COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FY 2011-2020 MAJOR UPDATE
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
COLLIER COUNTY ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES 2885 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 Ph (239) 252-8192
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2885 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 Ph (239) 252-8192
AUGUST 2010
TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1595 SOUTH SEMORAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 1540 WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32792 Ph (407) 657-9210, Fax (407) 657-9106
1000 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 Ph (813) 224-8862, Fax (813) 226-2106
545 NORTH BROADWAY AVENUE BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830 Ph (863) 533-8454, Fax (863) 533-8481
The preparation of this document has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, under the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of title 23, U.S. Code, and local funding. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT (TDP) REQUIREMENTS...... 1-2 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 1-6 SECTION 2: BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 2-1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA...... 2-1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS...... 2-3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOURNEY-TO-WORK CHARACTERISTICS...... 2-7 LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT...... 2-15 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 2-21 ROADWAY CONDITIONS ...... 2-23 REGIONAL TRENDS IN TRANSIT...... 2-25 INVENTORY OF EXISTING FIXED-ROUTE SERVICES AND RESOURCES ...... 2-25 PARATRANSIT SERVICES...... 2-31 PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS ...... 2-32 SECTION 3: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...... 3-1 REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS ...... 3-1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...... 3-2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WORKSHOPS...... 3-8 TRANSIT SURVEYS...... 3-9 ON-BOARD SURVEY ...... 3-10 SURVEY APPROACH...... 3-10 ON-BOARD SURVEY RESULTS...... 3-11 ON-BOARD SURVEY GENERAL CONCLUSIONS...... 3-35 DISCUSSION GROUP WORKSHOPS...... 3-36 SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES...... 4-1 FIXED-ROUTE TREND ANALYSIS ...... 4-1 FIXED-ROUTE PEER REVIEW ...... 4-10 TRANSIT CAPACITY & SUPPLY ANALYSIS...... 4-17 SECTION 5: REVIEW OF PLANS, STUDIES, AND POLICIES...... 5-1 LOCAL DOCUMENT REVIEW ...... 5-1 STATE DOCUMENT REVIEW ...... 5-18 FEDERAL DOCUMENT REVIEW ...... 5-19 SECTION 6: SITUATION APPRAISAL ...... 6-1 REGIONAL TRANSIT ISSUES...... 6-1 SOCIOECONOMICS...... 6-3 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR...... 6-5 LAND USE...... 6-5 POLICY ISSUES ...... 6-6 ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES...... 6-7 TECHNICAL ISSUES ...... 6-8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES...... 6-9 SUMMARY...... 6-10
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 i Transit Development Plan
SECTION 7: TRANSIT DEMAND & MOBILITY NEEDS...... 7-1 RIDERSHIP TRENDS...... 7-1 TBEST RIDERSHIP FORECASTING ...... 7-1 TRANSIT MARKET ASSESSMENT...... 7-3 SECTION 8: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES...... 8-1 CAT PUBLIC TRANSIT VISION...... 8-1 CAT PUBLIC TRANSIT MISSION ...... 8-1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES...... 8-1 SECTION 9: TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ...... 9-1 METHODS USED TO DEVELOP AND EVALUATE PRIORITIES ...... 9-1 TEN-YEAR TDP SERVICE ALTERNATIVES ...... 9-2 CAPITAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES...... 9-3 PLANNING ACTIVITIES ...... 9-5 POLICY ALTERNATIVES...... 9-5 RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS...... 9-10 SECTION 10: TEN-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 10-1 COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS ...... 10-1 KEY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES...... 10-1 MONITORING PROGRAM TO TRACK PERFORMANCE MEASURES ...... 10-2 TEN-YEAR TDP NEEDS...... 10-3 TEN-YEAR TDP FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 10-3
APPENDIX A: ADDITIIONAL MAPPING ANALYSIS ...... A-1 APPENDIX B: MPO/TDP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN...... B-1 APPENDIX C: PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER QUESTIONNAIRE ...... C-1 APPENDIX D: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATIONS...... D-1 APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... E-1 APPENDIX F: ON-BOARD SURVEY INSTRUMENTS & ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS...... F-1 APPENDIX G: ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND SMALLER VEHICLE ASSESSMENT...... G-1 APPENDIX H: TBEST RESULTS AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT DETAILS...... H-1 APPENDIX I: CAT FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO REPORT ...... I-1 APPENDIX J: COLLIER COUNTY BOCC TDP APPROVAL...... J-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: TDP Checklist ...... 1-5 Table 2-1: Population Characteristics, Collier County...... 2-3 Table 2-2: Labor Force Statistics...... 2-15 Table 2-3: Where Collier County Residents Work, by City and CDP ...... 2-16 Table 2-4: Where Collier County Residents Work, by County ...... 2-16
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 ii Transit Development Plan
Table 2-5: Where Workers in Collier County Live, by City and CDP ...... 2-17 Table 2-6: Where Workers in Collier County Live, County...... 2-17 Table 2-7: Top 25 Largest Public and Private Employers ...... 2-20 Table 2-8: Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics ...... 2-26 Table 2-9: Summary of 2009 Fixed-Route Performance Statistics...... 2-28 Table 2-10: FY 2008/09 Ridership Data ...... 2-29 Table 2-11: Fixed Route Vehicles ...... 2-29 Table 2-12: Paratransit Vehicles ...... 2-32 Table 2-13: Collier County Transportation Providers ...... 2-33 Table 3-1: Stakeholder Participants...... 3-2 Table 3-2: On-Board Survey Work Plan ...... 3-11 Table 3-3: Average CAT Bus Rider Profile (2010) ...... 3-27 Table 4-1: Performance Review Measures, CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009) ...... 4-1 Table 4-2: General Performance Indicators, CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009)...... 4-2 Table 4-3: Effectiveness Measures, CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009) ...... 4-4 Table 4-4: Efficiency Measures, CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009)...... 4-5 Table 4-5: Summary of Trend Analysis (2004-2009)...... 4-9 Table 4-6: Selected CAT Peer Systems ...... 4-11 Table 4-7: Performance Indicators, CAT Peer Analysis (2008) ...... 4-11 Table 4-8: Effectiveness Measures, CAT Peer Analysis (2008) ...... 4-13 Table 4-9: Efficiency Measures, CAT Peer Analysis (2008) ...... 4-14 Table 4-10: Summary of Peer Analysis (2008) ...... 4-17 Table 4-11 2009 Fixed-Route Transit Supply/Capacity Analysis ...... 4-20 Table 4-12: 2009 Demand Response Transit Supply/Capacity Analysis ...... 4-21 Table 7-1: Transit Service Density Threshold ...... 7-6 Table 9-1: Operating Alternatives Phasing Plan (FY 2011-2020) ...... 9-7 Table 9-2: Capital Alternatives Phasing Plan (FY 2011-2020)...... 9-8 Table 9-3: TBEST Ridership Projections ...... 9-11 Table 10-1: Summary of Operating and Capital Cost and Revenue (Status Quo)...... 10-6 Table 10-2: Implementation Schedule for TDP Transit Improvements...... 10-11 Table 10-3: Operating Costs for TDP Transit Improvements ...... 10-12 Table 10-4: Summary of Capital Needs ...... 10-13 Table 10-5: Summary of Projected Capital Costs...... 10-14 Table 10-6: Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Costs (FY 2011-2010) ...... 10-15 Table 10-7: Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Revenue (FY 2011-2020)...... 10-16
LIST OF MAPS
Map 2-1: Study Area and Existing Bus Routes ...... 2-2 Map 2-2: Existing Population Density (2009) ...... 2-5 Map 2-3: Future Population Density (2020)...... 2-6 Map 2-4: Existing Employment Density (2009) ...... 2-10 Map 2-5: Low-Income Households (2009) ...... 2-11 Map 2-6: Existing Dwelling Unit Density (2009) ...... 2-12
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 iii Transit Development Plan
Map 2-7: Population Under Age 15 (2009) ...... 2-13 Map 2-8: Population Over Age 60 ...... 2-14 Map 2-9: Collier County Commuter Flow...... 2-18 Map 2-10: Collier County Labor Shed...... 2-19 Map 2-11: Collier County Future Land Use ...... 2-22 Map 3-1: Trip Origins and Destinations...... 3-14 Map 3-2: Matched Trip Origins and Destinations...... 3-15 Map 3-3: Home Locations by Zip Code ...... 3-29 Map 7-1: Transit Orientation Index...... 7-5 Map 7-2: 2009 Density Threshold Assessment ...... 7-8 Map 7-3: 2020 Density Threshold Assessment ...... 7-9 Map 9-1: Transit Alternatives...... 9-9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Population Under Age 18 and Over Age 64, Collier County ...... 2-4 Figure 2-2: Demographic Characteristics...... 2-8 Figure 2-3: Journey-to-Work Characteristics ...... 2-9 Figure 2-4: Collier County Concurrency Management System ...... 2-24 Figure 2-5: CAT Stops with Peak Ridership by Route ...... 2-30 Figure 3-1: Trip Origin ...... 3-12 Figure 3-2: Trip Destination ...... 3-13 Figure 3-3: Transit Station Access...... 3-16 Figure 3-4: Transit Station Egress ...... 3-17 Figure 3-5: Transfer Summary ...... 3-17 Figure 3-6: Top Three Transfer Routes...... 3-18 Figure 3-7: Trip Frequency ...... 3-18 Figure 3-8: Mode Choice ...... 3-19 Figure 3-9: Fare Payment Method...... 3-20 Figure 3-10: Fare Type Paid by Respondent Age ...... 3-21 Figure 3-11: Fare Type Paid by Respondent Income...... 3-22 Figure 3-12: Frequency of Use...... 3-23 Figure 3-13: Licensed Drivers ...... 3-24 Figure 3-14: Reason for Using CAT ...... 3-25 Figure 3-15: History of Use...... 3-26 Figure 3-16: Working Vehicles ...... 3-26 Figure 3-17: CAT Rider Demographics (2010)...... 3-28 Figure 3-18: Service Improvements...... 3-30 Figure 3-19: BRT Service...... 3-31 Figure 3-20: CAT Information Dissemination ...... 3-32
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 iv Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-21: Service Rating...... 3-33 Figure 3-22: Rider Satisfaction and Age...... 3-34 Figure 3-23: Rider Satisfaction and Gender...... 3-34 Figure 3-24: Rider Satisfaction and Ethnic Heritage ...... 3-35 Figure 3-25: Rider Satisfaction and Household Income ...... 3-35 Figure 4-1: Service Area Population ...... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Passenger Trips ...... 4-2 Figure 4-3: Vehicle Miles...... 4-3 Figure 4-4: Revenue Miles ...... 4-3 Figure 4-5: Passenger Fare Revenue ...... 4-3 Figure 4-6: Operating Expense...... 4-3 Figure 4-7: Vehicle Miles per Capita...... 4-4 Figure 4-8: Passenger Trips per Capita ...... 4-4 Figure 4-9: Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile...... 4-4 Figure 4-10: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour...... 4-4 Figure 4-11: Operating Expense per Capita ...... 4-6 Figure 4-12: Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ...... 4-6 Figure 4-13: Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ...... 4-6 Figure 4-14: Farebox Recovery Ratio...... 4-6 Figure 4-15: Revenue Mile per Vehicle Mile ...... 4-6 Figure 4-16: Average Fare ...... 4-6 Figure 4-17: Service Area Population ...... 4-11 Figure 4-18: Service Area Population Density...... 4-11 Figure 4-19: Passenger Trips ...... 4-12 Figure 4-20: Revenue Miles ...... 4-12 Figure 4-21: Revenue Hours ...... 4-12 Figure 4-22: Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service...... 4-12 Figure 4-23: Operating Expense...... 4-12 Figure 4-24: Passenger Fare Revenue ...... 4-12 Figure 4-25: Vehicle Miles per Capita...... 4-13 Figure 4-26: Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile...... 4-13 Figure 4-27: Weekday Span of Service...... 4-14 Figure 4-28: Operating Expense per Capita ...... 4-15 Figure 4-29: Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ...... 4-15 Figure 4-30: Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ...... 4-15 Figure 4-31: Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ...... 4-15 Figure 4-32: Farebox Recovery ...... 4-15 Figure 4-33: Revenue Mile per Vehicle Mile ...... 4-15 Figure 4-34: Average Fare ...... 4-16 Figure 7-1: Monthly Ridership for CAT (2005 to 2009) ...... 7-1
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 v Transit Development Plan
Section 1: Introduction
Federal, state, and local investments in the provision of public transportation services and transit infrastructure can result in a myriad of community benefits. The Florida Public Transportation Association (FPTA) has published several fact sheets outlining the benefits of public transit and the potential community return on transit investments. Key FPTA public transit facts relating to economic benefits, environmental protection, and reduced dependence on foreign oil are presented below.
. For every $1 invested in public transportation, $4 is generated in economic returns; . Businesses located next to public transit ways have a more reliable employee base and better access to labor pools; . Every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation yields $30 million in increased business sales, and every $10 million in operating investment in public transportation yields $32 million in increased business sales; . By using public transportation in lieu of owning an automobile, an individual can save an average of more than $9,000 each year; . Approximately 80 percent of all transit-related ballot initiatives passed throughout the country in 2008 indicated that the American public supports public transportation; . Public transportation in the USA saves 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually; . Using public transit for a 20-mile roundtrip commute rather than an automobile, will decrease an individuals annual carbon dioxide emissions by 4,800 pounds per year; . Public transportation saves America about 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year representing a savings of approximately $12 billion per year that will not be spent on foreign oil; and . The 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline saved by the transit industry is equivalent to Florida’s entire gasoline consumption for about 7 months.
BACKGROUND
The State of Florida Public Transit Block Grant Program was enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a stable source of State funding for public transportation. The Block Grant Program requires public transit service providers to develop and adopt a ten-year Transit Development Plan (TDP). Major updates must be submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) by September 1st of the year they are due. This FY 2011/2020 TDP is a major update, which is required every five years. Each interim year public transit providers report TDP achievements to FDOT through the submittal of annual progress reports. Collier County population projections included in this TDP will be updated to reflect 2010 Census data in the next progress report submitted to FDOT on September 1, 2011.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-1 Transit Development Plan
The TDP is the source for determining the types of projects and their priority in the public transportation component of the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The plan must also be consistent with the approved local government comprehensive plans and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Collier Area Transit (CAT) is responsible for ensuring completion of the TDP. The next TDP annual progress report will be updated to include relevant data included in the MPO 2035 LRTP.
This plan meets the requirements for a major TDP update in accordance with Rule Chapter 14-73, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT (TDP) REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this study is to undertake a major update of the CAT TDP, as required by State law. This update will result in a ten-year plan addressing transit and mobility needs, cost and revenue projections, and community transit goals, objectives, and policies.
Florida Statutes (F.S.) mandates the preparation of the TDP for all transit systems that receive Block Grants from the State of Florida. Relevant sections in the F.S. are provided below.
(1) There is created a public transit block grant program which shall be administered by the department. Eligible providers must establish public transportation development plans consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with approved local government comprehensive plans of the units of local government in which the provider is located.
Section 341.052
(2) Where there is an approved local government comprehensive plan in the political subdivision or political subdivisions in which the public transportation system is located, each public transit provider shall establish public transportation development plans consistent with approved local government comprehensive plans. Section 341.071
On February 20, 2007, FDOT promulgated Rule 14-73.001, which substantially changed the TDP requirements. The changes are documented below.
. Extended the planning horizon from 5 years to 10 years . Required updates every 5 years instead of 3 years
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-2 Transit Development Plan
. Made the annual report, public involvement, and demand estimation requirements more explicit . Required plan approval . Established a deadline for said approval in order to qualify for funding
Key requirements in the TDP Rule, as outlined in the draft report “Guidance for Producing a Transit Development Plan,” prepared by the University of South Florida (USF) Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) with Tindale-Oliver & Associates and Dan Boyle & Associates in 2008 for FDOT are summarized below.
Key TDP Requirements
Who: TDPs are required from all entities who apply for State Transit Grant Funds (Section 341.052, F.S.)
When: TDPs must be developed, adopted, and submitted on or before September 1st of the fiscal year for which funding is being sought. A major update is required every 5 years and an annual update/progress report is required for all other years.
Where: Plans must be submitted to and on file with the appropriate District Office.
Time Period: Plans must cover the fiscal year for which funds are being sought and the subsequent nine years. Plan submittal is a prerequisite to fund receipt.
TDP Comments: Compliance will be evaluated by FDOT District staff based on major elements outlined below.
. Specification of an approved public participation process and documentation of its use. . A situational appraisal that includes at least: o Effects of land use, state and local transportation plans, and other governmental actions and policies, socio-economic trends, organizational issues, and technology; o Estimation of the community’s demand for transit service using an approved technique; and, o Performance evaluation of service provided in the community. . The agency vision, mission, and goals. . Consideration of alternative courses of action. . Ten-year implementation plan including: o Ten-year program of strategies and policies; o Maps indicating areas to be served and types and levels of service; o Monitoring program to track performance; and o Ten-year financial plan noting sources and expenditures of funds.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-3 Transit Development Plan
. Relationship to other plans and policies.
TDP Annual Update Contents: Annual updates shall be in the form of a progress report on the ten-year implementation program, and shall include: . Past year’s accomplishments compared to the original implementation program; . Analysis of any discrepancies between the plan and its implementation for the past year and steps that will be taken to attain the original goals and objectives; . Any revision to the implementation program for the coming year; . Revised implementation program for the tenth year of the updated plan; . A revised financial plan; and, . A revised list of projects or services needed to meet the goals and objectives.
FDOT Review: Within 60 days of receipt, FDOT will notify the applicant regarding compliance and eligibility status.
TDP Checklist
Table 1-1 is a list of TDP requirements from Rule 14-73.001. The table also indicates whether or not the item was accomplished in this TDP.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-4 Transit Development Plan
Table 1-1 TDP Checklist Public Involvement Process Public Involvement Plan (PIP) PIP approved by FDOT TDP includes description of public involvement process Provide notification to FDOT Provide notification to Regional Workforce Board Provide notification to MPO Situational Appraisal Land use State and local Transportation Plans Other governmental actions and policies Socioeconomic trends Organizational issues Technology 10-year annual projections of transit ridership using approved model Do land uses and urban design patterns support/hinder transit service provision? Calculate farebox recovery Mission and Goals Provider's vision Provider's mission Provider's goals Provider's objectives Alternative Courses of Action Development and evaluation of alternative strategies and actions Benefits and costs of each alternative Examination of financial alternatives Implementation Program 10-year implementation program Maps indicating areas to be served Maps indicating types and levels of service Monitoring program to track performance measures 10-year financial plan listing operating and capital expenses Capital acquisition or construction schedule Anticipated revenues by source Relationship to Other Plans TDP consistent with Florida Transportation Plan TDP consistent with Local Government Comprehensive Plan TDP consistent with MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan TDP consistent with Regional Transportation Goals and Objectives Submission Adopted by Board of County Commissioners Submitted by September 1, 2010
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-5 Transit Development Plan
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report, which is compiled to support the CAT ten-year TDP Major Update, is composed of ten major sections, including this introduction section. Each section is briefly described below.
Section 2 provides a review of the study area population, demographics, travel behavior, commuting patterns, demographic activities, land use, and roadway considerations for Collier County. This includes tables and maps of the study area’s baseline conditions, including population, demographics, and Journey-to-Work characteristics from various sources. In addition, current and planned development activities and growth are also discussed. A review of land use and roadway conditions is also included, followed by a review of regional trends in transit.
Section 3 provides an overview of the existing fixed-route transit services in Collier County, including summaries and descriptions of operating characteristics, capital equipment, and other operational features such as Americans with Disabilities (ADA) complementary paratransit service. This section also presents the performance assessment conducted for fixed-route services. This assessment includes trend analysis where performance is reviewed over time. In addition, this section provides the results of the fixed-route peer review analysis. This type of analysis compares the performance of the public transportation system with other transit systems selected as having similar characteristics at a given point in time. A capacity analysis is also conducted, followed by a review and analysis of farebox recovery ratios.
Section 4 summarizes the public involvement activities that were undertaken as part of the TDP development process. Public involvement activities discussed and/or summarized in this section include the on-board transit survey distributed to CAT riders in February 2010 and other activities that were completed as part of the TDP.
Section 5 presents the review of relevant plans, studies, and policies. The purpose of this effort is to provide information to support an understanding of transit planning issues in Collier County, and support the performance of a situational appraisal, which is an assessment of the operating environment for the transit system.
Section 6 presents the situation appraisal for the TDP. The requirements for a major update of a TDP include the need for a situation appraisal of the environment in which the transit agency operates. The purpose of this appraisal is to help develop an understanding of the CAT operating environment in the context of specific elements, including regional issues, socioeconomics, travel behavior, existing and future land use, policy issues, organizational issues, technological issues, and environmental issues.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-6 Transit Development Plan
Section 7 presents a review and evaluation of transit demand and mobility needs regarding transit services in Collier County. The evaluation was completed by reviewing three major components, including ridership trends, ridership forecasting, and a transit market assessment.
Section 8 provides the transit mission for Collier County and the goals, objectives, and initiatives to accomplish the transit mission. The mission, goals, objectives, and initiatives were developed based on discussions with CAT staff, the TDP Review Committee, input through the public involvement process, and the results of the technical evaluations.
Section 9 summarizes the potential transit priorities developed as part of the 10-year planning horizon of this TDP update using public, Review Committee, and CAT staff input and the results of various demand analyses.
Section 10 presents the 10-year TDP for Collier County, developed based on coordination with CAT staff, public involvement, transit demand analysis, and other recent assessment and evaluation studies conducted for the Collier County area.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 1-7 Transit Development Plan
Section 2: Baseline Conditions
This section provides an overview of the transit service area, demographics of the service area, and a description of the current transit services within Collier County. The TDP annual progress report submitted to FDOT on September 1, 2011 will include updates to the population estimates and other demographic data included in this TDP in order to reflect the populations presented in the 2010 Census and other relevant data included in the MPO 2035 LRTP.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Collier County is located in southwest Florida and is bordered on the north by Lee and Hendry counties, on the south by Monroe County, on the east by Broward and Dade counties, and on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. The county consists of three incorporated areas: Naples, Everglades City, and Marco Island.
According to the University of Florida (UF) Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Florida Statistical Abstract (FSA) 2009, Collier County is approximately 2,025.3 square miles. At least 80 percent of the Collier County land area has been set aside as preserve lands, including Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park, two national wildlife refuges, one national research reserve, three state parks, one state forest, and a number of other public and private parks and nature preserves. In addition, Collier County has nearly 50 miles of public beaches. Map 2-1 provides an illustration of the study area for the TDP.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-1 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Cape Coral Immokalee Inset LEE
Immokalee 2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend
Route 1A
Route 1B Naples HENDRY Route 1C Route 2A
Route 2B
Route 3A NaplBeonista S pIrinngs--Nsapelest Route 3B
Route 4A
Route 4B
Route 5
Route 6
Route 7
Route 7 Express
Route 8A Marco Island Route 8B
Route 9
Everglades City
Urbanized Areas
Conservation Areas Marco Island Inset
Marco Island
Map 2-1 0 0.5 1 2 Study Area and Miles Existing Bus Routes
Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI.
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
According to BEBR, the population of Collier County is expected to increase from 251,377 in 2000 to 331,800 in 2010, an increase of 32 percent. The data for 2000 through 2020 were compiled using the 2000 Census, 2009 FSA, and 2009 ESRI demographic data. Table 2-1 provides selected population characteristics for Collier County for 2000, 2008, 2010, 2015, and 2020.
Table 2-1 Population Characteristics, Collier County (2000-2020) Change 2000-2008 2008 BEBR 2014 ESRI / Change Change 2000 2010 2020 BEBR / / 2009 ESRI 2015 BEBR 2008-2010 2010-2020 2000-2009 ESRI Persons (BEBR) 251,377 332,854 331,800 363,300 400,700 32.4% -0.3% 9.5% Persons (ESRI) 251,377 355,940 396,817 41.6% Total Land Area (Square Miles) 2025.3 2025.3 2025.3 2025.3 2025.3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Persons Per Square Mile (BEBR) 124.1 164.3 163.8 179.4 197.8 32.4% -0.3% 9.5% Persons Per Square Mile (ESRI) 124.1 175.7 195.9 41.6% Source: 2000 Census, BEBR Florida Statistical Abstract 2009, Forty-Third Edition, and ESRI 2009
As a popular tourist destination, Collier County has a large number of seasonal residents and tourists. According to the Economic Development Council of Collier County, Collier County’s population rises by an estimated 20 percent during the winter season, which traditionally last from November through April. The BEBR projections included in Table 2-1 refer solely to permanent residents and do not include tourists or seasonal residents. (Note: The population estimates and projections provided by BEBR may not exactly match those provided by the U.S. Census. ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available for mapping purposes. As 2010 Census data sets are available, annual TDP progress reports and the next TDP Major Update will be revised to reflect the population projections reported in the 2010 Census. Staff of CAT and the Collier MPO will review available data sets and ensure consistency of population data when completing future plan updates to the TDP and LRTP, as feasible.)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-3 Transit Development Plan
Map 2-2 displays Collier County’s 2009 population by block group and Map 2-3 displays the County’s 2020 projected population by block group. The majority of the County’s population density is 0-2 persons per acre. Block groups containing population densities greater than 4 persons per acre are located within the City of Naples, East Naples, Marco Island, Immokalee, Golden Gate, Naples Manor, and Naples Park. As shown in Maps 2-2 and 2-3, the 2020 projected population distribution is similar to the 2009 population distribution.
In general, Collier County’s residents are older than the average Florida resident. Figure 2-1 displays population trends that suggest mobility needs will increase as the County’s population of seniors and others continue to age. Twenty four percent of Collier County’s population is over 64 years old, while the same group only makes up 17 percent of Florida’s total population.
Figure 2-1 Population under Age 18 and over Age 64
22% 24% 25% 20% 17% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under 18 Over 64
Florida Collier County
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-4 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City 2009 Population Density Marco Island Persons/Acre 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 10 10 + Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-2 2009 Population Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Density Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City 2020 Population Density Marco Island Persons/Acre 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 10 10 + Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-3 2020 Population Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Density Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOURNEY-TO-WORK CHARACTERISTICS
Collier County’s demographic characteristics were compiled from the 2000 Census, the 2009 FSA, and the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS). Both the Census and the ACS base these estimates on a sampling of the total population. Journey-to-Work information is not projected by BEBR in the 2009 FSA; therefore, 2000 Census and 2008 ACS data were used to illustrate the Journey-to-Work characteristics.
Figure 2-2 provides selected demographic data for Collier County, and Figure 2-3 illustrates Journey-to-Work characteristics for Collier County. Many of the characteristics provided in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 were chosen because of their known influence on transit use.
Figure 2-2 shows that Collier County’s demographics have not significantly changed from 2000 to 2008 in terms of gender, education, and age. The percent of the population of Hispanic origin has increased slightly from 19.6 percent in 2000 to 25.5 percent in 2008. The percent of residents with incomes greater than $100,000 also increased. In 2000, 18.1 percent of residents earned greater than $100,000 and in 2008 27.8 percent of the population was in this category.
Figure 2-3 shows that public transit mode share has slightly decreased since 2000. In 2000, 1.9 percent of residents utilized public transit as a means of transportation to work compared to 1.1 percent of the population in 2008. Driving alone has slightly increased. Carpooling and walking decreased; however, bicycling and working from home increased. Travel times have slightly increased, with 26.2 percent of people traveling between 20 and 29 minutes in 2008 compared to 21.4 percent in 2000.
Maps 2-4 through 2-8 provide selected characteristics for Collier County that are particularly relevant to the TDP process. The maps display 2009 employment densities, low-income populations, dwelling unit densities, population under age 15, and population over age 60 by block group. Employment densities are highest in Immokalee and the City of Naples. The low-income populations are highest in Immokalee. Similar to the population density, the majority of the County’s dwelling unity density is 0-2 dwelling units per acre. Block groups containing high percentages of the population under age 15 are located in the northern portion of the County and the City of Naples. Block groups containing high percentages of the population over age 60 are located in the southern portion of the County, Marco Island, throughout the City of Naples, and north of the City of Naples.
Based on the availability of demographic data, maps depicting the disabled population, the number of vehicles per household, and commute times were developed utilizing 2000 Census data and are included as Appendix A.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-7 Transit Development Plan
Figure 2-2 Demographic Characteristics, Collier County (2000 and 2008)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
50.1% 50.9% Male 49.7% 49.9%
Gender 49.1% Female 50.3% 86.1% 90.7% White 67.2% 4.5% Black 5.5% 5.8% 9.4%
Ethnic Origin Other 4.9% 27.0% 80.4% Not of Hispanic Origin 74.5% 74.1% 19.6% Race Of Hispanic Origin 25.5% Hispanic Origin by Origin 25.9% 16.4% 17.1% <15 Years 20.4% 21.2% ‑ 21.4% 2000 Census 15 34 Years 17.6%
Age 37.7% 2008 ACS 35‑64 Years 34.9% 38.3% 2009 FSA 24.5% 65+ Years 26.6% 23.6% 8.0% Less than 9th grade 7.0%
10.2% 9th grade to 12th grade, no diploma 9.7%
26.2% High school graduate 26.4%
5.8% College < 1 year to Associate degree 6.9% and over) 18.2% Bachelor's degree 19.5%
9.7% Professional school, Master’s or Doctorate 11.4% Education Level (persons age 25
6.0% Less than $10,000 5.2%
4.1% $10,000 to $14,999 2.8%
11.6% $15,000 to $24,999 9.7%
12.9% $25,000 to $34,999 10.3%
17.1% $35,000 to $49,999 14.4%
Income 19.4% $50,000 to $74,999 17.3%
10.9% $75,000 to $99,999 12.5%
18.1% $100,000 or more 27.8%
Median Household Income $48,289 $61,165 89.7% $58,519 Above Poverty Level 89.8% 90.1% 10.3%
Status 10.2% Poverty Below Poverty Level 9.9% Source: 2000 Census, 2008 American Community Survey, and 2009 BEBR Florida Statistical Abstract
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-8 Transit Development Plan
Figure 2-3 Journey-to-Work Characteristics, Collier County (2000 and 2008)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
92.2% Worked inside county of residence 90.0% 6.2% Worked outside county of residence 7.7% 1.6% Worked outside State of residence
Place of Work 2.3% 74.4% Car, truck, or van - drove alone 75.4% 14.9% Car, truck, or van - carpooled 11.8% 1.9% Public transportation 1.1% 0.1% Motorcycle 0.4% 0.7% Bicycle 1.9% 1.8% Walked 0.9% 1.4% Other means 1.5% Means of Transportation To Work 4.7% Worked at home 7.4% 12.7% Less than 10 minutes 11.5% 14.4% 10 to 14 minutes 15.7% 17.1% 15 to 19 minutes 17.2% 16.0% 20 to 24 minutes 19.1% 5.4% 2000 Census 25 to 29 minutes 7.1%
Travel Time to Work to Time Travel 2008 ACS 29.7% 30 or more minutes 29.4% 4.7% Worked at home 7.4% 67.1% 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 67.7%
Work 28.2%
Time to Time Other times 32.3% Departure 4.9% None 5.1% 42.6% One 43.0% 41.5% Two 39.8% Ownership 11.1%
Household Vehicle Three or more 12.2% 74.4% Drove alone 75.4% 10.4% 2-person carpool 7.8% 1.9% 3-person carpool 2.0% 1.3% 4-person carpool 1.0% 0.7% 5- or 6-person carpool 1.1% 0.6% 7-or-more-person carpool 0.0% Private Vehicle Occupancy 10.7% Other means (including work at home) 12.7%
Source: 2000 Census and 2008 American Community Survey
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-9 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City 2009 Employment Density Marco Island Employees/Acre 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 10 10 + Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-4 2009 Employment Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Density Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City Marco Island % of Households under $20,000 0% - 5% 5% - 15% 10% - 15% 15% - 25% 25% + Marco Island Inset
00.5 1 2 5 Miles Map 2- 2009 Percent Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Low-Income Households Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City 2009 Dwelling Unit Density Marco Island Dwelling Units/Acre 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 10 10 + Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-6 2009 Dwelling Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Unit Density Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City Under Age 15 Population Marco Island Percent 0% - 5% 5% - 10% 10% - 15% 15% - 20% 20% + Marco Island Inset
00.5 1 2 7 Miles Map 2- 2009 Existing Population Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. under Age 15 Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available. ?e Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend )v !"b$ Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Naples Inset Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express !"b$ Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Everglades City Over Age 60 Population Marco Island Percent 0% - 10% 10% - 15% 15% - 20% 20% - 25% 25% + Marco Island Inset
)v : 00.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-8 2009 Existing Population Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. over Age 60 Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available.
LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT
The current labor force, employment, and unemployment data also were analyzed for Collier County, as shown in Table 2-2. The data provided in the table is a snapshot of the most recent month for which data are available. These figures, not seasonally adjusted, show that Collier County has a higher unemployment rate than the state as a whole. Due to the current economic conditions, Collier County’s unemployment rate has increased by over 50 percent from 7.9 percent in November 2008 to 12.3 percent in November 2009.
Table 2-2 Labor Force Statistics (November, 2009)
Area Civilian Labor Force Number Employed Number Unemployed Unemployment Rate
Collier County 146,650 128,588 18,062 12.3%
Florida 9,203,637 8,142,993 1,060,644 11.5% Source: Labor Market Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program
Commuting Patterns
This paragraph includes an analysis of the employment commuting patterns for Collier County residents. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 summarize the commuter flows for the workers living in Collier County. The analysis of the 2008 Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) worker flow database indicates that 66.3 percent of the employed Collier County residents commute to jobs in Collier County, with most working in “All Other Locations”. The LEHD defines “All Other Locations” as cities and towns not included in the top 10 locations as well as land that is not part of a city or town. The remaining 33.7 percent of the employed Collier County residents commute to jobs in neighboring counties, with Lee County, Broward County, and “All Other Locations” having the three largest percentages of outward commuters. Map 2-9 illustrates the commuter flow for workers living in Collier County.
This paragraph includes an analysis of the employment commuting patterns for people who work in Collier County. Tables 2-5 and 2-6 summarize the labor shed for workers commuting to Collier County. The analysis of 2008 Census LEHD database worker flow data indicates that 61.9 percent of the employees working in Collier County also live in Collier County. The remaining 38.1 percent of the Collier County employees commute from neighboring counties, with Lee County, Miami-Dade County, and “All Other Locations” having the three largest percentages. The data indicates that nearly 73 percent of all Collier County workers live in “All Other Locations” that include areas outside of the top 10 cities and Census Designated Places or within unincorporated areas. Map 2-10 illustrates the labor shed for workers commuting to Collier County.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-15 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-3 Where Collier County Residents Work, by City and Census-Designated Place (2008) City Count Share
City of Naples, FL 15,200 14.8% City of Marco Island, FL 3,750 3.7% City of Bonita Springs, FL 2,909 2.8% Immokalee CDP, FL 2,808 2.7% Pelican Bay CDP, FL 2,327 2.3% City of Fort Myers, FL 1,810 1.8% Golden Gate CDP, FL 963 0.9% Estero CDP, FL 889 0.9% City of Tampa, FL 882 0.9% Pine Ridge CDP, FL 853 0.8%
1 All Other Locations 70,258 68.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination 1All other locations include unincorporated areas.
Table 2-4 Where Collier County Residents Work, by County (2008) County Count Share
Collier County, FL 68,104 66.3% Lee County, FL 10,709 10.4% Broward County, FL 3,346 3.3% Palm Beach County, FL 3,091 3.0% Miami-Dade County, FL 2,476 2.4% Hillsborough County, FL 2,034 2.0% Orange County, FL 1,513 1.5% Pinellas County, FL 1,312 1.3% Sarasota County, FL 1,280 1.2% Manatee County, FL 1,080 1.1%
1 All Other Locations 7,704 7.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination 1All other locations include unincorporated areas.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-16 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-5 Where Collier County Workers Live, by City and Census-Designated Place (2008) City Count Share
Golden Gate CDP, FL 5,742 5.2% City of Bonita Springs, FL 5,216 4.7% City of Naples, FL 3,926 3.6% Immokalee CDP, FL 3,533 3.2% City of Marco Island, FL 2,844 2.6% City of Cape Coral, FL 1,823 1.7% San Carlos CDP, FL 1,808 1.6% Lehigh Acres CDP, FL 1,749 1.6% Naples Manor CDP, FL 1,606 1.5% Naples Park CDP, FL 1,561 1.4%
1 All Other Locations 80,187 72.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination 1All other locations include unincorporated areas.
Table 2-6 Where Collier County Workers Live, by County (2008) County Count Share
Collier County, FL 68,104 61.9% Lee County, FL 17,817 16.2% Miami-Dade County, FL 4,279 3.9% Broward County, FL 2,770 2.5% Palm Beach County, FL 2,303 2.1% Hillsborough County, FL 1,500 1.4% Orange County, FL 1,218 1.1% Sarasota County, FL 1,005 0.9% Manatee County, FL 987 0.9% Pinellas County, FL 970 0.9%
1 All Other Locations 9,042 8.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination 1All other locations include unincorporated areas.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-17 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Route 2A Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Naples Inset Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9
Marco Island
Marco Island Inset
00.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-9 Collier County Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census LED OnTheMap. Commute Shed Commute Shed: Where workers are employed who live in Collier County. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Route 2A Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Naples Inset Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9
Marco Island
Marco Island Inset
00.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-10 Collier County Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census LED OnTheMap. Labor Shed Labor Shed: Where workers live who are employed in Collier County.
Major Employers
As part of the baseline conditions analysis, data on major employers in Collier County were reviewed and summarized. The major industries in Collier County include retail trade, leisure and hospitality, and education and health services. With approximately 5,000 employees, one of the largest employers in Collier County is NCH Healthcare Systems. From the public sector, Collier County School District is another large employer. The School Board employs over 4,700 people. The third largest employer in Collier County is Publix Supermarket followed by Marriott Hotels and Wal-Mart. The top 25 public and private employers, listed in Table 2-7 employ over 30,000 people.
Table 2-7 Top 25 Largest Public and Private Employers in Collier County (2009) Company Number of Employees
NCH Healthcare System 5000 Collier County School District 4728 Publix Supermarket 3246 Marriott Hotels 2328 Wal-Mart 1715 Collier County Sheriff's Office 1029 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 1014 Home Depot 1012 Gargiulo, Inc. 800 Pacific Tomato Growers 800 Downing-Frye Realty, Inc. 700 Naples Grande Resort & Club 700 Southwest Florida Farms 700 Department of Corrections 678 Coldwell Banker/Century 21 595 Manor Care Health SVC 560 Radisson Hotels 552 McDonald's 529 Collier County Administration 500 Bentley Village Laundry and Housekeeping 500 Moorings Park 500 Bentley Village Health Club 470 Chateau at Moorings Park 469 Hilton Hotels 457 U.S. Post Office 450 Source: Economic Development Council of Collier, 2009 and InfoUSA, 2008
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-20 Transit Development Plan
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
FDOT’s new TDP guidelines promote focus and review of ongoing and anticipated residential and commercial development activities. Therefore, a review of development activities and existing and future land uses in Collier County was conducted. Several Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) are located to the north and south of Naples. Growth is also occurring to the east of Naples in areas such as Ave Maria and Golden Gates Estates.
Collier County has established land use and zoning maps to guide future development in the County. Map 2-11 provides a snapshot of the future land use designations for Collier County.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-21 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 4B Route 1B Route 5 Route 1C Route 6 HENDRY Naples Route 2A Route 7 Route 2B Route 7 Express Route 3A Route 8A Route 3B Route 8B Route 4A Route 9 Naples Inset Land Use Type Commercial Conservation Industrial Mixed-Use Municipality
Residential
Rural Marco Island
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 2-11
Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Future Land Use
Note: ESRI demographic data is higher than BEBR and Census demographic information; however, ESRI projections are the most current projections available.
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Collier County has implemented a real-time “checkbook” Concurrency Management System. Through the County’s Concurrency Management System, the County completes an analysis of roadway segments prior to approving final development orders to ensure that sufficient capacity exists on that roadway segment. If the analysis reveals that the development will create an excessive amount of vehicle trips, the development order will not be approved until some corrective measure is taken to either create additional road capacity or reduce the generated traffic volumes. If development is proposed for an area where the affected road segments do not have sufficient capacity to meet the additional traffic impacts, then road improvements would need to be underway or budgeted for construction within the first or second full year of the Transportation Five-Year Work Program following adoption of the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR).
The County has established two Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) and one Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). Figure 2-4 illustrates the locations of the County’s TCMAs and TCEA. TCMAs are an alternative transportation concurrency approach that promotes infill development within selected portions of urban areas and supports more efficient mobility alternatives, such as public transit. The TCMAs enable the County to establish area-wide level of service (LOS) standards for the geographical zones in which alternative traffic routes and alternative modes of travel are available. A development moratorium would not be declared for a particular road segment within a TCMA unless fewer than 85 percent of the parallel lane miles in that TCMA are achieving their adopted LOS.
