $515,000 $530,450 $546,364 $562,754 $579,637 $597,026 $614,937 $633,385 $652,387 $5,731,940 Total Capital Cost $6,680,000 $6,880,400 $2,715,904 $20,209,986 $23,168,599 $2,967,742 $3,671,711 $3,781,862 $1,938,158 $652,387 $72,666,748 Revenues Section 5301 Grant $0 $0 $0 $1,092,727 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,092,727 Total Capital Revenue $0 $0 $0 $1,092,727 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,092,727
Annual Revenues Minus Costs ($6,680,000) ($6,880,400) ($2,715,904) ($19,117,259) ($23,168,599) ($2,967,742) ($3,671,711) ($3,781,862) ($1,938,158) ($652,387) ($71,574,021) Capital Shortfall* ($6,680,000) ($6,880,400) ($2,715,904) ($19,117,259) ($23,168,599) ($2,967,742) ($3,671,711) ($3,781,862) ($1,938,158) ($652,387) ($71,574,021) * Assumed to be funded with transfers of eligible operating surplus and capital grants from various applicable federal programs, including FTA formula funds, the FTA State of Good Repair Grant program, etc.
HART | TDP 12-15
The annual distribution of the 10-year operating and capital costs for the Funded Plan are illustrated in Figure 12-7. In addition, Figure 12-8 shows the overall distribution of revenues that are reasonably expected to be available to fund the 10-year plan.
Figure 12-7: Annual Operating and Capital Costs (millions)
$120 Replacement Bus Purchases, Total Operating Cost Maintenance Facility $100 Total Capital Cost $80
$60
$40
$20
$0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Figure 12-8: Revenues Distribution
Fare Revenues - Other Sources, 7% Exsiting Services, 6%
Ad Valorem Tax State Operating Revenue, 47% Grants, 7%
Federal Operating Grants, 16%
Pass Revenues, 16%
HART | TDP 12-16
In addition, the assumed availability of local ad valorem-based revenues are shown in Figure 12-9. These projections are based on HART’s FY 2017 Budget and an assumed annual fund growth rate of 2 percent.
Figure 12-9: 10-Year Ad Valorem Revenue Distribution (millions)
$45
$40
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
10-Year Implementation Plan and Unfunded Needs The TDP implementation plan/schedule presented in Table 12-6 outlines the improvements that are included in the HART TDP Funded Plan from 2018 through 2027. The table also shows the respective implementation years, the operating and capital costs associated with each improvement, and whether existing or new revenues are anticipated to fund the improvement. In addition, the unfunded needs are shown in Table 12-7. It is important to emphasize that the schedule shown in the implementation plan does not preclude HART from having the opportunity to delay or advance any projects. As priorities change, funding assumptions do not materialize, or more funding becomes available, this project implementation schedule should be adjusted.
HART | TDP 12-17
Table 12-6: TDP Implementation Plan
Annual Total 10-Year Implementation Improvement Operating Cost Capital Cost Funding Year (2018$) (2018$)
Maintain Existing Service
Implement Revised COA Network 2018 $61,714,232 $39,140,000 Existing
Maintain ADA Paratransit Service 2018 $5,429,230 - Existing
Improvements to Base Network Weekday Freq. to 15 min. on Routes 6, Existing/ 2019 $6,852,707 $14,935,000 12, 15, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39 FDOT New Weekday Freq. to 30 min. on Route 31 2026 $516,120 $1,030,000 Existing Add Saturday and Sunday Service on 2026 $343,862 - New Routes 11 and 31 Add Sunday Service on Routes 14 and 2027 $267,624 - New 16 New Service/Network Expansions
Route 11 Main to International Plaza 2018 $625,430 $1,030,000 FDOT
South County HyperLINK 2020 $200,000 - Existing
Route 49 West Park to East Tampa 2020 $485,760 - FDOT
Palmetto Beach HyperLINK 2021 $200,000 - Existing
Route 33 Northdale Extension 2022 $700,800 $1,030,000 FDOT
Riverview HyperLINK 2023 $300,000 - FDOT
Route 53 on US-301/SR-674 2025 $594,147 $2,575,000 FDOT
West Park & Big Bend HyperLINK 2025 $500,000 - Existing
Town ‘N Country & S. Tampa 2026 $600,000 - FDOT HyperLINK E. Brandon, Citrus Park, Seffner/Mango 2027 800,000 - Existing HyperLINK Capital/Infrastructure Phase II Satellite Maintenance Facility 2021 n/a $1,000,000 FTA (preliminary engineering) Bus Stop Infrastructure/ADA 2018 n/a $500,000 Existing Accessibility (annual allocation)
HART | TDP 12-18 Table 12-7: 10-Year TDP Unfunded Needs
Annual Total 10-Year Implementation Improvement Operating Capital Cost Funding Year Cost (2018$) (2018$)
Service Needs
Upgrade to Needs Plan Bus Network* n/a $31,639,108 $45,835,000 Unfunded
Continue Downtown AV (after initial n/a $635,000 - Unfunded pilot) Expand Downtown AV n/a $1,270,000 - Unfunded
Implement Passenger Ferry Service n/a $2,000,000 - Unfunded
Capital/Infrastructure Needs
Phase III Satellite Maintenance n/a - $75,530,000 Unfunded Facility (construction)
AV Charging Stations/Corridor Retrofit n/a - $810,000 Unfunded
ITS CAD/AVL, Consultant, Mobile n/a - $8,050,000 Unfunded Surveillance
* Shows additional annual cost to upgrade Funded Plan network to Needs Plan network.
HART | TDP 12-19
Appendix A: Farebox Recovery Report
HART | TDP A-1 ANNUAL FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO REPORT ‐ 2017
HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA August 2017 CURRENT FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO Farebox recovery ratio refers to the percent of the transit system’s total operating expenses that are funded with fares paid by passengers and is calculated by dividing the total fare revenue collected by the total operating expenses. This value is reported by transit agencies to the National Transit Database (NTD), as required for FTA grant recipients. The farebox recovery ratio for HART, the public transportation provider for Hillsborough County, was 21.98 percent FY 2016. The background with regards to the farebox recovery ratio includes the following. PRIOR YEAR FARE STUDIES AND CHANGES HART policy is to review and institute incremental fare increases every two years in order to keep pace with inflation and address budgetary concerns. HART last raised fares in November 2011. At present, the base fare for HART local and limited express routes is $2.00, $3.00 for Express routes, $1.00 for Flex routes, $3.00 for HyperLINK trips, and $4.00 for HARTPlus routes. Discounts are provided for older adults, youth, passengers with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, and adult students through participating educational institutions. PROPOSED FARE CHANGES FOR THE UPCOMING YEARS HART has performed a comprehensive review and comparison of HART current fare structure with the rates of other Florida transit agencies as part of the FY 2016 ‐ FY 2025 TDP Annual Progress Report. Subsequently, the Board authorized approval to keep the fare structure as status quo for FY 2016. HART will perform another comparison in conjunction with the FY 2017 budget preparation as part of a consideration towards a possible fare increase. ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES THAT WILL AFFECT THE FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO The HART Board annually adopts organizational goals and target accomplishment levels that will serve as a basis of measurement and evaluation. The established goals are directly measurable and the organization’s level of attainment is updated and reported to the Board on a regular basis. All of these goals and measures/indicators, as listed in Table A‐1, play a critical role in increasing the agency’s farebox recovery ratio.
Table A‐1: Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Criteria KPI Criteria FY 2016 Target FY 2017 Target Ridership and Bus Passengers per Revenue Bus Greater than or equal Greater than or equal Productivity Hour to 23.8 to 21.8 Efficiency Gross Cost per Revenue Mile Bus and Less than or equal to Less than or equal to Paratransit $6.95 $7.10 Safety Collisions per 100,000 Bus, Paratransit Less than or equal to Less than or equal to Revenue Miles and Streetcar 0.55 0.55 Quality of Complaints per 100,000 Bus, Paratransit Less than or equal to 13 Less than or equal to 10 Service Passengers and Streetcar Mean Distance Between Bus Maintenance Greater than or equal Greater than or equal Vehicle Failures to 6,950 to 7,749 On‐Time 1 Minute Early to 5 Minutes Bus Greater than or equal Greater than or equal Performance Late at Scheduled Time to 77% to 81.5% Points Finance Growth of fund balance and All Greater than or equal Greater than equal to fiscal sustainability to 0.5% of previous 0.5% of previous year’s year’s ending fund ending fund balance. balance
Appendix B: 2014 Congested Roadways
HART | TDP B-1 Congested roadways in Hillsborough County
The following roadways are County- or State-maintained roads that are at or above capacity based on their Level of Service (LOS) as of 2014.
Level of Service E represents operating conditions at or near the roadway’s capacity. Even minor disruptions to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering from a ramp or 2 vehicles changing lanes, can cause delays as other vehicles give way to allow such maneuvers. In general, maneuverability is extremely limited and drivers experience considerable physical and psychological discomfort.
Level of Service F describes a breakdown in vehicular flow. Queues form quickly behind points in the roadway where the arrival flow rate temporarily exceeds the departure rate, as determined by the roadway’s capacity. Vehicles typically operate at low speeds in these conditions and are often required to come to a complete stop, usually in a cyclic fashion. The cyclic formation and dissipation of queues is a key characterization of LOS F.
Table 1. County Roadways at or above capacity (LOS E or F)
Section Length (m) Speed (mph) AADT* LOS 46TH ST: (FLETCHER AVE -to-SKIPPER RD) 0.78 35 14096 E BEARSS AVE: (DALE MABRY HWY -to- FLORIDA AVE) 2.87 40 41027 F BLOOMINGDALE AVE: (GORNTO LAKE RD-to-KINGS AVE) 3.06 45 42269 F BLOOMINGDALE AVE: (KINGS AVE -to-LITHIA PINECREST 2.24 25 35278 F RD) BOYETTE RD: (BALM RIVERVIEW -to-BELL SHOALS RD) 2.77 40 26000 F BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD: (BEARSS AVE-to-AMBERLY DR) 1.49 45 46180 F CR 579: (US HWY 92 -to-SLIGH AVE) 0.60 50 22667 F FISH HAWK BLVD: (BELL SHOALS RD -to-LITHIA 4.60 45 17006 F PINECREST) GUNN HWY: (VAN DYKE RD -to-S MOBLEY RD) 3.23 45 24319 F LINEBAUGH AVE: (CITRUS PARK EXT -to-COUNTRYWAY 0.50 45 18800 F BLVD) LINEBAUGH AVE: (RACE TRACK RD -to-CITRUS PARK EXT) 1.03 45 18800 F LINEBAUGH AVE: (SHELDON RD -to-VETERANS EXPWY) 1.53 45 33686 F LITHIA PINECREST RD: (BLOOMINGDALE AVE -to- 3.70 45 24715 F BOYETTE RD) LUMSDEN RD: (KINGS AVE -to-LITHIA PINECREST) 1.48 45 34237 F LYNN TURNER: (GUNN HWY -to-EHRLICH RD) 1.51 45 16814 F MEMORIAL HWY: (HILLSBOROUGH AVE -to- KELLY RD) 1.47 45 42000 F SKIPPER RD: (BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD -to-46TH ST) 0.40 35 14096 E VAN DYKE RD: (GUNN HWY -to-OLD TOBACCO RD) 2.10 45 16317 F VAN DYKE RD: (OLD TOBACCO RD-to-DALE MABRY HWY) 2.34 45 21420 F WOODBERRY RD: (FALKENBURG RD -to-GRAND REGENCY 0.58 45 13532 F BLVD) WOODBERRY RD: (GRAND REGENCY BLVD -to- 0.93 45 13532 F LAKEWOOD DR) *Average Annual Daily Traffic Source: Hillsborough MPO, Hillsborough County 2014 Level of Service Report; www.planhillsborough.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/2014-LOS-Report-FINAL_073115-1.pdf
Table 2. State Roadways at or above capacity (LOS E or F)
Section Length (m) Speed (mph) AADT* LOS BEARSS AVE: (FLORIDA AVE -to-NEBRASKA AVE) 0.50 45 50280 F BUSCH BLVD: (DALE MABRY HWY -to-ARMENIA AVE) 1.31 45 47000 F DALE MABRY HWY: (HILLSBOROUGH AVE -to-LINEBAUGH 3.06 45 67908 F AVE) DALE MABRY HWY: (LINEBAUGH AVE -to-EHRLICH RD) 3.11 45 69227 F DALE MABRY HWY: (CHEVAL BLVD -to-COUNTYLINE RD) 2.59 55 41214 F HILLSBOROUGH AVE: (VETERAN'S EXPWY -to-DALE 2.47 45 64516 F MABRY N RAMP) I-4: (50TH ST -to-M L KING BLVD) 1.40 55 129000 E I-4: (M L KING BLVD -to-US HWY 301) 2.00 55 117953 E I-4: (US HWY 301 -to-I-75) 1.94 55 141000 F I-4: (I-75 -to-CR 579) 1.53 55 143000 F I-4: (CR 579 -to-MCINTOSH RD) 3.73 55 123000 E I-4: (MCINTOSH RD -to-BRANCH FORBES RD) 3.56 55 122041 E I-4: (BRANCH FORBES RD -to-ALEXANDER ST) 3.29 55 113376 E I-75: (SR 60 -to-M L KING BLVD) 2.79 70 132500 F I-75: (M L KING BLVD -to-I-4) 1.43 70 146500 F I-75: (I-4 -to-FOWLER AVE) 3.96 70 122000 E I-75: (FOWLER AVE -to-FLETCHER AVE) 1.24 70 103000 F M L KING BLVD: (40TH ST -to-I-4) 1.75 45 21374 F M L KING BLVD: (HIGHVIEW RD -to-PARSONS AVE) 0.75 45 25500 F SR 60 / ADAMO DR: (US HWY 301 -to-FALKENBURG RD) 1.27 50 44500 F SR 60 / BRANDON BLVD: (FALKENBURG RD-to-PAULS DR) 2.12 45 82403 F SR 60 / BRANDON BLVD: (KINGS AVE -to-KINGSWAY RD) 1.01 45 62641 F *Average Annual Daily Traffic
Source: Hillsborough MPO, Hillsborough County 2014 Level of Service Report; www.planhillsborough.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/2014-LOS-Report-FINAL_073115-1.pdf
Appendix C: Capital Assets
HART | TDP C-1 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
All Departments All Maintenance Classes Asset Type(s): RAIL, VEHICLE, ASSET
Maintenance Class: 2012 VHPG SEDAN - 2012- Vhpg-Mv-1 ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 3023: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A60CM101622 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8011 TC4364 112,053
3010: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A69CM101232 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8871 TC4363 118,924
3011: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A61CM101256 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8872 TC6634 143,485
3012: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A62CM101217 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8873 TC6632 125,177
3013: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A61CM101225 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8874 TC6633 121,658
3014: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A68CM101142 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8875 TC4366 131,573
3015: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A6XCM101174 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8876 TC4360 133,381
3016: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A64CM101221 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8877 TC6636 124,692
3017: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A61CM101242 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8878 TC4359 120,959
3018: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A67CM101178 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8879 TC4362 128,847
3019: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A61CM101192 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8880 TC6635 118,487
3020: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A67CM101228 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8881 TC4365 131,084
3022: Vhpg- Mv-1 Sedan 523MF1A6XCM101255 2012 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 8883 TC4361 120,684
Department 041 Totals: Count: 13
Class 2012 VHPG SEDAN Totals: Count: 13
Maintenance Class: 2012 BRAUN VAN - 2012 Brnc-Van ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 3001: Dodge / Braun Van 2C4RDGBG8CR225775 2012 BRAUN Van 8658 TC5273 117,586
3002: Dodge / Braun Van 2C4RDGBGXCR225776 2012 BRAUN Van 8659 TC5275 155,176
3003: Dodge / Braun Van 2C4RDGBG1CR225777 2012 BRAUN Van 8660 TC5274 130,699
3004: Dodge / Braun Van 2C4RDGBG3CR225778 2012 BRAUN Van 8661 TC5277 125,277
3005: Dodge / Braun Van 2C4RDGBG5CR225779 2012 BRAUN Van 8662 TC5276 127,500
3006: Dodge / Braun Van 2C4RDGBG1CR225780 2012 BRAUN Van 8663 TC5278 125,284
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: 2012 BRAUN VAN - 2012 Brnc-Van ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Department 041 Totals: Count: 6
Class 2012 BRAUN VAN Totals: Count: 6
Maintenance Class: 2014 CMC CNG FIXED ROUTE VAN - 2014 Cmc Cng Fixed Route Cutaway ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 4501: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FSXEDA23566 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11223 TD4854 96,956 Cutaway 4507: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS9EDA23560 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11229 TD3296 91,365 Cutaway 4503: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS9EDA23574 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11225 TD7362 102,848 Cutaway 4504: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS9EDA23557 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11226 TD7366 96,536 Cutaway 4508: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS7EDA23573 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11230 TD3297 89,340 Cutaway 4505: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS5EDA23569 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11227 TD7368 98,120 Cutaway 4506: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS1EDA23567 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11228 TD7367 94,915 Cutaway 4502: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Fr Cng 1FDFE4FS0EDA23575 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11224 TD7356 104,666 Cutaway Department 041 Totals: Count: 8
Class 2014 CMC CNG FIXED ROUTE VAN Totals:Count: 8
Maintenance Class: 2014 VPG-MV-1 CNG - 2012- Vhpg-Mv-1 ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 3301: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B68EM101117 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11446 36,735
3302: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B62EM101128 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11447 27,593
3303: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B67EM101125 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11448 TE1659 29,296
3304: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B68EM101103 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11449 TE1657 27,046
3305: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B66EM101097 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11450 TE1658 30,013
3306: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B67EM101108 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11451 TE1661 28,072
3308: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B68EM101022 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11676 2,402
3309: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B62EM100965 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11674 5,914
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 2 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: 2014 VPG-MV-1 CNG - 2012- Vhpg-Mv-1 ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 3310: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B61EM101055 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11678 649
3311: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B64EM101051 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11677 TF3060 1,333
3312: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B65EM100961 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11673 TF0313 2,343
3313: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B66EM101018 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11675 TF0315 1,079
3314: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B69EM101059 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11679 TF3062 589
3307: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B61EM101136 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11680 3,021
3315: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B60EM101130 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11703 1,355
3316: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B69EM101045 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11704 899
3317: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B6XEM101040 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11705 619
3318: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B60EM101029 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11706 638
3319: Vpg-Mv-1 Cng Sedan 57WMD1B65EM100958 2014 VHPG Mv-1 Sedan 11707 629
Department 041 Totals: Count: 19
Class 2014 VPG-MV-1 CNG Totals: Count: 19
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1501: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2712F1185631 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11303 TD8735 104,180
1502: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2714F1185632 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11304 TD8736 103,752
1503: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2716F1185633 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11305 TD8737 101,939
1504: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2718F1185634 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11306 TD8738 109,159
1516: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2714F1185646 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11318 TD8749 103,427
1517: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2716F1185647 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11319 TE2216 85,215
1518: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2718F1185648 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11320 TE2215 107,404
1519: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD271XF1185649 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11321 TE2214 104,325
1520: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2716F1185650 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11322 TE2213 96,013
1521: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2718F1185651 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11323 TD8748 98,096
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 3 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1522: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD271XF1185652 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11324 TD8747 97,469
1506: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2711F1185636 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11308 TD8741 104,169
1507: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2713F1185637 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11309 TD8742 91,144
1508: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2715F1185638 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11310 TC9994 110,530
1509: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2717F1185639 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11311 TD8743 109,505
1510: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2713F1185640 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11312 TD8740 106,324
1511: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2715F1185641 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11313 TC9989 98,551
1309: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2716D1182728 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7845 TB0148 169,694
1310: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2718D1182729 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7847 TB0149 191,444
1311: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2714D1182730 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7848 TB0150 186,838
1312: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2716D1182731 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7849 TB0145 190,650
2106: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271911071444 2001 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 9439 198908 663,410
2215: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271521090455 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6065 210491 637,107
2216: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271721090456 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6066 210538 608,308
2217: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271921090457 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6067 210537 609,546
2218: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271021090458 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6068 210536 618,881
2219: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271221090459 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6069 210535 613,789
2220: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271921090460 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6070 210532 630,769
2221: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271021090461 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6071 210531 621,243
2223: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271421090463 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6073 210529 620,387
2224: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271621090464 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6074 210528 623,731
2225: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271X21090645 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6075 210533 597,030
2229: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271721090649 2002 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 6079 210540 616,643
2301: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271731090765 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7031 211791 647,552
2302: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271931090766 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7032 211792 573,929
2303: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271031090767 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7033 211786 618,682
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 2304: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271231090768 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7034 211785 603,262