The TCEA is an effective alternative concurrency management strategy for an area that is largely built out and for which the jurisdiction has identified a need to promote redevelopment. The TCEA depicted in Figure 2-4 is located within the Bayshore Triangle Redevelopment District. Due to the constraints associated with increasing the capacity of US 41, the County has established the TCEA to ensure that “real-time” concurrency does not place undesirable obstacles in front of the district’s redevelopment efforts. The area within a TCEA must contain less than 10 percent vacant land. Only 4.8 percent of the property located within the Collier County TCEA is undeveloped.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-23 Transit Development Plan
Figure 2-4 Collier County Concurrency Management System
Source: Collier County Transportation Planning Division (http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=562)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-24 Transit Development Plan
REGIONAL TRENDS IN TRANSIT
Collier and Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organizations
In January 2005, the Collier and Lee County MPOs entered into an interlocal agreement to coordinate their transportation planning activities with a focus on establishing a multimodal regional transportation network. The MPOs coordinated to develop the joint Collier-Lee 2030 Regional Multimodal Transportation Plan Element that includes transit connections between CAT and Lee County Transit. Currently, both MPOs are in the process of developing their respective 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) through a joint process to ensure a regional approach to the long term vision.
Collier County Master Mobility Plan
In an effort to manage the ultimate build out mobility needs of Collier County and meet the compliance standards of House Bill 697, the County is in the process of developing a Master Mobility Plan (MMP). The MMP will focus on early management and coordination of mobility needs rather than attempting to finance future mobility based on existing land use regulations. The primary focus of the MMP will be achieving mobility for people, goods, and services while reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through the utilization of multimodal transportation alternatives; however, the MMP will also focus on protecting the County’s habitat, environmentally sensitive lands, and agriculture.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING FIXED-ROUTE SERVICES AND RESOURCES
Public transportation services in Collier County are operated and managed by Collier County’s Alternative Transportation Modes Department within the Collier County Transportation Division. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners is the body that formally sets policy for CAT. Fixed-route service began in February 2001 and today CAT operates nine routes including six within the Naples area, fixed-route service from Immokalee to Naples, Immokalee Circulator, and Marco Island Express/Circulator that provides express service between Immokalee and Marco Island. A majority of the routes operate Monday through Sunday. Service spans from approximately 4:00 a.m. to 8: 30 p.m. with 60 to 90 minute headways. Currently, CAT does not operate service on New Year’s Eve, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day. Table 2-8 presents the basic characteristics for the existing transit system.
Table 2-9 summarizes route-level performance statistics for FY 2009. The total operating costs for FY 2009 were $5,048,082, while farebox revenues for that same fiscal year were $948,570.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-25 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-8 Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics
Route Route DescriptionDays of Operation Service Span Headways Number
1A Government Center via Airport-Pulling Rd and US 41 Monday-Saturday 7:00 a.m.-5:25 p.m. 90 Minutes Monday-Sunday 6:00 a.m.-7:25 p.m. 90 Minutes 1B Government Center to Creekside Transfer Station and Coastland Mall via US 41 Sunday 7:30 a.m.-5:55 p.m. 90 Minutes Monday-Saturday 6:00 a.m.-7:25 p.m. 90 Minutes 1C Government Center to Creekside Transfer Station via Airport-Pulling Rd Sunday 7:30 a.m.-5:55 p.m. 90 Minutes Government Center to Naples Community Hospital via Airport-Pulling Rd, US 41, Monday-Saturday 6:00 a.m.-6:55 p.m. 60 Minutes 2A Fleischmann Blvd, and Goodlette-Frank Rd Sunday 7:00 a.m.-5:55 p.m. 60 Minutes Government Center to Naples Community Hospital via US 41, Thomasson Dr., Bayshore 2B Monday-Saturday 6:30 a.m.-6:25 p.m. 60 Minutes Dr., and Fleischmann Blvd Radio Road Operations Facility, Government Center, Santa Barbara Blvd, Green Blvd, Monday-Saturday 6:00 a.m.-7:05 p.m. 90 Minutes 3A Sunshine Blvd, and Golden Gate Pkwy Sunday 7:05 a.m.-5:35 p.m. 90 Minutes
Radio Road Operations Facility, Government Center, Santa Barbara Blvd, Golden Gate Monday-Saturday 5:00 am-6:05 p.m. 90 Minutes 3B Pkwy, Sunshine Blvd, and Green Blvd Sunday 8:00 a.m.-6:05 p.m. 90 Minutes
Government Center to Edison College and Super Wal-Mart via US 41 Rattlesnake Monday-Saturday 6:00 a.m.-7:10 p.m. 90 Minutes 4A Hammock Rd, and Collier Blvd Sunday 7:30 a.m.-5:55 p.m. 90 Minutes Government Center to Freedom Square and Super Wal-Mart via US 41, Floridian Ave, 4B Monday-Saturday 6:30 a.m.-6:25 p.m. 90 Minutes Broward St, Collier Blvd, and Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Monday-Saturday 4:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. 30 Minutes-150 Minutes 5 Naples to Immokalee from the Government Center via Wilson Blvd and Immokalee Rd Sunday 4:30 a.m.-7:55 p.m. Departs Government Center at 4:30 a.m. & 5:30 p.m.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-26 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-8 (Continued) Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics Route Route Description Days of Operation Service Span Headways Number
Government Center to Super Wal-Mart, Golden Gate Pkwy, Santa Barbara Blvd, Vineyards Monday-Saturday 6:00 a.m.-7:07 p.m. 90 Minutes 6 Blvd, and Napa Blvd Sunday 9:00 a.m.-4:25 p.m. 90 Minutes Departs Immokalee at 6:00 Monday-Saturday 6:00 a.m. & 4:55 p.m.a.m./Departs Marco Island at 7 (Express) Express service from Immokalee to Marco Island via I-75 4:55 p.m. Departs Immokalee at 6:00 Sunday 6:00 a.m. & 4:55 p.m.a.m./Departs Marco Island at 4:55 p.m. Monday-Saturday 7:40 a.m.-4:55 p.m. Varies 7 (Circulator) Circulates Marco Island and South Naples Sunday 7:40 a.m.-4:55 p.m. Varies Departs Naples at 5:50 8A (Express) Express service from Naples to Immokalee Monday-Saturday 5:50 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.a.m./Departs Immokalee at 7:00 p.m. 8A Immokalee circulator Monday-Saturday 7:00 a.m.-6:55 p.m. 90 Minutes (Circulator) Departs Naples at 6:20 8B (Express) Express service from Naples to Immokalee Monday-Saturday 6:20 a.m. & 7:30 p.m.a.m./Departs Immokalee at 7:30 p.m. 8B Immokalee circulator Monday-Saturday 7:30 a.m.-7:25 p.m. 90 Minutes (Circulator) Government Center to Super Wal-Mart, Charlee Estates, Big Cypress, and freedom Square Monday-Saturday 7:00 a.m.-6:55 p.m. 90 Minutes 9 via US 41 Sunday 8:30 a.m.-5:25 p.m. 90 Minutes
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-27 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-9 Summary of 2009 Fixed-Route Performance Statistics Passengers Per Passengers Per Revenue Per Revenue Per Route Number PassengersOperating Cost Revenue Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Mile Hour Mile Hour
1A 111,286 $252,537 $95,722 93,682 5,468 1.19 20.35 $11.20 $17.50 1B 87,894 $359,331 $76,372 78,919 4,471 1.11 19.66 $0.97 $17.08 1C 48,003 $359,331 $47,182 45,190 2,739 1.06 17.53 $1.04 $17.23 2A 93,325 $350,284 $75,418 61,224 4,534 1.52 20.58 $1.23 $16.63 2B 84,000 $285,476 $67,096 51,943 3,847 1.62 21.84 $1.29 $17.44 3A 139,402 $341,561 $119,016 77,575 4,691 1.80 29.72 $1.53 $25.37 3B 91,013 $341,561 $79,485 77,575 4,691 1.17 19.40 $1.02 $16.95 4A 69,795 $353,841 $52,869 64,208 4,585 1.09 15.22 $0.82 $11.53 4B 53,673 $285,549 $38,320 53,882 3,878 1.00 13.84 $0.71 $9.88 5 69,953 $538,371 $66,684 206,848 6,318 0.34 11.07 $0.32 $10.55 6 49,878 $338,327 $42,073 92,989 4,543 0.54 10.98 $0.45 $9.26 7 (Express) 11,709 $254,738 $12,183 46,526 1,167 0.25 10.04 $0.26 $10.44 7 (Circulator) 37,981 $141,236 $38,217 80,201 3,321 0.47 11.44 $0.48 $11.51 8A 49,124 $318,416 $42,695 73,803 4,335 0.67 11.33 $0.58 $9.85 8B 38,967 $318,416 $32,327 73,803 4,335 0.53 8.99 $0.44 $7.46 9 73,707 $320,812 $62,910 66,482 4,123 1.11 17.88 $0.95 $15.26 System Total 1,109,710 $5,159,787 $948,570 1,244,850 67,045 0.89 16.55 $0.76 $14.15
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-28 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-10 provides ridership figures for FY 2008/09. Total annual ridership during this time period was over 1 million passengers. Table 2-8 indicates that between 2008 and 2009 CAT ridership decreased nearly 5 percent, from 1,166,358 to 1,109,710; however, in March 2009 CAT implemented a fare increase and service modifications due to budgetary constraints. The fare increase coupled with a reduction in the price of gas from 2008 to 2009 may have contributed to the decrease in ridership.
Table 2-10 FY 2008/09 Ridership Data Month Ridership October 109,524 November 101,381 December 104,852 January 101,444 February 98,196 March 93,091 April 90,753 May 82,963 June 84,065 July 82,519 August 84,951 September 75,971
Vehicle Inventory
Table 2-11 provides a summary of the fixed-route transit vehicles operated by CAT. As shown in the table, the entire fleet consists of a total of 23 vehicles.
Table 2-11 Fixed-Route Vehicles NUMBER AUTOMATIC WHEELCHAIR SEATING STANDING TALKING VIDEO OF YEAR MAKE DESCRIPTION LENGTH VEHICLE BIO-DIESEL LIFT CAPACITY CAPACITY BUS CAMERA VEHICLES LOCATOR 2 2001 Bluebird 24 PASSENGER 25' YES 24 12 NO NO NO NO 1 2003 Freightliner CHAMPION 25' YES 24 12 NO NO NO NO 2 2003 Freightliner CHAMPION 29' YES 24 15 NO NO NO NO 4 2004 Freightliner CHAMPION 29' YES 24 15 NO NO NO NO 3 2005 Gillig G29E102R2 30' YES 28 17 NO NO YES NO 4 2006 Gillig G29E102R2 30' YES 28 17 NO NO YES NO 4 2007 Gillig G27E102N2 30' YES 28 17 NO NO YES NO 3 2010 Gillig G27E102N2 35' YES 32 23 NO NO YES NO
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-29 Transit Development Plan
Other Capital Equipment
There are 430 bus stops located within the CAT fixed-route service area. Of those 430 bus stops, there are benches at 52 stops and 45 stop have shelters. CAT has completed a bus stop/shelter needs study based on the existing ridership. The study identified a list of stops where shelters may be warranted based solely on ridership. Figure 2-5 presents the 41 stops by route where ridership may warrant bus shelter installation.
Figure 2-5 Stops with Peak Ridership by Route
Source: Collier MPO, “Final Collier County Bus Stop/Shelter Needs Plan”.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-30 Transit Development Plan
In May 2010, CAT received a letter from FDOT regarding the ADA compliance of benches along the state highway system within the CAT service area. CAT will begin developing an assessment of the agency’s bench conditions for those benches located along state roadways. Based on the findings, CAT will develop a plan for addressing the ADA deficiencies. The capital budget included in Section 10 of this report includes funding for the future installation of ADA compliant benches and shelters.
PARATRANSIT SERVICES
Collier Area Paratransit (CAP) provides trips to people who are unable to use the fixed-route service due to disability. Trips are provided to and from locations during the fixed-route system’s regular service hours. CAP service is limited to areas within a ¾-mile distance from the fixed-route system.
The Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) program provides transportation service to people residing in areas where CAT bus routes are not available and who have no other means of transportation.
Individuals who are interested in using the CAP services must apply through a written application process. The eligibility process can take up to 21 days to complete. After qualifying for service, all permanent individuals are subject to recertification every 3 years. CAP is intended to serve a limited group of people under the following programs:
. ADA recipients may only schedule trips that begin and end within the ADA corridor (3/4-mile of an established CAT bus route). Hours of operation for ADA are the same as the published bus schedule.
. Medicaid recipients may travel only to medical appointments qualified under their program of coverage any time and day throughout the year.
. TD recipients are permitted to schedule trips countywide Monday through Friday between the hours of 4:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays are reserved for medical trips only.
. Agency sponsored trips are only authorized as arranged by the particular agency sponsoring the trip.
Trips must be reserved in advance by contacting CAP Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Reservations may be scheduled up to 2 weeks in advance. Next day service must be scheduled by 2:00 p.m. the day before. CAP does not accept same day reservations.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-31 Transit Development Plan
Vehicle Inventory
As shown in Table 2-12, the complementary ADA service is operated utilizing 20 vehicles with platform lifts.
Table 2-12 Paratransit Vehicles
NUMBER OF WHEELCHAIR YEAR MAKE DESCRIPTION LIFT TYPE SEATS VEHICLES CAPACITY 1 2003 Ford E450 CUTAWAY 22' Platform 20 2 5 2006 Chevrolet GLAVAL BUS Platform 14 5 1 2006 Chevrolet EXPRESS 350 Platform 10 2 5 2007 Chevrolet GLAVAL BUS Platform 14 5 1 2007 Chevrolet EXPRESS 350 Platform 10 2 1 2007 Chevrolet EXPRESS 350 Platform 11 2 6 2009 Chevrolet CHAMPION Platform 8 2
PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS
This section includes an inventory of existing transportation service providers in Collier County. Each provider was mailed a short questionnaire to obtain information about its transportation services. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix C. Table 2-13 includes information for the agencies that completed the questionnaire. In addition to those agencies, a listing of other service providers in the County that did not respond to the questionnaire is presented in Appendix C.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-32 Transit Development Plan
Table 2-13 Collier County Private Transportation Providers Average Type of Facilities Service Area Service Primary Rolling Stock Agency/Provider Hours Fare Annual Service Boundaries Frequency Desinations Name Location Age Condition Ridership Type Age # of Units
Cars 5 years 5 A+ Airport Demand All Florida - Airport24 - hours / 7Depends onOn Demand - Trasportation, Inc. Response Office (zip - 34104) 3 Good Cruise Lines days a weekthe distance Seasonal RSW - Van 4 years 1 13233 Greywood Circle Ft. Myers, FL Dispatch 33966 Various Aaron Airport Airport - 12581 Metro based on 40-70 trips Area serviced by 1989- Transportation CharterGarage Pkwy SW Florida 5AMmileage - 12AM per day RSW Airport 10,000 Lincoln Town Cars 2001 12 $2.75 start fee and Checker Cab of Call and Collier and Lee 24 hours / 7 $2.25 per 100,00 fare 2002 and Collier County Taxi Dispatch Center Naples 5 Excellent County days a week mile - All per year Cars newer - Anything (i.e. taxi, demand Marco to Town Cars 05-'09 20 Classic Luxury response, 24 hours / 7RSW - $68 All, even a Transportation charter) - - - - Marco to Ft. Myersdays a weekfor 4 people All All (dog) Vans 05-'09 10 Dolphin Motorcoaches, Transportation 24 hours / 7 24 hours / 7 Vans, SUVs, Limos, Specialists, Inc. Charter Dolphin Naples 30 Good Southdays Florida a week Varies days a week Airports 1,000,000Sedans, Mini Buses 3 years 62 66 total Collier County north Wheelchair Van (4) '03-'04 Wheelchair Operations Pinellas Excellent to Pinellas County. (Rear Load) - (62)'05-'09 TransportatioCommunication Includes Collier, Hospitals, n and s Pinellas ExcellentLee, Manatee, $23 base / Nrusing Wheelchair Demand Maintenance - Charlotte, 24 hours / 7 $2.38 per Facilities, Dr. Wheelchair Van Transport Service Response outsource Each County ExcellentHighlands, Pinellasdays a week mile COD Daily Offices 10,000 (Side Load) - (2) Both 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 2-33 Transit Development Plan
Section 3: Public Involvement
A public involvement process was developed for the TDP to outline public involvement efforts throughout the TDP process and ensure ample opportunities for the public as well as local agencies and organizations to participate in the development of the TDP. The TDP will be developed in accordance with the Collier MPO’s adopted Public Involvement Plan (PIP), which is included as Appendix B. CAT has also adopted the MPO PIP as its formal public outreach process. A copy of the MPO PIP and the CAT TDP public involvement process have been submitted to and approved by FDOT. This section summarizes the public involvement activities that have been undertaken to-date as part of the TDP major update. The components of the public involvement activities are presented below.
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS
As part of the TDP process, a TDP Review Committee was established to provide oversight and technical feedback. The Review Committee is composed of representatives from the Technical Advisory Committee, FDOT, Workforce Development, the Local Coordinating Board, the Pathways Advisory Committee, the Congestion Management System/Intelligent Transportation System Stakeholders Committee, and the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. The Review Committee met three times throughout the course of the project.
The first TDP Review Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, February 25, 2010. The meeting began with a brief overview of the TDP process. During the initial project kick-off meeting, the Review Committee also reviewed the project schedule, scope of services, and key themes from stakeholder interviews. Each committee member was given a copy of TDP Technical Memorandum #1 and asked to provide comments within two weeks.
The second TDP Review Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, April 22, 2010. The meeting began with a brief overview of the comments received during the discussion group meetings held on April 7, 2010 and April 8, 2010. The meeting proceeded with discussion of Technical Memorandum #2, which included the on-board survey results and the draft Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives. Review Committee members were also asked to approve the final map layout for the TDP.
The third TDP Review Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, June 10, 2010. The meeting began with an overview of the revisions that were made to the draft in order to incorporate the committee’s comments on Technical Memorandum #1 and #2. The meeting proceeded with discussion of the draft alternatives, ridership projections, and draft budget. Each Review Committee member was given a compact disc containing the draft TDP and asked to provide comments within three weeks. A complete summary of each Review Committee meeting is presented in Appendix D.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-1 Transit Development Plan
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
To assess the attitudes of key local officials and community leaders regarding the transit system, nine stakeholder interviews were conducted via telephone and written responses. The interviews sought to assess political and community leaders’ views on transit’s current and future role in the community, transit finance and governance, and other issues relevant to the transit plan. Table 3-1 provides a list of the stakeholders that were interviewed for the update process.
Table 3-1 Stakeholder Interview Participants Name Affiliation Stacey Revay Smart Growth Coalition Multiple Representatives Caring Hearts Dr. William Trotter City of Marco Island Kelly Daily Naples Community Hospital (NCH) Council Member Dee Sulick City of Naples Commissioner Donna Fiala Collier County Board of County Commissioners Mike Regan Naples Chamber of Commerce David Weigel Lighthouse of Collier Garrett Morgan Marco Island Marriott
A series of 27 detailed questions was developed to facilitate the discussion and obtain stakeholders’ perceptions of three major areas related to public transportation in Collier County.
. Existing Conditions . The Future of Transit . Transit Funding Issues
A copy of the interview script that was used for all of the interviews is presented in Appendix E. Common perceptions and themes from the stakeholder interviews are summarized below.
Existing Conditions
(1) Are you currently aware of CAT and its services?
All of the stakeholders were aware of CAT and its services.
(2) Is the public perception of CAT good, satisfactory, or poor?
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-2 Transit Development Plan
The majority of stakeholders commented that the public’s perception of CAT is “good”. A couple stakeholders commented that a small percentage of the County’s residents are aware of CAT and utilize the system. One stakeholder mentioned that the overall image of CAT is poor based on frequencies and the perception of the transit riders.
(3) Do you believe CAT has done an effective job marketing transit service options?
The majority of stakeholders do not think that CAT has done an effective job marketing its transit service. Stakeholders cited reasons including not enough people are aware of the system and the increases in ridership are too modest to declare victory. One stakeholder indicated that CAT could do more marketing. A few stakeholders commented that CAT has done an excellent job based on the resources available; however, one of those stakeholders indicated that the community has not been supportive of CAT. A couple stakeholders offered to use their available resources to assist CAT with additional marketing efforts.
(4) Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors)
The majority of stakeholders indicated that workers and the elderly populations are using the transit system. Stakeholders commented that tourists are not likely to use CAT unless they are international tourists with an understanding of transit.
(5) What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School)
The majority of stakeholders believe that most transit trips are for work, medical, and shopping. One stakeholder commented that “shopping” includes necessary items.
(6) What are the major destinations within your immediate community?
Stakeholders believe that the major destinations within the community include Naples, the Naples Airport, the Government Complex, the Coastland Mall, 5th Avenue, Mercado, shopping locations, the Naples Hospital, Immokalee, hotels, and areas to the east.
(7) What are the major destinations outside of your community where people are traveling to, from in your area?
According to the stakeholders, major destinations outside of the community include the jobs in the north end of town, Lee County, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, the outlying areas of Collier County, the Naples Hospital on Immokalee Road, Florida Gulf Coast University, Southwest Florida International Airport, Coconut Point, Germaine Arena, and the Miramar Outlets.
(8) Do you use CAT? Why? Why not?
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-3 Transit Development Plan
The majority of stakeholders do not use CAT. Reasons cited for not utilizing the transit system include the service is not conducive to busy schedules, no need to use CAT, owns transportation, and the system does not provide service between the stakeholder’s residence and business. Only two of the stakeholders commented that they occasionally use CAT.
(9) What do you think are the most significant issues facing automobile travelers?
The majority of stakeholders commented that the County has successfully addressed traffic congestion issues over the last ten to fifteen years. A couple stakeholders mentioned that gas prices are an issue facing automobile travelers. One stakeholder commutes to Collier County and believes traffic congestion is an issue when traveling from Lee County into Collier County. One stakeholder mentioned that the east-west road system is still inadequate and needs more routes and road improvements.
(10) What do you think are the most significant issues facing transit users?
Stakeholders identified the most significant issues facing transit users as frequency of the schedules, lack of service on holidays, fare increases, inability to board buses with market carts, lack of information at bus stops, lack of shelters, cost for passengers and the County, lack of connectivity to outlying areas within the County, distance between bus stops, the number of transfers required to complete a trip, lack of sidewalks and accessibility at bus stops, and technology for the visually impaired.
(11) What groups of travelers seem to experience the most difficult transportation conditions (the disabled, low-income, elderly, commuters, etc)? Why?
The majority of stakeholders identified the elderly, low-income, workers, and disabled as the travelers experiencing the worst conditions. Reasons cited included lack of Americans with Disabilities (ADA) accessible sidewalks and commute times. A number of workers commute daily from Immokalee to Marco Island and experience long commute times and overcrowded buses.
(12) Do you believe there is a congestion problem in Collier County?
The majority of stakeholders do not believe there is a congestion problem in Collier County based on the County’s recent roadway improvements. A couple stakeholders do believe there is a congestion problem in Collier County, particularly in the I-75 & US 41 area near Marco Island and during times when seasonal residents return to Collier County.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-4 Transit Development Plan
The Future of Transit in Collier County
(13) Is there a need for additional transit service in Collier County?
The majority of stakeholders indicated that there is a need for additional transit service in Collier County. Some of the future services mentioned included: more service to Marco Island, holiday service for businesses that cater to tourists, more local service on Marco Island, service from Collier County to Lee County, and service to the Southwest Florida International Airport. A couple stakeholders do not believe additional service is needed at this time.
(14) What type of transit services would you like to see more of in Collier County? (More Frequent Fixed-Route, Express Bus, Trolley, Demand Response, Increased Weekend Service, Late Evening Service)
Stakeholders indicated that they would like to see more frequent fixed-route service, express bus service, increased weekend service, holiday service, later evening service for workers, more regional connections to surrounding counties, more local service within Marco Island, reduced distance between bus stops, more transit connecting to Immokalee, more routes in northeast Naples, and tourist routes to hotels and restaurants. Two stakeholders indicated that the current level of service is sufficient and more data is needed prior to expanding the system.
(15) Do you believe that public transportation can relieve congestion in Collier County?
Two stakeholders believe that public transportation can relieve congestion in Collier County. Another stakeholder commented that the issue is more related to intersection design.
(16) What efforts or initiatives are you aware of that have been undertaken in the last five years to address traffic congestion in the region (locally)?
According to stakeholders, efforts or initiatives undertaken in the last five years to address traffic congestion include the widening of I-75 and other local roads and the redesigning of intersections and interchanges.
(17) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been successful and why?
One stakeholder commented that the widening of I-75 has been effective and resulted in less congestion and accidents. Another stakeholder commented that the Collier Boulevard & Marco Road widening project has been successful in relieving congestion.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-5 Transit Development Plan
(18) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been unsuccessful and why?
One stakeholder commented that the widening of roads has been unsuccessful in terms of reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled.
(19) What efforts would you like to see undertaken, to address traffic congestion in this region?
Stakeholders indicated that they would like to see increased transit, increased bus rapid transit (BRT), rail connecting Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier counties, connectivity from sidewalks and bicycle paths, and improvements to the interchange at CR 951 & I-75.
(20) What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Collier County area?
The following ideas were identified by stakeholders in an effort to increase the use of public transit in the Collier County area:
. Promote more routes for weekend users . Implement a promotional pass program . Increase marketing efforts . Promote CAT on the County website . Disseminate CAT information to the public through the Naples Chamber email list and monthly magazine . Create an exciting advertisement for regularly watched television channels that entices people to use CAT . Increase frequency and local service on Marco Island
(21) Is more regional transportation needed to connect Collier County with surrounding areas (such as Lee County and Charlotte County)?
The majority of stakeholders believe that more regional transportation is needed to connect Collier County with the surrounding areas, particularly Lee County and the airport. One stakeholder commented that linking to the surrounding areas should be investigated. A couple stakeholders were unsure of whether or not people would use the connections if they existed.
(22) At some point in the future, do you envision that rail transit will be needed in the city/county? If so, when should it be implemented and where should it go?
Half of the stakeholders envision rail in the future and half either do not believe rail is needed or are unsure. Those who envision rail commented that the system should connect
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-6 Transit Development Plan
Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, and Sarasota. One stakeholder commented that the priority should be focusing on the existing bus system and maybe around 2030 the region will be ready for rail service. Stakeholders also commented that tourists would be more likely to use a rail system rather than the fixed-route bus system.
(23) In the future, do you believe that CAT should remain a County department or become a Regional Transit Authority? If yes, please explain why?
The majority of stakeholders commented that CAT should remain a County department for reasons including responsiveness, the loss of idiosyncrasies that make the system special, and the County is more aware of the area’s needs. One stakeholder commented that CAT should at least regionally coordinate its services in the future. A couple stakeholders mentioned that they do not know enough about the Regional Transit Authority, but that a larger authority could focus on one great system and include Lee County.
(24) Where do you see CAT ten years from now?
The stakeholder’s 10-year visions for CAT included the following:
. Hope for a robust system with increased ridership, but fear of remaining static . A system with expanded routes and times, more efficient, and more effective . A more regional system . A system that continues to grow in Collier County and within the region . A system with more east and west corridors . If there is a need, more successful in terms of ridership . Hope for a system that continues running as good as now . A more frequent and more ubiquitous system
Transit Funding
(25) What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future?
Responses to the question regarding local funding sources varied. Several stakeholders commented that tourist development and private partnerships should pay to increase transit services in the future, particularly if the hotel industry is benefiting from the service. A couple stakeholders mentioned advertising revenue as a future funding source. Gas taxes and sales taxes were also mentioned as a funding source for expanding the transit system. One stakeholder commented that no funding sources should be used; however, modest increases in rates and ridership should provide additional revenue. One stakeholder commented that a transit fee for longer distance service should support increased transit service in the future. Another stakeholder believed that these questions are better suited for experts in the public finance field.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-7 Transit Development Plan
(26) Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system?
Responses to the question regarding willingness to pay additional local taxes varied. Several stakeholders were willing to pay an increase within reason. Several stakeholders were not willing to pay additional taxes. One stakeholder commented that the system is already subsidized by the County, which was never part of the plan and the subsidy should remain at the existing level. Another stakeholder commented that a cost-benefit analysis would be needed to determine the benefit.
(27) What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (Please specify per trip or other)
Several stakeholders believe that a reasonable passenger fare for transit is somewhere between $2.00 and $3.00. A couple stakeholders commented that the current passenger fare of $1.50 is reasonable. One stakeholder indicated that they were unsure because the people needing the system are low-income.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WORKSHOPS
Public workshops have proven to be an effective technique for obtaining substantive public participation in the planning process. The first public workshop was held on January 14, 2010 at the Golden Gate Community Center. As participants arrived at the meeting, they were asked to indicate their residence and top destination on a map. The origin and destination mapping exercise assisted in obtaining information relating to the travel patterns. The majority of participants indicated that they live within the Naples area; however, a few participants lived in the northern portion of the County and have no access to transit. One participant lived in Lee County and another lived in Marco Island. The majority of top destinations were within the Naples area.
The public workshop included a presentation of the TDP development process, key findings from the stakeholder interviews completed to-date, the peer review selection process and results, and the trend review results. After the presentation, participants were asked to break into four groups to complete an interactive exercise.
The interactive exercise required the meeting participants to improve or expand transit services within the County using a limited amount of funding. The objective of the exercise was for meeting participants to experience the difficulty of planning future transit services with fiscal constraints. Break-out groups were asked to elect a representative to present the group’s plan for future transit services in Collier County. The following improvements were identified by the break-out groups:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-8 Transit Development Plan
. Lee County connection (3 groups) . Extending the Red Route to the beach along Immokalee Road . Route from 39th Street to Gulf Shore Boulevard along Pine Ridge Road (3 groups) . Extending the Route 7 Express from Blackburn Road along Collier Avenue . Extending the Yellow Route along Golden Gate Boulevard . Route from 72nd Avenue to Golden Gate along Everglades Boulevard . Route from the County line to Radio Road along Livingston Road
In addition, during the presentation one group expressed that if given additional funding a top priority would be to establish park-and-ride lots throughout the County.
Two additional workshops were held on June 21, 2010 and June 22, 2010 to solicit input on the draft TDP. The June 21st workshop was held at the Immokalee Library and the June 22nd workshop was held at the Collier County Museum. These workshops included a question and answer period prior to the presentation, a presentation of the draft TDP, a review of the projects selected for implementation over the FY 2010/2011-2019/2020 timeframe, and an open discussion period in an effort to gauge the public’s opinion of the selected projects. No public comments were made at either workshop in reference to the projects selected for implementation over FY 2010/2011-2019/2020 timeframe.
All written comments received during the final public workshops and all written comments received throughout the TDP development process are presented in Appendix D.
TRANSIT SURVEYS
During the TDP development process, surveys were disseminated at the first public workshop and the discussion group workshops. The TDP survey was also available on the Collier MPO website located at http://www.colliermpo.net/survey.asp. The results of all the completed surveys have been compiled and are presented below.
. 90 percent of respondents were aware of CAT services . 90 percent of respondents feel there is a need for more transit service in Collier County . 30 percent of the respondents think the public perception of CAT is good and 30 percent of the respondents think the public perception of CAT is satisfactory . The majority of respondents would like for CAT to provide more frequent bus service . 20 percent of respondents use CAT . 70 percent of respondents are willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system . 80 percent of respondents believe there is a traffic congestion problem in Collier County . 100 percent of respondents think more regional transportation is needed to connect Collier County with the surrounding areas
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-9 Transit Development Plan
. 60 percent of respondents envision rail transit will be needed in the County . 50 percent of respondents believe that CAT’s priority improvement should be expanding service to new areas
ON-BOARD SURVEY
As part of the TDP public involvement process, an on-board survey was conducted during February 2010. On-board surveys are an important service assessment tool employed by public transportation agencies. Feedback from the on-board survey efforts will assist CAT in planning for immediate service improvements and in determining future transit need in Collier County. In addition, CAT can use the on-board survey results to determine the demographic make-up and travel characteristics of its existing customer base.
SURVEY APPROACH
On-board surveyors were utilized to help facilitate the survey administration process and ensure a higher response rate. An on-board survey instrument was prepared and administered to bus riders. The survey was translated into both Spanish and Creole language versions for distribution to Spanish and Creole-speaking patrons who were not able to complete the English version. The English, Spanish, and Creole versions of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix F of the TDP Major Update.
The on-board survey was distributed by a team of trained survey personnel. Prior to sending surveyors out on CAT buses, a training session was conducted in order to instruct surveyors about their duties and responsibilities and to address any issues or concerns that they may have had about the survey process. Table 3-2 presents the survey effort work plan, including the dates and times that surveys were disseminated on each of the routes.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-10 Transit Development Plan
Table 3-2 On-Board Survey Work Plan
Route(s) Survey Date Trip Start Time Trip End Time Covered
Thursday, February 18, 2010 5A 4:10 AM 9:25 AM Thursday, February 18, 2010 7 4:45 AM 11:50 AM Thursday, February 18, 2010 3A 5:25 AM 1:05 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 1B 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 1C 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 2A 5:40 AM 1:10 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 4A 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 6 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 9 6:40 AM 2:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 5A,8B 9:10 AM 7:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 5A,8B 9:10 AM 7:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 1A 9:40 AM 5:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 3B 9:48 AM 6:05 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 2B 10:10 AM 6:40 PM Thursday, February 18, 2010 4B 6:10 AM 11:10 AM Thursday, February 18, 2010 7 11:10 AM 7:30 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 7 4:45 AM 2:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 1B 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 1C 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 4A 5:40 AM 4:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 6 5:40 AM 1:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 5A,8B 9:10 AM 7:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 5A,8B 9:10 AM 7:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 3B 9:48 AM 6:05 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 2B 10:10 AM 6:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 4B 10:40 AM 6:40 PM Saturday, February 20, 2010 9 2:10 PM 7:10 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 2A 6:40 AM 6:10 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 1B 7:10 AM 6:10 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 1C 7:10 AM 6:10 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 4A 7:10 AM 6:10 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 3B 7:25 AM 6:05 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 9 8:10 AM 5:40 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 6 8:40 AM 4:40 PM Sunday, February 21, 2010 7 11:10 AM 7:30 PM
ON-BOARD SURVEY RESULTS
The following section documents the results of the on-board survey. A total of 1,504 CAT bus riders responded to the survey. For analysis purposes, the 23 questions on the survey were divided into three major categories. Analysis categories include travel characteristics, rider demographics, and customer service and satisfaction.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-11 Transit Development Plan
Travel Characteristics
Travel characteristics questions were designed to ask respondents about their individual trip attributes and their travel behavior. Topics covered by the travel characteristics questions on the survey include:
. Trip origin (type and location) . Trip destination (type and location) . Vehicle ownership . Fare type used . Transit stop/station access and egress travel mode . Transfers . Frequency of transit use
Questions 1 and 4 asked respondents about the type of place they were coming from to start their one-way trip and the type of place they are going to on the same one-way trip, respectively. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present the results to these two questions. As shown in Figure 3-1, most respondent trips originated at home. The second highest trip origin indicated by respondents was work. Similarly, the two highest destinations were work and home. The trip destination results are shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-1 Trip Origin
Where are you coming from?
Medical 3.4%
Shopping/Errands 6.6%
Recreation 0.8%
College/Tech 0.3%
School (K-12) 2.7%
Social/Personal 3.4%
Work 19.9%
Home 60.6%
Other 2.10%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-12 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-2 Trip Destination
Where are you going to?
Medical 3.9%
Shopping/Errands 13.0%
Recreation 2.6%
College/Tech 1.0%
School (K-12) 2.8%
Social/Personal 6.5%
Work 42.7%
Home 24.4%
Other 3.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
To illustrate the relationship between trip origins and destinations, an origin-destination analysis was performed using the results of survey Questions 2 and 5. Those two questions asked respondents to indicate the address or name of their trip start location and their trip end destination. Respondents were asked to specify an address; name a place, business, or building; or indicate the nearest intersection. Information provided by respondents was geocoded using ArcGIS software. Geocoding is the process of assigning geographic coordinates to data records. Once geocoded, trip origins and destinations were assigned to specific geographic areas of the County. Once trip origins and destinations were mapped, desire lines were drawn between corresponding trip pairs. Map 3-1 illustrates the respondent’s trip origins and destinations. Map 3-2 illustrates the intensity of transit trips between areas and reflects the results of the origin-destination analysis.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-13 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Cape Coral Immokalee Inset LEE
Immokalee 2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Naples Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Bonita Springs--Naples Naples Inset Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Trip Origin Trip Destination Urbanized Areas Marco Island Conservation Areas
Marco Island Inset
Marco Island
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 3-1 Trip Origins and Destinations Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL & CAT. Immokalee
Cape Coral Immokalee Inset LEE
Immokalee 2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Route 2A HENDRY Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Route 5 Bonita Springs--Naples Naples Inset Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Origins with Matched Destinations Destiantions with Matched Origins Trip Links Urbanized Areas Conservation Areas
Marco Island
Marco Island Inset
Marco Island
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 3-2 Linked Trip Origins and Destinations Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL & CAT.
Questions 3a and 6a on the survey asked respondents to describe how they access the transit system and how they will reach their final destination. The responses to these questions reveal how transit users must often times combine various modes of travel in order to complete their individual trip. As shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, the majority of CAT bus customers walk to and from the bus stop/station. The second most common mode of travel used to access the bus stop prior to boarding the bus is bicycling, while the third most common mode of travel used to reach a final destination after departing the bus is transferring to another bus route.
Figure 3-3 Transit Station Access
How did you get to the bus stop for this one-way trip?
90.0% 78.4% 80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 10.0% 6.5% 10.0% 3.9% 0.3% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% Walked Bicycled Drove & Was Rode Transferred Other parked dropped off w/someone from another who parked route
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-16 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-4 Transit Station Egress
After you get off the bus, how will you get to your final destination for this one-way trip?
80.0% 70.6% 70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 14.5% 8.4% 10.0% 3.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.2% 0.0% Walk Bicycle Drive Will be Ride w/ Transfer to Other picked up someone another route who parked
Questions 3b and 6b asked bus riders whether their one-way trip involved a transfer. Figure 3-5 illustrates that approximately 42 percent of the respondents indicated that their trip involved a transfer to another bus route, while 58 percent of the riders reached their final destinations without having to transfer to another bus. Figure 3-6 shows the top three routes that required transfers. Route Red 1B has the highest number of riders transferring to other routes, followed by Purple 3A and Orange 2B.
Figure 3-5 Transfer Summary
Transfer Summary
More than two tansfers, 5.0% Two transfers, 10.8%
One transfer, 26.2% No Transfer, 58.1%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-17 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-6 Top Three Transferred Routes
Top Three Transferred Routes
120 106 100 92 82 80
60 40
20 0 Red 1B Purple 3A Orange 2B
Respondents were asked how often they complete the one-way trip they were making at the time the survey was administered. As shown in Figure 3-7, over 50 percent of respondents indicated that they use CAT services more than 5 times per week.
Figure 3-7 Trip Frequency
During a typical week, how often do you make the one-way bus trip you are on now?
35.00%
29.4% 30.00%
25.00% 23.9%
20.00%
15.00% 11.4% 9.0% 9.5% 10.00% 8.7% 8.0%
5.00%
0.00% Less than 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days once a week
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-18 Transit Development Plan
Question 10 asked bus riders how they would complete their trip if bus service were not available. Results to this question are shown in Figure 3-8. The most common response provided was to ride with someone else, followed by bicycle. The responses previously listed, along with the large distribution of individuals who walk or would not make the trip, reflect the significant number of CAT riders who are transit dependent.
Figure 3-8 Mode Choice
How would you make this one-way trip if not by bus?
Moped/Scooter 0.4%
Walk 19.3%
Bicycle 19.7%
Wouldn't make trip 16.4%
Ride with someone 31.3%
Drive 6.9%
Other 6.0%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
To assess the utilization rates of fare media and payment methods, a question about how bus riders paid their fare was placed on the survey. The majority of bus riders, 46 percent, paid the full fare when they boarded the CAT bus. Approximately, 24 percent of respondents indicated using a monthly pass and 11 percent indicated using a daily pass. Figure 3-9 displays the distribution of the respondents’ fare payment methods.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-19 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-9 Fare Payment Method
What type of fare did you pay when you boarded this bus?
50.0% 46.4% 45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% 23.5%
20.0%
15.0% 11.4% 10.0% 7.1%
5.0% 3.4% 2.5% 3.4% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% Full Fare Half Fare Token Transfer Day Weekly Monthly Express Express Other Pass Pass Pass Full Fare Monthly Pass
Figure 3-10 shows the method of fare payment used by riders in different age groups. Respondents ages 18 to 24 are more likely to pay the full fare for their trip when compared to other fare payment options. From among the multi-ride passes, the monthly pass is the most common pass used by respondents over 17 years of age. For the most part, the monthly pass use increases with rider age.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-20 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-10 Fare Type Paid by Respondent Age
Fare Type Paid by Respondent Age 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
0% 17 or under 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 Over 74
Other 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Express M onthly Pass 0.0% 3.7% 2.6% 2.9% 3.6% 5.8% 0.0% 9.1% Express Full Fare 1.1% 1.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% M onthly Pass 14.7% 14.1% 22.7% 30.1% 33.6% 26.1% 22.7% 27.3% Weekly Pass 1.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Day Pass 21.1% 8.4% 11.0% 11.4% 11.2% 18.8% 9.1% 0.0% Transfer 9.5% 2.4% 1.3% 2.6% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Token 3.2% 6.1% 1.3% 2.9% 2.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% Half Fare 41.1% 4.0% 3.2% 2.6% 0.9% 4.3% 50.0% 63.6% Full Fare 7.4% 58.2% 55.8% 45.2% 44.4% 40.6% 18.2% 0.0%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-21 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-11 shows the method of fare payment used by riders with different incomes. With the exception of riders earning between $40,000 and $49,999, the full fare is the primary fare type for all other riders, regardless of household income. The monthly pass is the primary fare type for riders earning between $40,000 and $49,999.
Figure 3-11 Fare Type Paid by Respondent Household Income
Fare Type by Income 10 0 %
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
0% Under $10,000 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000 or more Do Not Work
Other 0.6% 0.4% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% Express M onthly Pass 3.0% 4.8% 3.2% 1.4% 0.0% 8.3% 1.7% Express Full Fare 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 1.1% Monthly Pass 26.9% 24.2% 22.9% 23.0% 45.0% 16.7% 16.8% Weekly Pass 1.8% 0.4% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% Day Pass 9.9% 11.0% 12.1% 13.5% 10.0% 8.3% 18.4% Transfer 0.9% 2.6% 3.2% 2.7% 5.0% 0.0% 6.1% Token 3.3% 4.4% 3.2% 2.7% 5.0% 0.0% 1.7% Half Far e 4.2% 4.0% 2.5% 2.7% 15.0% 0.0% 20.1% Full Fare 49.0% 48.0% 47.8% 54.1% 20.0% 62.5% 32.4%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-22 Transit Development Plan
Question 8 asked survey respondents how many days a week they ride the bus. This question is different from Question 9 on the survey, which asked respondents how many times a week they make the specific one-way trip they were making at the time they completed the survey. Instead, this question focuses on a respondent’s overall utilization of the CAT bus service, regardless of trip purpose. The results to Question 8 are shown in Figure 3-12. Nearly 60 percent of respondents indicated that they ride the bus at least 5 days a week.
Figure 3-12 Frequency of Use
How many days a week do you ride the bus?
40.0%
34.4% 35.0%
30.0%
24.4% 25.0%
20.0%
15.0% 11.0% 10.1% 10.0% 8.6% 7.1% 4.4% 5.0%
0.0% Once a 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days month or less
Rider Demographics
The demographic portion of the survey includes a variety of questions that queried respondents about their household income levels, age, gender, and ethnicity, among other things. Other topics covered by the demographic questions include reasons for using CAT service and how long riders have been using CAT service.
Question 21 on the survey asked respondents to indicate the number of licensed drivers in their households. As shown in Figure 3-13, over 40 percent of CAT bus riders are without driver’s licenses.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-23 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-13 Licensed Drivers
How many licensed drivers are in your household, including yourself?
Two Three or more 17.7% 7.2% Ze ro 40.7%
One 34.3%
Question 12 on the survey asked respondents to indicate the most important reason why they ride the bus. Respondents were also asked to only provide one answer to Question 12. As shown in Figure 3-14, the number one reason selected by respondents is “Do not have a valid driver’s license”. Another reason for using CAT that received a large percentage of responses is “I do not have a car”. Combined, the indication of these reasons further suggests that a large portion of CAT’s riders use transit because they do not have the ability to drive.
The responses to this question also reveal information on discretionary ridership. A substitute measure for “choice” riders among on-board survey respondents can be gauged by the percent of responses received for the “I prefer CAT to other alternatives” response category. That category received approximately 11 percent of responses.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-24 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-14 Reasons for Using CAT
Compared to other transportation alternatives available to you, what is the most important reason you ride the bus?
I do not have a car 17.4%
I do not drive 10.0%
Bus is more environmentally friendly 8.8%
Do not have valid driver license 22.6%
Parking is too expensive/difficult 0.3%
CAT is more convenient 10.4%
Traffic congestion 0.2%
CAT fits my budget better 8.7%
Car is not available all the time 9.7%
I prefer CAT to other alternatives 10.9%
Other 1.2%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
The on-board survey results revealed that a large portion of CAT users are loyal, long-time customers. Figure 3-15 displays the results to Question 7, which asked riders how long they have been using CAT bus service. Nearly 50 percent of respondents indicated that they have been using CAT bus service for two or more years. Approximately 22 percent of respondents indicated that they have been using CAT services for less than 6 months or were first time riders.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-25 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-15 History of Use
How long have you been riding CAT?
40.0%
35.0% 34.2%
30.0%
25.0%
18.6% 20.0% 17.5% 14.7% 15.0% 10.2% 10.0% 4.8% 5.0%
0.0% First-time rider Less than 6 6 months to less 1 to less than 2 2 to 5 years More than 5 months than a year years years
The results to Question 20 are displayed in Figure 3-16. Question 20 asked respondents to indicate how many working vehicles they have available at their household. As shown in Figure 3-16, the largest majority of respondents, 57 percent, do not have any working vehicles in their households.
Figure 3-16 Working Vehicles
How many working cars, vans, and/or light trucks are available in your household?
2 or more vehicles, 10.2%
0 vehicles, 56.7%
1 vehicle, 33.1%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-26 Transit Development Plan
The demographics section of the survey also asked respondents to provide some information about themselves. These types of questions enable CAT to construct a profile of the average CAT bus service user. Table 3-3 provides a profile of the average CAT bus rider based on the significant percentage of all responses received for various demographic questions. The highest percentage of responses for each category was compiled to construct the average CAT bus rider profile. Profiles of the average CAT bus rider based on trip purpose are presented in Appendix F.
Table 3-3 The Average CAT Bus Rider (2010) Average Rider Category Demographic Gender Female Ethic Origin Hispanic Age 18 to 24 Annual Household Income Under $10,000 Regular CAT user Yes
Approximately, 1,200 survey respondents (80 percent) provided answers to the demographic survey questions. Figure 3-17 displays the responses to the demographic questions in graphic form. In addition to the rider profile, more detail regarding bus riders can be found in Map 3-3, which illustrates the density of home locations for all CAT survey respondents per zip code area in Collier County.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-27 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-17 CAT Rider Demographics (2010)
Rider Demographics
Male 48.4% Female 51.6% White 21.1% Black 13.3% Hispanic 60.9% Ais an 1.7% Ethnic HeritageEthnic Gender Other 3.0% 17 or under 8.1% 18 to 24 25.4% 25 to 34 13.6% 35 to 44 23.9%
Age 45 to 54 19.9% 55 to 64 6.0% 65 to 74 2.1% Over 74 1.0% Under $10,000 33.1% $10,000 to $19,999 22.9% $20,000 to $29,999 15.2% $30,000 to $39,999 7.1%
Income $40,000 to $49,999 2.0% $50,000 or more 2.3% Do not work 17.4%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-28 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Route 2A Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Naples Inset Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Home Locations by Zip Code 0 - 30 31 - 60 61 - 120 Marco Island 121 - 243
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 3-3 Home Locations by Zip Code Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL & CAT.
Customer Service and Satisfaction
Customer service and satisfaction questions queried respondents regarding improvements to CAT services and about their general satisfaction levels with various aspects of CAT service. In addition, an effort was made to cross-tabulate selected demographic characteristics with satisfaction levels, as appropriate.
For Question 13, respondents were asked to select from a list of 6 potential improvements that they believed were the most important improvements for CAT to implement. For this question, survey respondents were allowed to select more than one improvement. In addition, a space was provided on the survey as a response category so that respondents could input their own improvement if needed. Figure 3-18 displays the results to the service improvements question on the survey.
Figure 3-18 Service Improvements
Which of the following improvements do you think are most important?
Later service on existing 34.8% routes
More benches and 32.6% shelters at bus stops
More frequent service on 30.3% existing routes
Bus service to new areas 28.9%
Earlier service on existing 18.4% routes
Express (limited stop) 8.3% service
Other 5.5%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
The write-in improvement requests in the “Other” category include the following.
. More stops on existing routes (6 responses) . More bike racks at bus stops and on buses (3 responses) . Reduce the bus fare (3 responses) . Improved customer service (2 responses) . Connection to LeeTran (1 responses) . More buses from Immokalee to Naples (1 response) . More Sunday service (1 response) . Bus drivers should lower buses (1 response) . Shelter at Green Boulevard and Immokalee Road (1 response)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-30 Transit Development Plan
. Bus stop at CR 951 and US 41 (1 response) . Bus stop at Davis Boulevard and US 41 (1 response)
As part of the express service response category, respondents were asked to specify the road(s) on which they would like to see express service. The most frequently referenced write-in responses were for express service on US 41, Airport Road, Golden Gate Parkway, and Livingston Road.
Question 14 asked respondents if they would use a “premium” express bus service. As shown in Figure 3-19, 52 percent of respondents indicated that they would use a bus rapid transit (BRT)-like service and 38 percent indicated that they might use the service.
Figure 3-19 BRT Service
If CAT provided "premium" express (limited stop) bus service, would you use that service?
Maybe, 38.01%
Yes, 51.52%
No , 10.48%
For Question 15, respondents were asked to indicate how they prefer to receive information about CAT services, schedules, and changes. As shown in Figure 3-20, over 46 percent of respondents prefer that CAT information is available on the bus. Thirty percent would like to see information at the bus stops and 21 percent prefer paper bus schedules.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-31 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-20 CAT Information Dissemination
How do you prefer to receive information about CAT service, schedules, and changes?
CAT Email 6.2%
In bus 46.4%
Phone 10.2%
Paper bus schedules 20.8%
Library 3.9%
At bus stop 30.1%
Newspaper 7.8%
CAT Website 12.9%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
Question 23 on the survey asked riders to rate the bus service that was provided by CAT on the day the survey was administered. Respondents were given a list of 9 service-related criteria to rate as either “Very Poor”, “Poor”, “Fair”, “Good”, or “Very Good.” The respondents could select their responses by circling a number from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Very Poor” and 5 being “Very Good.” The ratings of all the respondents were then averaged to obtain a final overall rating for each criterion. Although scores for these types of questions are typically high, understanding customer satisfaction levels assists CAT in prioritizing which potential issues need the most attention, and which areas of service require the most improvement. The highest scores were given to bus cleanliness, driver courtesy, and bus stop safety. Each of those categories received average rating scores above 4.0. Bus timeliness, directness of route, frequency, trip length, and the availability of shelter or shade received ratings below 4.0. The final criterion, the rider’s overall satisfaction with CAT received an average score of 4.11. Figure 3-21 shows all 9 categories and their respective average rating scores.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-32 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-21 Service Rating
Rider Satisfaction
Bus Cleanliness 4.17
Overall Satisfaction 4.11
Driver Courtesy 4.10
Bus Stop Safety 4.06
Bus Timeliness 3.93
Directness of Route 3.87
Frequency 3.66
Trip Length 3.61
Shelter or Shade 3.05
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Figure 3-22 through 3-25 display CAT customer satisfaction ratings by age, gender, ethnic heritage, and household income. As shown in Figure 3-22, the highest overall ratings were given by respondents between the ages of 65 and older, with respondents age 74 and older averaging an overall rating of 4.42. The lowest overall ratings were given by respondents between the ages of 18 and 24, with an average rating of 4.03. Figure 3-23 displays the average overall system service rating by respondent’s gender. Males rated the system slightly higher than females, with an average overall service rating of 4.12 compared to a rating of 4.11 for females. Figure 3-24 provides the average overall CAT system service rating by respondents of different ethnic heritages. While white respondents rated the system highest on average at 4.17, black respondents and respondents indicating “Other” as their ethnic heritage rated the system lowest on average with a rating of 3.97. Figure 3-25 displays the average overall CAT system service ratings stratified by income level. Average overall satisfaction was highest among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999, with an average overall rating of 4.20. Those earning between $40,000 and $49,999 rated the system lowest, with an average overall rating of 3.86.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-33 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-22 Rider Satisfaction and Age
System Rating by Age
Over 74 4.42
65-74 4.29
55-64 4.16
45-54 4.16
35-44 4.11
25-34 4.11
18-24 4.03
17 or under 4.04
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Figure 3-23 Rider Satisfaction and Gender
System Rating by Gender
Female 4.11
Male 4.12
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-34 Transit Development Plan
Figure 3-24 Rider Satisfaction and Ethnic Heritage
System Rating by Ethnic Heritage
As ian 4.12
Hispanic 4.14
Black 3.97
White 4.17
Other 3.97
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Figure 3-25 Rider Satisfaction and Household Income
System Rating by Income
$50,000 or more 4.13
$40,000 to $49,999 3.86
$30,000 to $39,999 4.04
$20,000 to $29,999 3.99
$10,000 to $19,999 4.20
Under $10,000 4.17
Do not work 3.99
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
ON-BOARD SURVEY GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Results from the on-board survey provide insight into various aspects of the CAT fixed-route bus service. Salient conclusions drawn from the on-board survey analysis are summarized in this section.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-35 Transit Development Plan
. Bus riders are satisfied with the CAT service. The average overall satisfaction rating was 4.11 out of 5.
. A large proportion of bus riders, 46 percent, are paying the full cash fare to board the bus.
. A large share of CAT trips are work trips. Approximately 43 percent of respondents indicated work as their final destination of their particular bus trip.
. Bus riders are primarily regular users of the service. Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated that they ride the bus at least five times a week. In addition, nearly 50 percent indicated that they have been using CAT service for more than 2 years.
. Survey respondents indicated later service on existing routes as the most important service improvement needed to be implemented.
. In addition to later service, other high scoring service improvements include more benches and shelters at bus stops, more frequent service on existing routes, and bus service to new areas.
. Nearly 90 percent of respondents indicated that they might utilize a BRT-like service if implemented. In addition, for those respondents who noted that express service was needed, the most common write-in locations for express service were along US 41 and Airport Pulling Road.
. The average CAT bus rider is a female between the ages of 18 to 24 of Hispanic ethnic heritage and an annual household income of under $10,000.
DISCUSSION GROUP WORKSHOPS
To supplement the information collected during the public workshops and to support the TDP update process, four discussion groups were scheduled in geographically diverse locations across the County. Due to a significantly low number of confirmed attendees, the meetings were consolidated into three discussion group workshops. While the meetings were consolidated, representatives were present at all four workshop locations to ensure that any potential attendees had the opportunity to share their input.
On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., a discussion group was held in the East Naples Library meeting room. CAT staff attended the discussion group to assist in facilitating the meeting. Other meeting attendees included a representative from the construction industry and two other CAT user representatives. Several areas of unmet needs were identified and discussed. During the meeting discussion took place on the following topics:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-36 Transit Development Plan
. Roads are being built that are not consistent with the projected population growth and existing planning documents; therefore, this topic should be reviewed so that bus service is not implemented in areas without future growth. . CAT should update its route maps to include major employers, apartments, and other major destinations throughout the County. . CAT needs to review future service in terms of the biggest bang for the buck by connecting people with employment and attractions. . Based on the rural character of the Estates and its distance from other areas, CAT needs to explore transit options other than fixed-route. . The Immokalee route needs to go through Ave Maria and should operate more frequently than once in the morning and once in the evening. . CAT needs to coordinate transportation services with new communities. . Routes need to be reviewed for efficiency based on the need to travel long distances and transfer to complete short trips. . There are gaps in the existing system, including Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee Road. . CAT should consider numbering the bus stops for easier identification of the bus stop locations. . There is a need for more shelters and the existing shelter design should be reviewed. . CAT should consider allowing advertisements inside the bus using the tithe approach by donating 10 percent of the advertisement to non-profit and selling 90 percent to revenue generating businesses. . The existing bus schedules are very confusing. . The buses should go to the beach since the beach is Collier County’s greatest asset. . The routes should be realigned with two transfer centers, which would allow greater coverage without having to go back to the Government Center. . CAT should consider allowing on-street transfers. . The Yellow Routes are consistently late and should be reviewed. . Connecting with the Naples Airport may increase ridership and revenue. . There needs to be routes connecting with Everglades City and Lee County. . CAT representatives should speak at community events each month. . CAT should explore the potential of partnering with the Seminole Casino to provide Sunday service within and to Immokalee.
On Thursday, April 8, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., a discussion group was held at the Collier County Agricultural Center. Four participants attended the meeting, which included representatives from the School Board of Collier County, the Division of Blind Services, the Naples Pathways Coalition, and a local magazine. During the meeting discussion took place on the following topics:
. CAT should consider implementing a bicycle sharing program.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-37 Transit Development Plan
. CAT needs to launch a public relations campaign because there is a lack of information about CAT. . There is a need for people to get past the stigma of the buses being dirty. . The Lorenzo Walker area in north Naples has issues with transfers and shelters. . Along Pine Ridge and Immokalee the ditches fill up with water and these conditions are difficult for transit users. . CAT should partner with the Chamber to develop a map that includes major destinations. The map should be disseminated to grocery stores, libraries, etc. . Dedicated bus pullouts and lanes are needed. . The residents of gated communities do not want buses entering their neighborhoods, which creates an issue for the provision of transit service to these areas. . CAT should go beyond the ¾-mile ADA service area. . The capacity of each route should be evaluated. . CAT should partner with the local television stations for advertisement purposes. . As routes get closer to denser areas, the frequency should be increased. . The transfer policy should be revised so that riders can transfer outside of the Government Center. . CAT should consider realigning the routes into smaller loops rather than the existing lengthy routes. . CAT should consider partnering with the School District to implement a program that allows students to ride the bus and learn how to navigate. . Bus service is needed to the SWFL Airport, along Livingston Road, to Lee County, from Goodlette to Golden Gate, and from Vanderbilt to Immokalee. . CAT should consider a route that loops within the center of Naples near Goodlette. . There is no way for people in other areas to reach disabled services within the Ft. Myers area.
On Thursday, April 8, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., a discussion group was held at the Immokalee Library. Six participants, including representatives from the Immokalee Lions Club, the Immokalee MSTU Advisory Board, and the Immokalee Farmers Association, attended the meeting. During the meeting discussion took place on the following topics:
. The only option for weekend shopping in Immokalee is Winn-Dixie and there are no stores that make repairs; therefore, more weekend transit service is needed from Immokalee to Naples. . Schedules should be added to all bus stops. . Residents of Immokalee need transit service to Lee County for medical purposes. Currently, Immokalee residents are forced to either rent a van or pay another resident to drive them to medical services. . Transit service is needed on SR 82 through Lehigh Acres to Ft. Myers. . People are working in the fields because they do not have transportation to other jobs.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-38 Transit Development Plan
. CAT should conduct a travel training day with a representative riding the bus and teaching people how to use the CAT system. . Another circulator is needed within Immokalee. . There is a need for transit service to Ave Maria, more weekend service, and more evening service. . A CAT representative should participate on the Immokalee radio show “Let’s Get to the Grain of the Matter”, which airs on Monday from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Participation on the radio show would be the best way for CAT to communicate with Immokalee residents. . Currently, most people pay full fare to ride CAT, but people would use the passes if more routes were available at different hours. . The packing houses are open and require irregular shift hours so there is a need for more transit service hours.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 3-39 Transit Development Plan
Section 4: Evaluation of Existing Transit Services
This section presents the evaluation conducted for fixed-route transit services in Collier County. This includes the results of the trend analysis, peer analysis, and capacity analysis for CAT. The trend analysis examines performance data over time in order to identify what aspects of CAT’s operations are performing well and what aspects of CAT’s operations present challenges to the transit agency. The peer review analysis was conducted to compare CAT’s performance with a sample of peer transit agencies, selected based on similar demographic and operating characteristics.
FIXED-ROUTE TREND ANALYSIS
A trend analysis was conducted to examine the performance of Collier County’s fixed-route bus service. Data were compiled based on the information received from the fixed-route transit service provider (CAT) for six years from 2004 through 2009. This analysis includes statistical tables and graphs that present selected performance indicators and effectiveness and efficiency measures for the selected time period. Table 4-1 lists the measures used in this performance and trend analysis. Highlights of the trend analysis are presented below.
Table 4-1 Performance Review Measures CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009)
General Performance Effectiveness Efficiency Service Area Population Vehicle Miles Per Capita Operating Expense Per Capita Passenger Trips Passenger Trips Per Capita Operating Expense Per Capita (in 2004$) Vehicle Miles Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Revenue Miles Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour (in 2004$) Total Operating Expense Number of System Failures Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Total Operating Expense (in Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile (in 2004$) Revenue Miles Between Failures 2004$) Passenger Fare Revenue Weekday Span of Service Farebox Recovery Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Average Fare
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-1 Transit Development Plan
Performance Indicators
Performance indicators are used to present the data that are reported directly in the National Transit Database (NTD) reports and relate to overall system performance. Selected performance indicators are presented in Table 4-2 and Figures 4-1 through 4-6.
Table 4-2 General Performance Indicators CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009)
% Change 2004- Performance Measure FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 2009
Service Area Population 161,181 268,165 317,788 326,658 333,858 333,032 106.6% Passenger Trips 627,823 951,601 1,052,536 1,180,147 1,166,358 1,109,765 76.8% Vehicle Miles 578,150 811,965 921,050 1,156,658 1,299,452 1,329,652 130.0% Revenue Miles 552,572 760,832 870,424 1,090,385 1,214,814 1,244,849 125.3% Total Operating Expense $1,070,566 $2,189,342 $3,264,598 $4,678,982 $5,362,710 $5,048,082 371.5% Total Operating Expense (in 2004$) $1,070,566 $2,058,324 $2,969,790 $4,135,141 $4,556,931 $4,304,163 302.0% Passenger Fare Revenue $314,190 $484,449 $665,391 $993,938 $945,354 $964,810 207.1%
Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2
Passenger Trips Service Area Population 400,000 1,400,000 350,000 1,200,000 300,000 1,000,000 250,000 800,000 200,000 600,000 150,000 400,000 100,000 50,000 200,000 0 0 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-2 Transit Development Plan
Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4
Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles
1,400,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 800,000 800,000 600,000 600,000 400,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Figure 4-5 Figure 4-6
Passenger Fare Revenue Operating Expense $6,000,000 $1,200,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
$800,000 $4,000,000
$600,000 $3,000,000
$400,000 $2,000,000 Total Operating Expense $200,000 $1,000,000 Total Operating Expense (in 2004$) $0 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 $0 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
The following is a summary of the trends that are evident among the performance indicators provided in Table 4-2 and Figures 4-1 through 4-6.
. Service area population for CAT increased from 161,181 in 2004 to 333,032 in 2009, an increase of 107 percent. . The passenger trips for CAT increased from 627,823 in 2004 to 1,109,765 in 2009, an increase of nearly 77 percent. . Total vehicle miles of service have increased from 578,150 in 2004 to 1,329,652 in 2009, an increase of 130 percent. . Similarly, revenue miles of service also increased from 552,572 in 2004 to 1,244,849 in 2009, an increase of 125 percent. . Total operating expense increased from $1,070,566 in 2004 to $5,048,082 in 2009 an increase of nearly 372 percent. However, the real dollar increase (adjusted for inflation) in total operating expense is 302 percent. . Passenger fare revenues have increased from $314,190 in 2004 to $964,810 in 2009, an increase of 207 percent.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-3 Transit Development Plan
Effectiveness Measures
Effectiveness measures indicate the extent to which service-related goals are being met. For example, passenger trips per capita are a measure of the effectiveness of a system in meeting the transportation needs of the community. Selected effectiveness measures are presented in Table 4-3 and Figures 4-7 through 4-10.
Table 4-3 Effectiveness Measures CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009)
% Change 2004- Effectiveness Measure FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 2009
Vehicle Miles Per Capita 3.59 3.03 2.90 3.54 3.89 3.99 11.3% Passenger Trips Per Capita 3.90 3.55 3.31 3.61 3.49 3.33 -14.4% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 1.14 1.25 1.21 1.08 0.96 0.89 -21.5% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 21.61 23.15 21.27 19.83 17.62 16.55 -23.4%
Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8
Vehicle Miles Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Capita
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Figure 4-9 Figure 4-10
Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour
1.40 25.00 1.20 20.00 1.00
0.80 15.00 0.60 10.00 0.40 0.20 5.00 0.00 0.00 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-4 Transit Development Plan
The following is a summary of the trends that are evident among the effectiveness measures presented in Table 4-3 and Figures 4-7 through 4-10.
. Vehicle miles per capita increased by over 11 percent from 2004 to 2009. . Passenger trips per capita decreased from 3.90 in 2004 to 3.33 in 2009, a decrease of over 14 percent. . Passenger trips per revenue mile decreased from 1.14 in 2004 to .89 in 2009, a decrease of over 21 percent. . Passenger trips per revenue hour decreased from 21.61 in 2004 to 16.55 in 2009, a decrease of over 23 percent.
Efficiency Measures
Efficiency measures are designed to measure the level of resources necessary to achieve a given level of output. Efficiency measures are presented in Table 4-4 and Figures 4-11 through 4-16.
Table 4-4 Efficiency Measures CAT Trend Analysis (2004-2009)
% Change 2004- Efficiency Measure FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 2009
Operating Expense Per Capita $6.64 $8.16 $10.27 $14.32 $16.06 $15.16 128.2% Operating Expense Per Capita (in 2004$) $6.64 $7.68 $9.35 $12.66 $13.65 $12.92 94.6% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $1.71 $2.30 $3.10 $3.96 $4.60 $4.55 166.8% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip (in 2004$) $1.71 $2.16 $2.82 $3.50 $3.91 $3.88 127.4% Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile $1.94 $2.88 $3.75 $4.29 $4.41 $4.06 109.3% Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile (in 2004$) $1.94 $2.71 $3.41 $3.79 $3.75 $3.46 78.5% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $36.85 $53.27 $65.98 $78.63 $81.03 $75.27 104.2% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour (in 2004$) $36.85 $50.08 $60.02 $69.49 $68.85 $64.18 74.1% Farebox Recovery 29.35% 22.13% 20.38% 21.24% 17.63% 19.11% -34.9% Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.94 -2.0% Revenue Hours Per Total Vehicles (000) 2,420.75 2,568.81 2,473.95 3,131.74 2,877.52 2,916.00 20.5% Average Fare $0.50 $0.51 $0.63 $0.84 $0.81 $0.87 73.7%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-5 Transit Development Plan
Figure 4-11 Figure 4-12
Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $18.00 $5.00 $16.00 $4.50 $14.00 $4.00 $3.50 $12.00 $3.00 $10.00 $2.50 $8.00 $2.00 Operating Expense Per Operating Expense Per Capita Passenger Trip $6.00 $1.50 $1.00 Operating Expense Per $4.00 Operating Expense Per Capita Passenger Trip (in 2004$) (in 2004$) $0.50 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14
Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile 35.00% $5.00 30.00% $4.00 25.00%
$3.00 20.00% 15.00% $2.00 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile 10.00% $1.00 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile (in 2004$) 5.00% $0.00 0.00% FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Figure 4-15 Figure 4-16
Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Average Fare 1.20 $1.00
1.00 $0.80 0.80 $0.60 0.60 $0.40 0.40 0.20 $0.20
0.00 $0.00 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
The following is a summary of the trends that are evident among the cost efficiency measures presented in Table 4-4 and Figures 4-11 through 4-16.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-6 Transit Development Plan
. Operating expense per capita increased by 128 percent from $6.64 in 2004 to $15.16 in 2009. The real dollar increase, however, is approximately 95 percent. . Operating expense per passenger trip increased from $1.71 in 2004 to $4.55 in 2009, an increase of nearly 167 percent in nominal dollars and 127 percent in real dollars. . Farebox recovery decreased from 29.4 percent in 2004 to 19.1 percent in 2009, a decrease of nearly 35 percent. . Revenue miles per vehicle mile decreased from .96 in 2004 to .94 in 2009, a decrease of 2 percent. . The average fare increased from $0.50 in 2004 to $0.87 in 2009, an increase of nearly 74 percent.
Summary Results for the Trend Analysis
The trend analysis is only one aspect of transit performance evaluation; however, when combined with the peer review analysis, the results provide a starting point for understanding the trends in transit system performance over time and compared to other transit systems with similar characteristics.
Some of the key trends are described below.
Service Consumption – Passenger trips per capita, passenger trips per revenue mile, and passenger trips per revenue hour have shown a negative trend over a relatively short period, 2004 to 2009. However, it is important to note that CAT service has increased over the six year period resulting in increases to revenue hours and revenue miles. The service area population may also be growing at a faster rate than the transit system.
Service Supply – Vehicle miles per capita (service supply) has increased from 2004 to 2009. This could indicate that the CAT service increases are providing a faster rate of increase than the growth in population.
Cost Efficiency – Cost efficiency over the 6-year period was measured by analyzing both the nominal and real dollar changes in costs. To analyze the costs in real dollars, all costs were deflated to 2004 using annual deflation rates of 3.39 percent for 2005, 3.24 for 2006, 2.85 for 2007, 3.85 for 2008, and -0.34 for 2009 that are based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Operating expenses per capita, operating expenses per passenger trip, and operating expenses per revenue mile have increased over the six year period. The increase could be contributed to several factors including increases in service, increases in fuel costs, and increases in maintenance costs.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-7 Transit Development Plan
Operating Ratio – The farebox recovery ratio had a negative trend from 2004 to 2009. Due to increases in service cost for various reasons, fare revenue has not kept an even ratio of growth. CAT completed a fare increase in 2009, which should help to improve this ratio. The average farebox recovery for transit systems is typically between 26 to 32 percent.
Table 4-5 provides a summary of the trend analysis showing the positive and negative trends identified in the analysis.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-8 Transit Development Plan
Table 4-5 CAT Trend Analysis Summary (2004-2009) Change Measure/Indicator (2004-2009) General Performance Service Area Population 106.6% Passenger Trips 76.8% Vehicle Miles 130.0% Revenue Miles 125.3% Total Operating Expense 371.5% Total Operating Expense (in 2004$) 302.0% Passenger Fare Revenue 207.1% Service Supply Vehicle Miles Per Capita 11.3% Service Consumption Passenger Trips Per Capita -14.4% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile -21.5% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour -23.4% Cost Efficiency Operating Expense Per Capita 128.2% Operating Expense Per Capita (in 2004$) 95.0% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip 166.8% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip (in 2004$) 127.4% Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile 109.3% Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile (in 2004$) 78.5% Operating Ratio Farebox Recovery Ratio -34.9% Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Miles -2.0% Fare Average Fare 73.7% Source: NTD and CAT
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-9 Transit Development Plan
FIXED-ROUTE PEER REVIEW
A peer review analysis was conducted for CAT to compare its performance at a given point in time with other similar agencies. The peer review was conducted using 2008 NTD data, the most current validated NTD data available. Selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are provided throughout this section in tabular and graphical formats to illustrate the performance of the fixed-route system relative to the peer group. For each selected indicator and measure, the tables provide the CAT value, the minimum value among the peer group, the maximum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent that the CAT values are away from the mean. The methodology used to select the peer systems is discussed below.
Peer System Selection Methodology
The peer selection was conducted using the 2009 Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) database. At the time of the peer selection process, the most current data available in the FTIS database was 2008 NTD data. The peers were identified through an objective assessment of five standard variables in NTD. After the peer systems were selected utilizing the FTIS database, the 2008 NTD data for each peer system was obtained through the NTD website and used to conduct the peer review analysis. The variables used to select the peer systems include:
. Geography (southeastern United States) . Service Area Population . Operating Expense . Revenue Miles . Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
First, the peer group selection was based on geographic location; the states included were Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Fixed-route systems operating in these southeastern states were identified and analyzed based on the four remaining variables. Based on the results of the FTIS peer selection process and input from CAT staff, seven transit systems were selected for the peer review analysis. Table 4-6 presents the selected peers.
Performance Indicators
Selected performance indicators for the peer review are presented in this section. Categories of performance indicators include population, population density, ridership, revenue miles, and vehicles. Table 4-7 and Figures 4-17 through 4-24 present the performance indicators for the CAT peer review analysis.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-10 Transit Development Plan
Table 4-6 Selected Peer Systems CAT Peer Review Analysis
System Location
Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) Pensacola, Florida Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) Lakeland, Florida Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) Bradenton, Florida Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County Transit (OCT) Florida Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT) Port Richey, Florida Sarasota County Area Transit (SCTA) Sarasota, Florida Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) Cocoa, Florida
Table 4-7 Performance Indicators CAT Peer Review Analysis (2008) Peer Group Peer Group Peer Group CAT % from Indicator CAT Minimum Maximum Mean the Mean Service Area Population 333,858 103,000 554,560 301,980 10.56% Service Area Population Density 221 221 1,920 1,164 -81.04% Passenger Trips 1,166,358 211,330 2,300,820 1,270,635 -8.21% Revenue Miles 1,214,814 442,358 2,503,353 1,302,742 -6.75% Revenue Hours 66,183 36,404 181,083 84,261 -21.45% Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 16 14 44 23 -30.81% Total Operating Expense $5,362,710 $1,134,692 $12,625,139 $6,159,777 -12.94% Passenger Fare Revenues $945,354 $66,941 $1,159,485 $743,658 27.12% Source: 2008 NTD
Figure 4-17 Figure 4-18
Service Area Population Density Service Area Population (persons/square mile)
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT
MCAT MCAT
OCT OCT Mean Mean LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T ECAT
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-11 Transit Development Plan
Figure 4-19 Figure 4-20
Passenger Trips Revenue Miles
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT
MCAT MCAT
OCT OCT Mean
LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T Mean ECA T
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000
Figure 4-21 Figure 4-22
Revenue Hours Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT
MCAT MCAT Mean OCT Mean OCT
LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T ECA T
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 0 102030405060
Figure 4-23 Figure 4-24
Operating Expense Passenger Fare Revenue
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT
MCAT MCAT Mean
OCT OCT Mean
LAM TD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECAT ECA T
$0 $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 $0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000
The following is a summary of the peer review analysis performance indicators, based on the information presented in Table 4-7 and Figures 4-17 through 4-24.
. Service area population for CAT is more than the peer group average, 11 percent above the mean, while the population density is 81 percent below the mean.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-12 Transit Development Plan
. The passenger trips for CAT are 8 percent below the peer group mean. . Revenue miles for CAT are almost 7 percent below the peer group mean. . CAT’s vehicles operated in maximum service are below the peer group mean by almost 31 percent. . Operating expense for CAT is less than the peer group average by almost 13 percent, while passenger fare revenues are above the peer group average by more than 27 percent.
Effectiveness Measures
Categories of effectiveness measures include service supply, service consumption, and quality of service. These categories are each represented by one variable: vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per revenue mile, and weekday span of service. Table 4-8 and Figures 4-25 through 4-27 represent the effectiveness measures for the CAT peer review analysis.
Table 4-8 Effectiveness Measures CAT Peer Review Analysis (2008) Peer Peer Peer CAT % Measure CAT Group Group Group from the Minimum Maximum Mean Mean Vehicle Miles Per Capita 3.89 2.47 12.23 5.89 -33.97% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 0.96 0.48 1.27 0.94 1.76% Weekday Span of Service (in hours) 16.50 13.00 20.07 15.75 4.74% Source: 2008 NTD
Figure 4-25 Figure 4-26
Vehicle Miles Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT Mean
MCAT MCAT
OCT OCT
LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T ECA T Mean
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-13 Transit Development Plan
Figure 4-27
Weekday Span of Service (in hours)
SCAT
SCTA
CAT
MCAT
OCT
LAMTD Mean
PCPT
ECA T
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures for the peer review analysis.
. Vehicle miles per capita for CAT are 34 percent below the peer group mean. . Passenger trips per revenue mile for CAT are almost 2 percent above the peer group mean. . Weekday span of service for CAT is almost 5 percent above the peer group mean.
Efficiency Measures
Categories of efficiency measures include cost efficiency and operating ratios. Table 4-9 and Figures 4-28 through 4-34 present the efficiency measures for the CAT peer review analysis.
Table 4-9 Efficiency Measures CAT Peer Review Analysis (2008) Peer Peer Peer CAT % Measure CAT Group Group Group from the Minimum Maximum Mean Mean Operating Expense Per Capita $16.06 $6.66 $64.33 $27.87 -42.37% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $4.60 $4.03 $6.25 $4.86 -5.42% Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile $4.41 $2.57 $5.43 $4.50 -1.93% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $81.03 $31.17 $88.31 $70.70 -14.61% Farebox Recovery Ratio (%) 17.63% 5.90% 17.63% 11.97% 47.30% Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile 0.93 0.92 0.99 0.95 -2.00% Average Fare $0.81 $0.32 $1.03 $0.58 39.58% Source: 2008 NTD
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-14 Transit Development Plan
Figure 4-28 Figure 4-29
Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT
CAT Mean
MCAT MCAT Mean
OCT OCT
LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T ECA T
$0.00 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.00 $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 8.00 $ 10.00
Figure 4-30 Figure 4-31
Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT Mean
MCAT MCAT
OCT OCT Mean
LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T ECA T
$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $0.00 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00
Figure 4-32 Figure 4-33
Farebox Recovery Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile
SCAT SCAT
SCTA SCTA
CAT CAT
MCAT MCAT Mean OCT
Mean OCT
LAMTD LAMTD
PCPT PCPT
ECA T ECA T
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-15 Transit Development Plan
Figure 4-34
Average Fare
SCAT
SCTA
CAT
MCAT
OCT Mean LAMTD
PCPT
ECA T
$0.00 $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50
The following is a summary of the efficiency measures for the peer review analysis.
. Operating expense per capita for CAT is less than 42 percent below the peer group mean. . Operating expense per passenger trip for CAT is less than 5 percent below the peer group mean. . Operating expense per revenue mile for CAT is almost 2 percent below the peer group mean, while operating expense per revenue hours is nearly 15 percent below the peer group mean. . Farebox recovery for CAT is significantly above the peer group mean, at 47 percent above the peer group mean.
Summary Results for the Peer Review Analysis
Table 4-10 provides a summary of the peer review analysis for the CAT fixed-route system. The summary includes the percent that CAT is away from the peer group mean for each performance measure.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-16 Transit Development Plan
Table 4-10 CAT Peer Review Analysis Summary (2008) Performance Percent from Indicators/Measures the Mean Performance Indicators Service Area Population 10.56%
Service Area Population Density -81.04%
Passenger Trips -8.21%
Revenue Miles -6.75%
Revenue Hours -21.45%
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service -30.81% Total Operating Expense -12.94% Passenger Fare Revenues 27.12% Service Supply Vehicle Miles Per Capita -33.97% Service Consumption Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 1.76% Quality of Service Weekday Span of Service (in hours) 4.74% Cost Efficiency
Operating Expense Per Capita -42.37% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip -5.42% Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile -1.93% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour -14.61% Operating Ratio
Farebox Recovery Ratio (%) 47.30% Vehicle Utilization
Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile -2.00% Fare
Average Fare 39.58% Source: NTD and CAT
TRANSIT CAPACITY & SUPPLY ANALYSIS
The process used to estimate capacity for the CAT fixed-route system examines the number of routes in operation and the size and number of vehicles in use to determine the number of potential trips that can be carried per year. There are more sophisticated methods of
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-17 Transit Development Plan
determining system-wide capacity; however, based on the size of the CAT system and the demographic make-up of Collier County, a more simplified method was chosen. The same methodology was applied in the estimation of ADA/paratransit services.
Fixed-Route Service Supply/Capacity Analysis
The methodology used to estimate transit capacity is based on mileage. In order to determine capacity at the route level, the estimated seat miles and passenger miles were estimated using an assumed average trip length. The assumed average trip length was calculated by dividing FY 2009 passenger miles traveled by the total annual passenger trips. The methodology for the system-wide capacity estimation is as follows:
Step 1: Annual revenue miles, vehicle capacity, and ridership by route were provided by CAT staff. The route length of each CAT route was calculated using ArcGIS geographic information system data.
Step 2: The estimated annual seat miles were calculated by multiplying the revenue miles by the average vehicle capacity. This provides a measure of potential route capacity based on the actual revenue miles of service and the maximum number of passengers that can be transported.