2305: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271431090769 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7035 211787 622,112
2306: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271031090770 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7036 211788 605,766
2307: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271231090771 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7037 211789 598,779
2308: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271431090772 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7038 211790 599,026
2309: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271631090773 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7039 211799 622,430
2310: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGE271831090774 2003 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 7040 211800 595,909
2315: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271231073570 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8265 211896 663,222
2317: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271631073572 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8267 211898 611,744
2318: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271831073573 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8268 211899 666,214
2319: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271X31073574 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8269 211891 656,629
2321: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271331073576 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8271 211893 648,630
2322: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271531073577 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8272 211892 678,857
2323: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271731073578 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8273 211895 630,399
2324: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271931073579 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8274 211902 696,405
2325: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271531073580 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8275 211901 661,258
2326: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271731073581 2003 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8276 211900 659,379
2401: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291541074386 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8281 COUN223124 662,784
2402: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291741074387 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8282 COUN223123 659,511
2403: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291941074388 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8283 COUN223122 627,289
2404: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291041074389 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8284 COUN223121 636,551
2405: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291741074390 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8285 COUN223119 657,942
2406: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291941074391 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8286 COUN223120 583,142
2407: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291041074392 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8287 COUN223108 631,722
2408: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291241074393 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8288 COUN223109 642,124
2409: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291441074394 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8289 COUN223336 667,246
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 5 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 2410: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291641074395 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8290 COUN223337 653,675
2411: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291841074396 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8291 COUN223118 686,525
2412: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291X41074397 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8292 COUN223338 653,701
2415: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291241074748 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8425 STATE25287 659,905
2417: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291041074750 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8427 STATE25288 636,454
2418: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291241074751 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8428 STATE25289 639,224
2419: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD291441074752 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8429 STATE25286 629,776
2425: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor Hybrid 15GGD191141072337 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8445 STATE25291 435,849 Hybrid 2426: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor Hybrid 15GGD191341072338 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8456 STATE25292 420,692 Hybrid 2427: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor Hybrid 15GGD191541072339 2004 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8437 STATE25293 417,530 Hybrid 2501: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211351076490 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9781 STATE25682 565,007
2502: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211551076491 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9782 STATE25681 492,434
2503: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211751076492 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9783 STATE25680 567,740
2504: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211951076493 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9784 STATE25679 589,253
2505: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211051076494 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9785 STATE25678 561,632
2506: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211251076495 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9786 STATE25677 588,965
2507: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211451076496 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9787 STATE25676 572,603
2508: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211651076497 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9788 STATE25675 551,107
2509: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211851076498 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9789 STATE25674 551,822
2510: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211X51076499 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9790 STATE25673 525,633
2511: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211251076500 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9791 STATE25672 549,252
2512: 41Ft Gillig Low Floor Brt 15GGD211451076501 2005 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9792 STATE25671 535,840
2601: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211261076885 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9870 STATE40468 560,182
2602: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211461076886 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9871 STATE40467 554,376
2603: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211661076887 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9872 STATE40466 587,796
2604: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211861076888 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9873 STATE40465 573,618
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 6 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 2605: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211X61076889 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9874 STATE40464 551,691
2606: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211661076890 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9875 STATE40463 586,398
2607: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211861076891 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9876 STATE40462 564,583
2608: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211X61076892 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9877 STATE40461 581,004
2609: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211161076893 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9878 STATE40460 559,087
2610: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211361076894 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9879 STATE40459 580,752
2611: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211561076895 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9880 STATE39600 586,534
2612: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD211761076896 2006 GIL 40Ft Gilliglow Floor 9881 STATE25738 515,448
2701: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor Trolley 15GGE291271091258 2007 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 10150 CTYTB2538 129,533 Trolley 2702: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor Trolley 15GGE291471091259 2007 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 10151 CTYTB2539 135,852 Trolley 2703: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor Trolley 15GGE291071091260 2007 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 10152 CTYTB2540 115,892 Trolley 2704: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor Trolley 15GGE291271091261 2007 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 10153 CTYTB2541 83,519 Trolley 2705: 29Ft Gillig Low Floor Trolley 15GGE291471091262 2007 GIL 29Ft Gillig Low Floor 10154 CTYTB2542 66,281 Trolley 2903: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271591177172 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10800 TC0165 403,782
2904: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271791177173 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10801 TB7780 408,009
2902: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271391177171 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10799 TB7784 407,723
2906: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271091177175 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10803 TB7782 445,600
2901: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271191177170 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10798 TB7785 391,221
2905: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271991177174 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10802 TB7781 406,011
2907: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271291177176 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10804 TB7783 410,218
2908: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271491177177 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10805 TB7786 389,007
2909: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271691177178 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10806 TB7787 410,693
2910: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271891177179 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10807 TC0168 384,206
2911: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271491177180 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10808 TC0164 387,318
2914: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271X91177183 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10811 TC0167 416,767
2915: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271191177184 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10812 TC0171 406,871
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 7 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 2912: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271691177181 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10809 TB7788 401,412
2913: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271891177182 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10810 TB7789 413,339
2916: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271391177185 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10813 TC0166 416,018
2917: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271591177186 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10814 TC0172 377,267
2918: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271791177187 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10815 TC0169 406,231
2919: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271991177188 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10816 TC0170 414,430
2920: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271091177189 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10817 TB9828 390,216
2921: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271791177190 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10818 TB9827 361,954
2922: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271991177191 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10819 TB9831 399,282
2923: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271091177192 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10820 TB9832 382,357
2924: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271291177193 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10821 TB9835 408,383
2925: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271491177194 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10822 TB9834 406,638
2930: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271391177199 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10827 TB9837 380,354
2926: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271691177195 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10823 TB9833 393,649
2927: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271891177196 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10824 TB9830 387,690
2928: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271X91177197 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10825 TB9829 399,592
2929: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271191177198 2009 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10826 TB9836 391,762
1001: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2712A1178008 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10928 TB9852 344,059
1002: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2714A1178009 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10929 TB9853 348,407
1003: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2710A1178010 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10930 TB9844 369,429
1004: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2712A1178011 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10931 TB9854 360,959
1005: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2714A1178012 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10932 TB9855 369,952
1006: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2716A1178013 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10933 TB9856 371,233
1007: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2718A1178014 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10934 TB9857 367,229
1008: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271XA1178015 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10935 TB9858 373,565
1009: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2711A1178016 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10936 TB9859 371,350
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 8 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1010: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2713A1178017 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10937 TB9860 371,120
1016: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2719A1178023 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10943 TB9867 356,850
1011: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2715A1178018 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10938 TB9861 308,098
1012: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2717A1178019 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10939 TB9862 373,173
1013: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2713A1178020 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10940 TB9864 360,858
1014: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2715A1178021 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10941 TB9863 377,076
1015: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2717A1178022 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10942 TB9865 374,129
1017: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2710A1178024 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10944 TB9866 375,318
1018: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2712A1178025 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10945 TB9868 400,862
1019: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2714A1178026 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10946 TB9869 354,360
1020: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2716A1178027 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10947 TB9870 361,723
1021: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2718A1178028 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10948 TB9871 379,542
1022: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271XA1178029 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10949 TB9872 335,061
1023: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2716A1178030 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10950 TB9873 373,161
1024: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2718A1178031 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10951 TB9874 368,601
1025: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271XA1178032 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10952 TC0311 342,874
1026: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2711A1178033 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10953 TC0312 334,485
1027: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2713A1178034 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10954 TC0313 350,344
1028: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2715A1178035 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10955 TC0314 325,466
1029: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2717A1178036 2010 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 10956 TC0315 346,881
1505: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD271XF1185635 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11307 TD8739 103,860
1201: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2710C1181881 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8681 TC9160 106,699
1202: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2712C1181882 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8682 TC9159 111,392
1203: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2714C1181883 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8683 TC9158 123,762
1204: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2716C1181884 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8684 TC9157 135,941
1205: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2718C1181885 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8685 TC9156 145,702
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 9 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1206: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD271XC1181886 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8686 TC9155 153,168
1207: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2711C1181887 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8687 TC9154 149,771
1208: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2713C1181888 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8688 TC9153 142,364
1209: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2715C1181889 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8689 TC9152 136,279
1210: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2711C1181890 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8690 TC9151 140,856
1211: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2713C1181891 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8691 TC9150 124,385
1212: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2715C1181892 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8692 TC9149 133,349
1215: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2717C1181893 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8693 TC9148 201,820
1216: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2719C1181894 2012 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 8694 TC9146 212,566
1301: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2711D1182720 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7836 TB0151 183,984
1304: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2717D1182723 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7840 TB0153 168,551
1306: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2710D1182725 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7842 TB0144 187,002
1307: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2712D1182726 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7843 TB0146 175,489
1308: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2714D1182727 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7844 TB0147 189,190
1302: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2713D1182721 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7838 TB0155 186,378
1303: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2715D1182722 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7839 TB0152 186,585
1305: 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 15GGD2719D1182724 2013 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 7841 TB0154 185,565
1512: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2717F1185642 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11314 TC9990 104,717
1513: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2719F1185643 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11315 TC9991 109,520
1514: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2710F1185644 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11316 TC9992 91,209
1515: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2712F1185645 2015 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11317 TC9993 104,706
1601: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2719G1188835 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11620 10,917
1602: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2710G1188836 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11621 15,538
1603: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2712G1188837 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11622 TE9588 14,084
1604: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2714G1188838 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11623 15,027
1605: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2716G1188839 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11624 15,027
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 10 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: BUS - Bus ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1607: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2714G1188841 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11626 TE8193 11,786
1608: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2716G1188842 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11627 TE9575 9,933
1609: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2718G1188843 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11628 TE9574 9,781
1612: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2713G1188846 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11631 TE9591 9,025
1613: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2715G1188847 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11632 TE9592 7,958
1606: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2712G1188840 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11625 15,029
1611: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD2711G1188845 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11630 10,625
1610: 40Ft Gillig Cng Low Floor 15GGD271XG1188844 2016 GIL 40Ft Gillig Low Floor 11629 TE9573 6,493
Department 041 Totals: Count: 200
Class BUS Totals: Count: 200
Maintenance Class: CUTAWAY - Cutaway ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1929: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL1B1130110 2011 CMD Express 8483 TC4299 175,591 Champion 1930: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL6B1130393 2011 CMD Express 8484 TC4296 186,082 Champion 1931: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB6G2A63A1108181 2011 CMD Express 8485 TC4297 201,800 Champion 1932: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB6G2A61A1107823 2011 CMD Express 8486 TC4298 237,932 Champion 1933: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL5B1143071 2011 CMD Express 8487 TC4308 132,016 Champion 1935: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL5B1143233 2011 CMD Express 8489 TC4306 180,564 Champion 1936: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL7B1143590 2011 CMD Express 8490 TC4307 151,713 Champion 1937: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL7B1144609 2011 CMD Express 8491 TC4305 143,581 Champion 1934: 22Ft Chevrolet Express 1GB3G2BL0B1143284 2011 CMD Express 8488 TC4304 169,786 Champion Department 041 Totals: Count: 9
Class CUTAWAY Totals: Count: 9
Maintenance Class: CUTAWAY PARA - Cutaway-Paratransit ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 11 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: CUTAWAY PARA - Cutaway-Paratransit ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 4002: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS8EDA23579 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11204 TD4852 104,847
4003: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS6EDA18218 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11205 TD4853 106,847
4009: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS4EDA18217 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11211 TD4861 94,141
4004: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS6EDA23564 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11206 TD4858 89,909
4005: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS8EDA23565 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11207 TD4859 104,895
4006: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS2EDA18216 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11208 TD4856 94,953
4007: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS6EDA23578 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11209 TD4857 111,933
4018: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS3EDA23571 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11220 TD7369 91,818
4012: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS0EDA23558 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11214 TD7360 97,017
4013: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS1EDA23570 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11215 TD7359 99,307
4015: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS5EDA23572 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11217 TD7364 91,776
4016: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS3EDA23568 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11218 TD7365 92,931
4017: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS8EDA18219 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11219 TD7370 96,991
4019: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS2EDA23562 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11221 238410 71,388
4001: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS8DDB36429 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11203 TD4849 90,596
4008: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS2EDA23559 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11210 TD4860 103,218
4010: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS0EDA23561 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11212 TD7357 95,750
4011: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS4EDA23563 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11213 TD7358 94,937
4014: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS2EDA23576 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11216 TD7363 85,539
4020: 23 Ft. Cmc Ford E-450 Cng Van 1FDFE4FS4EDA23577 2014 CMC 23 Ft. E-450 Ford Cng 11222 TD3295 73,269
Department 041 Totals: Count: 20
Class CUTAWAY PARA Totals: Count: 20
Maintenance Class: DSL EQUIPMENT - Dsl Service Equipment ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1778: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 1GB3CZCL4BF189898 2011 CMD Silverado 3500 Stake 9124 STATE25687 123,896 Stake Body Body
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 12 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: DSL EQUIPMENT - Dsl Service Equipment ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Department 041 Totals: Count: 1
Class DSL EQUIPMENT Totals: Count: 1
Maintenance Class: GOLF CART - Golf Cart ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN GEM E2: Electric Vehicle 52CG2AGA0G0014272 2016 POLARIS Electric 11478 0
GEM ELXD: Electric Vehicle 52CG2DGA2G0014288 2016 POLARIS Electric 11479 0
Department 041 Totals: Count: 2
Class GOLF CART Totals: Count: 2
Maintenance Class: NRV 3K - Nrv 3K ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1782: 2011-Ford Escape 1FMCUOC7OBKC53722 2011 FRD Ford Escape 8498 COUN198928 24,863
5002: Ford Fusion 3FA6POG79DR311883 2013 FRD Ford Fusion 8923 TD2255 16,040
5503: 2015 Ford F550 Aaltec Bucket 1FDUF5GT8FED71573 2015 FRD Ford F550 Altec Bucket 11390 TE3842 5,267 Truck Truck Department 041 Totals: Count: 3
Class NRV 3K Totals: Count: 6 Dept: 161 - ADMINISTRATION 1248: 2008 Chrysler Town & Country 2A8HR44H88R818229 2008 CRY Chrysler Town & 10371 TB6545 125,643 Country 1246: 2008 Chrysler Town & Country 2A8HR44H48R818227 2008 CRY Chrysler Town & 10369 TB6543 75,916 Country 1247: 2008 Chrysler Town & Country 2A8HR44H68R818228 2008 CRY Chrysler Town & 10370 TB6544 99,088 Country Department 161 Totals: Count: 3
Class NRV 3K Totals: Count: 6
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - DSL - Service Vehicle-Dsl ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1770: Chevy Silverado 2500 1GCHC246X8E206722 2008 CMD Silverado 2500 10427 XA3735 146,793
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 13 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - DSL - Service Vehicle-Dsl ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 1771: Chevy Silverado 2500 1GCHC24678E208427 2008 CMD Silverado 2500 10626 STSTE25768 134,971
1772: Chevy Silverado 2500 1GCHC24668E207883 2008 CMD Silverado 2500 10627 STATE25765 130,501
1776: Chevy Silverado 2500 1GC0CVC88BF161685 2011 CMD Silverado 2500 9096 COUN196417 57,848
1777: Chevy Silverado 2500 1GC0CVC84BF162249 2011 CMD Silverado 2500 9097 COUN210466 122,762
1779: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 1GB3CZCL6BF193435 2011 CMD Silverado 3500 Service 9129 STATE25736 44,858 Service Tk Tk 1780: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 1GB3CZCL0BF195195 2011 CMD Silverado 3500 Service 9125 COUN210569 47,324 Service Tk Tk 1781: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 1GB3CZCL2BF194680 2011 CMD Silverado 3500 Service 9126 STATE25669 38,471 Service Tk Tk 5501: 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1GCOCVC86EF108892 2014 CMD Silverado 2500 7824 25305 54,028
5502: 2014 Chevrolet Silverado- Utility 1GC0CVC8XEF108202 2014 CMD Silverado 2500 7825 25302 27,844 Body Department 041 Totals: Count: 10
Class SERVICE - DSL Totals: Count: 10
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - HYB - Service Vehicle-Hybrids ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 010 - OPERATIONS 1658: Toyota JT2BK12U030080728 2003 TOY Toyota Prius 9519 211776 115,057
1774: Toyota JTDKN3DU1A1257706 2010 TOY Toyota Prius 10968 COU206444 114,098
1775: Toyota JTDKN3DU9A5196372 2010 TOY Toyota Prius 10969 COU206443 111,659
Department 010 Totals: Count: 3
Class SERVICE - HYB Totals: Count: 3
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - UNL - Service Vehicle- Unleaded ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 010 - OPERATIONS 1748: Ford Explorer 1FMEU63EX7UA97131 2007 FRD Ford Explorer 10043 STATE25756 108,454
1750: Ford Focus 1FAFP34N97W296940 2007 FRD Ford Focus 10136 167423 133,172
Department 010 Totals: Count: 2
Class SERVICE - UNL Totals: Count: 48 Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 14 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - UNL - Service Vehicle- Unleaded ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 5012: Ford Escape 1FMCU0F7XGUC89974 2016 FRD Ford Escape 11526 6,999
1756: Ford Focus 1FAHP34NX8W246557 2008 FRD Ford Focus 10520 TB5872 114,390
1757: Ford Focus 1FAHP34N18W246558 2008 FRD Ford Focus 10521 TB5873 38,784
1758: Ford Escape 1FMCU02Z48KE74137 2008 FRD Ford Escape 10372 TB5875 93,726
1760: Ford Escape 1FMCU02Z88KE74139 2008 FRD Ford Escape 10374 TB5877 109,656
1761: Ford Escape 1FMCU02Z48KE74140 2008 FRD Ford Escape 10375 TB6539 96,295
1762: Ford Escape 1FMCU02Z68KE74141 2008 FRD Ford Escape 10376 TB6540 85,597
1763: Ford Escape 1FMCU02Z88KE74142 2008 FRD Ford Escape 10377 TB6541 61,552
1765: Ford Escape 1FMCU02ZX8KE74143 2008 FRD Ford Escape 10378 TB6542 60,570
1766: Chevy Silverado 1500 1GCEC14X58Z294481 2008 CMD Silverado 1500 10379 COUNTB7354 161,742
1767: Chevy Silverado 1500 1GCEC14X88Z294975 2008 CMD Silverado 1500 10380 COUNTB7352 198,102
1768: Ford Focus 1FAHP34N38W297656 2008 FRD Ford Focus 10381 COUNTB7353 124,840
5001: Ford Escape 1FMCU0C76CKC69652 2012 FRD Ford Escape 8657 TB5876 97,878
5003: Ford Escape 1FMCUOF72EUA39495 2014 FRD Ford Escape 7850 TB0158 25,587
5004: Ford Escape 1FMCUOF74EUA39496 2014 FRD Ford Escape 7851 TB0160 65,649
5005: Ford Escape 1FMCU0F76EUA39497 2014 FRD Ford Escape 7852 TB0157 68,056
5006: Ford Escape 1FMCUOF78EUA39498 2014 FRD Ford Escape 7853 STATE25731 43,773
5007: Ford Escape 1FMCUOF7XEUA39499 2014 FRD Ford Escape 7854 STATE25307 52,010
5008: Ford Focus 1FADP3F24EL124369 2014 FRD Ford Focus 7855 STATE25773 58,244
5009: Ford Focus 1FADP3F20EL124370 2014 FRD Ford Focus 7856 TD5291 57,989
5010: Ford Focus 1FADP3F22EL124371 2014 FRD Ford Focus 7857 TD5293 12,623
5011: Ford Focus 1FADP3F24EL124372 2014 FRD Ford Focus 7858 TD5292 9,684
5013: Ford Escape 1FMCU0F76GUC89972 2016 FRD Ford Escape 11525 6,269
5014: Ford Escape 1FMCU0F78GUC89987 2016 FRD Ford Escape 11527 578
1783: Ford F-150 1FTMF1C81GKE78174 2016 FRD Ford F-150 2,940
5015: Ford Focus 1FADP3F25GL365019 2016 FRD Ford Focus 11618 448
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 15 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - UNL - Service Vehicle- Unleaded ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 041 - MAINTENANCE ADMIN 5016: Ford Focus 1FADP3F21L365020 2016 FRD Ford Focus 11619 969
5017: Ford Focus 1FADP3F28GL374930 2016 FRD Ford Focus 11672 1,871
1784: Ford F-150 1FTMF1C83GKG05202 2016 FRD Ford F-150 13
Department 041 Totals: Count: 29
Class SERVICE - UNL Totals: Count: 48 Dept: 060 - MECHANICS 1745: Gmc Savana 1GTGG25VX71170509 2007 GMC Gmc Savanta 10039 STATE25755 53,459
1751: Dodge Sebring 1C3LC46RX8N239219 2008 CRY Chrysler Sebring 10431 TB2534 41,166
Department 060 Totals: Count: 2
Class SERVICE - UNL Totals: Count: 48 Dept: 120 - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1733: Dodge Ram 3D7KA26D34G176334 2004 DTD Ram 7043 COUN220967 93,095
1735: Dodge Ram 1D7HA16D25J613373 2005 DTD Ram 9645 STATE25298 149,566
1736: Dodge Ram 1D7HA16D45J613374 2005 DTD Ram 9646 STATE25297 108,662
1737: Dodge Ram 1D7HA16D65J613375 2005 DTD Ram 9647 STATE25299 143,761
1738: Dodge Ram 3D7KR26D05G828661 2005 DTD Ram 9660 25306 173,769
1755: Ford Ranger 1FTYR10U28PA83368 2008 FRD Ford Ranger 10516 COUTB5874 87,990
1798: Gmc Sierra 1GDJC34J2WF073324 1998 GMC Gmc Sierra 7798 163518 60,670
Department 120 Totals: Count: 7
Class SERVICE - UNL Totals: Count: 48 Dept: 161 - ADMINISTRATION 1244: 2007 Dodge Caravan 1DA4GP24E37B167871 2007 DTD Dodge Grand Caravan 10079 25760 104,236
1746: Gmc Savana 1GTGG25V271170228 2007 GMC Gmc Savanta 10040 STATE25754 80,733
1753: Dodge Sebring 1C3LC46R88N239221 2008 CRY Chrysler Sebring 10433 CTYTB2535 37,083
Department 161 Totals: Count: 3
Class SERVICE - UNL Totals: Count: 48 Dept: 210 - STREETCAR OPERATIONS ADMIN 1650: Ford Taurus 1FAFP53U91A185572 2001 FRD Ford Taurus 9458 198926 89,923
1747: Gmc Savana 1GTGG25V571187363 2007 GMC Gmc Savanta 10041 STATE25761 141,209
1749: Ford Escape 1FMCU92Z88KA12152 2007 FRD Ford Escape 10042 STATE25757 34,152
1752: Dodge Sebring 1C3LC46R68N239220 2008 CRY Chrysler Sebring 10432 CTYTB2536 16,802
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 16 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016 Asset Inventory List by Maintenance Class
Maintenance Class: SERVICE - UNL - Service Vehicle- Unleaded ASSET: FLEET Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 210 - STREETCAR OPERATIONS ADMIN 1754: Dodge Sebring 1C3LC46RX8N239222 2008 CRY Chrysler Sebring 10434 CTYTB2537 33,215
Department 210 Totals: Count: 5
Class SERVICE - UNL Totals: Count: 48
Maintenance Class: STREETCAR - Streetcar ASSET: RAIL Asset Serial Number Year Manufacturer Model Asset No. Lic. Plate Meter 1
Dept: 241 - STREETCAR MAINTENANCE ADMIN 163: 1922 Slc Historic Birney- Single 163 1922 SLC 1922 Historic Streetcar 0 32,150 Truck 428: 2000 Gtc Replica Double Truck 428 2000 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8141 130,797 Birney 429: 2000 Gtc Replica Double Truck 429 2000 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8142 80,639 Birney 430: 2000 Gtc Replica Double Truck 430 2000 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8143 127,672 Birney 431: 2000 Gtc Replica Double Truck 431 2000 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8144 128,986 Birney 432: 2001 Gtc Replica Double Truck 432 2001 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8145 69,405 Birney 433: 2001 Gtc Replica Double Truck 433 2001 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8146 129,545 Birney 434: 2001 Gtc Replica Double Truck 434 2001 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8147 133,501 Birney 435: 2001 Gtc Replica Double Truck 435 2001 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 8148 130,219 Birney 436: 2005 Gtc Replica Double Truck 436 2005 GTC 2000 Vintage Streetcar 9301 99,080 Birney 1976: 1985 Gtc Replica Breezer 1976 1985 GTC Vintage Streetcar 9664 33,857
Department 241 Totals: Count: 11
Class STREETCAR Totals: Count: 11
©2016 AssetWorks Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 17 of 17 Report Date: 12/1/2016
Appendix D: Trend Analysis and Peer System Review
HART | TDP D-1 Service Area Population
880,000 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 870,000 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 860,000 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 850,000 TARC, Louisville, KY 840,000 CATS, Charlotte, NC 830,000 MATA, Memphis, TN 820,000 HRT, Hampton, VA 810,000 HART, FL 800,000 790,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Service Area Population Linear (Peer Mean)
Passenger Trips
15,200 KCATA, Kansas City,… 15,000 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 14,800 PSTA, St.… 14,600 TARC, Louisville, KY Thousands 14,400 CATS, Charlotte, NC 14,200 MATA, Memphis, TN 14,000 HRT, Hampton, VA 13,800 HART, FL 13,600 0 20,000 40,000 13,400 Thousands 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Trips Linear (Peer Mean)
Passenger Miles
82,000 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 80,000 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 78,000 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL
Thousands TARC, Louisville, KY 76,000 CATS, Charlotte, NC 74,000 MATA, Memphis, TN 72,000 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL 70,000 0 100,000,000 200,000,000 68,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Miles Linear (Peer Mean)
Vehicle Miles
9,600 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 9,400 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 9,200 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 9,000
Thousands TARC, Louisville, KY 8,800 CATS, Charlotte, NC 8,600 MATA, Memphis, TN 8,400 HRT, Hampton, VA 8,200 HART, FL 8,000 7,800 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicle Miles Linear (Peer Mean) Revenue Miles
8,600 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 8,400 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 8,200 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 8,000 TARC, Louisville, KY Thousands 7,800 CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN 7,600 HRT, Hampton, VA 7,400 HART, FL 7,200 7,000 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Revenue Miles Linear (Peer Mean)
Vehicle Hours
750,000 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL 700,000 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 650,000 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC 600,000 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA 550,000 HART, FL 500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicle Hours Linear (Peer Mean)
Route Miles
KCATA, Kansas City, MO 1150 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 1100 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY 1050 CATS, Charlotte, NC 1000 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA 950 HART, FL 900 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Route Miles Linear (Peer Mean)
Total Operating Expense
$80,000,000 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL $60,000,000 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY $40,000,000 CATS, Charlotte, NC $20,000,000 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA $0 HART, FL 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 100,000,000 Total Operating Expense Total Operating Expense Linear (Peer Mean) Total Operating Expense (2011$) Total Employee FTEs
KCATA, Kansas City, MO 800 JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 600 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC 400 MATA, Memphis, TN 200 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Employee FTEs Linear (Peer Mean)
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
230 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 220 TARC, Louisville, KY 210 200 MATA, Memphis, TN 190 HART, FL 180 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 170 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Linear (Peer Mean)
Total Gallons Consumed
2,600 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL 2,500 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 2,400 TARC, Louisville, KY Thousands 2,300 CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN 2,200 HRT, Hampton, VA 2,100 HART, FL 2,000 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Gallons Consumed Linear (Peer Mean) Vehicle Miles per Capita
10.8 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL 10.6 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 10.4 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC 10.2 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA 10.0 HART, FL 9.8 0 5 10 15 20 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicle Miles Per Capita Linear (Peer Mean)
Passenger Trips per Capita
18.5 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 18.0 JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 17.5 TARC, Louisville, KY 17.0 CATS, Charlotte, NC 16.5 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA 16.0 HART, FL 15.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 15.0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Trips Per Capita Linear (Peer Mean)
Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile
2.00 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL 1.90 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY 1.80 CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN 1.70 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL 1.60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.50 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Linear (Peer Mean) Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour
25 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL 24 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 23 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC 22 MATA, Memphis, TN 21 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 19 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour Linear (Peer Mean) Revenue Miles Between Failures
KCATA, Kansas City, MO 5,000 JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 4,000 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC 3,000 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA 2,000 HART, FL 1,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
0 Revenue Miles Between Failures 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Linear (Peer Mean) Operating Expense per Capita
$80 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL $75 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL TARC, Louisville, KY $70 CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA $65 HART, FL
$60 $0 $50 $100 $150 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating Expense Per Capita Linear (Peer Mean) Operating Expense per Passenger Trip
$4.80 KCATA, Kansas City,… JTA, Jacksonville, FL $4.60 PSTA, St.… $4.40 TARC, Louisville, KY $4.20 CATS, Charlotte, NC $4.00 MATA, Memphis, TN HRT, Hampton, VA $3.80 HART, FL $3.60 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $3.40 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Linear (Peer Mean) Operating Expense per Passenger Mile
KCATA, Kansas City, MO $1.00 JTA, Jacksonville, FL PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL $0.80 TARC, Louisville, KY $0.60 CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN $0.40 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL $0.20 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $0.00 Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Linear (Peer Mean) Operating Expense per Revenue Mile
$8.40 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL $8.20 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL $8.00 TARC, Louisville, KY $7.80 CATS, Charlotte, NC $7.60 MATA, Memphis, TN $7.40 HRT, Hampton, VA $7.20 HART, FL $7.00 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $6.80 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Linear (Peer Mean) Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
$106 KCATA, Kansas City, MO $104 JTA, Jacksonville, FL $102 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL $100 TARC, Louisville, KY $98 CATS, Charlotte, NC $96 MATA, Memphis, TN $94 HRT, Hampton, VA $92 HART, FL $90 $0 $50 $100 $150 $88 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Linear (Peer Mean) Farebox Recovery (%)
26 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 25 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 24 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 23 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC 22 MATA, Memphis, TN 21 HRT, Hampton, VA 20 HART, FL 19 0102030 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Farebox Recovery (%) Linear (Peer Mean)
Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile
0.90 KCATA, Kansas City,… 0.89 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 0.89 PSTA, St.… 0.89 TARC, Louisville, KY 0.89 CATS, Charlotte, NC 0.89 0.88 MATA, Memphis, TN 0.88 HRT, Hampton, VA 0.88 HART, FL 0.88 0.88 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Linear (Peer Mean) Revenue Miles per Total Vehicles
KCATA, Kansas City,… 50,000 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 40,000 PSTA, St.… TARC, Louisville, KY 30,000 CATS, Charlotte, NC MATA, Memphis, TN 20,000 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL 10,000 0204060 0 Revenue Miles Per Total Thousands 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicles Linear (Peer Mean) Vehicle Miles per Gallon
3.90 KCATA, Kansas City, MO 3.85 JTA, Jacksonville, FL 3.80 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL 3.75 TARC, Louisville, KY 3.70 CATS, Charlotte, NC 3.65 MATA, Memphis, TN 3.60 HRT, Hampton, VA 3.55 HART, FL 3.50 0123456 3.45 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicle Miles Per Gallon Linear (Peer Mean)
Average Fare
$1.20 KCATA, Kansas City, MO JTA, Jacksonville, FL $1.00 PSTA, St. Petersburg, FL $0.80 TARC, Louisville, KY CATS, Charlotte, NC $0.60 MATA, Memphis, TN $0.40 HRT, Hampton, VA HART, FL $0.20 $0.0 $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 $1.2 $0.00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Fare Linear (Peer Mean)
Appendix E: Public Outreach Summaries and Material
HART | TDP E-2 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 1201 East 7th Avenue Tampa, FL 33605
Public Involvement Plan For the Major Update of the 2018-2027 Transit Development Plan February 2017
prepared by: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
2. HART OVERVIEW ...... 2
MISSION ...... 2
VISION ...... 2
GOALS ...... 2
3. TDP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ...... 4
TDP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES ...... 6
Public Involvement Activities ...... 6
Public Involvement Tools ...... 9
Information Distribution Methods ...... 10
4. TDP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCHEDULE ...... 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3‐1 TDP Public Involvement Activities ...... 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4‐1 TDP Public Involvement Schedule – 2017 (Tentative) ...... 11
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requires that all transit agencies receiving State Block Grant funding prepare a major Transit Development Plan (TDP) update every five years, with annual minor updates and monitoring in the interim years. This year’s HART FY2018–2027 TDP is a major update. The TDP is a 10‐year strategic guide for public transportation in the community and represents the HART’s vision for public transportation during the 10‐year time period. TDP regulations require that major TDP updates contain a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) to be consistent with the local Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Public Participation Plan (PPP). Rules adopted in 2007 require that HART documents its PIP to be used in TDP development. Applicable language from the 2007 rule states the following:
The TDP preparation process shall include opportunities for public involvement as outlined in a TDP public involvement plan, approved by the Department, or local Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Public Participation Plan, approved by both the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. – Rule 14‐73.001 F.A.C.