Revenue Miles X Average Vehicle Capacity = Estimated Annual Seat Miles (1,244,756) (26) (32,363,656)
Step 3: Annual passenger miles were estimated by multiplying the average trip length by the total number of passenger trips. This provides a measure of actual passenger miles traveled in 2009, showing the actual capacity utilized by riders.
Passenger Trips X Average Trip Length = Annual Passenger Miles (1,109,710) (8.1) (8,988,651)
Step 4: To determine the estimated excess capacity, the estimated passenger miles for each route for October 2008 through September 2009 were compared to the estimated annual seat miles to determine the percent of the capacity being used.
Estimated Passenger Miles / Estimated Seat Miles = Percent of Capacity Being Used (8,988,651) (32,363,656) (27.8%)
100% - Percent of Capacity Being Used = Remaining Capacity (100%) (27.8%) (72.2%)
Table 4-11 summarizes the process used to estimate annual capacity for the existing service routes.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-18 Transit Development Plan
Fixed-Route Capacity Analysis Summary
Based on the estimated capacity analysis, CAT was using approximately 28 percent of its possible capacity in 2009. This shows that the existing bus service has substantial capacity remaining. Routes with the least amount of excess capacity include Routes 2A (Orange Route), 2B (Orange Route), 3A (Purple Route), 1A (Red Route), and 3B (Purple Route). Routes with the largest amount of excess capacity include Routes 7 Express (Light Blue Route), 5 (Blue Route), 7 Circulator (Light Blue Route), 8B (Pink Route), and 6 (Yellow Route). Excess capacities for these routes are 92 percent, 90 percent, 85 percent, 84 percent, and 83 percent, respectively. It should be noted that the NTD reported average trip length is utilized to determine excess capacity and Route 7 and Route 5 operate as express routes from Immokalee to Marco Island and Naples; therefore, these routes travel a greater distance than 8.1 miles per trip. When calculating excess capacity utilizing a greater average trip length, the excess capacity would be much less on Routes 7 and 5.
Excess capacity is not necessarily a weakness in the system. The ridership-to-capacity ratio should be monitored over time as part of future major updates to the TDP. In addition, route- by-route average trip length estimates are needed in order to provide a more accurate reflection of unused capacity along fixed-routes. Because CAT does not have Automatic Passenger Counters on-board its vehicles, it is difficult to derive per route average trip lengths without incurring significant expense to calculate manually through an on-board tracking initiative.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-19 Transit Development Plan
Table 4-11 2009 Fixed-Route Transit Supply/Capacity Analysis
Average Estimated FY 2009 Annual Estimated Revenue Average Trip Percent of Route Vehicle Annual Seat Annual Passenger Excess Miles Length** Capacity Capacity* Miles Ridership Miles Capacity
1A 93,682 26 2,435,732 8.1 111,286 901,417 37.0% 63.0% 1B 78,919 26 2,051,894 8.1 87,894 711,941 34.7% 65.3% 1C 45,190 26 1,174,940 8.1 48,003 388,824 33.1% 66.9% 2A 61,224 26 1,591,824 8.1 93,325 755,933 47.5% 52.5% 2B 51,943 26 1,350,518 8.1 84,000 680,400 50.4% 49.6% 3A 77,575 26 2,016,950 8.1 139,402 1,129,156 56.0% 44.0% 3B 77,575 26 2,016,950 8.1 91,013 737,205 36.6% 63.4% 4A 64,208 26 1,669,408 8.1 69,795 565,340 33.9% 66.1% 4B 53,882 26 1,400,932 8.1 53,673 434,751 31.0% 69.0% 5 206,848 26 5,378,048 8.1 69,953 566,619 10.5% 89.5% 6 92,989 26 2,417,714 8.1 49,878 404,012 16.7% 83.3%
7 (Express) 46,526 26 1,209,676 8.1 11,709 94,843 7.8% 92.2% 7 (Circulator) 80,201 26 2,085,226 8.1 37,981 307,646 14.8% 85.2% 8A 73,803 26 1,918,878 8.1 49,124 397,904 20.7% 79.3% 8B 73,803 26 1,918,878 8.1 38,967 315,633 16.4% 83.6% 9 66,482 26 1,728,532 8.1 73,707 597,027 34.5% 65.5% *Based on vehicle inventory provided by CAT. Average seating capacity for all traditional bus routes is calculated by dividing the total seating capacity for all vehicles in the fleet by the total number of vehicles. **Systemwide average trip length estimated at 8.1 miles.
Demand-Response Service Supply/Capacity Analysis
The demand response services for purchased transportation were evaluated to estimate annual capacity for 2009. The methodology used for the demand response service capacity estimation was identical to that of the fixed-route outlined in the previous subsection. Table 4-12 summarizes the process used to estimate annual capacity for the existing demand response services.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-20 Transit Development Plan
Table 4-12 2009 Demand Response Service Transit Supply/Capacity Analysis Average Estimated FY 2008 Annual Estimated Revenue Average Trip Percent of Vehicle Annual Seat Annual Passenger Excess Miles Length** Capacity Capacity* Miles Ridership Miles Capacity Demand Response - 1,140,233 14 15,963,262 12 102,149 1,174,714 7.4% 92.6% Purchased Transportation *Based on FY 2009 NTD **By dividing passenger miles traveled by the total number of passenger trips, the average trip length is estimated at 11.5 for all demand response trips.
Demand Response Service Capacity Analysis Summary
Based on the estimated capacity analysis, CAT is using approximately 7 percent of the possible capacity. This shows that demand response service has substantial capacity remaining. Excess capacity is not necessarily a weakness in the system, given the nature of the requested trips. Expecting full paratransit vans is unrealistic since the service operates on the basis of advanced trip reservations, and multi-loading is often difficult to accommodate given the often diverse nature of origins and destinations for each patron.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 4-21 Transit Development Plan
Section 5: Review of Plans, Studies, and Policies
A major component of the TDP Update is to assess and document relevant plans, policies, and trends of local, regional, state, and federal entities, which includes Collier County and the cities within (Everglades City, City of Marco Island, and City of Naples), the Collier MPO, the State of Florida, and the federal government. The results of this effort provide information to support an understanding of transit planning issues in the Collier County area. This section reviews transit policies at the local, regional, state, and federal levels of government.
LOCAL DOCUMENT REVIEW
Collier County Comprehensive Plan
Florida law requires every incorporated municipality and county to adopt a comprehensive plan that is consistent with the Growth Management Act of 1985. The Growth Management Act requires comprehensive plans to be consistent with state and regional plans. For communities with a population over 50,000, comprehensive plans must include a Transportation Element that summarizes existing and future transportation conditions, how those conditions relate to what the community considers the ideal transportation situation, and how the community proposes to get there. The Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) is the County’s Comprehensive Plan and is the primary policy document concerning land use, transportation, and other planning categories for the County.
The current Collier County GMP is a result of the County’s 2003 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The GMP EAR based amendments were adopted in 2004 and are a part of the GMP that is being reviewed for this TDP. Only the goals, objectives, and policies that are relevant to public transportation are summarized below.
Transportation Element
Purpose Collier County initiated deviated fixed route service for public transportation on February 15, 2001. Private services offered in the County are fixed route "trolleys" which operate during the winter season in Naples and on Marco Island, and a network of paratransit providers that offer transportation services to the disadvantaged and disabled. The Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) program is coordinated by Collier County, which has been designated as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) by the MPO. The TD services offer home pick-up and delivery transportation for the elderly, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged in the County. The "trolley" systems mentioned above are run primarily for the
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-1 Transit Development Plan
tourist segment of the population and have fixed-routes that visit the major shopping, beach and hotel interest points.
Future System Needs On August 3, 1999 the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Public Transportation Development Plan (PTDP), and agreed to become the Governing Agency for transit in Collier County. The PTDP contains estimates of unmet need in Collier County, both for the existing TD services, and for general public transportation. It contains planning level discussions on demand centers, route locations, vehicle sizes and types of services. The Public Transportation Operating Plan (PTOP) was adopted by the MPO on December 8, 2000 and by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on January 9, 2001. Other services proposed in the start up public transportation system are a vanpool program, circulator service in Immokalee, an Immokalee to Naples shuttle service, and a Commuter Assistance Program.
Although the PTPD final report suggested the need for numerous public transportation services in Collier County, the scale and growth rate of the initial system was such that no local funding contribution was predicted to be required until fiscal year 2006. This situation is the result of gradual changes in the requirements for local matching funds that accompany state and federal grant funds. Collier County is already spending funds on public transportation that meet the match requirements.
GOAL: TO PLAN FOR, DEVELOP AND OPERATE A SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND COST EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES FOR BOTH THE MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY.
OBJECTIVE 5: Objective 5 identifies the coordination between the Transportation Element and the Future Land Use Element.
Policy 5.5: Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation must comply with four (4) of nine (9) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, while residential developments must comply with three (3) of five (5). These strategies seek to increase vehicle occupancy, increase transit ridership, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-2 Transit Development Plan
Policy 5.8: Should the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS); congestion mitigation payments shall be utilized, among other things, to enhance transit.
OBJECTIVE 10: The County shall encourage safe and efficient mobility for the rural public.
Policy 10.2: The County shall continue to improve transit services for the transportation disadvantaged in the rural areas through the CTC.
OBJECTIVE 12: The County shall encourage the efficient use of transit services now and in the future.
Policy 12.1 thru Policy 12.6: Establish Collier County as the managing authority of the CAT system in and around the County and coordinate efforts via interlocal agreements. The Collier MPO, through the TD program shall assist the local CTC in the implementation of the most efficient and effective level of service possible for the transportation disadvantaged. The TD program shall be implemented through the County’s regular bus system. The County Transportation Division and the Collier MPO shall coordinate the development and maintenance of transit development plans with the Florida Department of Transportation.
Policy 12.7 thru Policy 12.10: Following the adoption of any transit development plan, the County shall initiate the development of transit right-of-way and corridor protection strategies, including ordinances and policy additions. Any adopted transit development plan shall include an acceptable level of service standard for transit facilities. The County shall include capital expenditures for any adopted transit development plan in the Capital Improvement Element. The County shall incorporate herein by reference the most recent Public Transit Development Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
Future Land Use Element
GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION-MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-3 Transit Development Plan
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES.
Policy 2.4 This policy identifies the South U.S. 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA)
Policy 2.5 This policy identifies and explains the performance measures for the two TCMAs geographically described below: 1. Northwest TCMA – This area is bounded by the Collier - Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the I-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side (See Map TR-5). 2. East Central TCMA – This area is bounded by Pine Ridge Road on the north side; Collier Boulevard on the east side; Davis Boulevard on the south side, and; Livingston Road extended) on the west side (See Map TR-6).
Objective 6 Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) are previously established in the Comprehensive Plan under Objective 2 (as described below in Policy 2.5). Policies 6.1 through 6.5 are linked to Objective 2 and its supporting policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 6 and its supporting policies describe the methods for which the TCMAs further the achievement of the following identified important state planning goals and policies: discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl, protecting natural resources, protecting historic resources, maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities, and promoting public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile.
Policy 6.2 and Policy 6.3: These policies provide the requirements for development or redevelopment in TCMAs by utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM). These requirements include policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and support the County’s transit network.
These efforts are supported by the Land Development Code in Chapter 6 Section 6.02.00 - Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, 6.02.02 - Management and Monitoring Program, described below.
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION I. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION
B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-4 Transit Development Plan
1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations.
D) Additional TDR Provisions:
3. Rural Villages: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; Rural Villages shall be comprised of several neighborhoods designed in a compact nature such that a majority of residential development is within one quarter mile of Neighborhood Centers. Neighborhood Centers may include small scale service retail and office uses, and shall include a public park, square, or green. Village Centers shall be designed to serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of the village.
F) Fiscal Neutrality: A Rural Village may only be approved after demonstration that the Village will be fiscally neutral to county taxpayers outside of the Village. An analysis shall be conducted evaluating the demand and impacts on levels of service for public facilities and the cost of such facilities and services necessary to serve the Rural Village. This evaluation shall identify projected revenue sources for services and any capital improvements that may be necessary. The analysis shall consider, among other public facilities, roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and pathways.
G) As part of the development of Rural Village provisions, land development regulations shall identify specific design and development standards for residential, commercial and other uses. Rural Village, Village Center and neighborhood design guidelines and development standards shall consider the location of public transit and school bus stops; pedestrian paths and bikeways so as to provide access and interconnectivity; and, roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and pathways.
Recreation and Open Space Element
Policy 1.3.1, Policy 2.1.5, and Policy 3.1.6 The County-owned or managed parks and recreation facilities shall have automobile, bicycle and/or pedestrian access, where the location is appropriate and where such access is economically feasible. The County shall encourage the development of pedestrian pathways and bike lanes from the surrounding residential communities to park sites.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-5 Transit Development Plan
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
GOAL 8: THE COUNTY SHALL MAINTAIN COLLIER COUNTY'S EXISTING AIR QUALITY.
OBJECTIVE 8.1: This Objective and supporting Policy 8.1.3 documents the County’s support for compliance with all applicable federal and State air quality standards. Strategies include the construction of sidewalks, bicycle lanes or bicycle paths in all new subdivisions.
Golden Gate Master Plan
LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION
URBAN DESIGNATION: URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT AND URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT All development or redevelopment within the boundaries of the Urban-Mixed Use District (Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict along Golden Gate Parkway) and Urban Commercial District (Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict along Collier Boulevard) shall include, among other things, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel, an emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and provision for broad sidewalks or pathways.
Immokalee Master Plan
The goal of the master plan is to guide land use so as to enhance Immokalee’s quality of life, natural beauty, environment, small-town character, stable neighborhoods, and status as an urban hub for the surrounding agricultural region, tourism industry, and the Immokalee airport’s designation as a port-of-entry.
OBJECTIVE 1.3: Encourage innovative approaches in urban and project design that enhance both the environment and the visual appeal of Immokalee. This Objective is supported by Policy 1.3.1, which commits the County to assisting Immokalee in identifying funding sources for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
OBJECTIVE 1.4: Provide land use designations, criteria and zoning that recognizes the needs of pedestrians.
Policy 1.4.1 thru Policy 1.4.3: Comprehensive Planning staff will continue to coordinate with the Transportation Division regarding its existing and future plans for sidewalks, pathways and other forms of alternative transportation for the Immokalee community. In cooperation
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-6 Transit Development Plan
with the local Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee, the County shall consult with the Collier County Pathways Advisory Committee regarding enhancing and improving the existing pathway and sidewalk facilities. The County shall encourage pedestrian-friendly design for future projects located within the Immokalee Urban Area.
Collier County Evaluation and Appraisal Report
According to the County’s 2004 EAR, Collier County’s first EAR was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July 16, 1996. The subsequent EAR-based amendments were adopted on October 18, 1997. The second EAR, which reviewed the performance of Collier County’s Growth Management Plan (GMP) from October 1997 to July 1, 2003, was adopted on July 27, 2004. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which has oversight for comprehensive plans, amendments, and EARs for all local governments, found the 2004 EAR sufficient on November 15, 2004. The subsequent EAR-based amendments were adopted in 2007.
Proposed EAR-based amendments to 1.5.B - Transportation Element: 15. Delete current Policy 12.8, which deals with Levels-Of-Service for transit operations. 16. Modify current Policy 12.10 to refer only to the “Transit Development Plan.”
Proposed EAR-based amendments to 1.5.J - Immokalee Area Master Plan: 22. Create a new policy, under this Objective, calling for “pedestrian-friendly” development practices.
Collier County Land Development Code
Transportation Demand Management
Collier County, Florida, Land Development Code, Chapter 6 Section 6.02.00 - Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, 6.02.02 - Management and Monitoring Program Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area Designated. Pursuant to Policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, the South U.S. 41 Transportation concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) is designated. Development located within the South U.S. 41 TCEA (Map TR-4) shall be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated. Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation must comply with four (4) of nine (9) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, while residential developments must comply with three (3) of five (5). These strategies seek to increase vehicle occupancy,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-7 Transit Development Plan
increase transit ridership, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Everglades City
The Collier MPO TIP indicates the following: At this time, there is no Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown for Everglades City. The City has been co-operating with the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) since July 2006 to undertake, complete, and transmit a State mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The EAR calls for amending its adopted Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (GMP), including the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) and an updated CIP. Despite constraints due to limited resources, the City is coordinating with the Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning to develop a strategy for completion of the EAR process.
The City's planning efforts were halted in October 2005 due to severe damage to the Everglades City Hall from Hurricane Wilma that compromised many important City records and delayed the City's planning efforts for over two years until Everglades City Hall could be repaired and reopened.
City of Marco Island Comprehensive Plan
Mostly due to the relatively small size of Marco Island, the multimodal focus primarily includes bicycles, pedestrians, and their interactions with vehicles.
Transportation Element GOAL 1: TO PROVIDE AND ENCOURAGE A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE CIRCULATION NEEDS OF MARCO ISLAND IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT MANNER BUT DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS.
OBJECTIVE 1.1: Promotion of a safe, convenient, and energy efficient multimodal transportation system.
Policy 1.1.1 thru Policy 1.1.6: These policies include the incorporation of the findings of a Right-of-Way Report into the Capital Improvement Element, furthering efforts for a complete sidewalk network, reviewing parking standards and encouraging more bicycle and pedestrian activity, and coordinating with the Collier MPO for public education.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-8 Transit Development Plan
City of Naples Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
6. Public Transportation
Collier County has developed a Transit Development Plan (TDP) and has established a mass transit system, Collier Area Transit (CAT). CAT began fixed routes in February 2001 and has continually adapted operations to meet an increasing demand for public transportation. Although limited in number, CAT operates a limited number of fixed routes that include segments of U.S.41 and Goodlette-Frank Road in the City of Naples. The fixed routes in the City also include access to Naples Community Hospital via Eighth Street and access to Coastland Mall.
In the Collier MPO Long Range Transportation Plan 2030 Update (2030 LRTP), the goals and objectives of the transit system are identified and include coordination with local government, modifying system routing to meet community demand, increase the frequency of service, expand the service area, ultimately provide connections to the Lee County Transit System and provide increasing opportunities for intermodal and intramodal transportation.
In the City, CAT provides for public paratransit operations for the elderly and the handicapped, Naples Trolley provides private paratransit service between hotels and shopping and various taxicab companies and charter bus companies provide public transportation.
To provide for changing public transportation needs of the City, the City of Naples will continue to coordinate with the County and the MPO on the planning of transit needs for fixed routes, for interconnection with intermodal destinations, for bus stop improvements, for pathway access and for integration with new developments and re-development.
The 2030 LRTP identifies a potential downtown shuttle route for the City of Naples. As the TDP is updated, the City of Naples will continually monitor the need for this shuttle route along with overall implementation strategies for the CAT in the TDP. The 2030 LRTP also identifies the need for park-and-ride facilities, for employer-workforce initiatives, for programs that may be facilitated by the use of vanpools and for programs to optimize transit resources and for programs to secure long term dedicated funding sources.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-9 Transit Development Plan
7. Intermodal Facilities
The City adopted a comprehensive pathways plan in December 2007 (Resolution 07-11792). The pathway plan identified as the Naples Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan consist of two components, a Pedestrian Master Plan and a Bicycle Master Plan. Both components focus on safety, access to schools and recreational areas, connectivity, destination linkages, mobility and impacts to surrounding environment. Site specific projects are identified in each master plan and connect major points of interest. The planned looped bikeway system would serve both the commuter and recreational cyclist and interconnect with the sidewalk system to create opportunities for efficient travel.
Planning for implementation of pathway improvements shall be coordinated with master plan priorities that include construction of missing-links, placement of pathways along collector streets and response to neighborhood requests. The planning of City projects shall also be coordinated with Collier MPO’s pathway master plan, the FDOT Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program, and the Gordon River Greenway Project.
Pedestrian facilities required in the Naples Code for multi-family residential areas (minimum of 5 feet) and for mixed-use/commercial areas (minimum of 8 feet) shall be supplemented by the missing-links component of the Naples Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan to complete a system of sidewalks serving downtown areas. The continuation of such sidewalk improvements is consistent with the City Sidewalk Policy as contained in the Master Plan.
In addition to program coordination with on-going projects, the City shall assure coordination with periodic updates to the LRTP, to the TDP, to Collier Park-and- Ride study, to the Collier County Freight and Goods Mobility analysis and related program planning to ensure maximum multi-modal connectivity.
City of Naples EAR
The data provided above does not include the EAR data provided below. The City of Naples Evaluation and Appraisal Report, adopted October 18, 2006, addressed the adopted comprehensive plan as required by 163.3191 F.S.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-10 Transit Development Plan
Element/Objective Comments Actions/Proposed Changes Transportation/8 – The frequency of transit stops and the expansion Continue to work with the Coordinate with CAT and of transit routes have increased over the last 2 MPO and Collier County to the MPO to evaluate years and are expected to continue along with explore options for efficient biannually the potential the increase in ridership. In Collier County’s 2030 public transportation. for the development of a Long Range Transportation Plan, a downtown public transportation transit loop has been identified as being needed. system.
Collier MPO Long Range Transportation Plan
Goal 1 is a multi-modal transportation system that is balanced and integrated with all transportation modes to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. This goal is supported by Objectives 1.2, 1.10, and 1.11 which commit to providing reasonable and accessible regional public transit services, improving public transit services, and developing and providing specialized services and systems to meet the needs of transportation-disadvantaged persons.
Goal 2 is a transportation system that is safe and secure. This goal is supported by Objective 2.3 which commits to increase transit and intermodal security.
Goal 5 is a sustainable transportation system that enhances economic growth and anticipates development demands. This goal is supported by Objective 5.2 and 5.3 which commit to enhanced non-motorized and motorized access to transit service and promoting intermodal connectivity.
Goal 6 is a transportation system that maximizes intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies. This goal is supported by Objective 6.6 which identifies a need to increase mixed use densities along transit corridors.
7.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS STRATEGIES
7.2 Performance Measures The Highway Needs Assessment is one performance measure used to identify congested corridor facilities where transit and pathway incorporations create alternative transportation modes as part of the solution to congestion problems. The interconnection of park-and-ride facilities, transit facilities and pathways to the urban employment centers increase the success rate of the local and regional multi-modal usage.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-11 Transit Development Plan
7.8 CMS Project Funding For Collier County, CMS projects are intended to be those types of projects that can be implemented quickly (within one or two years) at a relatively low cost, with little or no negative community impacts. Transit and pathways projects are also eligible but will need to demonstrate the potential to remove automobiles from congested roadway segments.
11.0 FINANCIAL PLAN
11.1 Federal Funding Sources Revenues from these federal taxes are deposited into either the Highway Account or the Mass Transit Account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) then distribute funds in the Highway and the Mass Transit Account, respectively, to each state through a system of formula grants and discretionary allocations.
11.4 Potential Revenue Sources
11.4.1 Local Funding The Small County Surtax and the Charter County Transit System Surtax are not implemented in Collier County.
11.5 Potential Federal/State Funding
11.5.1 The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) The SAFETEA-LU was enacted on August 10, 2005. From 2004 through 2009, the overall funding level for the surface transportation programs is $286.4 billion, with $228 billion for highways, $52 billion for transit and $6 billion for safety. Of these funds, Florida will receive $10.347 billion for highways and $1.50 billion guaranteed for transit.
11.5.2 Florida Senate Bill 360-Growth Management The bill appropriates $1.5 billion in new money for transportation, “New Starts Transit” Program - $54.1 million recurring.
11.8.2 Operations The cost to implement, maintain and operate the expanded transit operation plan as identified in the TDP would be an additional $90 million over the 20-year program period.
12.0 Financially Feasible Plan
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-12 Transit Development Plan
12.3 Regional Transportation Planning In October 2004, the Collier and Lee County MPOs jointly adopted a regional transportation network that includes highway, waterway, airport, railroad, transit, pathway, and intelligent transportation system facilities.
This Joint Regional Transportation Plan not only identifies highway needs such as those on Interstate 75 and State Road 82, but also transit connections between Collier Area Transit and LeeTran and a multi-use pathway between Orangetree (Collier County) and Orange River (Lee County).
2030 Joint Regional Multimodal Transportation Plan Element Amended March 16, 2007 Transit Route or Location From To Improvement Via US 41 CAT Transfer San Carlos Boulevard Express Buss Center Service Via Seminole Gulf Rail Head Downtown Fort Myers Busway & Bus Railroad Boulevard intermodal center Rapid Transit Via Seminole Gulf CAT Transfer Downtown Fort Myers Express Bus Railway & US 41 Center intermodal center Service Via Interstate 75 CAT Transfer Downtown Fort Myers Express Bus Center intermodal center Service VIA SR 82 and SR Colonial Boulevard Immokalee park and ride Express Bus 29 lot Service Livingston Road CAT Transfer Seminole Gulf Rail line Bi-County Local Bus Center at Bonita Beach Rd Service Intercounty bus service to the Southwest Florida International Airport, FGCU, and Ave Maria University may also need to be explored in the future.
MPO Transportation Improvement Program
Transit Priorities Each transit provider in Florida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is required to prepare an annual TDP by the FDOT. The TDP summarized baseline conditions for the Collier MPA, including a physical description of the area, a population profile and demographic characteristics. It also provides a review of the existing transportation services and a trend analysis. Farebox recovery monitoring and a financial plan are requirements of the TDP. The last annual progress report to the TDP was approved by the MPO Board and ratified by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in September 2009. The following list of FY 2009 Unfunded Transit Priorities was adopted by the MPO Board on September 11, 2009. This list of unfunded priorities addresses the unfunded needs of Collier Area Transit.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-13 Transit Development Plan
Adopted FY 2009 Collier County Unfunded Transit Priorities Total Project Priority Cost Location Description Benefits (reduced delay, safety, etc.) 1 $150,000 Collier County Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) Provide more efficient and timely service to riders
Establish East/West Routes in the following order: Promotes ridership of residents and visitors, alleviates congestion on A. Immokalee Rd (CR 951 to US 41) 2 $1,350,000 Collier County these main roads and connects people to major points of destination B. Pine Ridge Road (CR 951 to US 41) such as hospitals, shopping, Government Offices, etc.. C. Golden Gate Parkway (Santa Barbara to US 41) 3 $675,700 Collier County Implement transit services in Golden Gate Estates Provides an alternative means of travel and promotes ridership 4 $1,047,102 Collier County Connection to Lee County Provides connectivity and promotes traveling by bus Increase frequency on routes: Purple Route Red Route Orange Route 5 $6,075,000 Collier County Green Route Promotes ridership of residents and visitors Light Blue Route Blue Route Brown route Pink Route Yellow Route Implement/expand services to other North/South corridors: Promotes ridership of residents and visitors, alleviates congestion on CR 951 6 $2,700,000 Collier County these main roads and connects people to major points of destination Santa Barbara such as hospitals, shopping, Government Offices, etc.. Livingston Rd Goodlette Frank Rd Takes riders from cars to public transportation which is a proven 7 $500,000 Collier County Expand hours until 10pm benefit in reducing congestion. Continue adding additional accessibility for ADA 8 $500,000 Collier County compliance with Bike and Pedestrian amenities to bus Promotes alternative transportation and good health (quality of life) stops
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-14 Transit Development Plan
FDOT District 1 Transportation Improvement Plan (Transit Projects) 2009-2014 Transit
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Modal Systems Planning $83,549 $83,549 $83,549 $83,549 $83,549 Operating/Admin Assistance $152,824 $539, 372 $569,562 $591, 206 $620,800 Operating for Fixed Route $1,388,568 $1,430,266 $1,473,13 $1,546,788 $1,546,788 2 Capital for Fixed Route $2,265,000 $2,756,250 $2,894,06 $3,038,788 $3,190,704 3 Operating for Fixed Route $447,556 Purchase $385,000 Vehicle/Equipment Transportation Disadvantaged TD Commission – Capital $687,718 $696,618 $705,734 $635,161 $635,161 TD Commission – Capital $24,161 $24,765 $25,384 $25,384 $25,384
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
The Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) Major Update was completed and approved by the LCB on October 7, 2008. The TDSP is used by the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) and the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) to maintain and/or improve transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged and to serve as a framework for performance evaluation. The TDSP is updated annually and submitted to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged for final approval. Collier County services under the TD program are provided funding from state TD funds, local revenues, Medicaid, and private sources. Collier County Government merged the contracted operations of the fixed route transit operations with the services for the TD program in 2005. McDonald Transit, which has functioned as Collier Area Transit’s management operator since its inception in 2001, also coordinates the Transportation Disadvantaged services and billing. McDonald also subcontracts for TD services. Trip and equipment resources are programmed from $600,000 to $620,000 annually in the FDOT Five Year Work Program between FY 2008/2009 and FY 2012/2013. Collier County Government’s costs to operate paratransit services exceed local match requirements in order to continue to serve the needs of the transportation disadvantaged.
In September 2007, the Collier Board of County Commissioners (BCC) requested to be re- designated as the CTC for Collier County. The BCC has been successful in ensuring that coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation disadvantaged population of Collier County. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Florida
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-15 Transit Development Plan
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and the BCC designating the BCC as the CTC was fully executed and approved in June 2008. The MOA is effective from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013.
2009 TD Plan Conclusions
Overall, the peer comparison reveals that Collier County is performing considerably below that of the CTC peer group mean for all performance measures with the exception of Operating Expenses per Vehicle Mile and Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls. The peer comparisons provide insight to other transit agencies operating characteristics. While many factors affect performance, comparison to the CTC peer group are quantitative and should not be used as the sole measure to make inferences about the quality of Collier County’s system.
Reducing Costs
Collier County should consider operating and maintenance cost trends carefully to determine whether managing trip demand and increasing system productivity would improve efficiency and reduce costs. One such strategy is the movement of passengers and trips from paratransit service to fixed-route service.
In addition, transit agencies that are CTCs can design new routes (or redesign existing routes) to serve more transportation disadvantaged patrons. In the case of Collier County, this is profoundly represented through the establishment of routes that serve the Immokalee area and the success of these routes.
Additional Service Monitoring
In Collier County, the current system for reporting on-time performance is insufficient. The random sample size is too small. Reporting on-time performance manually lends itself to inaccuracy and small sample sizes. New technology (like the mobile data terminals CAT has submitted a grant for) would also improve efficiency and reduce costs associated with cancelled trips and no-shows by providing real time notification and tracking of these events.
Eligibility Process
One significant factor to consider is eligibility. National best practices have increasingly recommended the use of a separate vendor to determine passenger eligibility. It is recommended that Collier County consider this option.
In reviewing the Peer Analysis and Trend Analysis, it appears that Collier County has grown sufficiently to warrant the need for a system wide evaluation of paratransit services. This study should be completed in advance of the next execution of the Memorandum of
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-16 Transit Development Plan
Agreement (MOA) between Collier County and the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD). In particular, the findings of this update highlighted the degree of accuracy of the data reported to the CTD, paratransit operational procedures, specific and discrete cost factors and service variables. Specific attention should be paid in the analysis to the average vehicle miles per passenger trip, average trips per capita, and operating expense per passenger trip. These statistics indicate areas that may offer opportunities to economize and enhance system performance. For example, the revenue miles per passenger trip are nearly double the mean of the peer systems’ revenue miles per passenger trip and vehicle miles per passenger trip. This indicates that there is an opportunity to schedule trips better and enhance efficiency, as just one example. In addition, a review of accident data should be conducted to review the increase in accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles.
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Strategic Regional Policy Plan
The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) developed and adopted goals, strategies, and actions within the 2002 Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) in order to provide the necessary framework for decision-making at the local level to promote the regional transportation.
Some of the problems and challenges identified in the SRPP include the following:
. The affordability of maintenance and growth needs of various transportation systems – revenue has decreased for purchasing roads and vehicles have become more efficient. . Conflicts between transportation as a land use and other land uses – Transportation uses including roadway widening and airports cause traffic noise and affect the character of the community. . The regional nature of transportation systems – Regional systems cross the boundaries of many land use authorities.
Some of the needs identified in the SRPP include the need for reliable revenue bases that include maintenance and growth components, public decision making needs to be open and land use decisions need to recognize the transportation impacts, and efficiencies in the selection of transportation alternatives need to include car pools, transit, and so forth. To address the regional transportation issues and achieve the goals outlined within the SRPP, the SWFRPC adopted actions including the following:
. Continue assisting appropriate agencies with applications for intermodal funding . Annually provide a report on the level of service on the regionally significant transportation network . Annual provide a report on regional ambient air quality . Identify unconnected components of the regional transportation network
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-17 Transit Development Plan
. In cooperation with transit providers and other governmental and private entities, seek long term, dedicated funding sources for use for improving and expanding the transit system . Coordinate programs that inform the elderly about public transportation . Assist local governments and the CTCs in their contractual agreements with human services agencies purchasing transportation services and private for-profit and non- profit transportation operators . Report annually on transportation disadvantaged services that are integrated with fixed-route transit . Promote the innovative use of technology . Encourage intercounty bus service as appropriate to meet growing intra-county travel demands
STATE DOCUMENT REVIEW
Chapter 341, FS
Chapter 341 creates Public Transit Block Grants (PTBG) that shall be administered by FDOT. Block grant funds shall only be provided to urban and rural providers designated by the United States Department of Transportation and Community Transportation Coordinators, as defined in Chapter 427, FS. Eligible providers must establish public transportation development plans consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with approved local government comprehensive plans of the units of local government in which the provider is located. In developing public transportation development plans, eligible providers must solicit comments from regional workforce boards established under Chapter 445. The development plans must address how the public transit provider will work with the appropriate regional workforce board to provide services to participants in the welfare transition program. Eligible providers must provide information to the regional workforce board serving the county in which the provider is located regarding the availability of transportation services to assist program participants. Costs for which PTBG program funds may be expended include:
. Costs of public bus transit and local public fixed guideway capital projects . Costs of public bus transit service development and transit corridor projects . Costs of public bus transit operations
Chapter 341 requires each public transit provider to establish public transportation development plans consistent with approved local government comprehensive plans where there is an approved local government comprehensive plan in the political subdivision or political subdivisions in which the public transportation system is located. In particular, each public transit provider shall establish productivity and performance measures, which must be approved by FDOT and which must be selected from measures developed pursuant to
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-18 Transit Development Plan
§341.041(3). Each provider shall report annually to FDOT relative to these measures. In approving these measures, FDOT shall give consideration to the goals and objectives of each system, the needs of the local area, and the role for public transit in the local area. In addition, each public transit provider shall publish the productivity and performance measures established for the year in the local newspaper of its area and a report that provides quantitative data relative to the attainment of established productivity and performance measures.
FEDERAL DOCUMENT REVIEW
SAFETEA-LU and Surface Transportation Reauthorization
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) continues and/or establishes numerous funding programs for transit. The following relevant programs are from FDOT’s Resource Guide for Transit and Transit-Related Programs (November 2005):
. Urbanized Area Formula Program . Growing States and High Density States Program . Bus and Bus Related Facilities Program . Major Capital Investment Grants of $75 Million or More . Major Capital Investment Grants of Under $75 Million . New Freedom Program . Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC) . Flexible Funding Programs . FHWA Discretionary Programs
SAFETEA-LU includes several different funding programs, many of which could be accessed with innovative approaches and project ideas. It should be noted that any funds that are awarded by FTA, regardless of the initial source of the funding, must be properly identified in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) prior to the award being approved. With annual appropriations and allocations occurring each year, appropriate adjustments to the FDOT Work Program are required to ensure that projects are properly included in the STIP.
Federal support in public transportation continues to grow, and the number of funding programs that can be used to develop transit systems expands with each federal transportation reauthorization. To anticipate that federal support will be maintained is logical, and should a local area decide to move ahead with developing a high investment service such as bus rapid transit, federal support should be attainable.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-19 Transit Development Plan
SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, 2009, requiring Congress to decide on the future of this legislation; however, the current economic climate required action from the federal government prior to the initial reauthorization timeframe. As part of the economic stimulus legislation, referred to as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the federal government dedicated financial resources towards the construction of transportation infrastructure in unprecedented levels. The ARRA includes an investment of $150 billion in new infrastructure, representing the largest increase in funding of our nation’s roads, bridges, and mass transit systems since the creation of the national highway system in the 1950s.
The U.S. House transportation reauthorization bill, “The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009,” was released June 2009 as the blueprint for upcoming reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU and is the first look at what reauthorization may look like. The blueprint emphasizes the growing consensus on the need for a major overhaul of the federal transportation program. The intent of the bill is to “transform Federal surface transportation from an amalgamation of prescriptive programs to a performance-based framework for intermodal transportation investment.” Regardless of the form that reauthorization takes, it is clear that an even greater emphasis will be placed on national objectives for improving safety, providing transportation choices, limiting adverse impacts on the environment, and promoting the public health and livability of our communities. Until a new bill is passed, Congress awards funding through continuing resolutions of SAFETEA-LU.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 5-20 Transit Development Plan
Section 6: Situation Appraisal
The requirements for a major update of a TDP include the need for a situation appraisal of the environment in which the transit agency operates. The purpose of this appraisal is to help develop an understanding of CAT’s transit operating environment in the context of the following elements:
. Regional issues . Socioeconomics . Travel behavior . Existing and future land use . Policy issues . Organizational issues . Technical issues . Environmental issues
The assessment of these elements resulted in the identification of possible implications for CAT’s transit program. The assessment and resulting implications are drawn from the following sources:
. Review of relevant plans, studies, and programs prepared at all levels of government (see Section 5). . Results of technical evaluation performed as part of the TDP planning process (throughout the TDP). . Outcomes of discussions with CAT staff and the Review Committee. . Outcomes of public outreach activities. . Comments and guidance from the Board of County Commissioners and MPO Board.
Issues, trends, and implications are summarized for each of the major elements in the remainder of this section.
REGIONAL TRANSIT ISSUES
Regional transit issues are of critical importance to the future of public transit in Collier County and are highlighted below.
Regional Transit Planning and Implementation
In January 2005, the Collier County and Lee County MPOs entered into an interlocal agreement for the coordination of transportation planning activities. After establishing the interlocal agreement, the MPOs coordinated to develop the joint Collier-Lee 2030 Regional Multimodal Transportation Plan Element that identifies transit connections between CAT and
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-1 Transit Development Plan
Lee County Transit as future priorities. More recently, the MPOs have coordinated to update their respective LRTPs through a joint process.
. Implications – The regional transit planning process has been initiated through the joint MPO agreement. Implementation and financing of the identified transit priorities and connections need further exploration by the MPOs in coordination with CAT, LeeTran, FDOT District 1, and the respective counties and cities.
2010 Urbanized Area Designation
Urbanized areas are defined based on the population reported in the most recent decennial Census. Federal formula funds for transit are calculated based on the populations reported by urbanized area. Recent economic conditions, including an increase in unemployment and foreclosures, may impact the Collier County population reported in the 2010 Census.
. Implications - Changes to the Naples urbanized area designation may impact the formula funding that Collier County receives for transit.
Collier County Master Mobility Plan
Through a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, Collier County has begun the process of developing a Master Mobility Plan (MMP) to address future mobility needs and reduce VMT through multimodal transportation alternatives. Transit-related strategies including commute trip reduction, commuter financial incentives, transit and ridesharing improvements, and carsharing will be critical to successfully reducing the number of VMT in Collier County.
. Implications – The Collier County MMP focuses on several factors that meet the compliance standards of House Bill 697. In addition, the MMP will serve as a guide to achieving mobility for people, goods, and services and can be used to identify future transit needs and implementation strategies.
Commuting to and from Jobs in Lee County
Based on the analysis of the 2008 Census LEHD data provided in Section 2, 33.7 percent of Collier County residents and 38.1 percent of Collier County workers commute to and from neighboring communities, particularly Lee County. Within the twelve county region of Southwest Florida, the FDOT District One’s Commuter Services program is available for commuters and employers. The Commuter Services program offers free online ridematching, carpool and vanpool services, and an Emergency Ride Home program. The Emergency Ride Home program reimburses registered Commuter Services participants for up to four rides each year when the participant is in need of an alternative transportation option due to personal and family emergencies or unscheduled overtime. Expenses eligible
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-2 Transit Development Plan
for reimbursement through the Emergency Ride Home program include taxi rides, rental cars, or reimbursement of a co-worker’s mileage.
. Implications – In an effort to provide additional cross-county commuting alternatives, CAT has been coordinating with Lee County Transit to implement transit services that cross the county lines. CAT and Lee County Transit will continue discussions to explore the feasibility of implementing the service. CAT will need to coordinate any future cross county transit service or future park-and-ride lots with the Commuter Services program.
. Implications – There are both pros and cons to providing cross county services. Providing transit service across county lines creates the potential for decreasing the County’s existing employee pool as residents review employment opportunities in surrounding counties. This could also work in reverse by allowing residents from the surrounding county to access work in Collier County. Based on the current economy and high unemployment rates, providing transportation to and from employment is not a significant concern for most employers; however, as the economy begins to recover and the competition for employees increases, employers may focus more on the availability of transit. Planning for and implementing future transit services will provide vital connections between employment centers and employees as well as an economic benefit to the community.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Population Growth
From 2000 to 2008, the population of Collier County increased by 32 percent. However, the rate of growth has been slower in recent years. The population is projected to decline from 2008 to 2010. According to BEBR, the population is projected to increase from 332,854 in 2008 to 400,700 in 2020, an annualized increase of 1.7 percent. The population projections refer solely to permanent residents and do not include the large number of seasonal residents and tourists who visit Collier County in the winter season.