The following plan has been developed to describe how HART will involve the public and stakeholder groups in the development of this year’s TDP. The overall approach for developing the TDP is presented, followed by the specific efforts that will be undertaken to obtain public input.
Public involvement is an ongoing process that involves continuously receiving and accumulating feedback about service. This PIP has been developed to be used during the FY 2018–2027 TDP update process to formally document all planned public outreach activities.
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 2
2. HART OVERVIEW
The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) was created in October 1979 to plan, finance, acquire, construct, operate, and maintain mass transit facilities and supply transportation assistance in Hillsborough County. Today, HART is “Driven to Serve You” through convenient, affordable public transportation options tailored to contemporary lifestyles. More people than ever in Hillsborough County are discovering benefits of its sophisticated, yet accessible and rider‐friendly, network of transit options. HART is in transition to modernize its service and looking to go “Beyond the Bus.”
HART MISSION: Provide safe, innovative and cost effective public transportation services that enhance the quality of life in our community.
HART VISION: To make transit a relevant and viable travel option for residents within the HART service area.
HART GOALS:
1. Exceed Customer Expectations. 2. Ensure Safety and Security. 3. Maximize Financial Condition. 4. Foster a Thriving Internal Environment. 5. Connect the County and Region. 6. Embrace Innovative Practices and Systems.
HART serves an area of approximately 1,000 square miles (roughly the size of Rhode Island) with a fleet of almost 200 buses. It is currently transforming its fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), which is American‐sourced, less expensive, cleaner, and safer than diesel‐fueled vehicles. HART plans to take transit “Beyond the Bus” and is delivering high‐tech transit today and laying the foundation for tomorrow’s regional transportation network.
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 3
HART Services
• Local fixed‐route and express bus services • MetroRapid North–South • Hyper‐Link • TECO Line Streetcar System • In‐Towner • HARTFlex service in Brandon, Northdale, South County, South Tampa, Town 'N Country • Vanpool and guaranteed ride home services (TBARTA) • Wheelchair accessibility on all buses and vans • Bicycle accessibility on all buses and HARTFlex vans • HARTPlus paratransit service • Travel planning assistance and updated scheduled arrival times, bus stop locations, and service updates for smartphones • Travel training 3. TDP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
The public involvement process for the development of the TDP seeks HART user and non‐user public input on transit needs, priorities, and implementation strategies to enhance public transportation in Hillsborough County and the region. As part of an effort to use the TDP process to reinvent the way HART provides service, this outreach effort will ensure that a broad range of groups is consulted as part of the process, including passengers, major employers, human service providers, HART employees, and the general public. HART’s approach to this PIP consists of three phases:
• Phase 1 – The Project Team will review recent outreach efforts and evaluate their findings with respect to transit. This includes the outreach conducted as part of Hillsborough County's "Go Hillsborough" Community Transportation Plan development, the travel survey being conducted by the Hillsborough MPO, the 2014 HART on‐board survey and four waves of HART “Voice of the Customer” surveys. Also, past studies which
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 4
were part of the FDOT‐funded Regional Premium Transit Feasibility Plan will be reviewed and incorporated in this effort, along with the results of the FDOT‐funded streetcar study being conducted and the public input associated with that effort. • Phase 2 – During this phase, the Project Team will conduct outreach to the community to seek public input on transit needs, including service and capital/infrastructure needs for the next 10‐years. The Project Team will be conducting informal discussion group workshops, general public workshops, online surveys, major employer interviews/employee surveys as well as stakeholder interviews as part of this phase of the outreach effort. • Phase 3 – Following extensive evaluation of the input received and development of recommendations, additional outreach will occur to seek public input on the recommendations, including service and priorities and implementation strategies to enhance public transportation in Hillsborough County.
A variety of public involvement techniques were selected for inclusion in the PIP to ensure the active participation of citizens in the community. Table 3‐1 presents the types of public involvement activities that will be completed for the TDP and the tools associated with each type of activity. These public involvement activities and tools are consistent with the Hillsborough MPO PPP.
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 5
Table 3‐1 HART TDP Public Involvement Activities
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 6
TDP Public Involvement Techniques
The public involvement techniques to be used for the HART TDP update have been placed into two major categories: public involvement activities and public involvement tools.
Public involvement activities refer to events that engage the public in “hands‐on” workshops and/or discussions about the project. Public involvement tools refer to public information materials that are used to inform the general public of issues regarding the project.
Public Involvement Activities
Public involvement activities for the HART TDP are described below.
• Review Findings from Go Hillsborough Initiative and other Associated Study Efforts – The significant outreach efforts employed throughout the “Go Hillsborough” initiative will be reviewed by the Project Team to determine the values, themes, and vision of transit in the Tampa Hillsborough area. The Project Team will also review the travel survey being conducted by the Hillsborough MPO, the 2014 HART on‐board survey and four waves of the HART “Voice of the Customer” surveys. Other studies to be reviewed will be the FDOT‐funded Regional Premium Transit Feasibility Plan along with the results of the FDOT‐funded streetcar study being conducted and the public input associated with that effort.
• Employer/Employee Outreach – Obtaining feedback and input on public transportation options available to local employers and their employees is a key component of this public involvement effort. In total, 12 major employers will be identified and engaged through interviews and an employee survey to better understand their commuting habits and their use of transit. The Project Team will also include HART as an employer ensuring that HART employees will be surveyed about their commuting habits and use of transit.
• Public Workshops – Public workshops are an effective technique for obtaining substantive public participation in the planning process. A total of five major public workshops, supplemented by HART conducted public outreach throughout the service area will be conducted to obtain input from the general public during the TDP update process; three major public workshops will be held early in the process to collect input
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 7
on needs and two will be held later in the project to collect input on potential alternative improvements and recommendations. To maximize opportunities for citizen participation, locations will be selected to ensure geographic coverage and, to the extent possible, piggyback on other community events. Hours and locations will be chosen with the recognition of the challenges of riders’ daily schedules. The workshops will support participation of those with children, if needed, and those who otherwise have problems accessing public meetings. All workshops will be advertised and promoted through the HART website and social media platforms along with legal advertisements in local newspapers. Presentation materials and handouts will be developed in both English and Spanish, as needed. The media will be notified through press releases. The Project Team may also choose to stream the workshops through Facebook Live to draw more interest and input.
• Review Recent On‐Board Survey Findings – A system‐wide on‐board survey of fixed‐ route bus patrons was conducted in a previous effort to capture demographic, travel behavior, and rider satisfaction data from HART fixed‐route bus riders. The results will be reviewed and incorporated to focus on relevant transit needs and issues such as modifying bus schedules, locating bus stops, modifying the fare structure, planning for future service, focusing on marketing campaigns, and identifying historical trends in rider satisfaction. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish. The results from HART’s “Voice of the Customer” survey (four waves) will also be reviewed and incorporated into this effort.
• Stakeholder Interviews – The Project Team will conduct interviews of 24 key stakeholders as part of the PIP. The Project Team will work with HART staff to identify appropriate individuals to interview and will then schedule and conduct the interviews using an interview script that will be developed and submitted to HART staff for review prior to the first interview.
• Bus Operator/Supervisor Interviews – HART’s bus operators and supervisors drive the streets of Tampa and Hillsborough County every day and observe riders regularly; as a
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 8
result, they can provide valuable insight into what the riders need and want. The Project Team will interview HART bus operators and supervisors to obtain their insights into what changes and improvements can be made to the system.
• Discussion Group Workshops – Four informal discussion groups will be held to identify and assess perceptions of transit and opportunities for the transit agency. Discussion groups are an excellent tool for revealing the attitudes of a particular group because of the open‐ ended nature of group discussions. These workshops typically involve a smaller group of participants (8–12 persons) in an intimate meeting setting that permits more in‐depth discussion about issues and needs. Workshops will include participants/representatives from the following four groups.
o HART Riders – Participants may include riders of fixed route, flex, paratransit, HyperLINK, streetcar services o Community Groups – Participants may include representatives from social service agencies, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and faith‐based organizations/communities o Transportation/Land Use Groups – Participants may include representatives from Bike/Walk programs, County/City/planning agency staff, and Sierra Club o Business and Neighborhood Leaders – Participants may include leaders from area chambers of commerce, Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs), and Homeowner Associations (HOAs)
These discussion group workshops will be scheduled prior to the public workshops to help generate buy‐in from community leaders and promote participation at the public workshops.
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 9
Review Team Meetings – A Technical Review Team (TRT) comprising the Project Team and HART staff (and other agencies/staffs as necessary) will be established at the outset of the project to monitor and provide input throughout the study and to evaluate deliverables. Project deliverables will be distributed to the TRT for review and comment. Most of the communication with the review team will be via e‐mail and telephone; however, in addition to the kickoff meeting, additional meetings will be held as needed during the update effort.
Public Involvement Tools
A variety of public involvement tools will be developed and distributed throughout the TDP process to facilitate the communication to all audiences.
• Surveys – Public input surveys will be conducted to collect input on the primary transit needs in the region and suggested service improvements. Links to the survey will be posted on the HART website and will be included in HART’s electronic newsletters and on its social media platforms. It also will be available as a tablet survey at public workshops in addition to hard copy surveys. Another survey will be developed specifically for use with employees at major employers in the area to determine their commuting habits and use of transit.
• Handouts/Flyers – Informational materials for public outreach activities and public workshops will be developed, including handouts/flyers, maps, tables, and graphics. Materials will encourage observers to visit HART’s website and social media pages for more information and participation in the project survey.
• Legal Advertisements – All public meetings will be advertised through legal ads in local newspapers as needed.
• Electronic Newsletters – HART produces an electronic newsletter that pushes out information on public meetings to those who subscribe.
• Project Presentations – As part of the public outreach process, a user‐friendly, graphical presentation will be incrementally developed to support the communication and
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 10
adoption of the TDP. The presentation also will be available for use by HART staff beyond the adoption of the TDP.
• Presentation Boards – The Project Team will develop presentation boards for use at public workshops and discussion group workshops for the project. These exhibits will consist of service area maps and other pertinent information. Materials will encourage observers to visit HART’s website and social media pages for more information and participation in the project survey.
• Remix Software – Remix is a software program that helps plan great transit. It help design routes and immediately calculate the cost and demographic impact of a proposed change. This interactive tool will be used within the public workshops as applicable to spur dynamic, meaningful discussions of proposed service changes.
• Media Relations – The Project Team will develop a list of media contacts related to this effort. As project milestones are accomplished and public outreach events are scheduled, the Project Team will work with HART’s public relations team to distribute press releases to this list. The list will include community‐based, local, and regional media as well as county public information offices and government access channels. Press releases will be provided to HART staff for review and release to the media.
Information Distribution Methods
• Social Media – Social networking opportunities for the project will be provided using Facebook and Twitter. Regular Facebook and Twitter updates (twice a month at a minimum) along with an on‐line survey will be used to increase public participation. Social media links will be integrated into the MPO and HART websites. The Project Team plans to stream public workshops through Facebook Live to draw more interest and input.
• HART Website – Summary information updates along with an on‐line survey will be placed on the HART website. Items on the website will include meeting notices, comment forms, and technical information on study findings and recommendations.
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 11
• Notification of General Public – The general public will be notified about public meetings through legal advertisements, the HART and MPO websites, flyers, and social media.
• Notification of State and Local Agencies – The MPO and FDOT will be advised of all public meetings via email. In addition, project deliverables will be submitted to both to solicit feedback and comments.
• Reports and Information for HART Website – Technical reports, community workshop and meeting schedules, surveys, and other appropriate items will be provided to HART staff for posting on the HART website. 4. TDP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCHEDULE
A tentative project schedule has been developed for the public involvement portions of the HART TDP Major Update, as shown in Figure 4‐1. Dates for specific meetings and public involvement activities are approximate and subject to change pending guidance from HART staff.
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan 12
Figure 4‐1 TDP Public Involvement Schedule – 2016/2017 (Tentative)
February 2017 HART TDP Major Update Public Involvement Plan Your opinion is critical in designing transit service as HART plans for the next 10 years.
HART is conducting a major update of our Transit Development Plan (TDP) that focuses on modernizing the bus network and identifying innovative, cost-effective solutions that are Beyond the Bus.
We need your input! As part of this effort, HART wants to hear from you about your commuting habits, and what changes and improvements you would like to see in HART services.
Please join us at any of the following upcoming workshops:
Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. MacFarlane Park- David Barksdale Senior Citizen Center 1801 N Lincoln Ave, Tampa, FL 33606
Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Brandon Regional Library- Room 1 619 Vonderburg Drive, Brandon, FL 33511
Thursday, March 30, 2017 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Town N Country Library- Community Room B 7606 Paula Drive #120, Tampa, FL 33615
You can also visit goHART.org/TDP for more information on this important plan being developed by HART.
If you are unable to attend one of the workshops, written comments will be accepted through April 15th and may be sent to: HART ATTN: Justin Begley TDP Project Manager 1201 East 7th Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Tel: (813) 384-6553 FAX: (813) 384-6294 [email protected]
Special Accommodations: Any person requiring special accommodations to attend or participate, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, should contact HART within at least three (3) business days prior to the meeting at (813) 384-6553. Su opinión es muy importante en el diseño del servicio de tránsito, que HART planifica para los próximos 10 años.
HART está llevando a cabo una significante actualización de nuestro Transit Development Plan TDP (Plan de Desarrollo de Tránsito) que se centra en la modernización de la red de autobuses y la identificación de soluciones innovadoras y económicamente effectivas que son Beyond the Bus (Más Allá del Autobús).
¡Necesitamos su opinión! Como parte de este esfuerzo, HART quiere saber de usted acerca de sus hábitos de desplazamiento, y qué cambios y mejoras le gustaría ver en los servicios de HART.