. Implications – Collier County’s vast land area and gradual future population growth rates may inhibit the expansion of transit services throughout the entire County. The County will need to review transportation solutions for areas with non-transit supportive densities.
The 2010 Census is currently being conducted while the TDP among other major planning documents are being developed. The TDP has been developed using the best data available within the necessary timeframe for completion.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-3 Transit Development Plan
. Implications – Long range plans within the Collier County area may include inconsistent projections and will need to be updated to reflect the 2010 Census projections for consistency.
Demographic and Current Transit Market
Transit markets can be organized into three major categories: traditional markets, discretionary markets, and regional markets. The traditional market includes individuals who have no or limited transportation alternatives and rely on public transit for essential and recreational trips. This market includes the elderly, youth, disabled, low-income, and no/limited vehicle populations. The discretionary market refers to individuals who have a choice of transportation alternatives and may choose transit if the service is able to be competitive with the automobile in terms of travel time, convenience, or other reasons. The regional market refers to the demand for commuter travel to other counties in the region. Based on the CAT on-board survey results, the typical CAT rider is from the traditional market.
. Implications – Currently, the traditional market is the primary market for public transit in Collier County. Existing conditions, including the low population density, large square miles of land area, and the existing level of transit service make it difficult to target discretionary and regional transit markets.
Persons with Disabilities
CAT’s ADA trips have increased from 69,940 in 2006 to 101,524 in 2009, an increase of approximately 45 percent. It is anticipated that the demand for ADA trips will continue to grow over time. In addition, Collier County is the single largest county in Florida in terms of land area and the TD population is spread throughout the County, creating the potential for long trips.
. Implications – CAT must continue to provide door-to-door, ADA paratransit service that complements fixed-route bus service and provide this service to individuals who are unable to access the CAT fixed-route system due to a disability. CAT should consider coordinating with other agencies to implement programs and services that increase the likelihood and ability of persons with disabilities to use the less costly fixed-route bus service. Examples of these programs and services include travel training, more and better sidewalk connections, low-floor buses, and service/infrastructure improvements placed in areas that will serve the ADA population.
Collier County has a large senior citizen population, with 24 percent of the population aged 64 or older compared with the state average of 17 percent. The population trend suggests that mobility needs will increase as the County’s population of seniors and others continue to age.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-4 Transit Development Plan
. Implications – The higher than average senior citizen population is an indicator of future transit and paratransit use. The potential for utilizing New Freedom grants to implement new and innovative transportation services for ADA-eligible passengers should be explored. Travel training programs may assist in efforts to transfer paratransit users to the fixed-route system.
TRAVEL BEHAVIOR
Growth Areas and Travel Demand
Residential development is occurring outside of the urban area and continues to sprawl eastward and to the northern portion of the County. The nature of this development is sprawling and not transit supportive.
. Implications – As growth continues to sprawl eastward, CAT will be challenged to provide service to those needing transit, but living in areas that are not transit supportive. CAT will have to implement innovative public transit options, such as flex- route service and vanpools to provide alternative access to these populations.
Roadway Congestion
Collier County previously invested in significant roadway improvements that have resulted in limited roadway congestion throughout the County. Collier County experiences some increase in automobile traffic when seasonal residents return to the County during the winter season, which traditionally lasts from November to April. While congestion is not a significant problem in Collier County today, it may become increasingly prevalent as future growth continues to expand outside of the urban area.
. Implications – CAT, the MPO, the County, and the municipalities will need to work collaboratively during the development of the MMP to identify multimodal strategies for addressing future mobility needs. In addition, CAT will need to continue efforts to coordinate with future developments for the provision of transit service and infrastructure.
LAND USE
Existing and Future Land Use
Collier County’s existing and future land use plans generally do not reflect development patterns, densities, and intensities that are supportive of transit, with the exception of a few small block groups located in Naples, Marco Island, and Immokalee. The majority of land has rural and conservation future land use designations. These development patterns
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-5 Transit Development Plan
reinforce the reality that the outlying areas surrounding Naples, Marco Island, and Immokalee may need to consider innovative public transit options, such as feeder and flex- route service, park-and-ride lots, and vanpools, rather than fixed-route bus service.
. Implications – CAT may consider working with the FDOT District One’s Commuter Services program to provide alternative public transit options that benefit commuters living in the outlying areas with non-transit supportive densities. CAT may also consider working with the Collier County Planning Department to create opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) within the County.
The County has established two TCMAs and one TCEA, which promotes alternative modes of transportation and urban infill.
. Implications –By promoting urban infill, redevelopment, and reduced single occupant vehicle trips, the geographical areas located within the TCMAs and TCEA should become more compact and transit supportive.
Collier County has several developments of regional impact (DRIs). By definition, these are large developments that affect multiple jurisdictions. Often, these developments do not reflect development patterns, densities, and intensities that are supportive of transit, especially if targeting discretionary transit markets.
. Implications – CAT will need to work with developers to try to encourage them to create transit supportive developments. Staff will have to encourage the inclusion of infrastructure in plans that can be used to support transit in the future. The County should explore the potential for implementation of a county-wide mobility fee to assist with the funding of multimodal transportation improvements.
POLICY ISSUES
The U.S House transportation reauthorization bill, “The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009,” was released in June 2009 as the blueprint for the upcoming reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU and is the first look at what reauthorization may look like when approved. The blueprint emphasizes the growing consensus on the need for a major overhaul of the federal transportation program. The intent of the bill is to “transform Federal surface transportation from an amalgamation of prescriptive programs to a performance-based framework for intermodal transportation investment.” Regardless of the form that reauthorization takes, it is clear that an even greater emphasis will be placed on national objectives for improving safety, providing transportation choices, limiting adverse impacts to the environment, and promoting the public health and livability of our communities.
. Implications – Many of the key themes in the reauthorization bill point to the importance of transit and its role in achieving the national objectives summarized
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-6 Transit Development Plan
previously in this TDP. The MPO and CAT will need to be prepared to respond to reauthorization as it evolves later this year. In particular, the emphasis on transit, safety, and greenhouse gas reduction will likely necessitate increased considerations for transit as part of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and other metropolitan planning programs.
Senate Bill 360
With the recent passing of the new Senate Bill 360 legislation, the municipalities of Naples and Marco Island qualify as Dense Urban Land Areas (DULAs). Senate Bill 360 designates TCEAs within local governments qualifying as DULAs. Within 2 years after a TCEA becomes effective, the local government must amend its local comprehensive plan to include “land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility within the exception area, including alternative modes of transportation.”
. Implications – Amending the local comprehensive plans of the DULAs to include the TCEAs may assist CAT in collecting funding for future expansions and improvements.
Transit Vehicles
CAT recently made the decision to apply for transit stimulus funding from the ARRA. CAT will receive new buses through the funding program.
. Implications – The ARRA funds will be used to replace some of the older buses used to operate fixed-route service as well as operate the County’s first 2 hybrid buses.
Advertising Revenue
Based on a Collier County policy decision, the CAT vehicles are currently wrapped to appear as trolley buses; therefore, no advertising is permitted on the outside of the buses. Selling advertising space on the inside of the bus is not in violation of the County’s policy and was suggested for consideration during TDP public outreach activities.
. Implications – Vehicle advertising on the inside and/or outside of the CAT buses is a potential revenue source that should be explored further due to the current economic situation and budget constraints.
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
CAT operates as a Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department and is currently the only public transit provider in Collier County. Since operations began in 2001, CAT has not completed an assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of current transit
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-7 Transit Development Plan
operations and identify opportunities for improvements through changes to its operations, marketing, and administration.
. Implications – Based on the discussions that occurred during the TDP public involvement efforts regarding the efficiency of the current CAT routes, CAT should conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) to assess the transit system. A COA will identify the productivity of existing routes and whether efficiencies can be gained as well as enable the County to make policy decisions and proceed with a clear vision for the future of CAT.
Transit Delivery Framework
The current transit delivery framework for Collier County involves CAT playing a day-to-day planning and oversight role, in conjunction with McDonald Transit serving as the transit operator. Various transit governance and service delivery options are used by other communities throughout Florida and the U.S.
. Implications – CAT, in coordination with the MPO, should conduct an analysis of the current transit delivery framework to determine the most efficient and cost-effective process for the provision of transit service within Collier County.
Private Transportation Providers
The Naples Trolley is a privately operated transportation service within the City of Naples. The trolley operates a loop with 25 fixed stops, 7 days a week, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The FTA issued charter service rules prevent public intrusion into private markets, with the flexibility of permitting public agencies to meet special community needs when the private sector cannot respond in a cost-effective manner.
. Implications – As both CAT and the Naples Trolley continue to grow and expand services, the transit providers should coordinate to ensure that there are no duplications in service and expansion are made without competitive disadvantages.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
ITS Technologies
CAT has secured a grant for the implementation of new ITS technologies. Currently, CAT operates without advanced technologies including mobile data terminals (MDTs) and vehicle locator devices.
. Implications - The new technology will be used to automate and improve on-time performance reporting.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-8 Transit Development Plan
Alternative Fueled Vehicles
Utilizing ARRA funds, CAT has recently purchased 2 hybrid powered vehicles. During TDP public outreach activities discussions occurred regarding the feasibility of utilizing smaller vehicles that may better match the capacity needed for a given type of service. An assessment of alternative fueled vehicles and the use of smaller vehicles is included as Appendix G.
. Implications – A preliminary feasibility assessment of alternative fueled buses, including the pros and cons of hybrid electric buses are presented as Appendix G of this report. Pending financial feasibility, it is recommended that alternative fueled buses be purchased as part of vehicle replacement and service expansion. It is important to note, however, that vehicle technologies are evolving rapidly and, since vehicle acquisition is likely to be several years in the future, technologies should be reassessed prior to making the investment decision at that time.
CAT should also consider the use of smaller vehicles, such as cutaway buses or shuttle-sized vehicles, as a way to optimize transit capacity and potentially reduce costs. The pros and cons of operating smaller transit vehicles also are presented in Appendix G of this report. To the extent possible, it is recommended that CAT make every effort to match vehicle size and capacity with the demand and nature of each bus route (e.g., smaller vehicles on flex routes). However, this objective will need to be balanced with the need for spare buses that must be available to replace buses requiring repair or maintenance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Air Quality Non-Attainment
In 2008, the federal government reduced the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. In March 2009, Florida’s governor submitted recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the areas to be designated as Florida’s non- attainment areas.
. Implications – At the current time, Collier County is not included in the recommended areas designated as non-attainment. CAT should continue to implement service and technologies that positively impact air quality.
House Bill 697
Effective July 1, 2008, House Bill 697 amended Ch. 163, F.S., to establish new local planning requirements that incorporate strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill requires local governments to apply new requirements no later than the due date of the EAR-based amendments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-9 Transit Development Plan
. Implications – CAT will receive 2 hybrid powered vehicles in June 2010. In addition, Collier County is in the process of developing an MMP with the primary goal of reducing VMT and increasing mobility through alternative modes of transportation. The goals and objectives of the MMP are in compliance with House Bill 697.
SUMMARY
This situation appraisal was performed to document the current operating environment and identify potential implications that should be considered by Collier County in preparing a major update to the 10-year TDP. The implications summarized in this section were used to support the transit demand estimation and the mobility needs assessment, as well as the development and evaluation of transit alternatives presented later in this document.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 6-10 Transit Development Plan
Section 7: Transit Demand & Mobility Needs
This section presents a review and evaluation of transit demand and mobility needs regarding transit services in Collier County. The evaluation was completed by reviewing three major components, including:
. Ridership trends . TBEST ridership forecasting . Transit market assessment
RIDERSHIP TRENDS
As shown in Figure 7-1, CAT’s monthly ridership has increased from 70,611 in October 2004 to 109,524 monthly trips in October 2008. Ridership has shown a steady upward trend, with a slight decrease following the March 2009 fare increase. Compared to other routes, the Purple Route 3A has consecutively had the greatest number of passengers from FY2006 to FY2009 and accounts for nearly 13 percent of the total system-wide ridership.
Figure 7-1 Monthly Ridership for CAT (2005 to 2009)
Monthly Ridership
140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Jul-09 Jul-08 Jul-07 Jul-06 Jul-05 Oct-08 Jan-09 Oct-07 Jan-08 Oct-06 Jan-07 Oct-05 Jan-06 Oct-04 Jan-05 Apr-09 Apr-08 Apr-07 Apr-06 Apr-05
TBEST RIDERSHIP FORECASTING
FDOT’s approved transit demand forecasting tool for TDP’s, Transit Boarding Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST), was used to forecast future ridership demand in Collier County. Designed to provide near- and mid-term forecasts of transit ridership, TBEST is a comprehensive transit analysis and ridership-forecasting model that is capable of simulating travel demand at the individual stop-level. It also accounts for transit network connectivity,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-1 Transit Development Plan
spatial and temporal accessibility, time-of-day variations, and route competition and complementarities.
Model Inputs and Assumptions
TBEST uses various demographic and transit network data as model inputs. These inputs and the assumptions made in modeling Collier County’s transit service in TBEST are presented below. It should be noted, however, that the model is not interactive with roadway network conditions. Therefore, ridership forecasts will not show direct sensitivity to changes in the roadway traffic conditions or speeds.
. Transit Network – The transit network for CAT coded in the base TBEST model was updated to reflect 2009 conditions, as 2009 was selected as the validation year for the model. The transit network in TBEST required various edits to reflect the 2009 route alignments and service characteristics in Collier County. Network revisions included adding and editing routes, generating stops, editing service span, modifying headways and travel time, defining special generators, and other network considerations.
. Demographic Data – The demographics, including population and employment, used as the base input for the TBEST model are derived from the 2000 Census and the American Community Survey 2005-2007 and 2006-2008 3-Year Estimates. The American Community Survey data was used to determine a one-year percent change in the annual growth rate. The model uses a Census-Block-level personal geodatabase as the format for spatial distribution of population data.
. TBEST Model Limitations – According to Florida law, TBEST is the FDOT-approved model for transit ridership forecasting as part of TDP’s in Florida. However, it is important to understand that TBEST is just one tool for evaluating improvements to existing and future transit services. 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 for various transit network scenarios. As a result, the analyst should use caution and professional judgment when considering the absolute ridership projections resulting from the TBEST model. TBEST continues to be a work in progress and will become more and more useful as its limitations are addressed in future updates to the model.
Using these inputs, assumptions, and 2009 ridership data for CAT, the TBEST model was validated for 2009. Using the validation model as the base model and TDP priorities and their corresponding implementation years, annual TBEST ridership forecasts for the 10-year TDP were developed and are presented in Section 10 of this report. The TBEST projections and transit improvement details are presented in Appendix H.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-2 Transit Development Plan
TRANSIT MARKET ASSESSMENT
Transit demand and mobility needs were assessed for CAT through a transit market assessment. The transit market assessment for Collier County includes an evaluation of markets from three major perspectives. These include:
. Traditional market – potential traditional transit users, including elderly, youth, and persons in households that are low-income and/or have no vehicles.
. Choice market – potential riders living in more densely-populated areas of the County and choosing to use transit as a commuting alternative.
. Regional market – potential riders wishing to access destinations throughout Collier County and the surrounding area by using a connected transit system.
The first two perspectives reflect market segments from demographic and density perspectives. The third perspective relates to market segments from a broader geographic perspective. By indentifying these three market perspectives, analysis tools can be used to understand market segments and ultimately develop potential service improvements and policy strategies. It is important to note that the analysis tools can offer applications for more than one market perspective. The results of each market assessment are presented below.
Traditional Market
The traditional transit market refers to population segments that have historically had a higher propensity to use transit. Using 2009 ESRI demographic data, a Transit Orientation Index (TOI) was developed for Collier County. The TOI categorizes each block group in the respective counties according to its relative ability to support transit based on the prevalence of specific demographic characteristics. The block groups are rated as “Very High,” “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” or “Very Low” in their respective levels of transit orientation. It should be noted that the block groups with very low population densities (less than 100 persons per square mile) were excluded from this analysis.
To create the TOI, data from the 2009 ESRI demographic data set were compiled at the block group level. For this analysis, five population and demographic characteristics were used to develop the TOI, each of which is a characteristic traditionally conducive to transit use. It should be noted that households with $9,999 annual household income was used in place of zero-vehicle households due to ESRI not collecting vehicle related data in their respective analysis. The five characteristics that were used to produce the index include the following:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-3 Transit Development Plan
. population density (persons per square mile) . proportion of the population age 60 and over (elderly) . proportion of the population aged 15 to 24 (youths) . proportion of the population below the poverty level . proportion of households with $9,999 or less annual income
The 2009 TOI for the study area is illustrated in Map 7-1. The TOI analysis shows that, for the most part, block groups in portions of developed areas of the Collier County study area have Low or Medium transit orientation. The areas with High or Very High transit orientation increase within the Immokalee area and along a small portion of Goodlette-Frank Road.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-4 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Route 2A Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Naples Inset Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Transit Orientation Very High High Medium Marco Island Low Very Low* Conservation Areas
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 7-1 Transit Orientation Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI. Index * Population Density is Less Than 100 Persons per Square Mile
Choice Market
The choice market (also called the discretionary market) includes potential riders living in higher density areas and choosing to use transit as a commuting alternative. These passengers choose to ride transit for various reasons which include cost savings, convenience, and environmental concerns. Discretionary passengers often live in areas that are transit supportive. As density increases, areas generally become more and more supportive of transit.
To illustrate this relationship, a Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) was conducted based on industry standard relationships between densities and varying levels of transit investment.
The DTA examines population and employment densities by Census block group and categorizes the block groups with regard to their ability to support transit. The DTA categories relate to a specific block group’s ability to support minimum, high, or very high levels of transit investment. It should be noted that dwelling units are used as a proxy for population in this analysis. Table 7-1 presents the density thresholds for each of the noted categories.
Table 7-1 Transit Service Density Thresholds Transit Service Dwelling Unit Density Threshold Employment Density Threshold Threshold Level Minimum 4.5-5 Dwelling Units/Acre 4 Employees/Acre High 6-7 Dwelling Units/Acre 5-6 Employees/Acre Very High ≥8 Dwelling Units/Acre ≥ 7 Employees/Acre Sources: FDOT, Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 16, Volume 1 (1996).
Map 7-2 illustrates the current (2009) DTA; Map 7-3 illustrates the future (2020) DTA.
In 2009, there are only a few areas in Collier County that qualify as transit supportive including block groups in Immokalee, US 41 and Broward Street, Santa Barbara and Collier Boulevard, and near the intersection of US 41 and Immokalee Road. Of the block groups that are supportive of bus service, all are located near a fixed-route; however, some block groups are located outside of the ¼-mile buffer that defines a comfortable walking distance.
In 2020, several block groups within Collier County generally become more transit supportive; however, there are still few areas with transit supportive density thresholds. Most of the 2020 transit supportive block groups are currently served by transit, with the exception of a few block groups with minimum dwelling unit density thresholds located in Marco Island and the City of Naples.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-6 Transit Development Plan
Similar to the traditional market, the results of the choice market assessment are used in subsequent chapters to support the identification of transit needs, whether it is new routes or increased frequencies. Tourists and seasonal residents of the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island are examples of primarily choice market segmentations of the CAT system. Denser areas coupled with parking restrictions, inadequate parking, and/or parking pricing can entice people that have a private automobile to choose transit. Adding high frequency transit service around employment and activity centers can also increase transit ridership.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-7 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Route 2A Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Naples Inset Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Conservation Areas Employment Density Threshold Minimum High Marco Island Very High
Dwelling Unit Density Threshold Not Transit Supportive Minimum High Very High Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Map 7-2 2009 Density Threshold Assessment Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI.
Regional Market
As previously mentioned, the regional market refers to those riders who wish to access destinations throughout Collier County and the surrounding area by utilizing a regional transit system. In January 2005, the Collier and Lee County MPOs entered into an interlocal agreement to coordinate their transportation planning activities with a focus on establishing a multimodal regional transportation network. The MPOs coordinated to develop the joint Collier-Lee 2030 Regional Multimodal Transportation Plan Element that includes transit connections between CAT and Lee County Transit.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 7-10 Transit Development Plan
Section 8: Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives
This section presents the transit goals, objectives, and initiatives for the next 10 years. Goals, objectives, and initiatives are an integral part of any transportation plan because they provide the policy direction to achieve the community’s vision. A goal is a long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. On the other hand, an objective is a specific, measureable, intermediate end that is achievable and allows measurement of progress toward a goal. An initiative is the course of action or way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified objective.
The goals, objectives, and initiatives presented in this section were prepared based on the review of the goals, objectives, and initiatives adopted in the 2006-2015 TDP Major Update. Other factors contributing to this section include the assessment of existing conditions, feedback received during the public involvement process, and the review of local planning documents. Initiatives have been developed for each objective to set a course of action for attaining the goals and objectives.
CAT PUBLIC TRANSIT VISION
To be an integral part of Collier County’s transportation network operated effectively and efficiently to improve economic and environmental benefits while providing all residents an alternative to the automobile.
CAT PUBLIC TRANSIT MISSION
To provide an accessible, sustainable, safe, efficient, and affordable public transportation network that provides multimodal choices, promotes livable neighborhoods and communities, increases quality of life, and enhances the economic and social well-being of Collier County’s residents and visitors.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES
Goal 1: Operate a cost effective and sustainable public transportation system that safely and efficiently meets the needs of Collier County’s residents and visitors
Objective 1.1: Improve efficiency, quality, and level of service to adequately serve residents and visitors while increasing the economic vitality of transit in the County
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-1 Transit Development Plan
Initiatives for Objective 1.1:
Initiative 1.1.1: Establish east/west corridor service, as funding allows, by 2019 to provide alternative access to jobs, education, and recreation.
Initiative 1.1.2: Improve the frequency of peak weekday service to 45 minutes or better on all existing CAT routes, as funding allows, by 2019
Initiative 1.1.3: Evaluate the feasibility of premium transit services, such as bus rapid transit (BRT) by 2013
Initiative 1.1.4: By 2013, evaluate routes to determine inefficiencies and minimize the cost of service while improving the performance of the system
Initiative 1.1.5: Review the existing transfer policy and consider the potential for implementing same direction street transfers within a specific amount of time by 2012
Objective 1.2: Improve and maintain the existing transit infrastructure within Collier County
Initiatives for Objective 1.2:
Initiative 1.2.1: Continue to pursue funding for improvements to existing bus stops
Initiative 1.2.2: Develop a Passengers Amenities Program by 2012
Initiative 1.2.3: Develop a Bus Stop Inventory and Improvement Plan by 2012
Initiative 1.2.4: Install a minimum of 5 covered Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible bus stop shelters per year
Initiative 1.2.5: Preserve the existing transit infrastructure throughout the CAT service area
Initiative 1.2.6: Conduct an ADA bus stop assessment by 2012
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-2 Transit Development Plan
Initiative 1.2.7: Based on the results of the ADA bus stop assessment, improve existing bus stops to meet ADA requirements
Initiative 1.2.8: By 2011, reevaluate existing shelter design to ensure that new shelters provide passengers with adequate protection from inclement weather and bicycle storage opportunities
Initiative 1.2.9: Review the impact of shelter installation on the local economy by evaluating vendors utilized for such products, and including shelter design and installation during roadway construction projects.
Objective 1.3: Serve all current and future transit users with a focus on providing job access and allowing for a greener alternative to the private automobile
Initiatives for Objective 1.3:
Initiative 1.3.1: Expand and improve transportation service within areas with the highest transit orientation index, as identified in the TDP Major Update, by 2019
Initiative 1.3.2: Provide efficient transit access to major employment centers, development corridors, and other significant activity centers, as funding allows
Initiative 1.3.3: Expand transit services to areas with high employment and dwelling unit densities, including the Estates and other areas located in the eastern portion of the County, by 2019
Initiative 1.3.4: Increase transit ridership by 1 percent each year
Objective 1.4: Create an interconnected transit network using multimodal transportation elements
Initiatives for Objective 1.4:
Initiative 1.4.1: Construct park-and-ride lots at priority areas as identified within the TDP Major Update
Initiative 1.4.2: Create connections with interregional public transportation services and plan for connections with future transit corridors
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-3 Transit Development Plan
Initiative 1.4.3: Encourage local governments to provide accessible sidewalks, bus stops, and other bus stop improvements
Initiative 1.4.4: Coordinate public transportation connections with existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle pathways
Initiative 1.4.5: Install a minimum of 2 bike racks each year at bus stops
Initiative 1.4.6: By 2014, complete construction of the CAT Radio Road Transfer Facility to promote multimodal and transportation connections
Objective 1.5: Coordinate transportation services to provide cross county connections to Lee County as appropriate based on the regional transportation and economic benefits that can be derived
Initiatives for Objective 1.5:
Initiative 1.5.1: Evaluate how regional services can add economic value to Collier County by increasing job access and creating alternative routes to access goods and services
Initiative 1.5.2: Continue quarterly coordination meetings between CAT staff and LeeTran staff for the provision of cross county transportation service
Initiative 1.5.3: Coordinate with LeeTran to identify funding sources for the expansion of cross county public transportation services
Initiative 1.5.4: Expand transportation services to Lee County with connections to LeeTran along US 41 and near Immokalee
Objective 1.6: Enhance the availability of transit services for tourists and seasonal residents
Initiatives for Objective 1.6:
Initiative 1.6.1: Designate a CAT representative to attend Collier County Tourist Development Council (TDC) meetings
Initiative 1.6.2: Coordinate with the TDC to explore the potential for utilizing tourist development tax revenue to expand and improve transit service for Collier County’s tourists and visitors
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-4 Transit Development Plan
Initiative 1.6.3: Coordinate with the TDC to market CAT services
Initiative 1.6.4: Encourage the private market segment benefiting from tourist in Collier County to help fund transit services to this population
Objective 1.7: Enhance access and availability of transit information and schedules
Initiatives for Objective 1.7:
Initiative 1.7.1: Provide route maps at major transfer points
Initiative 1.7.2: Add numbers to bus stops to assist passengers and CAT representatives in determining bus stop locations and providing accurate information
Initiative 1.7.3: Partner with the Chamber of Commerce to develop and disseminate a route map that depicts the locations of major destinations, including employment centers, apartments, and attractions
Initiative 1.7.4: Conduct a Travel Training Day with CAT representatives riding the buses to share information with passengers and teach non-users how to use the transit system
Initiative 1.7.5: Develop outreach activities to teach children how to use public transportation
Goal 2: Reduce energy demand, implement green initiatives and sustainable processes, and protect Collier County’s natural environment.
Objective 2.1: Implement innovative programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled within Collier County
Initiatives for Objective 2.1:
Initiative 2.1.1: Continue coordination with FDOT District One’s Commuter Services program for the implementation of additional commuter programs
Initiative 2.1.2: Coordinate with public and private entities to establish new park-and-ride locations for commuters
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-5 Transit Development Plan
Initiative 2.1.3: Utilize FTA 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funding to implement or access existing, new, and/or innovative programs to improve mobility to employment and employment related activities and for reverse commute activities including but not limited to commuter services, including vanpools, carpools, and ridesharing programs
Initiative 2.1.4: Coordinate with the Naples Pathways Coalition to explore the potential for implementing a bicycle sharing program
Initiative 2.1.5: Determine how Collier County can leverage additional funding to promote and provide green alternatives including federal funds for transit in parks
Objective 2.2: Implement environmentally-friendly operating procedures
Initiatives for Objective 2.2:
Initiative 2.2.1: Explore the potential to transition to alternative fuel vehicles for economic and environmental benefits
Initiative 2.2.2: Where appropriate, consider the potential to purchase smaller vehicles to match the capacity requirements of the new service areas
Initiative 2.2.3: Reduce fuel consumption by 1 percent each year, as service, new sources to power vehicles, and funding allows
Initiative 2.2.4: Construct future CAT facilities utilizing environmentally- friendly materials, where feasible
Objective 2.3: Reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuels
Initiatives for Objective 2.3:
Initiative 2.3.1: Participate in local air quality improvement efforts in support of Florida HB 697 and Environmental Protection Agency efforts
Goal 3: Build meaningful partnerships and intergovernmental relationships that increase the visibility of CAT, promote livability, and enhance economic and social well-being
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-6 Transit Development Plan
Objective 3.1: Develop marketing strategies to increase ridership and improve the visibility of CAT
Initiatives for Objective 3.1:
Initiative 3.1.1: Develop transit information packets and user-friendly brochures for distribution by the Naples Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Commission
Initiative 3.1.2: Participate in local job fairs to increase knowledge about the transit system and encourage usage
Initiative 3.1.3: Develop marketing materials and programs to demonstrate the value and role of transit in regional carbon emissions reduction
Initiative 3.1.4: Distribute transit service information and user-friendly brochures to at least 25 percent of businesses within ¼-mile of existing transit routes by 2015
Initiative 3.1.5: Attend and present the benefits of using CAT at one community event each quarter
Initiative 3.1.6: Launch a CAT public relations campaign designed to promote transit ridership and sustainability by 2013
Objective 3.2: Build partnerships and intergovernmental relationships to improve and expand existing and future transit services
Initiatives for Objective 3.2:
Initiative 3.2.1: Coordinate with the Immokalee Seminole Casino and future developments (i.e., Ave Maria and Big Cypress) to explore the potential for partnering to provide additional service in Immokalee and other areas
Goal 4: Coordinate public transportation services with local, regional, and state planning efforts
Objective 4.1: Coordinate integrated land use planning efforts to incorporate transit needs into the development review process
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-7 Transit Development Plan
Initiatives for Objective 4.1:
Initiative 4.1.1: Work with County and city planners to evaluate and consider the implementation, distribution, and expenditure of a mobility fee in an effort to focus on multimodal travel options
Initiative 4.1.2: Participate in planning and development review meetings to ensure that County and city policies support transit services and funding needs
Initiative 4.1.3: Ensure that CAT comments on all major development regarding the provision of transit services and the capital and operational impact on transit and associated funding for these impacts
Initiative 4.1.4: Work with County and city planners to incorporate transit oriented development design into the planning process
Initiative 4.1.5: Develop a list of recurring annual meetings where transportation and land use will be topics and designate a representative to attend
Goal 5: Utilize the best technologies and innovations available for transportation system operations
Objective 5.1: Implement and expand Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Improvements
Initiatives for Objective 5.1:
Initiative 5.1.1: Continue to improve customer information systems (including website) for scheduling information to encourage and increase system use
Initiative 5.1.2: Develop an ITS plan that includes evaluation criteria for potential and proposed ITS projects
Initiative 5.1.3: Develop an amenities inventory within a geographic information system (GIS) by 2013
Initiative 5.1.4: Implement a trip planner by September 2013
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-8 Transit Development Plan
Initiative 5.1.5: Add Global Positioning System (GPS) units and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems to all new buses
Goal 6: Monitor service quality and maintain minimum standards
Objective 6.1: Evaluate progress in maintaining minimum standards
Initiatives for Objective 6.1:
Initiative 6.1.1: Conduct a comprehensive operational analysis (COA) by December 2012 to determine where efficiencies can be gained and what route revisions can be made to increase ridership and reduce transit subsidies
Initiative 6.1.2: Meet the performance measures established in the MPO 2035 LRTP
Objective 6.2: Develop ongoing processes to measure and monitor service quality
Initiatives for Objective 6.2:
Initiative 6.2.1: Utilize the performance measures in Section 10 of this TDP to monitor fixed-route and paratransit services on a quarterly basis. Make revisions to low-performing services and if improvement is not seen after the changes discontinue the service
Initiative 6.2.2: Conduct a survey at least every 2 years to obtain passenger information including user demographics, travel behavior characteristics, and user satisfaction
Initiative 6.2.3: Maintain an ongoing public involvement process to solicit input through discussion groups, interviews, surveys, and public workshops
Objective 6.3: Improve and maintain the CAT fleet
Initiatives for Objective 6.3:
Initiative 6.3.1: Operate a fleet of fixed-route vehicles with an average age of less than 5 years by 2020, as funding permits
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-9 Transit Development Plan
Initiative 6.3.2: Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit vehicles to keep them operable and reduce overall vehicle cost
Initiative 6.3.3: Develop a process for operators to communicate potential vehicle maintenance problems that feed into an ongoing preventative maintenance program and address actual maintenance problems immediately
Goal 7: Maximize the use of all funding sources and services to increase CAT revenue
Objective 7.1: Increase and expand revenue sources
Initiatives for Objective 7.1:
Initiative 7.1.1: Review the potential for permitting advertising inside the buses
Initiative 7.1.2: Educate the general public and local decision-makers on the importance of public transportation and the need for financial support
Initiative 7.1.3: Submit grant applications available through federal, state, local, and private sources
Initiative 7.1.4: Annually seek to identify and obtain available alternative revenue sources for the provision of new and improved transit services
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 8-10 Transit Development Plan
Section 9: Transit Alternatives
The purpose of this section is to summarize the potential transit alternatives developed as part of the 10-year planning horizon of this TDP update. An alternative can be an improvement to the transit system such as the implementation of a new route or improved frequency on a route. It can also be more administrative in nature such as improving CAT’s marketing or purchasing ITS equipment. The alternatives presented in this section are part of CAT’s transit vision for the TDP 10-year planning horizon. These alternatives in no way establish a financial commitment for Collier County; they have been developed for transit planning purposes. Based on the availability of additional revenue sources, Section 10 presents two financial scenarios for the future: the status quo plan and the vision plan.
METHODS USED TO DEVELOP AND EVALUATE PRIORITIES
Transit alternatives for Collier County were developed through a number of methods that are described below.
. Public Involvement – A series of stakeholder interviews, public workshops, and discussion groups were held in order to gather input from the public as to what alternatives should be implemented on the CAT system.
. Discussions with CAT Staff – Discussions with CAT staff throughout the TDP process provided insight into the day-to-day operations of CAT, as well as the understanding of Collier County.
. Situation Appraisal – A situation appraisal was conducted for Collier County to enhance the understanding of the environment in which the transit agency operates and to understand key trends and implications that impact the approach that CAT will take in developing transit service priorities.
. Transit Demand Estimation and Mobility Needs – Section 7 provides an assessment of the potential transit demand in Collier County. The assessment involves the use of several techniques, including a review of ridership trends, results from the TBEST demand modeling, and an assessment of transit markets.
. Collier County Planning Efforts – The 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Needs and Cost Affordable Plans were reviewed to identify priority transit corridors analyzed during the development of the Long Range Transit Element.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-1 Transit Development Plan
TEN-YEAR TDP SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Based on the analysis above, the following service alternatives are provided for the CAT 10- year TDP. These alternatives provide for the most viable service to be provided to existing and potential transit users.
. Continue Operating Existing Fixed Bus Routes – The existing fixed bus routes should continue to operate.
. Continue to Operate Complementary ADA Paratransit Service – The existing paratransit service should be maintained, thereby continuing to serve the needs of the ADA-eligible and transportation disadvantaged residents of Collier County.
. Expand Complementary ADA Paratransit Service to Complement New Service – To continue serving the needs of the ADA-eligible residents of Collier County and in compliance with the ADA regulations, CAT is obligated to expand paratransit service in conjunction with the implementation of new fixed-routes.
. Improve Frequency of Service on Existing Fixed Bus Routes – Reducing headways has the potential of improving the attractiveness and efficiency of the service. Public workshop participants and survey respondents indicated the need for improving headways on many of the fixed bus routes. o Route 1A, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Circulator), and 9 should be adjusted to operate at 45-minute headways during the TDP planning horizon.
. Extend Evening Hours – Expanding hours of will allow CAT passengers to travel later in the evening and possibly attract more riders. Surveys conducted during the plan development process indicated that passengers would like to see later evening hours on the existing routes. o Route 1A, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7 (Circulator), 8, and 9 should be adjusted to operate until 10pm.
. Implement Additional Sunday Service – Adding Sunday service on existing bus routes will provide passengers with greater access to jobs and other activities, as well as possibly attracting new customers who do not use CAT because of the existing schedule and hours. o Route 8 (Circulator) should include Sunday service operating from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. during the TDP planning horizon.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-2 Transit Development Plan
. Implement New Fixed-Route Bus Service – Five new fixed-routes were identified through public involvement activities and discussion with the Review Committee and CAT staff. The new bus routes include: o Immokalee Road from CR 951 to Gulf Shore Drive o Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara Boulevard to US 41 o Pine Ridge Road from CR 951 to US 41 o Downtown Naples Transit Loop o Livingston Road from Radio Road to Immokalee Road
. Implement Golden Gates Estates “Flex Route” – Implementing a circulator “flex route” will improve access and connectivity in the Golden Gates Estates area by providing an on-call transit service within a 5-mile radius of the Golden Gates Community Center. The flex bus will maintain a fixed stop at the Community Center every hour.
Flex-route service is a hybrid service that combines the predictability of fixed-route bus service with the flexibility of demand response service. This service generally operates in suburban areas where the street and pedestrian networks are not conducive to fixed-route bus service.
. Implement Everglades City “Flex Route” – Implementing a circulator “flex route” will improve access and connectivity in Everglades City by providing an on-call transit service within the City.
. Implement Express Routes – Four express routes were identified including an express route from Collier County to Lee County that will connect at the proposed park-and-ride lot located at US 41 and the Lee County Line, an express bus route from the Government Center to the SWFL Airport, an express route from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres, and an express route from the Government Center to Everglades City.
CAPITAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
The following capital and infrastructure alternatives were developed for the TDP’s 10-year planning horizon.
. Construct New Transfer Facility – The existing CAT administrative facility located on Radio Road will undergo renovations in order to serve as a new passenger transfer facility with additional capacity for buses and bus maintenance.
. Renovate Government Center Transfer Facility – The existing transfer facility will undergo renovations to better serve transit customers by improving the traffic flow for automobiles, buses, and pedestrians.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-3 Transit Development Plan
. Vehicle Replacement and Acquisition – Vehicle replacement and acquisition is the most important component of transit infrastructure for CAT. Following an increase in service frequency to 45-minutes or less, CAT should evaluate its vehicle replacement and acquisition plan including fixed-route, paratransit, and support vehicles to maintain an adequate number of vehicles and avoid exceeding the FTA spare ratio level.
Currently, all CAT buses are diesel propelled. In March 2010, CAT received three 35- foot buses, which are larger than the current fleet and can accommodate more passengers. In June 2010, CAT will receive two 35-foot hybrid buses that were purchased through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) program.
. Establish Park-and-Ride Lots – In conjunction with Collier County and future private developments, shared-use/joint-use park-and-ride lots should be established as part of the expanded transit infrastructure for the 10-year TDP. Park-and-ride locations identified for implementation within the TDP planning horizon will connect with bus service. Park-and-ride lots have been included in the TDP for the following locations: o US 41 and the Lee County Line o Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road o Immokalee Road and Gulf Shore Drive o I-75 and the Lee County Line
. Add Shelters, Shaded Benches, and Other Transit Infrastructure – Bus stops and passenger amenities are the point of contact for passengers on the CAT system. CAT should add transit infrastructure (e.g., purchase and installation of bus shelters, shaded benches, bike racks, etc.) as funding becomes available. Passenger amenities should also be coordinated with the County and/or developments which, due to type of land use and/or location, warrant such enhancements
. Install Transit Technologies – Technologies have been identified to help improve the overall system efficiency and safety. Technologies identified for implementation within the TDP planning horizon include Automatic Passenger Counters, video surveillance equipment, Mobile Data Terminals, and Automatic Vehicle Locators. Automatic Passenger Counters are used to track boarding and alighting (by stop and time of day), aid in identifying shelter locations, monitoring route running time, and identifying bus overload situations.
. Construct Intermodal Transfer Facilities – In coordination with the proposed park- and-ride lots located near the Lee County Line and the realignment of the Red Routes, intermodal transfer facilities will be constructed to better facilitate passenger transfers and improve system connectivity. Construction of these facilities will be coordinated with Collier County and potential new developments.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-4 Transit Development Plan
PLANNING ACTIVITIES
During the 10-year planning horizon CAT will undertake several planning initiatives to provide a basis for service changes, capital projects, and the future direction of the agency. Funds have been added to the financial plan for these planning efforts, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:
. Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) – A comprehensive operations analysis will review all CAT services and provide information on service efficiencies, route performance, and overall operations. CAT should complete a COA during the 10-year planning horizon to determine how the fixed-route bus service can be reconfigured to improve efficiency. The need for improved efficiencies and route realignments was mentioned several times during the TDP public outreach efforts.
. Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan (ITS) – CAT should develop an ITS plan to guide the acquisition and implementation of ITS technologies during the TDP planning horizon.