Por favor, únase a nosotros en cualquiera de los siguientes talleres:
Martes, 28 de marzo de 2017 De 4 p.m. a 6 p.m. MacFarlane Park- David Barksdale Senior Citizen Center 1801 N Lincoln Ave, Tampa, FL 33606
Miércoles, 29 de marzo de 2017 De 4 p.m. a 6 p.m. Brandon Regional Library- Room 1 619 Vonderburg Drive, Brandon, FL 33511
Jueves, 30 de marzo de 2017 De 4 p.m. a 6 p.m. Town N Country Library- Community Room B 7606 Paula Drive #120, Tampa, FL 33615
También puede visitar goHART.org/TDP para obtener más información sobre este importante plan que está siendo desarrollando por HART.
Si no puede asistir a uno de los talleres, comentarios serán aceptados por escrito hasta el 15 de abril y se pueden enviar a: HART Atención: Justin Begley TDP Gerente del Proyecto 1201 East 7th Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Tel: (813) 384-6553 FAX: (813) 384-6294 [email protected]
Alojamientos Especiales: Cualquier persona que requiera acomodaciones especiales para asistir o participar, de acuerdo con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades, debe comunicarse con HART por lo menos tres (3) días laborables antes de la reunión a (813) 384-6553. Transit Survey 1. Have you used HART transit services? O Yes O No
2. How important are HART transit services to you? O It must be provided O It is not needed O It does not matter to me O It might be useful O Not sure it is useful
3. Do you think there is a need for additional/improved transit services in Hillsborough County? O Yes O No O I don’t know
4. If you answered Yes to Question 3, what type of service would you most like to see? (Please rank order your selections.) More frequent bus service Premium transit (high capacity, faster service such as Bus Rapid Transit/rail) More weekend service More early/later service More HART Flex (Van circulating in small area connecting to a regular bus) More HART HyperLINK (Uber-like ridesharing service to take you to a bus stop? More coverage area added?
5. If you answered Yes to Question 3, what benefits do you believe could occur as a result of additional transit service in Hillsborough County and adjacent areas? Please select THREE. More access to jobs More travel options Less need for parking Less traffic on area roads/freeways Saves energy, gasoline Increases mobility for people without cars Improves quality of the air we breathe Improves local economy I don’t believe any benefits would occur Other (please describe)
6. If traffic congestion is a problem in Hillsborough County, what role do you see transit playing in alleviating the situation? O It will relieve congestion O It may provide some help O It has no effect O It may create some additional traffic issues O It will make congestion worse O Traffic congestion is not a problem Transit Survey (continued)
7. Would you like HART to reduce bus coverage in sparsely populated/low ridership areas in order to have fast, frequent, and reliable bus service in densely populated/high ridership areas? (Services may still be available in sparsely populated/low ridership areas with HyperLINK to bring you to the faster & frequent bus network.) O Yes O No O Not sure
8. What would make transit more appealing for you to use it more? (Please rank order your selections). Once on the bus, the trip takes 30 minutes instead of 60 minutes. The bus comes every 10-15 minutes instead of every 30 minutes The fare is reduced to $1.50 instead of $2.00 If the route allows you to reach your destination without a transfer Instead of paying in cash, you have the option to pay with a tap-and-go fare card
9. If you have ever used a ridesharing app like Uber or Lyft, would you be willing to pay a $3 flat fee for a similar ride from your home/work to a bus stop? O Yes O Yes, If it is a bit cheaper than that O No, that is expensive O No, I would rather walk or bike to the bus stop
10. If you currently use or plan to use HART services, how do you prefer to get the information to plan your trip? (Click all that apply.) HART website HART App: OneBusAway Social media (Facebook/Twitter) Google Transit maps Bus stop sign Library
11. Rate your agreement with the following statements (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree): Neither Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Public transportation is an important part of solving our local and regional O O O O O transportation problems.
Public transit really improves the quality of O O O O O life in the area.
Public transit is only for those without access to O O O O O an automobile.
An effective public transportation system is important for the local O O O O O economy.
12. Which of the following (up to THREE) motivates you the most to consider commute alternatives like transit? I get tax benefits for using transit I get free/discounted bus passes from my employer I can avoid traffic jams at peak commute hours Having a network of park-and-ride lots to park my car and catch the bus Having a Uber-like ridesharing system to go first and last mile of my trip Transit Survey (continued)
13. Pick THREE LOCAL areas you think current service frequency should be improved (so you see more buses every hour) to attract potential riders like you. Westchase Northdale Seffner Plant City Ruskin New Tampa South Tampa Brandon Town ‘N Country
14. Pick ONE REGIONAL area you think current service frequency should be improved to attract potential riders like you. O Wesley Chapel O Lutz/Land O Lakes O Clearwater O St. Petersburg O Oldsmar O Other (please specify)
15. Your age is... O 17 years or under O 18 to 24 years O 25 to 40 years O 41 to 60 years O Over 60 years
16. What is the zip code of your... Residence Work (if applicable)
17. What is the range of your total household income for 2016? O Less than $20,000 O $20,000 - $29,999 O $30,000 - $39,999 O $40,000 - $49,999 O $50,000 - $74,999 O $75,000 or greater
18. Please provide your email address so we can add you to TDP project update mailing list. Email Address
Employer Questionnaire Response Summary MacDill AFB How many employees do you have and what percent of them are full-time (including any multiple facilities and/or satellite locations)? MacDill AFB has approximately 18,000 employees, almost all of whom are employed full-time. The employees work at 200+ buildings on the base. Do you also have your clients/customers visiting your facility on daily basis? If so, how many per day on average? The medical clinic averages 700 patients per day, and the pharmacy averages filling 1,000 prescriptions per day. On average, about 300 visitors per day are processed through the Visitor's Center at MacDill AFB by the Security Forces Squadron. Do you perceive transportation to be a challenge for your company to hire and retain employees? If yes, what are a few of the reasons why you feel this challenge exists? Transportation factors into overall quality of life and affects every person commuting to MacDill AFB. The majority of quality and reasonably-priced housing is located many miles away from MacDill AFB, on average. This great distance from home to work places high transportation costs on our commuters in the form of fuel and tolls. How do you view public transit services provided by HART in Hillsborough County and the region? Public transit services provided by HART and Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) should provide a necessary and cost-effective alternative to the single-occupant vehicle. Higher use of public transit to the AFB would result in lower waiting times at the gates, which is a security issue more than an inconvenience. What do you know about HART services/connections to your company location? HART runs local route service in South Tampa and express route service in Eastern Hillsborough County, as well as paratransit service for customers requiring that service that connect to the AFB. Route 4 circulates through the administrative core of the base. Route 36 runs onto the base and connects with Route 4. Routes 24X and 25LX provide express service directly from eastern Hillsborough County to MacDill AFB. If HART currently does not provide service to your location, would you like HART to consider future bus route connections and bus stops near your company location? We would always be interested in additional transit connections to the AFB, and any expansion of routes on the base itself would be welcomed to improve access to worksites. We are interested in how HART plans to connect to the potential water ferry that is proposed to run from eastern Hillsborough County to MacDill AFB. We believe that HART would need to add routes in the East and South County areas to bring riders to the water ferry landing location. We are also interested in HART providing “last mile” connections from the water ferry landing at MacDill AFB to work locations on the AFB.
HART | TDP E-13
How much interest do you think your employees have in using alternative modes of travel, such as public transit, biking, carpool/rideshare/ride-hail? There is great interest in alternative modes of travel for our commuters. Many of our workers are familiar with commuting alternatives since many have worked in other cities in the US and around the world. Have you asked your employees about their commuting habits in the past (e.g., any employee survey related to commuting habits)? We have never conducted any efforts as extensive as the Survey Monkey survey used for HART’s TDP. There have been smaller surveys conducted over the years about interest in a water ferry service. Have you conducted any programs (Dump the Pump, etc.) for your employees to encourage them to use alternative modes of travel, such as public transit? No, not to our knowledge. What are the regular work hours/most common work shifts for your employees?
The typical work hours are 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM. However, many of the work sites offer flex schedules, some starting as early as 6:00 AM. There are some positions that are filled 24 hours per day, including airfield maintenance and operations. Do you consider the amount of available on-site parking to be enough or not enough? There are areas on the base where commute parking is at a premium, and this demand is expected to increase as the mission of the AFB expands. Areas along the Hangar Loop and around the Combatant Commands are locations we currently consider to be parking-deficient. Is providing adequate employee parking a problem at this time or as you plan your growth? If so, have you thought about employees using public transit to commute as one of the solutions to reduce the need for parking as they do in other cities? Providing parking convenient to high-intensity work locations has been planned, but it is currently unfunded. Public transit is recognized by the base as being a key solution to reduce parking demand in the near term. Have you worked with the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) Commuter Services program? (TBARTA assist commuters and businesses in the region with services to cut costs associated with commuting to and from work.) MacDill AFB is TBARTA’s largest vanpool customer in the region, and we look forward to expanding the program further. Does your organization provide commuter benefits to your employees? If yes, would you be willing to share any participation data? There is a transit voucher program that is managed locally by the 6th Comptroller Squadron and covers only active duty military workers. If your organization does not provide commuter benefits to your employees, are you interested in exploring/establishing such benefit programs?
HART | TDP E-14
We would be interested in expanding our program for personnel that are not covered by the current voucher program, such as contractors. However, we would need to determine if this kind of program can be run on the AFB and what the operating parameters might be. What could HART do better to meet the commuting needs of your employees? HART could have regular meetings with MacDill AFB representatives to discuss service improvements on the strategic and operational levels as well as to work together to better market transit services.
Employee Survey Summary MacDill AFB When asked if they think public transit is a reasonable alternative to driving a car, more than 92 percent of respondents agreed that public transit is a reasonable alternative to driving a car. Figure E-1: In general, do you think public transit is a reasonable alternative to driving a car?
No, 7.7%
Yes, 92.3% Specific to their commute, more than 69 percent of the participants agreed that public transit is a reasonable alternative to driving a car; more than 30 percent did not think that public transit was a reasonable option.
HART | TDP E-15
Figure E-2: Specific to your commute, do you think public transit is a reasonable alternative to driving a car?
No, 30.8%
Yes, 69.2%
More than 80 percent of respondents believed that public transit services must be provided and needs to be improved; 7.7 percent stated that it must be provided but current service is adequate, 7.7 percent did not have an opinion, and 3.8 percent were not sure if public transit was needed. Figure E-3: How do you view public transit services in Tampa/Hillsborough County?
I don't have an Not sure if we need public transit, 3.8% opinion, 7.7%
It must be provided and current services are adequate, 7.7%
It must be provided and needs to be improved, 80.8%
Of the forms of transportation options, almost all participants had a car available to them to drive to work (96.2%). More than 40 percent could use a park-and-ride to take the bus, and 30.8 percent could carpool or vanpool. Most respondents chose to drive a car to work (84.6%), more than 11 percent used the bus from home to work, and 3.8 percent drove to a park-and-ride and took the bus to work.
HART | TDP E-16
Figure E-4: Which of the following forms of transportation options are available to you to commute to work with?
Drive a car 96.2%
Drive to a park-and-ride and take a bus to work 42.3%
Carpooling/vanpooling 30.8%
Take a bus from home to work 26.9%
Bike to work 7.7%
Figure E-5: Which form of transportation option Do You Use Most Often to commute to work?
Drive to a park-and-ride and take a bus to work, 3.8%
Take a bus from home to work, 11.5%
Drive a car, 84.6%
Most participants commuted more than 20 miles or more to work (80.8%), 11.5 percent commuted 10– 20 miles, and 3.8 percent commuted 5–10 miles as well as 1–5 miles. Figure E-6: What is the distance you normally commute to work?
10 to 20 miles, 3.8% 5 to 10 miles, 3.8%
1 mile to 5 miles, 11.5%
Less than 1 mile, 80.8%
Participants were split on having a flexible work schedule, the requirement to work overtime, and whether their position entailed irregular work hours.
HART | TDP E-17
Figure E-7: Work Schedule Characteristics.
13 14 13
13 11 12
Do you benefit from a Does your position require Does your position entail flexible work schedule? overtime? irregular work hours? Yes No
Arrival time to work varied between 6:00 and 9:00 AM. Figure E-8: Arrival Time at Work
24.0% 20.0% 20.0%
12.0% 8.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
6:00 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM
Participants left work ranging from 2:30 to 8:00 PM. Figure E-9: Departure Time from Work
28.0% 24.0%
16.0%
8.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 8:00 PM
The average length of time it took to commute to and from work was 41–60 minutes for almost half of respondents (46.2%); 23.1 percent of participants took 31–40 minutes to get home from work; 19.2 percent took more than 60 minutes to commute to and from work.
HART | TDP E-18
Figure E-10: Please select the average length of time it takes to commute to and from work.
41 - 60 minutes, 3.8% 31 - 40 minutes, 7.7%
21 - 30 minutes, 19.2% 0 - 10 minutes, 46.2%
11 - 20 minutes, 23.1%
A large percentage of participants did not make any stops along their commute (69.2%), but some did personal errands (19.2%) and dropped off or picked up children (3.8%) and other errands (7.7%) Figure E-11: Do you make regular stops along your commute to work?
Yes - other, Yes - drop off/pick up children, 3.8% 7.7% Yes - personal errands, 19.2%
I do not, none, 69.2%
Parking was either easy (50%) or very easy (34.6%) for most respondents. Parking was free or employer-paid fees for all respondents. In a typical week, participants spent an average of $36 on fuel for their car, costing $10–$80 per week. Most responded that they were neutral (38.5%) or dissatisfied (34.6%) with their overall satisfaction level with their commute for work. Only 3.8% of participants were very satisfied with their commute.
HART | TDP E-19
Figure E-12: How difficult is it to find a parking spot at your work location?
Difficult, 3.8% Very difficult,… Neutral, 7.7%
Very easy, 50.0%
Easy, 34.6%
Figure E-13: On an average day, how much does it typically cost to park at work?
Free or my employer pays any fees, 100.0%
Figure E-14: Please select the response below that best describes your overall satisfaction level with your commute for work.
Dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied, 3.8% 7.7%
Very satisfied, Neutral, 15.4% 38.5%
Satisfied, 34.6% Traffic, at nearly 81 percent, was by far the greatest challenge or issue that respondents had to face with their current commute. Commute time or distance ranked second, at nearly 54 percent and tied at
HART | TDP E-20
third, at 38.5 percent were the cost of gas/ car ownership/ maintenance and their home not being located along a bus route. Figure E-15: What would you consider the greatest challenges or issues with your current commute?
Traffic 80.8% Commute time or distance takes too long 53.8% My home is not located along a bus route 38.5% The cost of gas, car ownership and maintenance is very high 38.5% Other 23.1% Park-and-ride lot is located to far to park and ride a bus 19.2% Transit service does not come often enough or at the… 15.4% Walking distance to bus stops is too far 11.5% The bus fares are to high 0.0%
Only a couple of participants had to turn down or change jobs because transportation to and from work was too difficult (7.7%). Figure E-16: Have you ever had to turn down or change jobs because transportation to and from work was too difficult?
Yes, 7.7%
No, 92.3%
Participant’s home ZIP codes varied greatly, with the most responses from the Brandon, Riverview, and Bloomingdale areas of Hillsborough County.
HART | TDP E-21
Figure E-17: Home ZIP Code, as provided by Respondents
21%
8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
33511 33547 33556 33578 33579 33596 33647 33545 33567 33607 33611 34614 34639 34654
Figure E-18: Home ZIP Code, as provided by MacDill AFB
24%
14% 13% 11% 11% 10% 9% 9%
33621 33547 33616 33611 33578 33579 33596 33511
Several participants had used the regular/local HART service (72.7%), and a few had ridden the express services (36.4%). Figure E-19: Have you ever used any of the following HART services for your commute? Check all that apply.
Hyper-Link, 9.1% MetroRapid, 9.1%
Express Bus, Regular/Local 36.4% Bus, 72.7%
Of those who already used HART for full or part of their commute, 50 percent had been riding for less than one year.
HART | TDP E-22
Figure E-20: How long have you been using HART for your commute to work?
More than 5 years, 12.5%
3 years to 5 years, 12.5%
Less than one year, 50.0%
1 year to 3 years, 25.0%
For those who did not ride currently HART, factors influencing their decision to ride included an emergency way home ranked first, at 54.5 percent. Miscellaneous other factors (50%) included as a bus stop within 5 minutes of office, rail service to travel across Tampa Bay area and bridges, express bus from MacDill to the north (near Hwy 54 along Veterans Expressway), and establish a bus system from New Tampa /Wesley Chapel to South Tampa. Figure E-21: If you do not ride HART at this time, what factors would help change your mind?
A way to get home in case of an emergency/miss the last 55% bus
Other (please specify) 50%
Free bus pass from my employer 41%
Learning more about park-and-ride locations near my 32% home Learning more about what options are available and 27% feasible
Of the suggested “Other” improvements that could encourage their use of HART services, more park- and-ride opportunities scored the highest, at 60 percent. More frequent buses (bus every 10–20 minutes) was also very important (45%).
HART | TDP E-23
Figure E-22: What types of improvements could encourage you to use HART services as an option to get to and/or from work?
More park-and-ride opportunities 60.0%
More frequent buses (bus every 10 to 20 minutes) 45.0%
Programs that help pay for bus passes 35.0%
More first-mile/last-mile travel options (Hyper… 30.0%
More bicycle storage at bus stops and on buses 10.0%
Most respondents did not have a bus stop within walking distance of where they lived (73.1%) Figure E-23: Is there a bus stop within walking distance of where you live?
Don't know, 11.5%
No, 15.4%
Yes, 73.1%
There was a bus stop within walking distance of their work place for more than 80 percent of respondents. Figure E-24: Is there a bus stop within walking distance of your work place?
Don't know, 7.7% No, 11.5%
Yes, 80.8%
For those who already used HART services, routes fit the travel needs of just over half of participants (53.8%).
HART | TDP E-24
Figure E-25: If you already use HART services, do the routes fit your travel needs?
Don't know, 23.1%
Yes, 53.8%
No, 23.1%
Routes could be more convenient if there was rail service to travel across Tampa Bay area and bridges, as well as shortened time from MacDill to their home bus stop and the route traveling by CDC and the legal office. Other areas that participants noted as underserved/not served and needing HART service included:
Bloomingdale area in Brandon, new Super Walmart MacDill AFB Plant City New Tampa Hwy 54/52 area along Veterans Expressway Valrico Riverview/Ruskin South County Respondent Demographics Half of participants were ages 35–54, more than 26 percent were 54–64, and 19.2 percent were 25– 34. Figure E-26: What is your age group?
54 to 64 35 to 54 years, 3.8% years, 19.2%
18 to 24 years, 50.0%
25 to 34 years, 26.9%
HART | TDP E-25
All respondents were employed full-time. Figure E-27: What best describes your employment status?
Employed - Full Time, 100.0%
More than half (57.7%) of respondents had been with their current company for more than 10 years, and more than 23 percent had been with their company 2–5 years. Figure E-28: What is your length of employment at your current company?
2 to 5 years, More than 10 years, 3.8% 3.8% 1 to 2 years, 11.5%
0 to 6 7 to 12 months, months, 57.7% 23.1%
More than 69 percent of participants made more than $25/hour at their job and 23 percent made $16– $25/hour.
HART | TDP E-26
Figure E-29: What is your approximate pay rate per hour?
Between $16.00 to $25.00, 7.7%
Between $8.10 to $15.00, 23.1%
Less than minimum wage ($8.10), 69.2%
Faculty/Staff and Student Survey Response Detail – USF The majority of survey respondents self-identified as staff or undergraduate students (34.9% and 32.1%, respectively), accounting for 67 percent of the total respondent pool. Figure E-30 summarizes the current status of all survey respondents. Figure E-30: Which of the following categories best describes your current status at the USF Tampa campus?
Staff 34.9%
Undergraduate Student 32.1%
Graduate Student 15.1%
Faculty 13.8%
Other 2.7%
Non-Tampa 1.0%
When asked how far they lived away from campus, the majority of respondents reported living 1–5 miles from campus (26.9%); 26.5 percent lived 10–20 miles. In E-31, typical travel distances to campus are summarized.
HART | TDP E-27
Figure E-31: Travel Distance to Campus
Zero to 1 miles, 8.8% 1 to 5 miles, 26.9% 5 to 10 miles, 18.1%
More than 20 miles, 19.7% 10 to 20 miles, 26.5%
When respondents were asked about the typical time it takes them to travel to campus, a combined 51 percent reported that their trips are greater than 11 minutes but less than 30 minutes. In Figure E-32, the full picture of typical travel times to campus are summarized. Figure E-32: Travel Time to Campus
Greater than 1 31 to 40 minutes, hour, 4.4% 11 to 20 11.6% minutes, 27.7%
Zero to 10 minutes, 13.5%
41 to 60 21 to 30 minutes, minutes, 19.2% 23.5% In a more complete section that asked respondents about their typical travel modes, some questions directly related to transit use, including the HART system, the USF Bull Runner, and ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft. When respondents were asked if they ride HART local bus service or MetroRapid buses, the majority expressed that they do not use these HART services, but said they were familiar with them (84.3% overall). Among those that did use these services (5.3% overall), students were twice as likely compared to faculty/staff to have used them (7.6% and 3.4%, respectively). As shown in Figure E-33, students were also three times more likely than faculty/staff that were not aware of these services (15.9% and 5.1%, respectively).
HART | TDP E-28
Figure E-33: Do you ride HART or MetroRapid bus?
91.5% 84.3% 76.5%
15.9% 10.4% 7.6% 5.1% 5.3% 3.4%
No as I was unaware of HART No but I am aware of HART Yes I ride HART or MetroRapid
Total Faculty/Staff Students
The USF Bull Runner is a campus-focused circulator operated by USF and connects with the HART system in a variety of locations to provide a mobility option to, from, and around the USF campus. When respondents were asked if they use Bull Runner services, the majority of respondents expressed that they do not use these services, but said they were familiar with them (76.6% overall), a lower rate than respondents who use HART services. As shown in Figure E-34, among those that did use these services (21.5% overall), students were more likely as compared to faculty/staff to have used them (27.0% and 17.0%, respectively), higher rates than for HART services. Figure E-34: Do you ride USF Bull Runner?
81.3% 76.6% 71.3%
27.0% 21.5% 17.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7%
No as I was unaware of the Bull No but I am aware of Bull Runner Yes I ride the Bull Runner Runner Total Faculty/Staff Students
For respondents that had used USF Bull Runner services, the most commonly cited frequency of use was once to a few times per semester (34.7% overall), closely followed by 2+ times per week (28.8% overall), suggesting that the students, faculty, and staff that ride HART range from seldom to more regular riders. Figure E-35 summarizes the range of respondent utilization rates for USF Bull Runner services.
HART | TDP E-29
Figure E-35: How often do you ride USF Bull Runner?
37.1% 2 or more times per week 15.9% 28.8%
13.6% About once per week 6.4% 10.6%
15.9% About 2 to 3 times per month 19.1% 17.0%
7.3% About once per month 11.2% 8.9%
26.1% Once to a few times per semester 47.4% 34.7%
Students Faculty/Staff Total
Regarding the level of satisfaction for Bull Runner services, the majority of respondents noted that they are only somewhat satisfied with the service (40.9%), and many expressed that they are not at all satisfied with the service (23.4%). Figure E-36 summarizes the complete set of respondent satisfaction levels. Figure E-36: To what extent are you satisfied that the Bull Runner takes you where you need to go?
A small extent, 14.4%
To some extent, 40.9% Very great extent, 21.3%
Not at all, 23.4% Many respondents indicated that they would like to see services begin earlier in the morning on Fridays (around 7:00 AM) and end later at night on Fridays (around 12:00 midnight). They also indicated that they would prefer to see extended service hours on weekends.
HART | TDP E-30
When respondents were asked about their awareness of ride-hailing services, the majority expressed that they were aware of services such as Uber and Lyft but had not used them (73.6% overall); however, 23.7 percent did report to having used these services. Among the respondents, students were twice as likely to have used these services compared to faculty/staff (31.9% and 15.9%, respectively). When asked about the frequency with which they use ride-hailing services, students and faculty/staff most commonly expressed that they use the services only once to a few times per semester (44.7% overall). As shown in Figure E-37, among the more frequent users of ride-hailing services, students noted using ride-hailing services 2–3 times more often than faculty/staff. Figure E-37: How often do you use a ride-hailing service?
6.4% 2 or more times per week 1.3% 4.8%
13.8% About once per week 6.9% 11.3%
23.6% About 2 to 3 times per month 16.7% 20.9%
16.2% About once per month 20.6% 18.2%
40.0% Once to a few times per semester 54.5% 44.7%
Students Faculty/Staff Total
Respondent Demographics The majority of respondents across all respondent groups identified as female (65.9%) of white ethnicity (54.7%). Figure E-38: What is your gender?
Male, 34.1%
Female, 65.9%
HART | TDP E-31
Figure E-39: What is your race/ethnicity?
Black or African American, Middle Eastern, American Indian, 0.7 7.1 1.2
Asian, 7.4
Hispanic or Latino,… White, 54.7
Other, 17.3
HART | TDP E-32
Appendix F: Relevant Land Use Policy Review
HART | TDP F-1
Land Use Policy Review Hillsborough County Vision The vision for Hillsborough County is a vibrant, diverse, bustling metropolitan area that is the center of an interconnected Tampa Bay Region (Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan). As part of that vision, Hillsborough County’s community offers choices for its residents, businesses, and visitors, including: Urban, suburban, or rural areas with the ability to live, work, and play in the same neighborhood Safe, reliable, and connected transportation systems including walking, biking, driving, rapid transit, and goods movement A vibrant, diverse, bustling metropolitan area that is the center of the interconnected Tampa Bay region. Comprehensive Planning in Hillsborough County Comprehensive planning is a process that determines goals and aspirations in terms of a community’s development. One of the outcomes of comprehensive planning is the Comprehensive Plan, which is designed to shape a community’s future for generations to come and provide a planning framework to get there. The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, with multi-jurisdictional support, simultaneously updated the Comprehensive Plans of the three municipalities in Hillsborough County, in coordination with the update of the Hillsborough County MPO 2040 LRTP (Imagine 2040). One new element of this collaborative effort is the countywide vision map that generally illustrates the course and anticipated growth of Hillsborough County and its jurisdictions. Countywide Vision The Vision Map, shown in Figure F-1, is a composite of accumulated data that graphically depicts a general plan for guiding future growth. The vision map is not regulatory but rather illustrative in its intent. It is the blueprint used for mapping out the course for future growth using an “at a glance” perspective. It illustrates the established and transitional areas that reflect growth potential for jobs and population, areas proposed for inclusion into the Urban Service Area, and lands being considered for future annexation into Plant City or Temple Terrace, including proposed options for future major capacity projects and transit improvements. Areas of Opportunity During the plan development process, the Planning Commission received feedback on how participating community members would like to see the community grow and develop over the next 25 years. These “areas of opportunity” are depicted on the Vision Map. They indicate where citizens and planners believe additional growth and higher density should occur and where neighborhoods should remain unchanged and stable. For example, Downtown/Level 6 calls for a high variety of rapid transit modes to be available 24 hours per day, High Intensity Urban/Level 5 calls for a variety of transit modes to be available, and Urban/Level 4 calls for transit to be available within walking distance. The other levels (High Suburban/Level 3 and Suburban/Level 2) call for the availability of limited transit.
HART | TDP F-2
Figure F-1: Hillsborough County Vision Map (Draft)
Source: Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan, 2016 Local Comprehensive Plans City of Plant City Although it has rural origins, Plant City has grown significantly over the last 10 years, transitioning from a small town to a mid-size city in eastern Hillsborough County. The municipality’s population is expected to nearly double to more than 71,000 over the next 25 years (Imagine 2040: Plant City Comprehensive Plan). City of Tampa Tampa is the third largest city in the state by population as well as the center of a metropolitan area of the Tampa Bay Region and is the region’s economic engine and a magnet for work, education, entertainment, and living. With more than 350,000 people, Tampa is projected to have a 35% increase in population over the next 25 years. The city contains the county’s three major employment centers: Downtown Tampa, Westshore Business District, and USF area. City Planning Strategy In keeping with the vision for a more livable city, future growth in Tampa will be steered to areas and locations that are well-served by transit or the existing road network. Generally speaking, growth areas are locations in which good transit access can be provided along bus and future rail transit routes as
HART | TDP F-3
well as future transit stations. The four growth area categories envisioned in the Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan include employment centers, urban villages, mixed-use corridors and centers, and transit station areas. Figure F-2 depicts the growth areas in the City of Tampa Vision map. The Tampa Comprehensive Plan contains various transit-supportive policies and allows for the flexibility and creativity needed to lead to successful TOD in and around future fixed guideway transit stations. Table F-3 provides details on the policy for future transit envelopes and transit stations area planning in Tampa.
HART | TDP F-4
Figure F-2: City of Tampa Vision Map
HART | TDP F-5
Table F-3: Future Transit Envelope and Transit Stations Area Planning
LU Goal 7: Develop a transit system that supports our continued economic success, enhances livability, and promotes reductions in greenhouse gases through the use of alternative transportation modes. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies within LU Goal 7 serve as the planning framework for the processes that will occur once station area locations have been determined. These Goals, Objectives, and Policies accomplish the following: Create the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay (TOD Overlay), linked to the Future Transit Envelope. Establish the process for the application of the TOD Overlay, which is intended to increase opportunities for development within the TOD Overlay area. Establish a consistent methodology, utilizing form-based and transit-based development initiatives to assist in the development of priority Station Area Plans, for the purpose of developing transit- oriented development regulations. The general steps of this process are listed in chronological order: Step 1: Designation of the Area of Influence for the TOD Overlay at the time a station location is determined by the transit agency o Initial designation includes all areas within a 0.5-mile radius of the station platform, called the Area of Influence. o This area is to be studied and enables interim zoning options for those properties within the area of influence in accordance with the process described in the second step. Step 2: Set thresholds (density, intensity, and range of use) allowed by Transit Station Area Typologies (Figure F-3), as an overlay to the Future Land Use Matrix. o In accordance with Land Use Goal 7’s objectives and policies in the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. Step 3: Determination, approval, and adoption of specific Station Area Plan Boundaries and typologies for each station by Tampa City Council. This may be a modified version of the initially designated Area of Influence and will become the fixed boundaries of the TOD Overlay. Implementation of these plans will include City-initiated area rezonings. o This occurs prior to end of the Preliminary Engineering Phase (when going through the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grant Program). o This process will be led by agencies and organizations as documented in an executed Interlocal Agreement. o The City of Tampa shall establish a consistent methodology, utilizing form-based and transit- based development initiatives to assist in the development of priority Station Area Plans, for the purpose of developing TOD regulations. As a general overview, there are seven basic station types: High Intensity Urban Node, Mixed-use Regional Node, Community Center, Neighborhood, Park and Ride, Employment Center, and Special. Characteristics of each are shown in Figure F-3. Source: Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan, 2016
HART | TDP F-6
Figure F-3: Transit Station Area Typologies
Source: Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan, 2016
HART | TDP F-7
City of Temple Terrace Temple Terrace is an older, suburban, predominantly single-family detached residential community with a population of approximately 25,000 in northeastern Hillsborough County (Imagine 2040: Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan). It is projected to have an increase in population of more than 16% over the next 25 years and is committed to building a city for the 21st century, which includes development of a downtown nearly 100 years after it was originally platted. Imagine 2040 LRTP The Imagine 2040 LRTP is the County’s transportation planning document that covers a 20-year time frame and must be updated at least every five years. It includes existing transportation facilities, performance measures and targets, a transportation system performance report, operational and management activities, any environmental mitigation activities that may be necessary to implement the LRTP, and a financial plan to ensure that reliable and reasonable funding sources are identified to implement the LRTP. Preferred Growth Scenario With ideas and suggestions from a working group of residents, students, business and civic leaders, retirees, and various professionals, three future growth scenarios were developed during the update of the 2040 LRTP and presented to the public and elected officials for their feedback. One of the performance measures for the growth scenarios included “Available Bus or Rail Service” and was measured by looking at the percentage of all people and jobs in the county who are within walking distance (i.e., a quarter of a mile) to transit service. Three growth scenarios initially considered included the following: Suburban Dream – Continued the trends of the past few decades, building outwards with new suburban style developments in agricultural or undeveloped land. Because jobs would be spread around the county and travel would be mostly by car, this scenario resulted in more traffic congestion on Hillsborough County roadways. Bustling Metro – Focused growth in the existing Urban Services Area with multimodal transportation and promotes in-fill, higher-density development and preservation of rural and agricultural lands. Many new homes, shopping, and services would be located around bus or train station areas identified in previous studies. New Corporate Centers – Considers attracting new industries and enhancing job growth and includes new express toll lanes, allowing faster travel on interstate highways. Future residential and commercial development was concentrated around the county’s business districts and potential new centers along I-4 and I-75. After receiving feedback from the public and elected officials, a hybrid scenario was created from the Bustling Metro and New Corporate Centers scenarios. To develop the Preferred Hybrid Scenario, growth was first concentrated in existing job centers and potential transit station locations within the urban service boundary. Future residential areas near potential transit centers were based on comprehensive plan policies for TOD. Job growth was then assigned to existing and potential commercial centers. Figure F-4 shows the Preferred Hybrid Scenario with 2040 population and employment centers.