. Major TDP Update – It is required by FDOT that the TDP undergo a major update for the 5th year. In addition, FDOT requires that TDP progress reports are submitted annually.
. Facilities Needs Plan – As CAT continues to grow it will be important to assess facility and transit infrastructure needs.
. Major Investment Study – CAT, in coordination with the cities, County, and MPO, should review the potential for funding that will be available for transit investment and the needs of the area to determine what major capital projects should move forward to enhance mobility options.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
. Evaluate the Use of Smaller Vehicles – CAT should consider the use of smaller vehicles, such as cutaway buses or shuttle sized vehicles, to match the capacity requirements of the new service, as a way to help reduce future capital and operating costs. The potential for operating smaller vehicles should be reviewed for the provision of transit service within gated communities and other areas outside of the urban area.
. Evaluate Transfer Policy – The existing CAT transfer policy should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of permitting on-street transfers. During the TDP public outreach activities, participants expressed frustration over the existing policy that
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-5 Transit Development Plan
requires patrons to either return to the Government Center for transfers or pay full fare to transfer on the street.
Based on the analysis above, Table 9-1 lists the operating alternatives and phasing plan and Table 9-2 lists the capital alternatives and phasing plan that were identified through the TDP process for implementation between FY 2011 and FY 2020. Alternatives are listed by implementation year for the purpose of modeling ridership projections and based on the availability of funding. The alternatives identified in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 are subject to the availability of funding. If alternative revenue sources are identified for the implementation of any alternative regardless of the implementation year identified in this TDP, that alternative may be advanced for implementation in an earlier year.
The alternatives listed in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 do not exactly mirror, but are consistent with the goals, objectives, and initiatives in this report. The alternatives tables identify the projects that are likely to move forward over the 10-year planning horizon; the goals, objectives, and initiatives, provide a wide overview of policy and activity that will guide CAT in implementing the alternatives listed in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Map 9-1 displays these alternatives visually.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-6 Transit Development Plan
Table 9-1 Operating Alternatives Phasing Plan (FY 2011-2020)
Transit Alternatives Type of Improvement
FY 2012 Improvements
Collier-Lee Connection - Express service along US 41 to the Lee County Line providing a New Service connection with LeeTran and a potential future park-and-ride lot
FY 2013 Improvements Route 8 (Circulator) - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes Frequency Route 5 - Realign existing route to stop in Ave Maria Realignment FY 2014 Improvements Route 1 - Realign existing routes into two loops that connect on Pine Ridge Realignment Route 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes Frequency Route to the Beach along Immokalee Road - From CR 951 to Gulf Shore Dr New Service FY 2015 Improvements Route along Golden Gate Parkway - From Santa Barbara Blvd to US 41 New Service FY 2016 Improvements Downtown Naples Loop - Starting at US 41 (5th Ave) & Goodlette-Frank Rd looping to New Service Gulfshore Blvd, Broad Ave, 8th St, Central, Goodlette-Frank Rd and back to 5th Ave Route 8 (Circulator) - Add Sunday Service Sunday Service Route along Pine Ridge Road - From CR 951 to US 41 New Service Route 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 - Extend evening hours until 10 p.m. Later Hours FY 2017 Improvements Route along Livingston Road - From Radio Rd to Immokalee Rd New Service Flex-Route in Golden Gates Estates - Flex-route circulator within a 5-mile radius of the New Service Golden Gate Community Center FY 2018 Improvements Express Route from the Government Center to the SWFL Airport - Along I-75 New Service FY 2019 Improvements Route 7 (Express) - Add additional hours to route and realign the existing route to stop at Additional Hours/ the CAT Operations facility located on Radio Road Realignment Route from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres - From the center of Immokalee, north on 29th New Service and west on Immokalee Road (82) towards Lehigh Acres Route 7 (Circulator) - Increase Frequency to 45 Minutes Frequency FY 2020 Improvements Route from the Government Center to Everglades City - Along US 41 New Service
Flex-Route in Everglades City - Flex-route circulator within Everglades City to US 41 New Service
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-7 Transit Development Plan
Table 9-2 Capital Alternatives Phasing Plan (FY 2011-2020)
Capital Alternatives FY 2012 - FY 2020 Improvements Purchase Rolling Stock for Bus Replacement and Fleet Expansion Purchase of Associated Capital Maintenance Items (ACMI) Purchase of Office Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FFE) Purchase of Paratransit Vans Purchase of Support Vehicles Purchase and Install Benches and Shelters Purchase and Install Bicycle Racks at Bus Stops FY 2012 Improvements Radio Road Transfer Facility Construction Renovations to Government Center Facility Park-and-Ride Lot at US 41 and the Lee County Line FY 2013 Improvements Purchase of Mobile Data Terminals Purchase of Automatic Passenger Counters Purchase of Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVLs) and associated Global Postioning Video Cameras with On-Board Digital Video Recorders FY 2016 Improvements Pine Ridge Road Intermodal Transfer Center Collier-Lee Intermodal Transfer Center FY 2017 Improvements Park-and-Ride Lot at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road Park-and-Ride Lot at Immokalee Road and Gulf Shore Drive FY 2018 Improvements Park-and-Ride Lot at I-75 and the Lee County Line
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-8 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset
2010 Collier Area Transit I
m Transit Development Plan
m
o
k
a
l e
LEE e
Legend R
Immokalee Road o
a Existing Transit Routes d Proposed Fixed Routes Livingston Road HENDRY Naples Downtown Loop Naples Pine Ridge C
R Golden Gate Parkway
2 Pine Ridge Rd L Immokalee Road to Beach i 9 v W i n g i
C Proposed Express Routes l s s o t o o l n A n l Lee Connector i e
i B R r r p
d Everglades City (US 41) l
Golden Gate Bl B o l r v t Immokalee to Lehigh Acres
d
Pine Ridge Rd P
u Collier to SWFL Airport l L l A i i n v i i g r n
p Proposed Realignments g o s r t t o
Route 5 Realignment P n
u R Route 1A / 1C loops l l d i n g Davis Bl Proposed Flex Route Davis Bl Golden Gate Circulator Everglades City Flex Rattlesnake Hammock Naples Inset Proposed Park-And-Ride Lots Lee Connector - US 41 Marco Island Lee Connector - I 75 Beach
C d v o l Collier Blvd l
l B
i e r
r e
i l
B CAT Transit Center l
l o v C d Golden Gate Community Center Collier County Government Center
Marco Island Inset Map 9-1: 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Transit Alternatives Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & ESRI.
RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS
As mentioned previously TBEST is required by legislation and is the FDOT-approved transit demand forecasting tool for TDPs. TBEST, was used to project ridership according to the phased implementation plan. TBEST uses network connectivity, spatial and temporal accessibility, time-of-day variations, and route competition to project ridership. It also uses population projections. Changes in land use are not taken into account in TBEST. While TBEST is a useful tool, it is important to note that its strength lies in comparative projections not absolute projections. It is unlikely that the projections provided below represent actual ridership to be attained. It is more likely that the projections below project relative ridership amounts between routes. TBEST is most accurate with shorter, local routes. Its accuracy diminishes with longer and express routes. As a result the analyst should use caution and professional judgment when considering the absolute ridership projections resulting from the TBEST model. TBEST continues to be a work in progress and will become more and more useful as its full limitations are addressed in future updates to the model.
Table 9-3 provides TBEST projections for 2011, 2015, and 2020, the base, mid, and horizon years of implementation under this TDP. The ridership projections in Table 9-3 assume implementation of all service alternatives irrespective of funding availability. Appendix H provides annual TBEST projections between 2011 and 2020.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-10 Transit Development Plan
Table 9-3 TBEST Ridership Projections1
2011 Annual 2015 Annual 2020 Annual ROUTE Ridership Ridership Ridership Projections Projections Projections
Route 1A 108,142 79,381 115,658 Route 1B 89,683 - - Route 1C 50,629 250,079 336,452 Route 2A 96,053 153,620 178,627 Route 2B 82,353 123,354 177,894 Route 3A 143,255 233,524 263,705 Route 3B 93,699 233,524 281,360 Route 4A 71,513 89,470 102,088 Route 4B 52,943 67,380 76,157 Route 5 71,923 181,445 278,409 Route 6 51,656 225,819 281,250 Route 7 Marco Island Circulator 39,085 32,970 72,551 Route 7 Express 11,928 17,241 137,183 Route 8A Immokalee 52,029 159,429 204,672 Route 8B Immokalee 41,084 153,500 197,140 Route 9 75,638 99,354 114,034 Collier-Lee County Connection - 392,944 494,957 Immokalee Road to Beaches Route - 113,670 163,233 Pine Ridge Road Route - - 147,098 Downtown Circulator Naples - - 83,503 Golden Gate Parkway Route - - 160,887 Livingston Road Route - - 145,974 Government Center to SWFLIA - - 395,958 Immokalee to Lehigh Acres Route - - 99,292 City of Everglades Route - - 192,676 TOTAL 1,131,611 2,606,703 4,700,758 1According to Florida law, TBEST is the FDOT-approved model for transit ridership forecasting as part of Transit Development Plans in Florida. However, it is important to understand that TBEST is just one tool for evaluating improvements to existing and future transit services. 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 for various transit network scenarios. As a result, the analyst should use caution and professional judgment when considering the absolute ridership projections resulting from the TBEST model. TBEST continues to be a work in progress and will become more and more useful as its limitations are addressed in future updates to the mode.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 9-11 Transit Development Plan
Section 10: Ten-Year Implementation Plan
In December 2008, CAT was faced with budget cuts of approximately $415,000. Due to the budget constraints, CAT modified four routes and implemented fare changes effective March 1, 2009. Collier County continues to face significant financial challenges resulting from the current economic recession and its impact on employment, local tax revenues, and state funding, among other factors. CAT will need to continue exploring and securing alternative revenue sources in order to sustain existing services and implement future service expansions. Based on the information presented in Section 9 and CAT’s current financial constraints, the following implementation strategies and cost and revenue projections are provided for the CAT 2011-2020 TDP Major Update.
COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
As the role of public transportation expands in Collier County, the need for coordination becomes increasingly important. The following requirements are identified for improving public transportation coordination in Collier County over the next 10 years:
. CAT will work closely to ensure that the TDP is implemented. Meetings will be held on a quarterly basis to review the progress made toward implementing the plan. These efforts will also ease the preparation of the annual TDP progress report over the next 5 years until the time of the next major update.
. CAT will encourage Collier County, the City of Naples, and the City of Marco Island to update their respective Comprehensive Plans to ensure consistency with the public transportation services provided within their planning areas, as well as the recommendations of the TDP in general.
. CAT will continue to meet with neighboring communities to identify opportunities and innovative transportation approaches.
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Several key strategies are identified in this section to assist in carrying out the 10-year implementation plan. These strategies are outlined below.
. Take Ownership – CAT must continue to take ownership of the plan to ensure its implementation in an efficient manner. This action requires a commitment to review and reference the plan on a regular basis to ensure that efforts are undertaken as appropriate.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-1 Transit Development Plan
. Hold Quarterly Meetings – As indicated in the discussion on monitoring performance, it is critical that CAT staff continue to hold regular meetings to review the progress made toward the implementation of the TDP.
. Enhance Marketing and Public Awareness – Despite limited resources, CAT must seek new opportunities for public outreach. Additional resources need to be devoted to marketing to expand the countywide level of awareness regarding public transportation.
. Maintain Quality of Service – As part of the TDP update, CAT conducted an on-board survey in which respondents were asked to rate the system on several ridership satisfaction criteria, including service frequency, reliability, driver courtesy, and bus stop safety. The scores reflected overall satisfaction with the quality of transit services being provided. It is important that on-board surveys be conducted periodically as part of service assessment and implementation. Since word-of-mouth is perhaps the most effective form of marketing, the quality of service must be maintained and improved to keep existing users satisfied and to ultimately attract new users over time.
. Expand Strategically – As funding becomes available, CAT’s focus is to expand the fixed-route bus service to include east-west service and meet the needs of commuter populations. Existing routes are serving the transit dependent populations. Serving these markets is the first priority, while expanding to new areas and implementing new bus routes is important, but secondary over the next 10 years.
. Regional Coordination – It is critical that CAT staff coordinate with Lee County and other regional partners as part of the implementation of transit services that provide connections within Collier County and throughout the region.
MONITORING PROGRAM TO TRACK PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A significant part of a transit agency’s operation is continuously reviewing performance and effectiveness. CAT staff regularly collects and summarizes ridership and performance measures that are reviewed for effectiveness and analyzed against historical performance data. The performance monitoring program includes routine collection and reporting of the following information.
. Farebox revenues . Passenger trips per revenue miles . Operating cost per passenger trip . Unlinked passenger trips for fixed-route services
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-2 Transit Development Plan
. Total scheduled trips and operating costs for the ADA paratransit system . Marketing/public outreach activities . Route alignments/changes
TEN-YEAR TDP NEEDS
As indicated previously, transit alternatives for Collier County were evaluated and prioritized through a number of factors including the following:
. Public involvement . Discussions with the CAT and MPO staff . Situation appraisal . Transit demand estimation and mobility needs
TEN-YEAR TDP FINANCIAL PLAN
Based on the current economic conditions presented previously in this section, two scenarios are presented in this TDP financial plan: the status quo plan and the vision plan. Numerous assumptions were made to project public transportation costs and revenues for the time period from FY 2011 through FY 2020. The assumptions made for operating and capital costs and revenues for fixed-route and complementary ADA paratransit services are based on a variety of factors, including trend data, recent changes to the transit system, previous TDPs, and discussion with CAT and MPO staff. These assumptions are summarized below.
Cost Assumptions
. Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the last 10 years from 2001 to 2010, the average annual inflation rate is 2.47 percent. Therefore, an annual inflation rate of 2 percent is used for all operating cost projections for fixed-route service.
. Annual operating cost for fixed route service is based on the estimated FY 2010 operating cost of $4,644,235. The FY 2009 NTD reported operating cost of $ $5,048,082.00 was used as a base cost and deflated by 8 percent due to fixed-route service cuts implemented in March 2009. After FY 2011, an inflation rate of 2 percent per year thereafter is utilized.
. The annual operating cost for existing paratransit services is based on the estimated FY 2010 operating cost of $2,747,323. The FY 2009 NTD reported operating cost of $2,986,221 was used as a base cost and deflated by 8 percent due to fixed-route
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-3 Transit Development Plan
service cuts implemented in March 2009 that will impact paratransit service. After FY 2011, an inflation rate of 1 percent per year thereafter is utilized.
. Based on CAT historical data, the FY 2010 annual operating cost for ADA complementary paratransit service improvements for any new fixed-route service improvements is assumed at 55 percent, with a 1 percent annual growth rate thereafter.
. The number of replacement buses is determined based on FTA guidelines and fleet management recommendations. Based on the current cost of vehicles in Florida, an average unit cost of $538,000 is assumed for a fixed-route replacement bus that includes all technological upgrades and operating components such as bike racks, fareboxes, video cameras with on-board digital video recorders, mobile data terminals, automatic passenger counters, and automatic vehicle locators. The unit cost for ADA complementary paratransit vehicles is assumed to be $75,000. The vehicle costs are in 2010 dollars and are assumed to increase 2 percent annually after FY 2010.
Revenue Assumptions
. Revenues are based on varying sources including the 2010 adopted Collier County budget, Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission estimates, and the Transportation Improvement Program. Federal operating revenues are assumed at an annual inflation rate of 4 percent for the first year and 2 percent thereafter.
. Section 5307 operating funding is based on a 4 percent increase in FY 2011 over the current funding levels. Thereafter, an inflation rate of 2 percent is used annually. This source of funding will be utilized for preventative maintenance activities that are operating in nature. These funds may also be utilized up to 10 percent for ADA compliancy related activities.
. Section 5307 capital funding varies based on the level of capital needs identified in the status quo versus the vision plan. Section 5307 funds are the primary source of federal capital funding for CAT. It is assumed that 80% of capital costs for most transit vehicles will be provided from this source.
. Section 5309 funds are discretionary and therefore unpredictable. It is assumed, that major capital transit facilities will receive a portion of their funding from earmarks under this source.
. Gas tax is based on the FY 2010 cap with an inflationary rate of 2 percent per year. While it is assumed with more people utilizing alternative modes the gas tax may
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-4 Transit Development Plan
decrease; however, there is an assumption that taxes on alternative fuels and fluctuating gas prices could maintain increasing gas tax revenues in future years.
. It is assumed that Federal Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 5317 New Freedom funding will be sought by CAT to support transit operating activities in the financial vision plan. In the status quo plan new services are not being implemented; therefore, Section 5317 funding is only added to support capital activities related to shelters that would improve ADA access. Section 5316 and 5317 funds are formula based funds for urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 and for areas with less than 200,000 persons the funds are distributed to the State. It is assumed that CAT will apply for funds through the MPO.
. Interest income is also assumed to increase at a rate of 2 percent.
Using these cost and revenue assumptions, the status quo financial plan and the 10-year vision financial plan for implementing the 10-year TDP recommendations are presented below.
Existing Operating and Capital Needs and Costs
Table 10-1 presents the status quo financial plan for maintaining the existing services and the projected costs associated with minimal capital improvements over the 10 year planning horizon. As indicated previously, projected annual operating costs are adjusted to reflect an annual inflation rate of 2 percent.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-5 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-1 Summary of Operating and Capital Costs and Revenues for Existing Services (Status Quo Plan)
Source FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 10-Year Total
OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS Operating Costs - Existing Service $7,511,917 $7,634,407 $7,759,070 $7,885,945 $8,015,076 $8,146,502 $8,280,269 $8,416,420 $8,554,998 $8, 696,051 $80,900,655 Capital Costs $4,280,012 $6,077,291 $5,121,503 $5,741,942 $2,188,951 $2,655,041 $2,748,345 $2,188,191 $2,954,986 $2,782,477 $36,738,738 Total Costs $11,791,929 $13,711,698 $12,880,572 $13,627,888 $10,204, 026 $10,801,543 $11,028,614 $10,604,611 $11,509,984 $11,478,528 $117,6 39,393 OPERATING REVENUES Federal Section 5303 $283,826 $70,903 $72,321 $73,768 $75,243 $76,748 $78,283 $79,849 $81,446 $83,074 $975,461 Section 5307 for Operating $749,069 $764,051 $779,332 $794,918 $810,817 $827,033 $843,574 $860,445 $877,654 $895,207 $8,202,101 Section 5311 $276,635 $282,167 $287,811 $293,567 $299,438 $305,427 $311,536 $317,766 $324,122 $330,604 $3,029,074 State FDOT State Block Grants $720,259 $752,821 $778,959 $794,538 $810,429 $826,638 $843,170 $860,034 $877,234 $894,779 $8,158,861 State - TD Commission Funds $629,060 $641,641 $654,474 $667,564 $680,915 $694,533 $708,424 $722,592 $737,044 $751,785 $6,888,031 County Existing County General Funds $1,637,604 $1,848,322 $1,851,506 $1,865,609 $1,879,764 $1,893,971 $1,908,228 $1,922,534 $1,936,887 $1,951,2 87 $18,695,712 Other Farebox Revenues $1,427,264 $1,450,537 $1,474,223 $1,498,330 $1,522,864 $1,547,835 $1,573,251 $1,599,120 $1,625,450 $1,652,250 $15,371,125 Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) $1,778,000 $1,813,560 $1,849,831 $1,886,828 $1,924,564 $1,963,056 $2,002,317 $2,042,363 $2,083,210 $2,124,875 $19,468,604 Interest on Investments $10,200 $10,404 $10,612 $10,824 $11,041 $11,262 $11,487 $11,717 $11,951 $12,190 $111,687 Total Operating Revenue $7,511,917 $7,634,407 $7,759,070 $7,885, 945 $8,015,076 $8,146,502 $8,280,269 $8,4 16,420 $8,554,998 $8,696,051 $80,900,655 Total Operating Cost $7,511,917 $7,634,407 $7,759,070 $7,885,945 $8,015,076 $8,146,502 $8,280,269 $8,416, 420 $8,554,998 $8,696,051 $80,900 ,655 Net Operating (Contingency/Need) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAPITAL REVENUES Federal $0 Section 5307 for Capital $1,884,672 $1,644,142 $1,643,732 $1,676,607 $1,744,777 $1,713,427 $1,747,696 $1,745,892 $1,780,810 $1,892,912 $17 ,474,667 Section 5309 $600,000 $2,808,000 $2,448,000 $2,552,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,408,000
Section 5310 $240,000 $249,600 $259,584 $269,967 $280,766 $291,997 $303,677 $315,824 $328,457 $341,595 $2,881,466
Section 5311 $2,205,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,205,000
Section 5317 $263,215 $93,950 $94,890 $95,839 $96,797 $97,765 $98,743 $99,730 $100,727 $101,735 $1,143,390 State FDOT Capital Contributions $856,002 $1,215,458 $1,024,301 $1,148,388 $437,790 $531,008 $549,669 $437,638 $590,997 $556,495 $7,347,748 Total Capital Revenue $6,048,889 $6,011,150 $5,470,506 $5,742,801 $2, 560,130 $2,634,197 $2,699,784 $2,599,084 $2,800,991 $2,892,737 $39,460,270 Total Capital Cost $4,280,012 $6,077,291 $5,121,503 $5,741,942 $2, 188,951 $2,655,041 $2,748,345 $2,188,191 $2,954,986 $2,782,477 $36,738,7 38 Net Capital (Contingency/Need) $1,768,877 ($66,141) $349,004 $859 $371,179 ($20,843) ($48,561) $410,893 ($153,995) $110,260 $2,721,532 TOTAL COST VS. LOCAL REVENUES Total Revenue $13,560,806 $13,645,557 $13,229,576 $13,628,746 $10,575,206 $1 0,780,699 $10,980,053 $11,015,504 $11,355,989 $11,588,788 $120 ,360,925 Total Cost $11,791,929 $13,711,698 $12,880,572 $13,627,888 $10,204,026 $10, 801,543 $11,028,614 $10,604,611 $11,509,984 $11,478,528 $117,63 9,393 Net Total (Contingency/Need) $1,768,878 ($66,141) $349,004 $859 $371,180 ($20,844) ($48,561) $410,893 ($153,995) $110,260 $2,721,532 Percent Local Government Share of Total Revenue 25% 27% 28% 28% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 35% 32%
Notes: 1. Federal operating revenues assume a 4% increase in FY 2011 based on the anticipated increase in the federal transporatation reauthorization bill. Every year after 2011 assumes a 2% increase in federal operating revenues. 2. Federal Section 5303 includes carry forward totals in the FY 2011 total and utilizes the same methodology for federal operat ing funding from comment #1. 3. State block grant revenues are based on the work program th rough FY 2013 and assume a 2% inflation factor thereafter. 4. TD Commission funding is based on their estimated FY 2011 allocations for planning and operating. Each year thereafter is i nflated at a rate of 2%. 5. General Fund revenues are calculated as the shortfall between the operating expenses and all other revenue sources. 6.7. LOGTFarebox is basedrevenues on theare FYequivalent 2010 budgeted to 19% totalof the and total inflated operating 2% each year thereafter.cost consistent with the farebox recovery average for FY 2009.
8. Interest is based on the FY 2010 budget and inflated by a rate of 2% each year thereafter. 9. Section 5307 capital funding is based on approximately 80% of capital cost excluding those capital items funded by other sou rces. 10. Section 5309 capital funding is based on 80% of the capita l costs for major transit facilities (government center and radio road improvements). 11. Section 5310 funds are competitive and discretionary. The revenue amounts are based on correspondence from FDOT suggesting an estimate of $240,000 the first year and a 3% increase each year thereafter. 12. Section 5311 operating funding is based on prior year funding levels plus 4% inflation in FY2011 and 2% thereafter. 13. Section 5311 capital funding is based on FY2010 totals and includes ARRA funds. 14. Section 5317 FY 2011 totals include the carry forward from FYs 2009 and 2010. Each year thereafter is based on the FY2010 a llocation plus a 2% inflation rate. 15. FDOT capital contributions are based on 20% of total capital costs and primarily represent toll revenue credit totals that are used for capital match. 16. Please note that capital funding can be carried forward as capital projects may extend over several years. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-6 Transit Development Plan
Alternative Operating and Capital Needs and Costs
The following scenario is presented for consideration when additional revenue sources become available for the implementation of the recommended future transit services. The alternative operating and capital needs are summarized in this section, along with the projected costs associated with those needs over the next 10 years.
Table 10-2 presents the operating plan associated with the 10-year implementation plan. Table 10-3 presents the projected annual operating costs for the next 10 years. As indicated previously, projected annual operating costs are adjusted to reflect an annual inflation rate of 2 percent.
Tables 10-4 and 10-5 summarize the capital requirements necessary to support transit bus services over the same time period. Most of the capital needs relate to the construction of new park-and-ride lots and the replacement and acquisition of buses needed to maintain and expand services in the next 10 years. Other capital needs include shelters, benches, and technologies.
Table 10-6 presents the total operating and capital costs for the transit services associated with the 10-year implementation of the vision plan scenario. Table 10-7 provides a summary of capital and operating revenues and the local revenue need for the next 10 years.
Potential Revenue Sources
In order for CAT to move forward with the 10-year vision plan, additional revenue sources will be necessary to address unfunded needs. The list below provides revenue sources that CAT may be eligible for during FY 2011-2020. It is important to note that during the planning horizon additional sources of funding may surface that are not currently available. Therefore, it is important that all agencies supporting public transit improvements continue to review funding opportunities and exhaust all available sources to support public transit enhancements.
. Mobility Fee – the County could implement a countywide mobility fee to support and fund mobility needs as identified in the County’s MMP. The one-time payment for new development has the potential to fund transit capital and provide CAT with revenue to fund new transit infrastructure necessitated by growth and development;
. Advertising Revenue – CAT could increase its revenue through the sale of advertising either on-board the buses, on the exterior of the buses, and/or on the shelters and benches. The sale of external advertising will require the Board of County Commissioners to amend the existing advertisement policy;
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-7 Transit Development Plan
. Transit in the Parks Program – based on the large number of publicly owned lands located within Collier County, the County may consider applying for funds under the Transit in the Parks Program in order to fund capital and planning expenses for the implementation of alternative transportation systems such as shuttle buses and bicycle trails in national parks and public lands;
. Tourist Development Tax – the County could increase or reallocate the existing Tourist Development Tax for the provision of transit services to the beaches, hotels, major attractions, and the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau;
. TD Trust Fund – create a marketing campaign to encourage Collier County residents to voluntarily contribute to the TD Trust Fund when registering their vehicles or renewing their registrations. Funds collected in Collier County will go towards additional trips for people utilizing the coordinated system;
. Disabled Parking Volunteer Program – a volunteer disabled parking enforcement program will allow citizen volunteers to issue citations to those illegally using disabled parking spaces. Fines collected through the volunteer program may be used as revenue for the County’s paratransit service;
. Bicycle Locker Rental Revenue – CAT may generate additional revenue through the rental of bicycle lockers at transfer facilities and fixed-route bus stops;
. Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) – discretionary capital funding made available to assist with the funding of projects similar to those funded under the New Starts and Small Starts federal funding programs;
. Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) - discretionary grant program for public transportation projects that result in a decrease in a transit system’s energy use or reduce a transit system’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
. Charter County Surtax – a sales tax up to 1 percent and outside of the 1 percent cap on other discretionary sales taxes, which must be approved by a majority vote of the electorate and can be utilized by a transit agency for the purposes of development, construction, equipment, maintenance, operation, supportive services, and related costs of a fixed guideway rapid transit system;
. Ad Valorem Increase – the cities and County could increase the millage rate to generate revenues to support transit operations. The County also has the ability to create a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) and levy a millage to support additional public transit service;
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-8 Transit Development Plan
. Gas Tax – increases to the gas tax can be applied and utilized to fund operating and capital expenditures. However, as transit use increases and the rate at which gas is consumed fluctuates gas tax revenues may be an unstable source of funding for transit services;
. Sales Tax – The County may levy the additional ½ cent of the discretionary sales tax to raise additional funds to fund transit service costs;
. Fare Increase – CAT should evaluate the fares charged for service periodically to ensure that the cost of service to users is maintained at a reasonable percentage consistent with the provision of service and also to prevent having to shock customers with a significant increase in fares due to minor increases not periodically occurring;
. Private Partnerships – Collier County and the municipalities should work with CAT to continue to support transit services through new development. As new development occurs the County and the cities should ensure that the appropriate contributions are being secured for capital and operating costs related to providing public transit service to the development. Partnerships should also be sought with major employers to create employee pass programs or make donations to support transit service to their workplaces;
. Public Transportation Pilot Program Grants – this grant opportunity is available through the SAFETEA-LU transportation bill and provides assistance for innovative activities to involve the public in the planning process for transportation. If awarded this grant could assist in offsetting new marketing and/or public involvement efforts that might be implemented to support new and existing transit service; and
. Service Development Grants (SDGs) – these grants are made available through the FDOT to assist with new and innovative public transit operating and capital expenses when state funding is available for this program.
. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) – these grants provide formula funding to support the development and maintenance of job access projects designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. The current revenue assumes an annual allotment of JARC. The Collier MPO is the designated recipient for the Naples Urbanized Area; however, funds can also be sought from FDOT for the rural areas in Collier County.
. New Freedom (NF) – these grants provide formula funding to support new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA. The current revenue assumes an annual allotment of NF. The Collier
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-9 Transit Development Plan
MPO is the designated recipient for the Naples Urbanized Area; however, funds can also be sought from FDOT for the rural areas in Collier County.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-10 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-2 Implementation Schedule for TDP Transit Improvements (FY 2011-2020)
Annual Existing Service/Service Enhancement Operating FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Cost
Continue Existing Fixed-Route Services $4,737,120 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Continue Operating Complementary ADA Paratransit Service Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $2,774,797 New Collier-Lee Connection Express Route $843,408 No YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Park-and-Ride Lot at US 41 and the Lee County Line $300,000 No YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Route 8 (Circulator) - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes $336,580 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Route 5 - Realignment to Stop in Ave Maria $0 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Route 1A - Realignment $0 No No No YesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Route 1C - Realignment $0 No No No Route 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 6, and 9 - Improve Frequency to 45 $4,357,610 No No No YesYesYesYesYesYesYes Minutes (includes spares) New Route to the Beach along Immokalee Road $843,408 No No No YesYesYesYesYesYesYes
New Route along Golden Gate Parkway $843,408NoNoNoNoYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Route along Pine Ridge Road $843,408 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Route - Downtown Naples Loop $421,704 No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Route 8 (Circulator) - Add Sunday Service $134,382 No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Extend Operating Hours to 10 P.M. on all Existing Routes $1,664,792 No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Route 5 - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes $955,852 No No No No No
New Route along Livingston Road $1,012,090NoNoNoNoNoNoYes Yes Yes Yes
New Circulator Flex-Route in Golden Gates Estates $506,045 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road $300,000 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at Immokalee Road and Gulf Shore Drive $300,000NoNoNoNoNoNoYes Yes Yes Yes
New Express Route from the Government Center to the SWFL Airport $1,012,090NoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes Yes Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at I-75 and the Lee County Line $300,000 No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Route 7 (Express) - Add Additional Hours $337,363NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes Yes
New Express Route from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres $1,012,090NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes Yes
Route 7 (Circulator) - Increase Frequency to 45 Minutes $309,250NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes Yes
New Express Route from the Government Center to Everglades City $1,012,090NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo Yes
New Circulator Flex-Route in Everglades City $506,039 No No No No No No No No No Yes
Provide Complementary Paratransit Service on New Routes Varies No YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Transit Studies Varies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-11 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-3 Operating Costs for TDP Transit Improvements (FY 2011-2020)
Annual 10-Year Total Existing Service/Service Enhancement Operating FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 (2011-2020) Cost
Continue Existing Fixed-Route Services $4,737,120 $4,737,120 $4,831,863 $4,928,500 $5,027,070 $5,127,611 $5,230,163 $5,334,767 $5,441,462 $5,550,291 $5,661,297 $51,870,144
Continue Operating Complementary ADA Paratransit Service $2,774,797 $2,774,797 $2,802,545 $2,830,570 $2,858,876 $2,887,464 $2,916,339 $2,945,502 $2,974,957 $3,004,707 $3,034,754 $29,030,511
New Collier-Lee Connection Express Route $843,408 $0 $860,276 $877,482 $895,031 $912,932 $931,191 $949,814 $968,811 $988,187 $1,007,951 $8,391,674
Route 8 (Circulator) - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes $336,580 $0 $0 $350,178 $357,181 $364,325 $371,612 $379,044 $386,625 $394,357 $402,244 $3,005,565
Route 5 - Realignment to Stop in Ave Maria $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Route 1A - Realignment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Route 1C - Realignment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Route 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 6, and 9 - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes (includes spares) $4,357,610 $0 $0 $0 $4,624,331 $4,716,817 $4,811,154 $4,907,377 $5,005,524 $5,105,635 $5,207,747 $34,378,584
New Route to the Beach along Immokalee Road $843,408 $0 $0 $0 $895,031 $912,932 $931,191 $949,814 $968,811 $988,187 $1,007,951 $6,653,916
New Route along Golden Gate Parkway $843,408 $0 $0 $0 $0 $912,932 $931,191 $949,814 $968,811 $988,187 $1,007,951 $5,758,885
New Route along Pine Ridge Road $843,408 $0 $0 $0 $0 $912,932 $931,191 $949,814 $968,811 $988,187 $1,007,951 $5,758,885
New Route - Downtown Naples Loop $421,704 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $465,595 $474,907 $484,405 $494,093 $503,975 $2,422,977
Route 8 (Circulator) - Add Sunday Service $134,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,369 $151,336 $154,363 $157,450 $160,599 $772,116
Extend Operating Hours to 10 P.M. on all Existing Routes $1,664,792 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,838,065 $1,874,827 $1,912,323 $1,950,570 $1,989,581 $9,565,365
Route 5 - Improve Frequency to 45 Minutes $955,852 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,055,338 $1,076,445 $1,097,973 $1,119,933 $1,142,332 $5,492,021
New Route along Livingston Road $1,012,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,139,778 $1,162,573 $1,185,825 $1,209,541 $4,697,717
New Circulator Flex-Route in Golden Gates Estates $506,045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $569,889 $581,287 $592,912 $604,771 $2,348,858
New Express Route from the Government Center to the SWFL Airport $1,012,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,162,573 $1,185,825 $1,209,541 $3,557,939
Route 7 (Express) - Add Additional Hours $337,363 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $395,275 $403,180 $798,455
New Express Route from Immokalee to Lehigh Acres $1,012,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,185,825 $1,209,541 $2,395,366
Route 7 (Circulator) - Increase Frequency to 45 Minutes $309,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,336 $369,582 $731,918
New Express Route from the Government Center to Everglades City $1,012,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,209,541 $1,209,541
New Circulator Flex-Route in Everglades City $506,039 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $604,763 $604,763
Provide Complementary Paratransit Service on New Routes Varies $0 $0 $0 $519,118 $1,615,890 $2,946,598 $3,750,886 $3,888,624 $4,030,370 $4,176,231 $20,927,717
Transit Studies Varies $200,000 $60,000 $30,000 $0 $150,000 $30,000 $0 $75,000 $40,000 $150,000 $735,000
Projected Annual Operating Costs N/A $7,711,917 $8,554,683 $9,016,729 $15,176,638 $18,513,835 $23,537,995 $26,404,014 $28,202,932 $30,708,151 $33,281,025 $201,107,919
1. Paratransit costs for new routes do not include the Lee-Collier Connection, Golden Gates Estates Flex Route, SWFL Airport, Lehigh Acres, and Everglades City routes.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-12 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-4 Summary of Capital Needs (FY 2011-2020)
10-Year Capital Needs FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Need Vehicle Requirements
Continue Existing Fixed Bus Routes (new/replacement buses) 31 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Service Enhancements (new buses) 35 0 2 1 13 4 3 3 2 4 3
Continue Operating Complementary ADA Paratransit Service (replacement vans) 44 6 7 0 5 1 6 7 0 7 5
Complementary ADA Paratransit Service on New Routes (new buses) 100002422000
Support Vehicles 71001110021
Number of New/Replacement Buses 6645416766576
Number of Replacement/New ADA Vans 546707589075
Number of Support Vehicles 71001110021 Other Transit Infrastructure
Benches 505555555555
Bus Stop Shelters 505555555555
Bike Racks at Bus Stops 202222222222
Park-and-Ride Lots 40100002100
Mobile Data Terminals 2323000000000
Automatic Passenger Counters 230666500000
Automatic Vehicle Locators with GPS 2323000000000
Video Surveillance Cameras 50252500000000
Government Center Improvements 10100000000
Radio Road Transfer Facility & Operations Center 10001000000
Collier-Lee 20000020000 1. Fixed-route replacement schedule is assumed at 10 years. 2. Paratransit replacement schedule is assumed at 10 years. 3. Two paratransit vehicles are assumed per new route. 4. Fixed-route bus replacement assumes the purchase of 3 2009 buses in 2010 and the replacement of 4 vehicle purchased in 2011.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-13 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-5 Summary of Projected Capital Costs (FY 2011-2020)
Unit Cost 10-Year Total Category FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 (2010$) (2011-2020)
New and Replacement buses 1 $538,000 $2,195,040 $2,798,676 $2,283,720 $9,317,576 $4,157,968 $3,635,252 $3,707,957 $3,151,764 $4,500,719 $3,934,914 $39,683,586
Asscociated Capital Maintenance Items (ACMI) $30,000 $30,600 $31,212 $31,836 $32,473 $33,122 $33,785 $34,461 $35,150 $35,853 $36,570 $335,0 61
Office furniture and equipment $25,000 $25,500 $26,010 $26,530 $27,061 $27,602 $28,154 $28,717 $29,291 $29,877 $30,475 $279,218
ADA vans (new and replacement) $75,000 $459,000 $546,210 $0 $568,277 $414,030 $675,697 $775,363 $0 $627,424 $457,123 $4,523,124
Support vehicles (new and replacement) $40,000 $40,800 $0 $0 $43,297 $44,163 $45,046 $0 $0 $95,607 $48,760 $317,674
Benches (with shade and concrete work) $4,000 $20,400 $20,808 $21,224 $21,649 $22,082 $22,523 $22,974 $23,433 $23,902 $24,380 $223,374
Bus Stop Shelters (engineering, construct, install) $35,000 $178,500 $182,070 $185,711 $189,426 $193,214 $197,078 $201,020 $205,040 $209, 141 $213,324 $1,954,525
Bike Racks for Bus Stops $1,800 $3,672 $3,745 $3,820 $3,897 $3,975 $4,054 $4,135 $4,218 $4,302 $4,388 $40,207
Government Center Improvements $1,728,000 $500,000 $510,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,010,000
Radio Road Transfer Facility & Operations Center $10,000,000 $750,000 $3,000,000 $3,060,000 $3,190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000
Park-and-Ride Lot at US 41 and the Lee County Line $300,000 $0 $312,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $312,120
Mobile Data Terminals $5,000 $117,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,300
Automatic Passenger Counters $25,000 $0 $156,060 $159,181 $162,365 $138,010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $615,616
Automatic Vehicle Locators $3,000$70,380 $0$0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0$70,380
Video Surveillance Cameras $500 $12,750 $13,005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,755
Pine Ridge Road Intermodal Transfer Center $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,081 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,081
Collier-Lee Intermodal Transfer Center $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,081 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,081
Park-and-Ride Lot at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $344,606 $0 $0 $0 $344,606 Road
Park-and-Ride Lot at Immokalee Road and Gulf Shore $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $344,606 $0 $0 $0 $344,606 Road
Park-and-Ride Lot at I-75 and the Lee County Line $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $351,498 $0 $0 $351,498
Total N/A $4,403,942 $7,599,916 $5,772,023 $13,556,020 $5,034,167 $5,767,753 $5,463,838 $3,800,394 $5,526,825 $4,749,934 $61,674,813
1. New and replacement fixed-route bus costs are for 35-foot buses and include all technological upgrades such as video cameras with on-board digital video recorders, mobile data terminals, automatic passenger counters, and automatic vehicle locators. 2. Vehicle costs are in 2010 dollars and assumed to increase 2 percent annually after FY 2010.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-14 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-6 Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Costs for Fixed-Route and ADA Services (FY 2011-2020)
Source FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 10-Year Total
OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS Operating Costs - Existing Service $7,511,917 $7,634,407 $7,759,070 $7,885,945 $8,015,076 $8,146,502 $8,280,269 $8,416,420 $8,554,998 $8, 696,051 $80,900,655
Operating Costs - Enhancements $200,000 $920,276 $1,257,660 $7,290,693 $10,498,760 $15,391,492 $18,123,745 $19,786,513 $22,153,152 $24,58 4,974 $120,207,264
Total Operating Costs $7,711,917 $8,554,683 $9,016,729 $15,176,638 $18,513,835 $23,537,995 $26,404,014 $28,202,932 $30,708,151 $33,281,02 5 $201,107,919
Capital Costs $4,403,942 $7,599,916 $5,772,023 $13,556,020 $5,034,167 $5,767,753 $5,463,838 $3,800,394 $5,526,825 $4,749,934 $61,674,813
Total Capital Costs $4,403,942 $7,599,916 $5,772,023 $13,556,020 $5,034,167 $5,767,753 $5,463,838 $3,800,394 $5,526,825 $4,749,934 $61,674 ,813
Total Costs $12,115,859 $16,154,600 $14,788,752 $28,732,658 $23,548,002 $29,305,748 $31,867,852 $32,003,327 $36,234,976 $38,030,958 $262,7 82,732
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-15 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-7 Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Revenues for Fixed-Route and ADA Services (FY 2011-2020)
Source FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 10-Year Total
OPERATING REVENUES Federal
Section 5303 $283,826 $70,903 $72,321 $73,768 $75,243 $76,748 $78,283 $79,849 $81,446 $83,074 $975,461
Section 5307 for Operating $771,192 $855,468 $901,673 $1,517,664 $1,851,384 $2,353,799 $2,640,401 $2,820,293 $3,070,815 $3,328,102 $20,110 ,792
Section 5311 $276,635 $282,167 $287,811 $293,567 $299,438 $305,427 $311,536 $317,766 $324,122 $330,604 $3,029,074
Section 5316 $279,703 $99,871 $101,869 $103,906 $105,984 $108,104 $110,266 $112,471 $114,721 $117,015 $1,253,910
Section 5317 $263,215 $94,880 $96,778 $98,714 $100,688 $102,702 $104,756 $106,851 $108,988 $111,168 $1,188,738
State
FDOT State Block Grants $720,259 $752,821 $778,959 $794,538 $810,429 $826,638 $843,170 $860,034 $877,234 $894,779 $8,158,861
FDOT Service Development $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $800,000
State - TD Commission Funds $629,060 $641,641 $654,474 $667,564 $680,915 $694,533 $708,424 $722,592 $737,044 $751,785 $6,888,031
County
Existing County General Funds $2,000,000 $2,040,000 $2,080,800 $2,122,416 $2,164,864 $2,208,162 $2,252,325 $2,297,371 $2,343,319 $2,390,1 85 $21,899,442
Other
Farebox Revenues $1,427,264 $1,625,390 $1,713,179 $2,883,561 $3,517,629 $4,472,219 $5,016,763 $5,358,557 $5,834,549 $6,323,395 $38,172,504
Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) $1,778,000 $1,813,560 $1,849,831 $1,886,828 $1,924,564 $1,963,056 $2,002,317 $2,042,363 $2,083,210 $2,124,875 $19,468,604
Interest on Investments $10,200 $10,404 $10,612 $10,824 $11,041 $11,262 $11,487 $11,717 $11,951 $12,190 $111,687
Total Operating Revenue $8,155,527 $8,216,203 $8,575,985 $10,479,582 $11,566,936 $13,145,901 $14,101,444 $14,750,016 $15,605,952 $16,484, 098 $121,081,644
Total Operating Cost $7,711,917 $8,554,683 $9,016,729 $15,176,638 $18,513,835 $23,537,995 $26,404,014 $28,202,932 $30,708,151 $33,281,025 $201,107,919
Net Operating (Contingency/Need) $443,610 ($338,480) ($440,744) ($4,697,056) ($6,946,899) ($10,392,094) ($12,302,570) ($13,452,916) ($15 ,102,199) ($16,796,927) ($80,026,275)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-16 Transit Development Plan
Table 10-7 (Continued) Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Revenues for Fixed-Route and ADA Services (FY 2011-2020)
Source FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 10-Year Total
CAPITAL REVENUES Federal $0 Section 5307 for Capital $2,373,010 $3,022,237 $2,169,619 $8,292,816 $4,027,333 $3,713,273 $3,819,701 $2,759,117 $4,421,460 $3,799,947 $38 ,398,513
Section 5309 $600,000 $3,057,696 $2,448,000 $2, 552,000 $0 $900,930 $551,369 $281,198 $0 $0 $10,391,193
Section 5310 $240,000 $249,600 $259,584 $269,967 $280,766 $291,997 $303,677 $315,824 $328,457 $341,595 $2,881,466
Section 5311 $2,205,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,205,000
State
FDOT Capital Contributions $880,788 $1,519,983 $1,154,405 $2,711,20 4 $1,006,833 $1,153,551 $1,092,768 $760,079 $1,105,365 $949,987 $12,334 ,963
Other
MPO Congestion Management $220,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $1,220,000
Total Capital Revenue $6,518,798 $8,099,516 $6,031,607 $13,825,987 $5,314,933 $6,059,750 $6,267,515 $4,366,218 $5,855,282 $5,091,528 $66,2 11,135
Total Capital Cost $4,403,942 $7,599,916 $5,772,023 $13,556,020 $5,034,167 $5,767,753 $5,463,838 $3,800,394 $5,526,825 $4,749,934 $61,674, 813 Net Capital (Contingency/Need) $2,114,856 $499,600 $259,584 $269,967 $280,766 $291,997 $803,677 $565,824 $328,457 $341,595 $4,536,322
TOTAL COST VS. LOCAL REVENUES Total Revenue $14,674,325 $16,315,719 $14,607,592 $24,305,569 $16,881,869 $19,205,651 $20,368,959 $19,116,234 $21,461,234 $21,575,626 $188 ,512,779
Total Cost $12,115,859 $16,154,599 $14,788,752 $28,732,658 $23,548,002 $29,305,748 $31,867,852 $32,003,326 $36,234,976 $38,030,959 $262,78 2,732
Net Total (Contingency/Need) $2,558,466 $161,120 ($181,160) ($4,427,089) ($6,666,133) ($10,100,097) ($11,498,893) ($12,887,092) ($14,773 ,742) ($16,455,332) ($74,269,953)
Percent Local Government Share of Total Revenue 26% 24% 27% 17% 24% 22% 21% 23% 21% 21% 22%
Notes: 1. Federal operating revenues assume a 4% increase in FY 2011 based on the assumed increase in the federal transporatation reauthorization bill. Every year after 2011 assumes a 2% increase in federal operating revenues. 2. Federal Section 5307 Operating is estimated at 10% of total operating costs to cover 10% ADA allotment and preventative main tenance funding. 3. Federal Section 5303 includes carry forward totals in the FY 2011 total. 4. Section 5316 and 5317 FY 2011 totals include the carry forward from Fys 2009 and 2010. 5. State block grant revenues are based on the work program through FY 2013 and assume a 2% inflation factor thereafter. 6. FDOT Service Development Grant funding is not assumed to increase. This funding is discretionary and competitive based. It is assumed that CAT will apply and be awarded funding. CAT will not receive funding in FY2011 and FY2012. 7. TD Commission funding is based on their estimated FY 2011 allocations. Each year thereafter is inflated at a rate of 2%. 8. General Fund revenues are based on the FY 2010 budget rounded to the nearest million for FY2011 and increased at a rate of 2 % each year thereafter. 9. Farebox revenues are equivalent to 19% of the total operating cost consistent with the farebox recovery average for FY 2009. 10. LOGT is based on the FY 2010 budgeted total and inflated 2% each year thereafter. 11. Interest is based on the FY 2010 budget and inflated by a rate of 2% thereafter. 12. Section 5307 capital funding is based on 80% of capital cost except for major facility and infrastructure related costs. 13. Section 5309 capital funding is based on 80% of the capital costs major transit facilities. 14. Section 5310 funds are competitive and discretionary. The revenue amounts are based on correspondence from FDOT suggesting an estimate of $240,000 the first year and a 3% increase each year thereafter. 15. Section 5311 capital funding is based on the 2010 total and includes ARRA funding for FY2011. This funding is for rural are as and is typically used for operating by CAT. 16. FDOT capital contributions are based on 20% of total capital costs and primarily represent toll revenue credit totals that are used for capital match. 17. Please note that capital funding can be carried forward as capital projects may extend over several years.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 10-17 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A
Additional Mapping Analysis
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 A-1 Transit Development Plan Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Naples Inset Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Percent Disabled 10% - 15% 15% - 20% 20% - 25% Marco Island 25% - 45%
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Existing (2000) Percent Disabled Population
Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census 2000. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Naples HENDRY Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Naples Inset Route 4B Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Percent Zero Vehicle Households 0% - 10% 10% - 15% 15% - 25% Marco Island 25% +
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Existing (2000) Percent Zero Vehicle Households
Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census 2000. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Route 2A HENDRY Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Naples Inset Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Percent One Vehicle Households 12% - 25% 25% - 40% 40% - 50% Marco Island 50% +
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Existing (2000) Percent One Vehicle Households
Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census 2000. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C HENDRY Route 2A Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Naples Inset Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Percent Over 20 Minutes 0% - 30% 30% - 40% 40% - 50% Marco Island 50% +
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Percent of Workers Miles with over 20 Minute Commute Times Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census 2000. Immokalee
Immokalee Inset LEE
2010 Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan
Legend Route 1A Route 1B Route 1C Route 2A HENDRY Naples Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B Naples Inset Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 7 Express Route 8A Route 8B Route 9 Percent Over 45 Minutes 0% - 10% 10% - 15% 15% - 25% Marco Island 25% +
Marco Island Inset
0 0.5 1 2 Percent of Workers Miles with over 45 Minute Commute Times Sources: Collier County GIS, FGDL, CAT & Census 2000.