HART | TDP F-8
Figure F-4: 2040 Population and Employment Centers with Preferred Hybrid Scenario
Source: Imagine 2040: Long Range Transportation Plan, 2016
Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Imagine 2040 LRTP is guided by a set of goals, objectives, and policies that frame the plan and shape the priorities identified in the plan. LRTP Goal II: Support economic vitality to foster the global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency of local and regional businesses is backed by Objective 2.1, which involves supporting transportation projects that promote economic development and job creation. LRTP Goal IV: Promote accessibility and mobility by increasing and improving multimodal transportation choices, and the connectivity across and between modes, for people and freight is supported by Objectives 4.2 and 4.3, which focus on decreasing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles as well as supporting an integrated transportation system with efficient connections between modes.
HART | TDP F-9
Other Policies and Regional Coordination Efforts Local and state jurisdictions and other agencies have adopted or are considering policies or regulations that will affect HART. The following highlights the key takeaways and regional coordination opportunities: Growth Management Growth management legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature in 2011 repeals most of the growth management planning laws that have guided development in the state since 1987 (Sections 9J-5 and 9J-11.023, F.A.C., were repealed from the Growth Management Act of 1985). This legislation eliminates the State requirement to adopt mobility strategies to support and/or fund mobility and criteria for mobility planning. It also shifts oversight of development from the State to local governments while giving the State the final say over those development plans that affect regions or sensitive land considered “areas of critical state concern.” Therefore, local jurisdictions have more control regarding how best to oversee and direct their future growth. This is evident in the Imagine 2040: City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan, effective February 20, 2016. Regional Coordination with PSTA The Executive Committee members of the HART and PSTA Boards meet regularly to discuss initiatives of regional importance and issues affecting the two agencies and pursue partnership opportunities to coordinate services and achieve cost savings. Such examples include: Hillsborough and Pinellas Legislative Delegation Meetings New regional fare payment system (i.e., virtual ticketing app) known as Flamingo Fares Tampa Bay Innovative partnerships with transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft as well as taxis Current and ongoing plans should be monitored for future transit opportunities, including the following: Regional Transit Feasibility Plan InVision: Tampa Streetcar Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority Initiatives: Selmon Extension Bus Toll Lanes Automated Vehicle Test Bed Howard Frankland Bridge Project Development & Environment Study Cross-Bay Water Ferry between Downtown St. Petersburg and Downtown Tampa (six-month pilot ended April 30, 2017, but may continue once long-term funding has been confirmed)
HART | TDP F-10
Appendix G: TBEST Model Outputs and Summaries & HyperLINK Estimation Methodology
HART | TDP G-1 HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT (HART) TBEST FORECAST RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS AUGUST 2017
As part of the HART 2027 Major TDP update, the TBEST model was validated and ridership projections were created for the following future year networks:
a) 2027 No-Build Network (originating from the 2017 Base Network) b) 2018 COA Network (Fall 2017 implementation) c) 2027 COA No-Build Network (originating from the 2018 COA Network) d) 2027 Needs Network e) 2027 Funded Network
For each scenario, the generated ridership forecasts reflect the estimated level of service utilization based on population and employment growth and proposed service changes (if implemented). The following sections provide detailed, route-level ridership estimation results for each of the future year network scenarios. It should be noted that the Saturday and Sunday ridership estimations in the Needs Plan appear to be overestimated within the TBEST model. This issue will be reviewed with FDOT for clarification.
2027 Base No Build Scenario Table 1 compares the TBEST projected number of weekday riders by route for the Base 2017 network scenario and the 2027 No Build scenario. Tables 2 and 3 show Saturday and Sunday TBEST ridership estimations for the same two scenarios.
Table 1 - HART TBEST Weekday Ridership and Growth Rates (2017–2027) Base Network Average Saturday Average Saturday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2017-2027) (2017-2027) (2017) (2027) Local Routes 1 3,969 4,419 450 11.3% 2 2,349 2,599 250 10.6% 4 596 682 86 14.4% 5 1,847 2,058 211 11.4% 6 4,661 5,205 544 11.7% 7 1,815 2,042 227 12.5% 8 1,653 1,865 212 12.8% 9 2,736 3,050 314 11.5% 10 338 384 46 13.6% 12 2,564 2,836 272 10.6% 14 585 657 72 12.3% 15 1268 1398 130 10.3% 16 942 1,036 94 10.0% 18 1530 1702 172 11.2% 19 1,437 1,625 188 13.1% 30 2,265 2,546 281 12.4% 31 258 282 24 9.3% 32 1,764 1,927 163 9.2% 33 944 1,036 92 9.7% 34 3,094 3,404 310 10.0% 36 1,939 2,131 192 9.9% 37 1550 1698 148 9.5% 39 3,053 3,348 295 9.7% 41 519 573 54 10.4% 45 1,842 2,002 160 8.7% 46 591 668 77 13.0% 57 832 926 94 11.3% 96 122 134 12 9.8% Subtotal 47,063 52,233 5,170 11.0% Express Routes 20 67 70 3 4.5% 21 47 56 9 19.1% 22 61 66 5 8.2% 24 256 265 9 3.5% 25 194 212 18 9.3% 27 90 104 14 15.6% 28 41 42 1 2.4% 47 75 90 15 20.0% 51 52 56 4 7.7% 53 74 80 6 8.1% 61 45 53 8 17.8% 200 62 67 5 8.1% Subtotal 1,064 1,161 97 9.1% MetroRapid 400 2,280 2,558 278 12.2% Subtotal 2,280 2,558 278 12.2% System Total 50,407 55,952 5,545 11.0% TableTable 2 3: - HART Base TBEST 2017 –Saturday Base 2027 Ridership No Build and GrowthSunday Rates Ridership (2017–2027) and Growth Base Network Rates Average Saturday Average Saturday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2017-2027) (2017-2027) (2017) (2027) Local Routes 1 2,230 2,787 557 25.0% 2 2,623 3,234 611 23.3% 4 - - - - 5 904 1,088 184 20.4% 6 2,785 3,367 582 20.9% 7 818 996 178 21.8% 8 895 1,050 155 17.3% 9 1,161 1,396 235 20.2% 10 - - - - 12 1,842 2,239 397 21.6% 14 314 375 61 19.4% 15 742 847 105 14.2% 16 500 585 85 17.0% 18 718 838 120 16.7% 19 627 755 128 20.4% 30 1,795 2,191 396 22.1% 31 - - - - 32 922 1,066 144 15.6% 33 618 697 79 12.8% 34 1,650 2,051 401 24.3% 36 922 1,103 181 19.6% 37 654 739 85 13.0% 39 2,031 2,473 442 21.8% 41 - - - - 45 830 982 152 18.3% 46 - - - - 57 597 672 75 12.6% 96 - - - - Subtotal 26,178 31,531 5,353 20.4% Express Routes 20 - - - - 21 - - - - 22 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 27 - - - - 28 - - - - 47 - - - - 51 - - - - 53 - - - - 61 - - - - 200 - - - - Subtotal 0 0 0 0.0% MetroRapid 400 - - - - Subtotal 0 0 0 0.0% System Total 26,178 31,531 5,353 20.4% Table 3 - HART TBEST Sunday Ridership and Growth Rates (2017–2027) Base Network Average Sunday Average Sunday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2017-2027) (2017-2027) (2017) (2027) Local Routes 1 1,481 1,871 390 26.3% 2 2,163 2,729 566 26.2% 4 - - - - 5 496 624 128 25.8% 6 1,908 2,424 516 27.0% 7 591 748 157 26.6% 8 572 709 137 24.0% 9 570 695 125 21.9% 10 - - - - 12 1,379 1,718 339 24.6% 14 - - - - 15 645 759 114 17.7% 16 - - - - 18 607 724 117 19.3% 19 455 584 129 28.4% 30 1,288 1,629 341 26.5% 31 - - - - 32 737 875 138 18.7% 33 387 447 60 15.5% 34 944 1,159 215 22.8% 36 677 828 151 22.3% 37 612 708 96 15.7% 39 903 1,076 173 19.2% 41 - - - - 45 640 766 126 19.7% 46 - - - - 57 - - - - 96 - - - - Subtotal 17,055 21,073 4,018 23.6% Express Routes 20 - - - - 21 - - - - 22 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 27 - - - - 28 - - - - 47 - - - - 51 - - - - 53 - - - - 61 - - - - 200 - - - - Subtotal 0 0 0 0.0% MetroRapid 400 - - - - Subtotal 0 0 0 0.0% System Total 17,055 21,073 4,018 23.6% 2027 COA Network No Build Scenario Table 4 compares the TBEST projected number of weekday riders by route for the COA 2018 network scenario and the 2027 COA No Build scenario. Tables 5 and 6 show Saturday and Sunday TBEST ridership estimations for the same two scenarios. Table 4 - HART TBEST Weekday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027) COA Network Average Weekday Average Weekday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027) (2018-2027) (2018) (2027) Local Routes 1 4,766 6,454 1,688 35.4% 5 1,805 2,238 433 24.0% 6 4475 5,724 1,249 27.9% 7 1,142 2,162 1,020 89.3% 8 1,806 2,748 942 52.2% 9 1,844 2,330 486 26.4% 12 3,035 3,936 901 29.7% 14 452 483 31 6.9% 15 1,242 1,367 125 10.1% 16 859 909 50 5.8% 17 166 176 10 6.0% 19 1024 1052 28 2.7% 30 1,250 2,146 896 71.7% 31 279 302 23 8.2% 32 1,385 1,504 119 8.6% 33 1,026 1,087 61 5.9% 34 3,524 3,906 382 10.8% 36 1,588 1,750 162 10.2% 37 728 782 54 7.4% 38 261 281 20 7.7% 39 2,332 2,495 163 7.0% 42 1394 1546 152 10.9% 45 736 792 56 7.6% 46 185 198 13 7.0% 96 120 129 9 7.5% 97 - - - - Subtotal 37,424 46,497 9,073 24.2% Express Routes 20 62 93 31 50.0% 24 166 177 11 6.6% 25 215 231 16 7.4% 51 140 218 78 55.7% 60 540 1,069 529 98.0% 360 1,500 1,709 209 13.9% Subtotal 2,623 3,497 874 33.3% MetroRapid 400 1,756 2,828 1,072 61.0% Subtotal 1,756 2,828 1,072 61.0% System Total 41,803 52,822 11,019 26.4% Table 5 - HART TBEST Saturday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027) COA Network Average Saturday Average Saturday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027) (2018-2027) (2018) (2027) Local Routes 1 2,522 3,872 1,350 53.5% 5 1,123 1,558 435 38.7% 6 2659 3,566 907 34.1% 7 662 1,261 599 90.5% 8 1,019 1,796 777 76.3% 9 1,217 1,728 511 42.0% 12 2,586 3,621 1,035 40.0% 14 301 336 35 11.6% 15 638 736 98 15.4% 16 385 418 33 8.6% 17 162 170 8 4.9% 19 585 886 301 51.5% 30 1,366 2,607 1,241 90.8% 31 - - - - 32 616 697 81 13.1% 33 338 363 25 7.4% 34 1,639 2,014 375 22.9% 36 712 821 109 15.3% 37 94 97 3 3.2% 38 134 144 10 7.5% 39 1,492 1,665 173 11.6% 42 536 614 78 14.6% 45 297 330 33 11.1% 46 164 186 22 13.4% 96 - - - - 97 74 160 86 116.2% Subtotal 21,321 29,646 8,325 39.0% Express Routes 20 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 51 - - - - 60 619 720 101 16.3% 360 2,373 2,350 -23 -1.0% Subtotal 2,992 3,070 78 2.6% MetroRapid 400 568 808 240 42.3% Subtotal 568 808 240 42.3% System Total 24,881 33,524 8,643 34.7%
Table 6 - HART TBEST Sunday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027) COA Network Average Sunday Average Sunday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027) (2018-2027) (2018) (2027) Local Routes 1 2,536 3,496 960 37.9% 5 756 1,178 422 55.8% 6 2000 3,592 1,592 79.6% 7 659 1,602 943 143.1% 8 746 1,474 728 97.6% 9 602 975 373 62.0% 12 2,389 4,187 1,798 75.3% 14 214 238 24 11.2% 15 599 715 116 19.4% 16 310 339 29 9.4% 17 98 103 5 5.1% 19 497 588 91 18.3% 30 1,433 3,380 1,947 135.9% 31 - - - - 32 529 615 86 16.3% 33 212 230 18 8.5% 34 1,025 1,269 244 23.8% 36 498 587 89 17.9% 37 88 91 3 3.4% 38 95 102 7 7.4% 39 778 863 85 10.9% 42 592 700 108 18.2% 45 197 220 23 11.7% 46 130 149 19 14.6% 96 - - - - 97 - - - - Subtotal 16,983 26,693 9,710 57.2% Express Routes 20 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 51 - - - - 60 505 788 283 56.0% 360 1,733 1,798 65 3.8% Subtotal 2,238 2,586 348 15.5% MetroRapid 400 658 1,383 725 110.2% Subtotal 658 1,383 725 110.2% System Total 19,879 30,662 10,783 54.2%
2027 Needs Plan Network Scenario Table 7 compares the TBEST projected number of weekday riders by route for the COA 2018 network scenario and the 2027 Needs Plan Network scenario. Tables 8 and 9 show Saturday and Sunday TBEST ridership estimations for the same two scenarios.
Table 7 - HART TBEST Weekday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Needs) Average Weekday Average Weekday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018- (2018) (2027 Needs) Needs) 2027Needs) Local Routes 1 4,766 7,234 2,468 51.8% 5 1,805 2,525 720 39.9% 6 4475 7,846 3,371 75.3% 7 1,142 2,363 1,221 106.9% 8 1,806 3,639 1,833 101.5% 9 1,844 2,612 768 41.6% 11 - 2,944 2,944 100.0% 12 3,035 5,083 2,048 67.5% 14 452 766 314 69.5% 15 1,242 2,122 880 70.9% 16 859 1,539 680 79.2% 17 166 190 24 14.5% 19 1,024 2,140 1,116 109.0% 30 1250 3710 2,460 196.8% 31 279 456 177 63.4% 32 1,385 1,756 371 26.8% 33 1,026 1,840 814 79.3% 34 3,524 6,947 3,423 97.1% 36 1,588 2,313 725 45.7% 36 EXT - 224 224 100.0% 37 728 1,224 496 68.1% 38 261 378 117 44.8% 39 2332 3958 1,626 69.7% 42 1394 2040 646 46.3% 45 736 966 230 31.3% 46 185 202 17 9.2% 49 - 1462 1462 100.0% 53 - 191 191 100.0% 58 - 717 717 100.0% 96 120 129 9 7.5% 97 - - - - Big Bend Circulator - 23 23 100.0% Subtotal 37,424 69,539 32,115 85.8%
HART TBEST Weekday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Needs) Cont'd Average Weekday Average Weekday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Needs) Needs) Needs) Express Routes 20 62 165 103 166.1% 24 166 364 198 119.3% 25 215 402 187 87.0% 28 - 273 273 100.0% 51 140 201 61 43.6% 60 540 946 406 75.2% 61 - 255 255 100.0% 65X - 376 376 100.0% 200 - 14 14 100.0% 360 1500 1,854 354 23.6% 275X - 1,847 1,847 100.0% Lakeland Express - 423 423 100.0% Airporter - 977 977 100.0% Subtotal 2,623 8,097 5,474 208.7% MetroRapid 400 1,756 3,058 1,302 74.1% Subtotal 1,756 3,058 1,302 74.1% System Total 41,803 80,694 38,891 93.0%
Table 8 - HART TBEST Saturday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Needs) Average Saturday Average Saturday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018- (2018) (2027 Needs) Needs) 2027Needs) Local Routes 1 2,522 9,723 7,201 285.5% 5 1,123 2,883 1,760 156.7% 6 2,659 17,445 14,786 556.1% 7 662 1,945 1,283 193.8% 8 1,019 2,278 1,259 123.6% 9 1,217 3,214 1,997 164.1% 11 - 2,355 2,355 100.0% 12 2,586 6,798 4,212 162.9% 14 301 717 416 138.2% 15 638 3,337 2,699 423.0% 16 385 817 432 112.2% 17 162 180 18 11.1% 19 585 3,029 2,444 417.8% 30 1,366 9,266 7,900 578.3% 31 - 270 270 100.0% 32 616 2,909 2,293 372.2% 33 338 1,004 666 197.0% 34 1,639 7,267 5,628 343.4% 36 712 1,021 309 43.4% 36 EXT - 126 126 100.0% 37 94 151 57 60.6% 38 134 221 87 64.9% 39 1,492 1,217 -275 -18.4% 42 536 856 320 59.7% 45 297 1,122 825 277.8% 46 164 195 31 18.9% 49 - 1,094 1,462 100.0% 53 - - - - 58 - 280 717 100.0% 96 - - - - 97 74 214 140 189.2% Big Bend Circulator - 23 23 100.0% Subtotal 21,321 81,957 61,441 284.4%
HART TBEST Saturday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Needs) Cont'd Average Saturday Average Saturday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Needs) Needs) Needs) Express Routes 20 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 28 - - - - 51 - - - - 60 619 1,144 525 84.8% 61 - - - - 65X - 355 355 100.0% 200 - 7 7 100.0% 360 2,373 2,510 137 5.8% 275X - 2,189 2,189 100.0% Lakeland Express - - - - Airporter - 2,362 2,362 100.0% Subtotal 2,992 8,567 5,575 186.3% MetroRapid 400 568 5,025 4,457 784.7% Subtotal 568 5,025 4,457 784.7% System Total 24,881 95,549 71,473 284.0%
Table 9 - HART TBEST Sunday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Needs) Average Sunday Average Sunday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018- (2018) (2027 Needs) Needs) 2027Needs) Local Routes 1 2,536 5,793 3,257 128.4% 5 756 1,314 558 73.8% 6 2000 9,671 7,671 383.6% 7 659 1,859 1,200 182.1% 8 746 2,285 1,539 206.3% 9 602 1,509 907 150.7% 11 - 1,777 1,777 100.0% 12 2,389 6,404 4,015 168.1% 14 214 522 308 143.9% 15 599 3,721 3,122 521.2% 16 310 608 298 96.1% 17 98 112 14 14.3% 19 497 3,036 2,539 510.9% 30 1433 4142 2,709 189.0% 31 - 231 231 100.0% 32 529 2,270 1,741 329.1% 33 212 558 346 163.2% 34 1,025 3,284 2,259 220.4% 36 498 704 206 41.4% 36 EXT - 77 224 100.0% 37 88 139 51 58.0% 38 95 119 24 25.3% 39 778 838 60 7.7% 42 592 819 227 38.3% 45 197 360 163 82.7% 46 130 268 138 106.2% 49 - 874 1462 100.0% 53 - - - - 58 - 214 717 100.0% 96 - - - - 97 - - - - Big Bend Circulator - 13 23 100.0% Subtotal 16,983 53,521 37,786 215.1%
HART TBEST Sunday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Needs) Cont'd Average Sunday Average Sunday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Needs) Needs) Needs) Express Routes 20 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 28 - - - - 51 - - - - 60 505 691 186 36.8% 61 - - - - 65X - 131 131 100.0% 200 - 7 7 100.0% 360 1733 2048 315 18.2% 275X - 1,678 1,678 100.0% Airporter - 1,548 1,548 100.0% Subtotal 2,238 6,103 3,865 172.7% MetroRapid 400 658 2,608 1,950 296.4% Subtotal 658 2,608 1,950 296.4% System Total 19,879 62,232 43,601 213.1%
2027 Funded Plan Network Scenario Table 7 compares the TBEST projected number of weekday riders by route for the COA 2018 network scenario and the 2027 Funded Plan Network scenario. Tables 8 and 9 show Saturday and Sunday TBEST ridership estimations for the same two scenarios.