Appendix B
MPO/TDP Public Involvement Plan
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 B-1 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C
Private Transportation Provider Questionnaire
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 C-1 Transit Development Plan Collier County Transportation Service Provider Survey
Collier Area Transit (CAT) is in the process of developing its ten-year Transit Development Plan (TDP) major update, in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) TDP Florida Rule 14- 73.001. The State of Florida requires that CAT list all of the transportation providers within its geographic service area. Please take the time to fill out this survey and assist CAT in providing better transportation to all of Collier County’s residents.
1. What is the name of your company? ______
2. What type of service do you provide? (e.g., taxi, demand response, charter) ______
3. Please list the location of your facilities: Name (e.g., dispatch) Location Age Condition (please circle one)
______Excellent Good Fair Poor ______Excellent Good Fair Poor ______Excellent Good Fair Poor
4. What are the boundaries of your service area? ______
5. What are your hours of operation? ______
6. What is your fare per trip? ______
7. What is your service frequency? ______
8. What are your primary destinations? ______
9. What is your average annual ridership? ______
10. Please list your rolling stock Type (e.g., car, bus) Age Number of Units Special Accessories ______
11. Please list any other equipment used to perform daily operation (e.g., automotive repair) Type Age Number of Units Condition (please circle one)
______Excellent Good Fair Poor ______Excellent Good Fair Poor ______Excellent Good Fair Poor
11. Please list any affiliations with groups or programs involved with public transit:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please return the completed survey to Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc., 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792, or fax to (407) 657-9106, or email [email protected]. If the information is available in another format, please mail, fax, or e-mail the existing format without completing this questionnaire. A OK Transportation, Inc. Arkway Taxi, Inc Racing Limos of SW Florida, Inc. Maximum Ventures of SW Fl, LLC DBA Maximum Limousine
A-Action Transportation Ion Transportation Accent Transportation Services, Inc Men In Black, LLC At Your Service of SW FL Custom Limousine Services Canary Transportation, Inc Naples Limousine Service TJ's Assistant Care Svc Unlimited Airport Rides, LLC Freedom Taxi Aangel Airport Transportation Metro Cab Dolphin Transp Specialist, Inc. Taxi Man Crown Taxi & Limo Services LLC Fantastic Limousine, Inc. PALM AIR TRANSPORTATION LLC Frank Midland, Inc d.b.a. EZ Journey USA Transportation Aristocrat Luxury Transportation, Inc. Doino Classic Transportation, Inc. William A. Lakman Services Fancy Cab Saco Valley Trader dba/ Southwest Transportation Sunshine Cab Wheelchair Transport Service, Inc. Bravo Taxi, Inc. All Aboard Airport Transportation Taxi Time, Inc. Eagle Taxi J Limo ALPC, Inc (A Lincoln Private Car) Union Taxi Blue Bird Taxi of Lee County, Inc. Moon Light Taxi Aaron Airport Transp Atlantis Cars & Limousines, Inc Sun Coast Taxi Naples Absolute Airport Transportation LLC New Pelican Transp Service, Inc. Preferred Shuttle LLC Excellent Transportation, LLC. K&K Worldwide Trading Co., dba A Class Transportation Class Act Limousine David's Livery J. Poelker Transportation Services, Inc, DBA APPLE Transportation M & J Transportation
Carway Town Car Five Seas Enterprises, Inc. DBA Cruisers Charters & Tours Gulf Coast Non-Emergency Transport, LLC. Metro Cars
Regency Executive Services & Transportation, Inc Paradise Limousine Service, LLC DBA Affordable Limousine Verve Limo Services, LLC. Ambassador Airport Services
Cerreal Company, Inc. dba Non Emergent Transport Fly Ride Transportation, LLC Solana Villas Corporate Transportation Hollywood Limos Of Naples LLC Mexi-Taxi, Corp Aafordable Tours Pinkies Car Service Corporate Cab, Inc. First Choice Transport, Inc Guiampu Corp dba Naples Premium Transport TLC Transport Naples Chauffeur Service, Inc. Carriage Limo, LLC Florida Transportation Specialists Inc Checker Cab Elite Limousine Service of SW Florida, Inc. Yellow Cab of SW FL, Inc EZ Journey Inc Arkway Luxury Naples Taxi A-1 Cadillac Airport Transportation Gennaro V. Cangiano Dorian Limousine Naples Shuttle, Inc. Island Coast Transportation Pelican Shuttle, LLC. Naples Trolley Rogers Limo Service, Inc. Prince Giovanni's Luxury Limo Advanced Quality Transport Service Naples Airport Shuttle, Inc. Above Comfort Non-Emergency Medical Transport Naples Transportation & Tours, LLC Maxi Taxi of Florida, Inc. Auto on Demand Taxi Hispano Majestic Limo Services Advanced Transportation R.E.A.L Transportation L.A. Limousine Service, Inc. Luxury Taxi E & M School Transportation Superior Airport Shuttle LLCmba.0/8 Always On Time Limo, LLC Ocean Line Transportation Inc. Royal Floridian Transportation, Inc Bonita Bee Airport Express Service, LLC Roger Pritchard LLC dba Sanibel Taxi Rockefeller Limo of Florida, Inc. MBA Airport Transportation Deluxe Transportation Services dba Bumble Bee School Transportation
Private Car Luxury Transportation, Inc. Red Rover Charter Service Collier Shuttle Services Prestige Transportation TLC Non-Emergency Medical Transport, Inc. Limotions Inc Platinum Limousine, Inc American Taxi Exodus Limousine and Transport, LLC A-1 Communications Specialists, Inc. DBA A-1 Limo of Naples Doris Limousine Service Jaquelin Diaz
Callatran Chauffeured Services Express Taxi Comfort Transportation, LLC Charles Limousine Service, LLC SW Cab Scenic Enterprises Inc, DBA Call Me A Cab A + Airport Transportation, Inc. American Comfort Limo, Inc. Big Shotz Limousine, Inc Florida Airport Transportation Airport to Airport Shuttle, LLC DBA Alligator Alley Express First Class Taxi Inc.
Easy Come Easy Go Limo Gulfcoast Airport Transportation & Limo Service Golden Gate Taxi, Inc Luxury Limousine of Naples Palm Coast Transportation, LLC Dixie Taxi & Airport Shuttle NAV - LLC (Non-Medical Trans) Gulf Shore Transportation Claude Alix Royal Palm Limo 24-7 Airport Transportation Inc Gold Star Transport, LLC, dba Tommy's Car Service
A Touch Of Class Transportation & Limo, Inc. Carey Limousine Florida, Inc Black Star Limo Corp
Appendix D
Public Outreach and Notifications
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 D-1 Transit Development Plan You are invited to participate in a Collier Area Transit discussion group meeting!
Collier Area Transit (CAT) is developing its 2010/2011-2019/2020 Transit Development Plan (TDP). The TDP will guide public transportation in Collier County over the next ten years. Please come share your ideas and input so that we can make public transportation work better for our community.
Discussion group meetings will be held on Wednesday, April 7th and Thursday, April 8th. The meeting details are provided below. Please attend the meeting that is most convenient.
When: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 When: Thursday, April 8, 2010 Time: 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Time: 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Where: East Naples Library Where: Immokalee Library 8787 Tamiami Trail East 417 North 1st Street Naples, Florida 34113 Immokalee, Florida 34142
Please RSVP by Monday, April 5th, 2010 to Patricia Whitton at [email protected] or 407-657-9210. the purrrfect ride... You are invited to participate in a Collier Area Transit discussion group meeting!
Collier Area Transit (CAT) is developing its 2010/2011-2019/2020 Transit Development Plan (TDP). The TDP will guide public transportation in Collier County over the next ten years. Please come share your ideas and input so that we can make public transportation work better for our community.
Discussion group meetings will be held on Wednesday, April 7th and Thursday, April 8th. The meeting details are provided below. Please attend the meeting that is most convenient.
When: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 When: Thursday, April 8, 2010 Time: 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Time: 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Where: Rookery Bay Where: Collier County Environmental Learning Agricultural Center Center 14700 Immokalee Road 300 Tower Road Naples, Florida 34120 Naples, Florida 34113
Please RSVP by Monday, April 5th, 2010 to Patricia Whitton at [email protected] or 407-657-9210. the purrrfect ride...
Collier Area Transit CAT Transit Development Plan (TDP) Workshop
Would you like to see more routes, more frequency? Do you have ideas that you wish to share with us?
We want to hear them…
Come share your thoughts so that we can better serve you!
When: Thursday, January 14, 2010 Time: 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM Where: Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116
For questions and more information, please contact: LaChant Barnett at : (407) 657-9210 the purrrfect ride... NAPLES DAILY NEWS 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Fax: (239) 263-4703
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
CAT
Collier Area Transit (CAT) announces the following public workshop to which all persons are invited.
DATE/TIME/LOCATION
January 14 , 2010 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116
Collier Area Transit is working to develop the 2010/2011 through 2019/2020 Transit Development Plan. Please join us at the Golden Gate Community Center for a workshop on how to make public transportation work better for our community and find out more information on the transportation plan’s progression. Come out and share your thoughts so we can better serve you.
People who would like to offer comments, but are unable to attend the workshop, may do so by visiting our website at http://colliergov.net/CAT or sending them via post office mail to the attention of Patricia Whitton at Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc., 1595 South Semoran Blvd., Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation at this workshop because of a disability or physical impairment should contact Glama Carter at Collier Area Transit, 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 or (239) 252-8192, not later than 48 hours before the workshop.
To be published on: Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
Please send proof of publication to:
Collier County, Transportation Services Division Att: Glama Carter, CAT Principal Planner 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-5832
Purchase Order # 4500111219
Account #059460
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GENERAL COMMENT CARD
Name: ______
Address ______
______City State Zip
______Telephone (optional) Email (optional)
COMMENTS
Please use this form to provide written comments to the Collier Area Transit (CAT) staff and project team. We encourage you to provide your name and contact information so that we may keep you informed or respond to questions or concerns. We appreciate your feedback.
Please fill out the comment card and place at the designated location or mail your written comments to Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc., Attn: Tricia Whitton, at 1595 South Semoran Blvd, Suite 1540, Winter Park, FL 32792 or [email protected] by March 1, 2010. Collier Area Transit (CAT) Transit Development Plan (TDP) Public Workshop Survey
Please take the time to complete this short survey. Responses will be used to develop the CAT TDP. The TDP will guide Collier County’s public transportation over the next ten years. Please circle your answers.
1. Are you aware of CAT and its services? Yes No
2. Is there a need for additional transit service in Collier County? Yes No
3. Do you use CAT? Yes No (If yes, please answer Question 4. If no, please skip to Question 5)
4. What is your perception of CAT? Good Satisfactory Poor
5. What type of transit services would you like to see more of in the Collier County area? (Please circle only one answer) More Frequent Bus Service Express Bus (Travels from point A to point B without stopping) Trolley (Streetcar powered electrically and typically operated on city streets) Increased Weekend Service Late Evening Service
6. Do you believe there is a traffic congestion problem in Collier County? Yes No
7. Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system? Yes No
8. Is more regional transportation needed to connect Collier County with other counties or cities? If yes, which counties or cities. Yes ______No
9. At some point in the future, do you envision that rail transit will be needed in the county? If so, when should it be implemented and which locations should be the major destinations? Yes ______No
10. What type of overall improvement do you believe would be more important for CAT to pursue in the near future? (Please check (√) only one answer) ____Improving the frequency of existing bus routes ____Extending bus service to new areas
11. If you are not a current CAT user, what would interest you in using the CAT system? Increased Frequencies Extended Evening Service Increased Weekend Service Other ______
Thank you for completing this survey. Please place your completed survey at the designated location or mail your written comments to Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc., Attn: Tricia Whitton, 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 or [email protected] by March 1, 2010. Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier County Transportation Services Division – Conference Room Thursday, February 25, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Review Committee Members in Attendance:
Paul Starzyk, Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Joe Bonness, Collier County Pathways Advisory Committee Tim Nance, Collier County Citizens Advisory Committee George Archibald, Collier County Congestion Management System/Intelligent Transportation System Stakeholder Committee Chuck Mohlke, Collier County Technical Advisory Committee Julia Davis, Florida Department of Transportation
Collier County Staff in Attendance:
Michelle Arnold, Collier Area Transit Glama Carter, Collier Area Transit Phil Tindall, Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization Lorraine Lantz, Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Consultants in Attendance:
Richard Dreyer, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Tricia Whitton, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Collier Area Transit (CAT) is in the process of developing its FY2010/2011- FY2019/2020 Transit Development Plan (TDP). As part of the TDP process, a Review Committee has been established to provide project oversight. The first Review Committee meeting was held on Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 2 pm in the Collier County Transportation Services Division Conference Room.
The meeting began with introductions of each Review Committee member followed by a brief explanation of the committee’s role. Review Committee members were selected in an effort to establish a committee of representatives that could provide comprehensive and diverse input throughout the TDP process. The committee will be tasked with guiding and providing input on the TDP process and reviewing the TDP documents.
The TDP scope of services and project schedule were handed out to each Review Committee member so that everyone is aware of the upcoming TDP tasks. After the
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 1 Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier County Transportation Services Division – Conference Room Thursday, February 25, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. scope of services and schedule were briefly discussed, the consultant reviewed a PowerPoint presentation handout that included the following elements:
. An overview of the TDP purpose . An overview of the elements that will be included in the TDP . The TDP public participation process that will be utilized . The selected stakeholder representatives and reoccurring themes from the completed interviews . Results from the first TDP public workshop . Results from the 2004-2008 trend analysis . The peer selection process and selected peer systems: o Escambia County Area Transit o Lakeland Area Mass Transit District o Manatee County Area Transit o Okaloosa County Transit o Pasco County Public Transit o Sarasota County Area Transit o Space Coast Area Transit
After the presentation overview, the TDP next steps were discussed. Potential dates for the next Review Committee meeting include Thursday, April 15th and Thursday, April 22nd from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The consultant will send an email polling the group for their preferred meeting date.
During the second part of the meeting, the Review Committee was asked to provide input relating to issues that should be considered during the TDP development process. Discussion took place on the following topics:
. The committee is interested in setting up a blog to share comments related to the documents they are reviewing. Without the opportunity to share thoughts immediately, ideas may be lost by the next scheduled meeting. CAT is prepared to discuss the implementation of a blog with the IT Department; however, some concerns over the violation of Sunshine Law need to be further explored. . There are some concerns that were raised regarding ratio of subsidy provided for the system and how the information will be presented in the document. The consultant explained that studies exist regarding the ratio of transit
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 2 Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier County Transportation Services Division – Conference Room Thursday, February 25, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. subsidy to public benefit. The committee would like to see references to some of the studies within the final TDP document. . The committee would like to be notified of all public outreach opportunities and have the opportunity to comment on the locations as well as attend the meetings. . The committee would like to see a review of the benefits of local public transportation during an emergency or disaster included in the final TDP document. . The committee would like the document to include language stating that CAT has the 2nd highest ridership per hour next to Broward County. . A comment was made regarding the importance of avoiding language pitfalls (i.e., pitfalls related to vehicle miles of travel and mobility fees) . The committee would like the final document to include references to the potential for future mobility fees and the master mobility plan should be incorporated into the TDP. . The plan should reflect the character of target locations. . While rail is often discussed as a future option, buses are currently the most financially feasible option . The CAT system has currently only scratched the surface by only having routes located in the most economical areas . There is a need for adequate pathways and connections. A bus stop needs to be located where there are sidewalks, bicycle paths, and ADA accessible amenities. . The County has a huge need for beach access. CAT should begin discussions with the City of Naples regarding the potential for a beach route. The plan should also explore the potential for a beach route in the unincorporated area near the beach. . The need for too many transfers makes it difficult for people to utilize the CAT system. . There is a need for transit connections that accommodate users who must drive part of their trip (i.e., park-and-ride lots). . The Governing Board has stressed the importance of looking at potential for commuter rail and light rail. . While planning for future services, the plan should review the median age of different areas. . Special consideration should be given to the need to protect the existing services so that in the future services are not eliminated due to budget constraints.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 3 Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier County Transportation Services Division – Conference Room Thursday, February 25, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. . The report needs to be structured to show the benefits of transit. . The existing scale needs to be considered and future projects should enhance areas rather than making those areas too big. . Future funding sources are a concern. . Connections to Lee County are important in both Immokalee and on US 41. . Future transit improvements should consider demographics including income and ethnicity. . Future transit improvement should consider compact low-density areas. . The final plan should include park-and-ride community hubs.
After the open discussion of future needs and concerns, each committee member was given a copy of TDP Technical Memorandum #1 and asked to review the document and provide comments no later than Friday, March 12, 2010. The committee was advised to send all comments to Glama Carter and she will forward to the consultant. Glama Carter will send an email to all of the Review Committee members so that they have her email address and can reply with comments.
A committee member requested that an email be sent out describing the role of the committee and the expectations over the duration of the project. A detailed description will assist the committee with preparing for future meetings and commenting on documents. The consultant will send out a document describing the Review Committee’s tasks during the project.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 4 Review Committee Meeting #1 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #2 Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building – Conference Room Thursday, April 22, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Review Committee Members in Attendance:
Paul Starzyk, Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Fred Goodwin, South Florida Workforce Development Board Chuck Mohlke, Collier County Technical Advisory Committee Joe Bonness, Collier County Pathways Advisory Committee Tim Nance, Collier County Citizens Advisory Committee George Archibald, Collier County Congestion Management System/Intelligent Transportation System Stakeholder Committee
Collier County Staff in Attendance:
Michelle Arnold, Collier Area Transit Lorraine Lantz, Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
Consultants in Attendance:
LaChant Barnett, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Tricia Whitton, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
The second Collier Area Transit (CAT) Review Committee meeting was held on Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 2 p.m. in the Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building. The meeting began with introductions of each Review Committee member followed by a brief status update of the project and the public outreach activities that have been completed since the first Review Committee Meeting held on Thursday, February 25, 2010.
At the beginning of the meeting, a brief overview of comments from the participants in the discussion group meetings was provided to committee members. The meeting proceeded with discussion of Technical Memorandum #2. Technical Memorandum #2 was handed out to each Review Committee member that did not bring their own copy. The Technical Memorandum includes the on-board survey results and the draft Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives. Key highlights from the on-board survey were briefly discussed. Following the project update and review of the key concepts from the on-board survey, the Review Committee provided the following input.
. The plan needs to focus more on the business owners and less on the need for growth that serves the disabled or transit dependent populations so that the decision makers recognize the economic advantages of the transit system . Based on the need to go where the riders are located, intercept surveys may be a better approach to obtaining user input
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 1 Review Committee Meeting #2 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #2 Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building – Conference Room Thursday, April 22, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. . The fact that CAT’s farebox per capita is not similar to other communities based on the population densities needs to be communicated to the decision makers . More outreach to the business communities is needed . Currently, employers are not focused on how to get their employees to work; however, as the economy begins to recover and the unemployment rate starts dropping the competition for employees will increase and more transit service will be needed . The funding provided to CAT by the County is located in the general fund and may be in jeopardy based on future budget cuts. The economic benefits of transit need to be clearly expressed to the County and defined on the first page of the plan . Research should be conducted to collect data from other counties that have economically benefited from transit services . During presentations, someone needs to be prepared to state that for every 10 percent of County funding that is cut, CAT will lose this amount of Federal and/or State funding . An additional meeting needs to be held with a variety of County employers, including representatives from the Coastland Mall and the hospital . Consideration should be given to the need to amend the current TDP scope to include the additional efforts that have been mentioned during the 2nd Review Committee meeting . Alternative ways to supply transit service to gated communities should be explored . Make sure that the road network is included on all maps . An analysis should be completed demonstrating the typical rider by trip and corridor (i.e., work and shopping trips) . Choice riders also need to be interviewed and included in the analysis . The plan needs to document the major employers of the transportation dependent users . Consideration should be given to utilizing and mapping the 2007 Business Census data . The population density of industrial parks should be included on the employment density map . The top 10 to 15 destination should be included on the maps . Circulators may be an excellent alternative for areas such as the Estates and newly developed towns . Consideration should be given to changing the Blue Route to go from Immokalee Road to Oil Well and up Camp Keais Road to provide transit access to residents of Ave Maria . The goals should include language relating to cost reduction
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 2 Review Committee Meeting #2 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #2 Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building – Conference Room Thursday, April 22, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. . The Transit Vision needs to be updated to incorporate commerce and economic development . A strong statement needs to be included within the baseline conditions and the goals stating that the population projections were developed using the best available information; however, during the annual progress report and next major update the document will be revised to include projections from the Census 2010 . An initiative should be included stating that future updates will incorporate the latest planning documents to ensure consistency . The plan should include a peak period capacity analysis with cautionary language about cost reduction . There is a concern that after implementation of cross county transit service Lee County may tap into the Collier County labor market . Consideration should be given to sales tax revenue expenditure on transit service . Consideration should be given to utilizing carbon credits in order to get people off the road and onto the transit system . The City of Naples private provider has 23 transit stops and trips cost $10, which gives residents the option to access private transportation . The number one reason Immokalee residents access Lee County is for medical purposes
The meeting closed by asking each committee member to identify a transit improvement that they would like included in the TDP. Transit service along Livingston Road was mentioned as a transit need; however, several committee members expressed concerns about the need to protect the existing transit routes rather than adding new transit services.
Committee members were asked to review TDP Technical Memorandum #2 and provide any comments within two weeks.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 3 Review Committee Meeting #2 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #3 Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building – Conference Room Thursday, June 10, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Review Committee Members in Attendance:
Paul Starzyk, Collier County Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Fred Goodwin, South Florida Workforce Development Board Joe Paterno, South Florida Workforce Development Board Joe Bonness, Collier County Pathways Advisory Committee Tim Nance, Collier County Citizens Advisory Committee Chuck Mohlke, Collier County Technical Advisory Committee George Archibald, Collier County Congestion Management System/Intelligent Transportation System Stakeholder Committee
Collier County Staff in Attendance:
Michelle Arnold, Collier Area Transit Lorraine Lantz, Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
Consultants in Attendance:
LaChant Barnett, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Tricia Whitton, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
The third Collier Area Transit (CAT) Review Committee meeting was held on Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 2 p.m. in the Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building. Several copies of the draft TDP were available for the Review Committee to review during the meeting; however, each member received a compact disc that contained the document. Review Committee members were given until Wednesday, June 30, 2010 to provide any comments or revisions on the draft document.
The meeting began with a review of the revisions that were made to the draft in order to incorporate the Review Committee’s comments on Technical Memorandum #1 and #2. Committee members who had reviewed the draft prior to the meeting by accessing the document on the Tindale-Oliver & Associates (TOA), Inc. ftp site or picking up a copy from the Collier County MPO provided the following comments on the revisions to the draft documents.
. The first page of the document needs to specify when the population estimates included within the document will be updated to include Census 2010 data . Page 2-1 needs more language about updating the population estimates within the annual updates . The explanation of commuter patterns and labor shed included on page 2-15 needs to be clarified to limit confusion for the average reader
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 1 Review Committee Meeting #3 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #3 Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building – Conference Room Thursday, June 10, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. . The MPOs packet for June 11, 2010 includes a 2010 summary of state legislation including Charter County and Regional Transportation System Surtax information and should be reviewed
After a review of the TDP revisions, LaChant Barnett reviewed the draft alternatives, Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST) ridership projections, and draft budget included in the document. During the discussion, the Review Committee provided the following comments:
. The alternatives need to be grouped by implementation year rather than numbers to avoid the appearance of priorities . Consideration should be given to a circulator within Everglades City, Port of the Islands, and Collier-Seminole State Park . The alternatives should be associated with a link . A footnote should be added to the alternatives table explaining the alternative implementation year and that alternatives are subject to be implemented earlier based on available funding . Consideration should be given to incremental frequency increases to possibly begin in 2011 or after 2015 to avoid the significant increase in operating expenditures occurring in 2014 . Based on the $150 million needed to fund Jackson Laboratories and the current economic situation, showing the deficit within the 10-year plan will be an issue . The amount of farebox and ridership included for the alternatives is depicting that the future of the system will not be successful; therefore, the document should portray that ridership is increasing along with the farebox recovery and include information on typical transit system subsidies . An additional financial table should be included to show a scaled down “status quo” plan; therefore, there will be two options the no build plan and the vision plan . Spreadsheets need to be developed showing the vision plan and potential revenue sources to fund the future alternatives . Spreadsheets need to be developed showing the existing level of service and what is needed to sustain the existing services . The ridership projections should also show the increase in farebox revenues associated with the alternative . The presentation needs to sell the plan and clearly communicate the implications to the system from any reduction in local contributions . The vision plan should read, “When additional revenue sources become available…” . A summary should be developed for the Commissioners that communicates the TDP’s key points in a couple of pages
The meeting concluded by notifying the Review Committee that the draft TDP will be revised to include their comments as well as an alternative financial plan that showing the “status
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 2 Review Committee Meeting #3 Collier Area Transit - Transit Development Plan Review Committee Meeting #3 Collier County Sheriff’s Office Patriot Way Building – Conference Room Thursday, June 10, 2010 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. quo” growth plan and future revenue sources. The revised document will be uploaded to the TOA ftp site on Wednesday June 16, 2010 for further review prior to the June 30, 2010 deadline.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit TDP 3 Review Committee Meeting #3 Collier Area Transit FY 2011-2020 TDP Major Update Submitted Public Comments
Friday, June 11, 2010 2:34 PM
Please consider adding more FREQUENT buses to your schedule. NOT larger buses! The frequency and number of buses is a crucial point for all the workers in this community to enable them to have the CAT work for them, commuting to and from work. Many patients at the Neighborhood Clinic have no other means to get to and from work and to and from their medical care and the sparse schedule makes it almost impossible for them to count on the transit system. Put our tax dollars to work for our working people of this community! It's more important than any beautification project to the livelihood of our community.
Monday, June 21, 2010 2:00 PM:
Hi, I will not be able to attend the workshops today or tomorrow. I want to put in a request for expanding CAT. Please add a bike sharing program so that riders can more conveniently get where they need to go. If there were bike share stations at the transfer hubs that eventually expanded to include other locations throughout the County, transit will be further reaching and broaden the base of users who can take advantage of the CAT system. Thank you.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:04 PM
Hello, I was out of town when the Cat meetings were held a few weeks ago. I am a frequent bus rider - 6-8 times a week - and would like to voice some suggestions. We need more bike racks, either on the front, or right side of the buses. All too often the two existing ones are full, especially at the end of the day when I catch the last bus running to get home from work and I am stuck. Also it would be great if they ran more frequently than every hour and a half. I believe more people would use the bus system. Lastly we need more covered bus stops with benches, there are so few!
Thank you.
Appendix E
Stakeholder Interview Questions
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 E-1 Transit Development Plan COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Are you currently aware of Collier Area Transit (CAT) and its services?
2. What groups of travelers seem to experience the most difficult transportation conditions (the disabled, low-income, elderly, commuters, etc)? Why?
3. Is there a need for additional transit service in Collier County?
4. Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly, Tourists/Visitors)
5. What do you think are the most significant issues facing transit users?
6. What do you think are the most significant issues facing automobile travelers?
7. What type of transit services would you like to see more of in Collier County? (More Frequent Fixed-Route, Express Bus, Trolley, Demand Response, Increased Weekend Service, Late Evening Service)
8. Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system?
9. Is the public perception of CAT good, satisfactory, or poor?
10. What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or other)
11. What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School)
12. Do you use CAT? Why? Why not?
13. Do you believe there is a congestion problem in Collier County? (If Yes, go to the next question, if No skip to question 19)
14. Do you believe that public transportation can relieve congestion in Collier County?
15. What efforts or initiatives are you aware of that have been undertaken in the last five years to address traffic congestion in the region (locally)?
16. (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been successful and why?
17. (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been unsuccessful and why?
18. What efforts would you like to see undertaken, to address traffic congestion in this region?
19. What are the major destinations within your immediate community?
20. What are the major destinations outside of your community where people are traveling to, from your area?
21. What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in Collier County?
22. Is more regional transportation needed to connect Collier County with surrounding areas (Lee County and Charlotte County)?
23. At some point in the future, do you envision that rail transit will be needed in the city/county? If so, when should it be implemented and where should it go?
24. In the future, do you believe that CAT should remain a County department or become a Regional Transit Authority? If yes, please explain why?
25. What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future? (i.e. private partnerships, advertising revenues, fare increases, ad valorem tax, sales tax, gas tax)
26. Where do you see CAT ten years from now?
27. Do you believe CAT has done an effective job marketing transit service options?
Appendix F
On-Board Survey Instruments and Additional Analysis
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 F-1 Transit Development Plan Encuesta de Usuarios de Collier Area Transit (CAT)
CAT esta planeando para el futuro y necesita su opinión para ayudar a mejorar el servicio de transito. Su participación en esta encuesta es anónima y voluntaria. Si usted no desea participar, por favor devolver la encuesta al encuestador. Si usted decide completar esta encuesta, por favor marque (su respuesta. GRACIAS POR SU COOPERACIÓN.
Esta encuesta se trata del viaje que esta haciendo ahora. 4. ¿Cual es su DESTINO FINAL para este viaje? (Marque solo una respuesta)
1 ___ Trabajo 4 ___ Escuela (K-12) 7 ___ Compras Ejemplo de un Viaje de Autobus 2 ___ Medico 5 ___ College/Universidad 8 ___ Casa 3 ___ Social/Personal 6 ___ Visita/Recreo 9 ___ Otro______
5. ¿Cual es la DIRECCIÓN O NOMBRE del LUGAR, NEGOCIO, O EDIFICIO donde TERMINA este viaje? CASA AUTOBUS AUTOBUS TRABAJO [COMIENZO] [FIN] Dirección o intersección (p.ej., Vanderbilt Beach Road y Airport-Pulling Road) 1. ¿Donde COMENSASTE este viaje? (Marque solo una respuesta)
1 ___ Trabajo 4 ___ Escuela (K-12) 7 ___ Compras Nombre del Lugar, Negocio o Edificio (p.ej., Naples Community Hospital) 2 ___ Medico 5 ___ College/Universidad 8 ___ Casa 3 ___ Social/Personal 6 ___ Visita/Recreo 9 ___ Otro______Ciudad 2. ¿Cual es la DIRECCIÓN O NOMBRE del LUGAR, NEGOCIO, O EDIFICIO donde comenzó su viaje? 6a. Después de bajarse de este autobús, como piensas llegar a tu destino final? (Marque solo una respuesta) Dirección o intersección (p.ej., Vanderbilt Beach Road y Airport-Pulling Road) 1 ___ Caminando 4 ___ Alguien le recogerá 7 ___ Otro ______2 ___ En Bicicleta 5 ___ Viajar con alguien quien estaciono su carro en un parqueo Nombre del Lugar, Negocio, o Edificio (p.ej., Naples Community Hospital) 3 ___ Manejando 6___ Transferir a otra ruta (siga a la pregunta 6b)
6b. ¿Si necesitas usar otro autobús para completar este viaje, que ruta va a usar? Ciudad (Por favor enumerar en orden)
Por favor haga lista de todas rutas de buses: ______, ______, ______, ______3a. ¿Como hizo para llegar a la parada de este viaje? (Marque solo una respuesta) 7. ¿Cuánto tiempo hace que esta usando el servicio de autobús de CAT? 1 ___ Camino 4 ___ Alguien le trajo en vehiculo 7 ___ Otro ______2 ___ Monto Bicicleta 5 ___ Alguien estaciono su carro en un parqueo 3 ___ Manejo y parqueo 6 ___ Transfer de otra ruta (siga a la pregunta 3b) 1 ___ Primer ves (siga a la pregunta 10) 3 ___6 meses a menos de un año 5 ___ 2 a 5 años 2 ___ Menos de 6 meses 4 ___1 año a menos de 2 años 6 ___ más de 5 años 3b. ¿Si se transfirió a este autobús de otra ruta para completar este viaje, que rutas uso? (Por favor enumerar en orden) 8. ¿Cuantos días a la semana usas el autobús? (Marque solo una respuesta) Por favor haga lista de todas las rutas de bus: ______, ______, ______, ______1 ___ 1 día 3 ___ 3 días 5 ___ 5 días 7___ Una vez al mes o menos
2 ___ 2 días 4 ___ 4 días 6 ___ 6 días 8___ Una vez cada___semanas
POR FAVOR CONTINUAR 9. Durante una típica semana, ¿Cuantas veces a la semana completas este viaje en 17. ¿Cual es tu género? 1 ___ Masculino 2 ___ Femenino autobús? (Marque solo una respuesta)
1 ___ 1 día 3 ___ 3 días 5 ___ 5 días 7___ Menos de una vez cada semana 18. ¿Cual es su raza o herencia étnica? (Marque solo una respuesta) 2 ___ 2 días 4 ___ 4 días 6 ___ 6 días
1 ___ Anglo 2 ___ Negro 3 ___ Hispano 4 ___ Asiático 5 ___ Otro______10. ¿Cómo harías este viaje si no por autobús? 19. ¿Cual fue el ingresos total de su casa en el año 2009?