Table 10 - HART TBEST Weekday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Funded) Average Weekday Average Weekday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Funded) Funded) Funded) Local Routes 1 4,766 6,649 1,883 39.5% 5 1,805 2,344 539 29.9% 6 4,475 7,021 2,546 56.9% 7 1,142 2,216 1,074 94.0% 8 1,806 2,896 1,090 60.4% 9 1,844 2,470 626 33.9% 11 - 2,602 2,602 100.0% 12 3,035 4,808 1,773 58.4% 14 452 515 63 13.9% 15 1,242 1,974 732 58.9% 16 859 1,000 141 16.4% 17 166 178 12 7.2% 19 1,024 1,068 44 4.3% 30 1,250 3,477 2,227 178.2% 31 279 440 161 57.7% 32 1,385 1,639 254 18.3% 33 1,026 1,135 109 10.6% 34 3,524 4,463 939 26.6% 36 1,588 2,210 622 39.2% 36 EXT - 210 210 100.0% 37 728 832 104 14.3% 38 261 303 42 16.1% 39 2,332 3,515 1,183 50.7% 42 1,394 1,594 200 14.3% 45 736 874 138 18.8% 46 185 199 14 7.6% 49 NA 1,202 1,462 100.0% 53 NA 154 191 100.0% 96 120 130 717 100.0% 97 - - - - Subtotal 37,424 58,118 21,698 55.3%
Average Weekday Average Weekday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Funded) Funded) Funded) Express Routes 20 62 165 103 166.1% 24 166 244 78 47.0% 25 215 336 121 56.3% 51 140 220 80 57.1% 60 540 1083 543 100.6% 360 1,500 1,726 226 15.1% 275X - 1,989 1,989 100.0% Subtotal 2,623 5,763 3,140 119.7% MetroRapid 400 1,756 2,893 1,137 64.7% Subtotal 1,756 2,893 1,137 64.7% System Total 41,803 66,774 25,975 59.7%
Table 11 - HART TBEST Saturday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Funded) Average Saturday Average Saturday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Funded) Funded) Funded) Local Routes 1 2,522 3,851 3,851 52.7% 5 1,123 1,575 1,575 40.2% 6 2659 3,688 3,688 38.7% 7 662 1,212 1,212 83.1% 8 1,019 1,842 1,842 80.8% 9 1,217 1,762 1,762 44.8% 11 - 1,645 1,645 100.0% 12 2,586 3,574 3,574 38.2% 14 301 331 331 10.0% 15 638 770 770 20.7% 16 385 414 414 7.5% 17 162 177 177 9.3% 19 585 891 891 52.3% 30 1366 2831 2,831 107.2% 31 - 270 270 100.0% 32 616 691 691 12.2% 33 338 366 366 8.3% 34 1,639 2,003 2,003 22.2% 36 712 651 651 -8.6% 36 EXT - 119 119 100.0% 37 94 98 98 4.3% 38 134 178 178 32.8% 39 1492 1629 1,629 9.2% 42 536 528 528 -1.5% 45 297 332 332 11.8% 46 164 195 195 18.9% 49 - 557 557 100.0% 53 - - - - 96 - - - - 97 74 172 172 132.4% Subtotal 21,321 32,352 32,352 51.7% Express Routes 20 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 51 - - - - 60 619 740 121 19.5% 360 2642 3,038 396 15.0% 275X - - - - Subtotal 3,261 3,778 517 15.9% MetroRapid 400 568 911 343 60.4% Subtotal 568 911 343 60.4% System Total 25,150 37,041 33,212 47.3% Table 12 - HART TBEST Sunday Ridership and Growth Rates (2018–2027 Funded) Average Sunday Average Sunday Absolute Change Growth Rate Route Daily Ridership Daily Ridership (2018-2027 (2018-2027 (2018) (2027 Funded) Funded) Funded) Local Routes 1 2,536 3,508 972 38.3% 5 756 1,192 436 57.7% 6 2,000 3,739 1,739 87.0% 7 659 1,341 682 103.5% 8 746 1,508 762 102.1% 9 602 1,002 400 66.4% 11 - 1,523 1,523 100.0% 12 2,389 4,178 1,789 74.9% 14 214 234 20 9.3% 15 599 758 159 26.5% 16 310 338 28 9.0% 17 98 110 12 12.2% 19 497 597 100 20.1% 30 1,433 3,444 2,011 140.3% 31 - 231 231 100.0% 32 529 606 77 14.6% 33 212 231 19 9.0% 34 1,025 1,265 240 23.4% 36 498 536 38 7.6% 36 EXT - 72 72 100.0% 37 88 92 4 4.5% 38 95 100 5 5.3% 39 778 778 0 0.0% 42 592 534 -58 -9.8% 45 197 223 26 13.2% 46 130 158 28 21.5% 49 - 508 508 100.0% 53 - - - - 96 - - - - 97 - - - - Subtotal 16,983 28,806 11,823 69.6% Express Routes 20 - - - - 24 - - - - 25 - - - - 51 - - - - 60 505 856 351 69.5% 360 1,751 2,014 263 15.0% 275X - - - - Subtotal 2,256 2,870 614 27.2% MetroRapid 400 658 1,476 818 124.3% Subtotal 658 1,476 818 124.3% System Total 19,897 33,152 13,255 66.6% HyperLINK Estimation Methodology
HyperLINK ridership for the 2018 COA Network, 2027 Funded and 2017 Needs networks was estimated outside of TBEST as the TBEST model does not support HyperLINK zone-based estimation. The approach to HyperLINK ridership estimation is to generate Hyperlink rides based on the ratio of observed Hyperlink rides to the Hyperlink served population (excluding fixed route transit walk access population within HyperLINK zones). The TBEST Market Analysis tool provided the total 2017 population within the four existing HyperLINK zones. Population within ¼ mile of fixed route stops within the HyperLINK zones is subtracted from the HyperLINK population totals. Table M-1 contains the 2017 monthly Hyperlink ridership and population summarization statistics relative to the Population Served Exclusively by Hyperlink. The 2017 ratio of observed HyperLINK rides to HyperLINK zone population is calculated by dividing the observed average daily HyperLINK ridership (54.17) by the population served exclusively by HyperLINK (175,482) to obtain the Riders per Exclusive HyperLINK Population ratio of 0.000308674.
Table M-1 - 2017 Hyperlink Observed Monthly Ridership and Statistics
May 1,833
June 1,417
Average Monthly Ridership 1,625
Average Daily Ridership 54.17
Population Served Exclusively by Hyperlink 175,482
Riders per Exclusive Hyperlink Population 0.000308674
HyperLINK is intended to facilitate first-mile and last-mile access to transit and reduce overall transit trip travel time. Integration with high frequency transit is key to increasing the utility and productivity of HyperLINK routes. Both the 2027 Funded and Needs service plans call for increases in both core high frequency fixed routes and the expansion of HyperLINK zones. It is therefore important to incorporate planned fixed route service increases into the HyperLINK ridership estimation.
Table M-2 illustrates the application to the Exclusive Hyperlink Populations in the 2018, 2027 Needs and 2027 Funded networks and the High Frequency Route Coverage (HFRC) to estimate monthly HyperLINK ridership. HFRC is calculated by dividing the revenue miles on routes with 15-minute headway or less by the total system revenue miles. The COA 2018 network contains 19% HFRC revenue miles, the Funded network contains 50% and the Needs network contains 52%. To account for the 2017 HFRC, we calculate the delta relative to 2017 by subtracting the Base 2017 HFRC (6%) from the Alternative HFRC. In the case of 2018, the delta is 13% (19% - 6%). The percent change in HFRC is used as an additional factor to estimate HyperLINK ridership relative to core fixed route service increases.
Table M-2 - TDP HyperLINK Ridership 2018 Funded Needs Projections Total HyperLINK Service Area Population 358,530 1,004,087 1,061,087
Total Fixed Route Walk Access Population within 147,505 333,467 359,504 HyperLINK Zones Population Served Exclusively by HyperLINK 211,025 670,620 701,583 Percent Change in High Frequency Route Coverage 13% 44% 46% Estimated Monthly HyperLINK Ridership 2,208 8,943 9,485
As an example, the 2018 COA HyperLINK ridership estimation calculation is illustrated Figure A.
Figure A: 2018 COA HyperLINK Ridership Estimation
Input Variables 2017 Observed Ratio of Daily Riders per Exclusive HyperLINK Population: 0.000308674 2018 Population Served by HyperLINK: 211,025 2018 Percent Change in HFRC: 13% Average Monthly Days: 30
Calculations 2018 Raw Daily Riders: 211,025 * 0.000308674 = 65.14 2018 Daily Riders with applied HFRC Factor: 65.14 + (65.14 * 0.13) = 73.6 2018 Est. Monthly HyperLINK Ridership: 73.6 * 30 = 2,208
Appendix H: Performance Monitoring Recommendations
HART | TDP J-1 Ongoing HART Systemwide Monitoring
For more than a decade, HART has used a set of performance measures to track the agency’s overall performance. These Key Performance Measures (KPIs) and corresponding goals that HART believes are important for achieving its mission, goals, and objectives are grouped into five categories: ridership and productivity, efficiency, safety, quality of service and on-time performance. In 2017, HART introduced a new KPI that measures financial performance.
Table H-1 lists the six KPI and their respective criteria and goals for FY 2016 and FY 2017.
Table H-1: Key Performance Measures and Criteria
KPI Criteria FY 2016 Target FY 2017 Target Ridership Bus Passengers per Bus Greater than or Greater than or and Revenue Hour equal to 23.8 equal to 21.8 Productivity Efficiency Gross Cost per Revenue Bus and Less than or equal to Less than or equal to Mile Paratransit $6.95 $7.10 Safety Collisions per 100,000 Bus, Paratransit, Less than or equal to Less than or equal to Revenue Miles and Streetcar 0.55 0.55 Quality of Complaints per 100,000 Bus, Paratransit, Less than or equal to Less than or equal to Service Passengers and Streetcar 13 10 Mean Distance Between Bus Greater than or Greater than or Vehicle Failures Maintenance equal to 6,950 equal to 7,749 On-Time 1 Minute Early to 5 Bus Greater than or Greater than or Performance Minutes Late at equal to 77% equal to 81.5% Scheduled Time Points Finance Growth of fund balance All Greater than or Greater than or and fiscal sustainability equal to 0.5% of equal to 0.5% of previous year’s previous year’s ending fund balance ending fund balance
Systemwide Monitoring Recommendations
HART should continue the current KPI-based system monitoring program and should continue to revise it as necessary per direction from the HART Board. No additional systemwide monitoring measures for fixed-route transit are recommended at this time.
However, a set of performance measures and indicators are suggested for consideration for monitoring performance of the expanded HyperLINK program, as performance for this unique service mode should be monitored separately from other HART services. While detailed/formalized data collection and recording have not started in earnest as HART’s HyperLINK program is still a pilot, it is suggested that HART collect/continue to collect the following performance data for HyperLINK and review the information at least on a quarterly basis as part of the overall system performance monitoring program.
D-1 The recommended overall performance measures for the HyperLINK program include:
First Mile, Last Mile (FM/LM) Trips Provided - annual number of passenger trips provided.
FM/LM Trips per Revenue Mile - measured by the ratio of trips to revenue miles of service.
FM/LM Trips per Revenue Hour - measured by the ratio of trips to revenue hours of service. Operating Cost per FM/LM Trip - measured as the ratio of annual operating cost divided by the total number of passenger trips.
Complaints per 10,000 FM/LM Trips - measured as the ratio of customer service complaints per 10,000 passenger trips. On-Time Performance - HART should monitor on-time performance with the following measures: o The percent of HyperLINK arrivals that are within 3 minutes before the arrival of the fixed-route bus at the designated bus stop and departing within 3 minutes after the arrival of the fixed-route bus at the designated bus stop. o Number of ride-hail trip request denials - As allowing more trip requests can negatively impact on-time FM/LM connectivity of riders already on the HyperLINK vehicle, HART would have to coordinate on the number of people already on the vehicle before accepting additional requests. It is important to monitor the number of ride-hail trip request denials so that HART can add more vehicles per zone and/or allow vehicles to cross adjacent zones as a remedy.
In addition to these systemwide monitoring efforts, route-level recommendations are also necessary, as presented below.
Route-Level Performance Monitoring Recommendations In addition to the system-level performance, a route-level performance monitoring program will aid in determining the routes that are underperforming. The following section explains the recommended evaluation methodology and process. Fixed-Route Evaluation Methodology and Process
The evaluation methodology and process is based on two measures, passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per revenue hour, which are 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 particular measure. These individual measure scores are added together and divided by 2 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 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
D-2 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 over time to determine specific changes that may help mitigate any performance issues.
Once a route score is determined, routes can be ranked to show the highest performing and lowest performing routes. The rankings are a useful proxy for determining the comparative performance of any route, as well as highlighting changes in performance over time. To track the performance variation over time, three performance levels have been developed:
Level I – Good (≥ 75%) - Transit routes in this category are performing efficiently compared with the average level of all the agency’s routes. Level II – Monitor (30–74%) - Routes in this category exhibit varying levels of performance issues and may need more detailed analysis (e.g., ridechecks, on-board surveys, increased marketing efforts, etc.) to aid in identifying specific changes that can be made to help improve a route’s performance. Level III – Route Modification or Discontinuation (≤ 29%) - Routes in this category exhibit poor performance and low efficiency. 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 H-1 illustrates the three evaluation levels and notes the recommended thresholds for each level.
H-3 Figure H-1: Route Performance Evaluation Levels
400%
Level I – Good (Performing very efficiently System Average 100% compared to the average level) 75% Level II – Monitor (Exhibiting performance issues and needing to be singled out for more detail) 30% Level III – Route Elimination or Discontinuation (Exhibiting poor performance and low efficiency) 0%
However, while adjustments/modifications may occur, outright discontinuations based solely on the performance monitoring of systemwide or route-level data are discouraged. Zone-Level HyperLINK Service Evaluation
Using the same measures suggested previously for the overall HyperLINK program, HART should also monitor the individual HyperLINK zones as they are implemented overtime.
H-4