1 ___ Manejando 3 ___ No hiciera el viaje 5 ___ Caminando 7____ Otro (especificar)______1 ___Menos de $10,000 4 ___$30,000 a $39,999 7 ___ No trabajo 2 ___ Montar con alguien 4 ___ Bicicleta 6 ___ Moped/Scooter (Moto) 2 ___$10,000 a $19,999 5 ___$40,000 a $49,999 3 ___$20,000 a $29,999 6 ___$50,000 o mas 11. ¿Que tipo de tarifa usaste al subirse a este autobús? 20. ¿Cuantos carros, camionetas, y/o camiones se encuentran disponibles en su casa? 1 ___ Tarifa Total ($1.50) 5 ___ Pase Diario ($4.00/$2.00) 9 ___ Tarifa Mensual Express
2 6 ___ Media Tarifa ($0.75) ___ Pase Semanal ($15.00/$7.50) ($70.00/$35.00) 1 ___ 0 vehículos 2 ___ 1 vehículo 3 ___ 2 o mas vehículos 3 ___ Token ($1.50/$0.75) 7 ___ Pase Mensual ($35.00/$17.50) 10 ___ Otro ______4 ___ Transfer ($0.75/$0.35) 8 ___ Tarifa Total Express ($2.50/$1.25) 21. ¿Incluyendo usted mismo, quantos en su casa tienen licencia de conducir válida?
12. ¿Comparado a otros medios de transporte disponibles, cual es la razón más 1 ___ Ninguno 2 ___ Uno 3___ Dos 4___ Tres o mas importante por la cual usa el autobús? (Marque solo una respuesta) 22. ¿Que es el código postal de su residencia? ______1 ___ Prefiero CAT sobre otras alternativas 5 ___ CAT es mas conveniente 7 ___ No manejo
2 ___ Mi carro no esta disponible siempre 6 ___ Parquear es muy caro/difícil 8 ___ No tengo carro 3 ___ Me queda bien con mi presupuesto 7 ___ No tengo licencia de conducir 9 ___ Otro______23. Cuéntenos de su viaje. Circule un número debajo que refleje su opinión acerca de 4 ___ Congestión de tráfico 8 ___ El bus es mejor para el medio ambiente cada característica. Muy Muy 13. ¿Cuales de los siguientes arreglos piensas tu que son los mas importantes? Insatisfecho Insatisfecho Neutral Satisfecho Satisfecho (Marque todos los que apliquen) ¿Frecuencia de servicio de los autobuses 1 2 3 4 5 en esta ruta? 1 ___ Mas asientos y refugios de sombra en los paradas 4 ___ Servicio mas temprano en rutas existentes 2 ___ Servicio en nuevas áreas 5 ___ Servicio más tarde en rutas existentes ¿La cortesía del conductor? 1 2 3 4 5 3 ___ Servicio Expreso (paradas limitadas) 6 ___ Servicio mas frecuente en las rutas existentes ¿Que directamente va esta ruta ha su 1 2 3 4 5 en las siguientes calles: ______7 ___ Otro______destinación? 14. ¿Usaría usted un servicio expreso de alta calidad con paradas limitadas si CAT lo provee? ¿El tiempo que se demora en hacer su 1 2 3 4 5 viaje usando el autobús?
1 ___ Si 2 ___ No 3 ___ Quizás ¿La regularidad del autobús en llegar a 1 2 3 4 5 tiempo? 15. ¿Cómo prefiere recibir información sobre el servicio, horarios, y cambios de CAT? ¿Seguridad en los paraderos? 1 2 3 4 5
1 ___ Página de Web de CAT 4 ___ Biblioteca 7 ___ En el autobús ¿La sombra y refugio en el paradero del 1 2 3 4 5 2 ___ Periódico 5 ___ Horarios de autobús 8 ___ Email de CAT autobús? 3 ___ En la parada de autobús 6 ___ Teléfono ¿Qué limpio estaba el autobús? 1 2 3 4 5 16. Tu edad es…. ¿Su satisfacción con servicios de CAT? 1 2 3 4 5 1 ___ 17 o menos 4 ___ 25 a 34 5 ___ 45 a 54 7 ___ 65 a 74 2 ___ 18 a 24 5 ___ 35 a 44 6 ___ 55 a 64 8 ___ Mas de 74 GRACIAS POR COMPLETAR ESTA ENCUESTA! Collier Area Transit (CAT) On-Board Survey
CAT place pou demain epi pou ede transit-la. Patisipasyon pa ou-a. Si ou pa ta vle patisipe, sil vou ple tounen papye blanh. Sil chwazi pou fil fom-nan, sil vou ple (make) korek bagay-you. Epi entoure repons. Mesi pou travay avek nou.
Cette enquête porte sur la ONE-WAY voyage de transit, vous êtes en train de faire! 4. Ki kote ou prale kounya nan yon sel chemin voyaj sa-a? (sil vou ple fini kote a nan yon sel voyaj sa) (make yon)
Modèle sel voyaj-sa 1 ___ Lakay 4 ___ Lekol (K-12) 7 ___ Achte 2 ___ Travay 5 ___ Koleje 8 ___ Medika Man 3 ___ Afe Pam 6 ___ Rekreatyon 9 ___ Lot Bagay______
5. Ki koman adkess ou byen komes ou byen kay ou prale kounya? LAKAY BUS BUS TRAVAY [START] [END]
1. Ki kote ou soti kounya (Sil vou ple, make kontinye kote yon sel voyaje-sa) Adress (e.g., Vanderbilt Beach Rd @ Airport Pulling Rd) (make 1 selman)
1 ___ Lakay 4 ___ Lekol (K-12) 7 ___ Achte Plas, Komes, Kay (e.g., Naples Community Hospital) 2 ___ Travay 5 ___ Koleje 8 ___ Medika Man
3 ___ Afe Pam 6 ___ Rekreatyon 9 ___ Lot Bagay______
2. Ki koma address ou byen non komes ou byen kay ou soti kounye-a? Vil
6a. Apre ou fini desann bus la koman wap fe rive denye kote ou prale-ya nanyon sel chemin sa (Yon sil vou ple) Adress ou Intersection (e.g., Vanderbilt Beach Rd @ Airport Pulling Rd) 1 ___ Mache 4 ___ Oute depozem 7 ___ Ou byen lot gen-an (coman) ______2 ___ Bicylet 5 ___ Ale avek yen moun kite pake 3 ___ Condui ou byen pake 6 ___ Transfere nan yon lot chemin (Go to Question 3b) Plas, Komes, Kay (e.g., Naples Community Hospital)
6b. Si ou transfere nan bus sa alenan yon lot chemin pou fe yon voyaj sa ki bus wap transfer sa-a? (Sil vou ple mete yo nan ling) Vil
Sil vou ple mete yo sou ling: ______, ______, ______, ______
3a. Koman fe Rive kote pou pran bus nan yon sel voyaj-sa (Si vou ple un) 7. Konbyen tan ou genyen depi wap itilize CAT bus la? 1 ___ Mache 4 ___ Oute depozem 7 ___ Ou byen lot gen-an (coman) ______2 ___ Bicylet 5 ___ Ale avek yen moun kite pake 1 ___ Premye Fwa (Skip to Q10) 3 ___6 mwa pipiti de zan 5 ___ de ak senk an 3 ___ Condui ou byen pake 6 ___ Transfere nan yon lot chemin (Passez à la question 3b) 2 ___ Pipiti ke 4 ___ en pipiti ke ennan 6 ___ plis ke senk an
3b. Si transfere man bus ale nan yon lot bus pardon yon sel ale-a ki rout bus ou trans fere ale? (Si vou ple mete sou ling) 8. Kon byen jou nan yon semen ou monte bus la? (Yon sil vou ple) 1 ___ jon jou 3 ___ twa jou 5 ___ senk jou 7___ yon fwa pa mwa Sil vou ple ecri tout bus chemin yo: ______, ______, ______, ______2 ___ de jou 4 ___ kat jou 6 ___ sis jou 8___ Yon semen_____
S'il vous plaît continuer sur le dos de l'enquête 9. Pandan kayte semen say o konbyen fwa ou fe sel voyaj ou ye kounyea? 17. Ki kalite moun ou ye? 1 ___ Gason 2 ___ Fi
1 ___ yon jou 3 ___ twa jou 5 ___ senk jou 7___ pipiti ke yon semen 18. Ki ras ou erlitaj-ou? (Yon sil vou ple) 2 ___ de jou 4 ___ kat jou 6 ___ sis jou 1 ___ Blanh 2 ___ Nwa 3 ___ Espagnol 4 ___ Ejen 5 ___ Lot Bagay ______10. Koman wap fe sel voyaj ou ye kounya se se pa bus? (Yon sil vou ple) 19. Konbyen kobo u fe pou anee de mil nef? 1 ___ Condwi ou byen pake 2 ___ Ale avek yon moun 3 ___ Ne serait pas faire du voyage 4 ___ Bicyclet 5 ___ Mache 6 ___ Cyclomoteur /Scooter 7____ Lot bagay______1 ___ Aba $10,000 4 ___$30,000 ak $39,999 7 ___ Pap travay 2 ___$10,000 ak $19,999 5 ___$40,000 ak $49,999 11. Tout kob la cyen dola cenkant santina? (Yon sil vou ple) 3 ___$20,000 ak $29,999 6 ___$50,000 or more
20. konbyen machin van oubyen limye kamyon ki la ka ou? 1 ___ Tout kob la ($1.50) 6 ___ Pas pou yon semen ($15.00/$7.50)
2 ___ Mwatye ($0.75 7 ___ Pas pou yon mwa ($35.00/$17.50) 1 ___ Pa gen machin 2 ___ 1 machin 3 3 ___ De ou byen plis machin 3 ___ Pran ($1.50/$0.75) 8 ___ Ale vit pas ($2.50/$1.25) 4 ___ Transfer ($0.75/$0.35 9 ___ Ale vit pou yon mwa ($70.00/$35.00) 21. Konbyen lisens chofe ki lakay ou memn tet ou la dan’n? 5 ___ Jou Pas ($4.00/$2.00) 10 ___ Lot Bagay (Koman)______1 ___ Bagenyen 2 ___ Yon 3 ___ De 4___ Twa ou byen plis 12. Kon pare lot fason transpotasyon ki bon pou! Li sa li emporton pou li fe ou voyaj nan 22. Ki ka lite zip cod lakay ou? ______bus? (Yon sil vou ple)
1 ___ Mwen pi to CAT pase lot yoi 5 ___ CAT pi fasil 9 ___ M’pa kondwi 23. Si vou ple nou ki kalite bus ou te monte. (epi banou opiyon nan say yo) 2 ___ Machin pa disponib tout tan 6 ___ Pakin yoche/ difisil 10 ___ M’pagan 3 ___ CAT semenzi kob mwen 7 ___ mwne bon lisens pou’n kondui 11 ___ Lot bagay ______Pov Tre 4 ___ Anpil trafik 8 ___ bus plis zanmi nan zon yo anpil Pov Pabon Bon Bon
Konbyen fwa ou fet rout sa? 1 2 3 4 5 13. Nan tout say a ki sa ki pouve ou ki sa ou panes ki enportan gade tout sa yo? (Check all that apply) Koman bus te voyaje? 1 2 3 4 5 1 ___ Plis banka kay nan plas bus la 4 ___ Gran’m matin sevis nan rout ki la yo 2 ___ Bus fe sevis nan bel zon 5 ___ Pli ta sevis nan rout ki la yo Koman bus te ale nan direksyon? 1 2 3 4 5 3 ___ Bus ki ale vit nan rout ka vini an 6 ___ Plis sevis nan rout ki la yo (Ki yes) ______7 ___ Lot Bagay (Ki yes)______Konbyen tan voyaj out e pran? 1 2 3 4 5
14. Si CAT bye sevis ki pa anpil ( zon ki limite) eske wap pran sevis? Konbyen fwa bus rive a-le? 1 2 3 4 5
Koman ou sant-ou nan voyaj la? 1 2 3 4 5 1 ___ We 2 ___ Non 3 ___ M’paknin
15. Ki jen out a vle jwen enfomatyon de CAT sevis redevou ak le chanje? Koman lonbraj avek kay ou kanpe ap tanm-nan? 1 2 3 4 5
1 ___ CAT sit-la 4 ___ Bibliothèque 7 ___ Nan bus la Eske bus te prop joud-a? 1 2 3 4 5 2 ___ Jounal 5 ___ papye bus la 8 ___ CAT let la 3 ___ Nan plas bus la 6 ___ telepon Ki tout satisfaksyon avek CAT la? 1 2 3 4 5
16. Lage ou se…. 1 ___ 17 ou byen anba 4 ___ Trent senk at karantkat 7 ___ swasentsenk ak swasant katoz Merci d'avoir rempli le sondage! 2 ___ Dizwit ak venkat 5 ___ Karantsent ak senkkantkat 8 ___ Ale swantkatoz 3 ___ Vensenk ak trentkat 6 ___ Senkkantsenk ak swasankat Collier Area Transit (CAT) On-Board Survey
CAT is planning for the future and needs your feedback to help improve transit services. Your participation in this survey is anonymous and voluntary. If you do not wish to participate, please return the blank form to the surveyor. If you choose to fill out a survey, please check () the correct item, write out, or circle your answers. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
This survey is about the ONE-WAY transit trip you are making now! 4. Where are you GOING TO NOW on this ONE-WAY trip? (Please the ending place of this one-way trip) (Mark one only)
Example of ONE-WAY Trolley/Bus Trip 1 ___ Home 4 ___ School (K-12) 7 ___ Shopping/Errands 2 ___ Work 5 ___ College/Tech 8 ___ Medical 3 ___ Social/Personal 6 ___ Recreation 9 ___ Other (specify)______
5. What is the NAME OR ADDRESS of the PLACE, BUSINESS, OR BUILDING you are HOME BUS BUS WORK [START] [END] GOING TO now?
1. Where are you COMING FROM NOW? (Please the starting place of this Address or Intersection (e.g., Vanderbilt Beach Rd @ Airport Pulling Rd) one-way trip) (Mark one only)
1 ___ Home 4 ___ School (K-12) 7 ___ Shopping/Errands Place, Business, or Building Name (e.g., Naples Community Hospital) 2 ___ Work 5 ___ College/Tech 8 ___ Medical 3 ___ Social/Personal 6 ___ Recreation 9 ___ Other (specify)______
2. What is the ADDRESS OR NAME of the PLACE, BUSINESS, OR BUILDING City
you are COMING FROM now? 6a. After you get off this bus, how will you get to your FINAL DESTINATION for this ONE- WAY trip? (Please only ONE) Address or Intersection (e.g., Vanderbilt Beach Rd @ Airport Pulling Rd) 1 ___ Walk 4 ___ Will be picked up 7 ___ Other (Specify) ______2 ___ Bicycle 5 ___ Ride w/ someone who parked 3 ___ Drive 6 ___ Transfer to another route (Go to Question 6b) Place, Business, or Building Name (e.g., Naples Community Hospital)
6b. If you are transferring from this bus to another bus route to complete this ONE-WAY trip, what bus route(s) will you transfer TO? (Please list in order) City Please list all bus routes: ______, ______, ______, ______
3a. How did you get to the bus stop for this ONE-WAY trip? (Please only ONE) 7. How long have you been using CAT bus service? 1 ___ Walked 4 ___ Was dropped off 7 ___ Other (Specify) ______2 ___ Bicycled 5 ___ Rode w/ someone who parked 1 ___ First-time rider (Skip to Q10) 3 ___6 months to less than a year 5 ___ 2 to 5 years 3 ___ Drove & parked 6 ___ Transferred from another route (Go to Question 3b) 2 ___ Less than 6 months 4 ___1 to less than 2 years 6 ___ More than 5 years
3b. If you transferred to this bus from another route during this ONE-WAY trip, what route(s) did you transfer FROM? (Please list in order) 8. How many days a week do you ride the bus? (Please only ONE)
1 ___ 1 day 3 ___ 3 days 5 ___ 5 days 7___ Once a month or less Please list all bus routes: ______, ______, ______, ______2 ___ 2 days 4 ___ 4 days 6 ___ 6 days 8___ Once every____weeks
PLEASE CONTINUE ON BACK OF SURVEY 9. During a typical week, how often do you make the one-way bus trip you are on now? 17. What is your gender? 1 ___ Male 2 ___ Female
1 ___ 1 day 3 ___ 3 days 5 ___ 5 days 7___ Less than once a week 18. What is your race or ethnic heritage? (Please only ONE) 2 ___ 2 days 4 ___ 4 days 6 ___ 6 days 1 ___ White 2 ___ Black 3 ___ Hispanic 4 ___ Asian 5 ___ Other______10. How would you make this one-way trip if not by bus? (Please only ONE) 19. What was the range of your TOTAL household income for 2009? 1 ___ Drive 3 ___ Wouldn’t make trip 5 ___ Walk 7____ Other (Specify)______2 ___ Ride with someone 4 ___ Bicycle 6 ___ Moped/Scooter 1 ___Under $10,000 4 ___$30,000 to $39,999 7 ___ Do not Work 2 ___$10,000 to $19,999 5 ___$40,000 to $49,999 11. What type of fare did you pay when you boarded this bus? (Please only ONE) 3 ___$20,000 to $29,999 6 ___$50,000 or more
1 ___ Full Fare ($1.50) 6 ___ Weekly Pass ($15.00/$7.50) 20. How many working cars, vans, and/or light trucks are available in your household? 2 ___ Half Fare ($0.75) 7 ___ Monthly Pass ($35.00/$17.50) 3 ___ Token ($1.50/$0.75) 8 ___ Express Full Fare ($2.50/$1.25) 1 ___ 0 vehicles 2 ___ 1 vehicle 3 ___ 2 or more vehicles 4 ___ Transfer ($0.75/$0.35) 9 ___ Express Monthly Pass ($70.00/$35.00) 5 ___ Day Pass ($4.00/$2.00) 10 ___ Other (Specify) 21. How many licensed drivers are in your household, including yourself?
1 ___ Zero 2 ___ One 3 ___ Two 4___ Three or more 12. Compared to other transportation alternatives available to you, what is the MOST 22. What is your home zip code? ______IMPORTANT reason you ride the bus? (Please only ONE)
1 ___ I prefer CAT to other alternatives 5 ___ CAT is more convenient 7 ___ I do not drive 23. Please tell us about today’s bus ride. Circle a score to reflect your opinion about each 2 ___ Car is not available all the time 6 ___ Parking is too expensive/difficult 8 ___ I do not have a car characteristic. 3 ___ CAT fits my budget better 7 ___ Do not have valid driver license 9 ___ Other ______4 ___ Traffic congestion 8 _____ Bus is more environmentally friendly Very Very Poor Poor Fair Good Good 13. Which of the following improvement(s) do you think are most important? (Check all that apply) How often the buses run on this route? 1 2 3 4 5
1 ___ More benches and shelters at bus stops 4 ___ Earlier service on existing routes How courteous was the Bus Operator during your trip? 1 2 3 4 5 2 ___ Bus service to new areas 5 ___ Later service on existing routes 3 ___ Express (limited stop) service on the following 6 ___ More frequent service on existing routes How directly does this route go to your destination? 1 2 3 4 5 road(s) (Specify) ______7 ___ Other (Specify)______How is the length of time your trip takes? 1 2 3 4 5 14. If CAT provided “premium” express (limited stop) bus service, would you use that service? How on-time is this bus running today? 1 2 3 4 5
1 ___ Yes 2 ___ No 3 ___ Maybe How safe did you feel today while waiting for the bus? 1 2 3 4 5 15. How do you prefer to receive information about CAT service, schedules, and changes? How was the shade or shelter where you waited? 1 2 3 4 5
1 ___ CAT website 4 ___ Library 7 ___ In bus How clean was the bus today? 1 2 3 4 5 2 ___ Newspaper 5 ___ Paper bus schedules 8 ___ CAT Email 3 ___ At bus stop 6 ___ Phone Your overall satisfaction with CAT? 1 2 3 4 5
16. Your age is….
1 ___ 17 or under 3 ___ 25 to 34 5 ___ 45 to 54 7 ___ 65 to 74 THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY! 2 ___ 18 to 24 4 ___ 35 to 44 6 ___ 55 to 64 8 ___ Over 74 Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (Work Trips) Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Female Ethic Origin Hispanic Age 18-24 Annual Household Income Under $10k Regular CAT user Yes
Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (School Trips) Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Male Ethic Origin Hispanic Age 17-24 Annual Household Income Does not work Regular CAT user Yes
Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (College Trips) Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Male Ethic Origin Black Age 17 or under Annual Household Income Does not work Regular CAT user Yes
Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (Recreation Trips) Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Male Ethic Origin Hispanic Age 18-34 Annual Household Income Under $10k Regular CAT user No
Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (Shopping/Errands Trips)
Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Male Ethic Origin Hispanic Age 35-44 Annual Household Income Under $10k Regular CAT user No
Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (Medical Trips) Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Female Ethic Origin Hispanic Age 35-54 Annual Household Income Under $10k Regular CAT user Yes
Average CAT Bus Rider 2010 (Other Trips) Category Average Rider Demographic
Gender Female Ethic Origin White Age 25-34 Annual Household Income $10k-$19k Regular CAT user Yes
Appendix G
Alternative Fuels and Smaller Vehicle Assessment
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 G-1 Transit Development Plan PROS/CONS OF USING ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND SMALLER VEHICLES
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Evaluation
In an effort to reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, transit agencies throughout the United States are looking to incorporate alternative fuel technology into their fleet. The most common alternative fuel options available today include compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel (ultra-low sulfur diesel and B20), and hybrid-electric buses.
CNG - These buses run entirely on compressed natural gas but have limited driving range, questionable reliability, and are not fuel-efficient. Several CNG buses are in use today, but some agencies are reluctant to convert to CNG buses due to the complete infrastructure overhaul required to fuel, service, and store the buses. Research shows that CNG buses yield lower emissions than diesel buses, but these values do not necessarily justify the choice of natural gas. While the initial capital expenditure for a CNG buses is only about $50,000 more than a conventional diesel bus, operating and maintenance costs are significantly higher, indicating that the initial capital cost incurred is never recovered over the life cycle of the vehicle.
Biodiesel - Buses that run off biodiesel are very clean (low emissions) and easily integrate into the current infrastructure; however, cost and availability of biodiesel has prevented the technology from expanding. Biodiesel is essentially a form of “clean” diesel and does not offer increased fuel efficiency or noise reduction. Along with costs, certain properties of biodiesel (low/high temperature operability) have also turned fleet managers away from committing to biodiesel.
Hybrid-Electric - Hybrid-electric buses include a conventional diesel engine and a battery-powered electric drive system. Hybrid buses have exhibited greater fuel efficiency and lower emissions than a conventional diesel bus, but are also more expensive to purchase. Hybrid-electric has emerged as the most popular choice among transit agencies looking to transition to alternative fuel immediately and has a promising future as technology improves.
Among the common alternative fuel options available today, transit agencies have begun to favor hybrid-electric buses and have started to integrate them into their existing transit fleets. Based on alternative fuel research, the benefits of hybrid-electric technology outweigh the additional capital costs and make integration of these buses into the current
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 1
fleet relatively simple. Hybrid-electric buses are comparable to or better than the CNG and biodiesel options when it comes to fuel efficiency and emissions and can offer other benefits that the other options cannot provide.
As shown in Figure 9-1, the total lifecycle cost of hybrid-electrics is currently higher than that of a conventional diesel bus, but savings in fuel and maintenance help to balance the difference. Over the 12-year lifecycle of a hybrid bus, much of the increased capital expenditure that is incurred as part of vehicle acquisition can be recovered through savings in fuel purchases. As diesel fuel prices increase, the savings from using a hybrid-electric bus increases when compared to a conventional diesel engine. Savings in maintenance and operating costs also help offset the greater initial capital expenditure and with mass production and continued technological advances, the initial capital expenditure for a hybrid bus should be more comparable to a diesel bus over time. Even with higher costs for hybrid buses, many cities, such as Manhattan and Seattle, have successfully implemented hybrid technology and many more are following the trend.
Figure 9-1 also illustrates the lifecycle cost of a hybrid bus when purchased at a discounted price. The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) has estimated that the initial capital expenditure to purchase a hybrid-electric bus would be significantly lower if demand was high and bus suppliers were to mass produce the energy storage, hybrid propulsion systems, and ultra capacitors. As shown in Figure 9-1, hybrid buses purchased at the lower price (CCI negotiated price) would be able to recoup the difference in the initial capital expenditure over the life of the bus, making them less expensive than a conventional diesel bus. Based on future diesel fuel prices, it could between 6 and 12 years for the hybrid-bus to recover the capital cost.
It is important to note that many European countries have implemented hybrid-technology and have realized lower capital costs (as low as $410,000). While the United States does not benefit from global competition based on transit trade policy, the success of hybrids overseas proved that they are a feasible alternative and that capital costs have the potential to decrease over time.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 2
Figure 9-1 Series Hybrid Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($000)
Fuel Incremental Incremental capital cost capital cost Maintenance CCI Negotiated Price cannot be recovered by Fuel Price/Payback Sensitivity* Cap. Ex. recovered year 8-9 $1,800 Total 12-Year Fuel Cost Years to Fuel Price Diesel Hybrid Payback $1,578 (CCI Price) $1,600 $1,544 ($000) ($000) $1,518 $2.00 N/A $2.50 $295 $232 11-12 $1,400 $326 $326 $3.00 $354 $279 10-11 $413 $3.50 $413 $326 8-9 $1,200 $4.00 $472 $372 7-8 $4.50 $531 $419 6-7 *Includes cost savings through maintenance cost reduction $1,000 $752 Full Price $800 $752 Fuel Price/Payback Sensitivity* $781 Total 12-Year Fuel Cost Years to Fuel Price Diesel Hybrid $600 Payback
Cost ($000 Dollars) ($000) ($000) $2.00 N/A $400 $2.50 $295 $232 N/A $3.00 $354 $279 N/A $500 $440 $200 $350 $3.50 $413 $326 N/A $4.00 $472 $372 N/A $0 $4.50 $531 $419 N/A *Includes cost savings through maintenance cost reduction Conventional Diesel Series-Hybrid Series-Hybrid (Current bus price) (CCI negotiated price) Bus Model
Source: Clinton Climate Initiative: The Case for Hybrid Buses – Presentation to FPTA (June 2008)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 3
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 4
Focus on Hybrid-Electric Buses
As shown in the literature review, hybrid-electric buses emerge as the most widely- used and cost-effective alternative fuel technology. A hybrid-electric bus is one that combines an electric propulsion system with a conventional diesel engine, a turbine, or a fuel stack. The hybrid system allows the engine to operate more efficiently by splitting the power demands between the engine and the batteries. Hybrid-electric bus purchases have shown a dramatic increase in recent years, and several hundred more are expected to be integrated into bus fleets throughout the country. Figure 9-2 presents an image of a hybrid bus.
Figure 9-2 Hybrid Transit Bus
While hybrid-electric buses offer many incentives to transit agencies, many factors need to be analyzed before the transition to new technology takes place. A listing of the pros and cons of hybrid-electric buses is presented below.
Pros o The “carbon footprint” is reduced in terms of improved air quality (minimize effects of pollution and emission of smog-forming nitrogen oxides). o Operating cost savings associated with greater fuel efficiency, ranging from 10% to 50%, are seen, depending on the size of the fleet and location of the transit system.1 o Regenerative braking systems on many hybrid buses allow energy to be stored in batteries that would otherwise be lost as heat energy for braking. The brake systems also have significantly lower maintenance costs than diesel bus brakes. o Buses have less engine noise and quicker acceleration than conventional diesel buses.
1 U.S. Department of Transportation, “Analysis of Electric Drive Technologies for Transit Applications: Battery-Electric, Hybrid-Electric, and Fuel Cells,” August 2005.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 5
o Buses have “clean” appeal to customers that will help attract new patrons and please existing riders. o Gasoline hybrids can achieve the extra torque that is needed for buses while minimizing emissions and eliminating the need for diesel fuel. o Buses are easy to adapt into the fleet; no additional training or maintenance equipment is required for diesel hybrids.2 o New floor design makes for easier access, and shorter loading and debarking times. o Hybrid engines are a step in the right direction for the ultimate goal of producing a fuel cell engine. o As EPA emissions certifications and engine regulations are updated to reflect the new technology, smaller diesel engines can be used to maximize the benefits of hybrid buses and the buses, will be properly credited for emissions reductions.
Cons
o Higher bus acquisition costs (premium pricing for new technology) require additional funding (Hybrid $500,000, Conventional $300,000). o Depending on the type of battery used, expensive charging/conditioning units can be required. The reconditioning process needs to occur every six months and can sideline a bus for 20 hours. o Hybrid system must be optimized based on travel terrain (i.e., freeway vs. city streets) to maximize the benefits. o Due to limited testing and the fact that no hybrid bus has completed a 12- year run (the expected lifecycle), many unknowns exist regarding the total maintenance/operating costs and emissions benefits. o Over the lifetime of a hybrid bus, the increased acquisition costs are not recouped through savings in fuel expenditures and maintenance (at the current market price). o To become commercially viable (and reduce initial capital costs) through mass production, hybrid technology will need be adopted by commercial and military truck fleets to create a high volume of demand.
SAFETEA-LU was signed by President Bush in 2005 and provides funding for alternative fuel transit buses, and establishes a tax credit for the sale of alternative fuels. There are incentives for purchasing these vehicles, with federal funding matches that are higher than conventional diesel vehicles.
2 www.hybridcenter.org. “Hybrid Transit Buses: Are They Really Green?”
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 6
Several transit agencies in Florida, including the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), have begun to incorporate alternative fuel vehicles into the transit fleet. PSTA currently runs 4 CNG buses and 10 hybrid-electric buses within a total fleet of 205 buses. PSTA also has ordered an additional 14 hybrid replacement buses using stimulus funds, which will begin rotation in 2010. Even though each bus costs more than $500,000, PSTA has chosen to adopt the hybrid-electric bus as its primary alternative fuel vehicle.
When compared to other alternative fuel vehicles (CNG, biodiesel, fuel cell, etc.), hybrid- electric diesel buses are the most commercially viable option for a transit agency in the near-term. They are a clean alternative to conventional diesel and can seamlessly utilize existing transit and fueling infrastructures. Additionally, as more advanced technology and battery systems are developed, existing hybrid buses can be updated with ease.
Pending financial feasibility, it is recommended that alternative-fueled buses be purchased as part of vehicle replacement and service expansion reflected in the TDP. It is important to note, however, that vehicle technologies are evolving rapidly and, since vehicle acquisition is likely to be several years in the future, technologies should be reassessed prior to making the investment decision at that time.
Smaller Vehicle Evaluation
While smaller transit vehicles offer many incentives to transit agencies, many factors need to be analyzed before they are widely incorporated into a fleet.
Pros
o Smaller, lighter transit vehicles are purchased to match capacity with demand on certain transit routes and are easy to maneuver on narration streets. o Smaller, light-duty transit vehicles have lower purchase prices and therefore ease the burden of identifying capital funding. o Smaller, light-duty transit vehicles tend to have less street vibration than small heavy duty transit vehicles. Street vibration is a measure of the degree to which a vehicle’s motion on a roadway leads to vibration of the road surface. As vehicle weight increases, the level of street vibration increases associated with vehicle motion. o Smaller, light-duty transit vehicles tend to be more publicly accepted, as indicated in surveys that have shown that the general public prefers
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 7
smaller, quieter, less obstructive vehicles for service going through residential areas. o Smaller light-duty transit vehicles tend to reduce legal liability. In general, the larger the vehicle, the higher the insurance premium, since the risks are greater when the number of people travelling in the vehicle is higher. o Some cutaway bus models can be acquired for approximately $50,000 per bus.
Cons o Smaller, light-duty transit vehicles provide less ride quality than larger, heavy duty transit vehicles. Ride quality generally refers to passenger comfort level while on the bus, including specific factors such as vehicle bouncing, seat structure, the degree of vehicle leaning when taking turns, and braking. o Smaller, light-duty transit vehicles tend to be less flexible across service types (fixed-route, demand-responsive, and subscription-type) since the seating configuration needs to adapt to the service types. For instance, if a smaller, light-duty transit vehicle is shifted to fixed-route service on a high-volume route, the vehicle may not have the capability to transport all patrons due to limited capacity and ADA accommodation resources onboard. o Smaller, light-duty transit vehicles do not kneel like larger, heavy-duty transit vehicles, which creates difficulty in serving the elderly. This includes issues with securing wheelchairs (tied behind the rear axle). o Surveys indicated that smaller transit vehicles had higher maintenance costs than initially anticipated and created customer service issues such as having only a single door and lacking capacity during peak hours. Other concerns citied with smaller transit vehicles included the short life cycle and operator work station ergonomics.3 o Heavy-duty small buses can cost as much as $250,000 per bus.4
3 TCRP Report 41, “Use of Small Buses in Transit Service,” 2002 Transportation Research Board 4 Transit-Research-Inspection-Procurement Services, Florida Department of Transportation
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Alternative Fuel and Smaller Vehicles 8
Appendix H
TBEST Results and Transit Improvement Details
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 H-1 Transit Development Plan 2011 Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 Annual 2016 Annual 2017 Annual 2018 Annual 2019 Annual 2020 Annual Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership ROUTE Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections
Route 1A 108,142 100,952 93,762 86,571 79,381 86,637 93,892 101,148 108,403 115,658
Route 1B 89,683 67,262 44,841 22,421 ------
Route 1C 50,629 100,492 150,354 200,217 250,079 267,354 284,628 301,903 319,177 336,452
Route 2A 96,053 110,445 124,837 139,229 153,620 158,622 163,623 168,624 173,626 178,627
Route 2B 82,353 92,603 102,853 113,104 123,354 134,262 145,170 156,078 166,986 177,894
Route 3A 143,255 165,822 188,389 210,957 233,524 239,560 245,596 251,632 257,669 263,705
Route 3B 93,699 128,655 163,611 198,568 233,524 243,091 252,658 262,225 271,793 281,360
Route 4A 71,513 76,002 80,491 84,980 89,470 91,993 94,517 97,040 99,564 102,088
Route 4B 52,943 56,552 60,161 63,770 67,380 69,135 70,890 72,646 74,401 76,157
Route 5 71,923 99,304 126,684 154,064 181,445 200,838 220,230 239,623 259,016 278,409
Route 6 51,656 95,197 138,737 182,278 225,819 236,905 247,992 259,078 270,164 281,250
Route 7 Marco Island Circulator 39,085 37,556 36,027 34,499 32,970 40,886 48,802 56,719 64,635 72,551
Route 7 Express 11,928 13,256 14,584 15,913 17,241 41,229 65,218 89,206 113,194 137,183
Route 8A Immokalee 52,029 78,879 105,729 132,579 159,429 168,478 177,526 186,575 195,624 204,672
Route 8B Immokalee 41,084 69,188 97,292 125,396 153,500 162,228 170,956 179,684 188,412 197,140
Route 9 75,638 81,567 87,496 93,425 99,354 102,290 105,226 108,162 111,098 114,034
Collier-Lee County Connection - 98,236 196,472 294,708 392,944 413,347 433,749 454,152 474,555 494,957
Immokalee Road to Beaches Route - - - 56,835 113,670 123,583 133,495 143,408 153,320 163,233
Pine Ridge Road Route - - - - - 29,420 58,839 88,259 117,679 147,098
Downtown Circulator Naples - - - - - 20,876 37,576 54,277 70,977 83,503
Golden Gate Parkway Route ------40,222 80,444 120,665 160,887
Livingston Road Route ------36,493 72,987 109,480 145,974
Government Center to SWFLIA ------131,986 263,972 395,958
Immokalee to Lehigh Acres Route ------49,646 99,292
City of Everglades Route ------192,676
TOTAL 1,131,611 1,471,966 1,812,322 2,209,513 2,606,703 2,830,732 3,127,301 3,555,856 4,034,056 4,700,758 1. According to Florida law, TBEST is the FDOT-approved model for transit ridership forecasting as part of Transit Development Plans in Florida. However, it is important to understand that TBEST is just one tool for evaluating improvements to existing and future transit services. 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 for various transit network scenarios. As a result, the analyst should use caution and professional judgment when considering the absolute ridership projections resulting from the TBEST model. TBEST continues to be a work in progress and will become more and more useful as its limitations are addressed in future updates to the mode. Implementation Year Alternative Location Frequency Days of Service
2012 Collier-Lee County Connection Route extending from the Government Center along US 41 into Lee County (just near the Lee County line). 1 hour Monday-Sunday
2012 Park-and-ride lot near US 41 and the Lee County line N/A N/A
2013 Improved frequency on the Immokalee Circulator Add additional bus to the Circulator. 45 minutes Monday-Saturday Realign Route 5 to go from Immokalee Rd, east on Oil Well, north on Camp Keais Road, stopping in Ave Maria, and continuing on 2013 Realign Blue Route (Route 5)to stop in Ave Maria Immokalee Rd. 90 minutes Monday-Sunday
Routes 1A and 1C (Red Routes) will be split into two routes that meet up at a new intermodal passenger center at Pine Ridge Road and 2014 Split the Red Routes into two loops with transfer center Goodlette-Frank Road. The routes will make 2 continuous loops, which will eliminate Route 1B. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
2014 Improved frequency of 45 minutes or better on all fixed routes, as feasible 45 minutes
2014 Route to the beach along Immokalee Road Route along Immokalee Road from CR 951 to Gulf Shore Drive. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
2015 Route along Golden Gate Parkway Route along Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara to Tamiami Trail. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
2016 Route along Pine Ridge Road Route along Pine Ridge Road from Collier Boulevard to Tamiami Trail. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
Route from US 41 (5th Ave) & Goodlette-Frank Road, west on 5th Ave to Gulfshore Blvd, south to Broad Ave, east to 8th Street, north to 2016 City of Naples Downtown Transit Loop Central, east to Goodlette-Frank Road, and south to 5th Ave. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
2016 Sunday Service on the Immokalee Circulator 45 minutes Addition of Sunday
2016 Extend operating hours until 10 p.m. on all existing routes Monday-Sunday
2017 Route along Livingston Road Route along Livingston Road from Radio Road to Immokalee Road. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
Flex-route circulator with a 5-mile radius from the Golden Gate Community Center at Golden Gate Pkwy and Sunshine Blvd. The 2017 Golden Gates Estates Flex-Route Circulator Community Center will be the only fixed stop for the circulator and it will meet up on the hour. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
2017 Park-and-ride lot at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road
2017 Park-and-ride at Immokalee Road and Gulf Shore Drive
From the Government Center north on Airport-Pulling Rd, east on Davis Blvd, north on Santa Barbara Blvd to I-75, and north on I-75 to 2018 Express Route from the Government Complex to SWFL Airport in Fort Myers the SWFL Airport in Ft. Myers. 45 minutes Monday-Sunday
2018 Park-and-ride lot near I-75 and the Lee County line
The express route will operate from Immokalee to Marco Island with additional times and a realignment to stop at the CAT Operations Facility on Radio Road. The route will leave Immokalee heading to Marco Island at 6am, 9am, 12pm, 3pm, and 6pm and leave Marco 2019 All day express route from Immokalee to Marco Island Island at 7:30pm to make a final stop in Immokalee. Monday-Sunday
2019 Route connecting Immokalee with Lehigh Acres Route from Immokalee, north on 29, and west on Immokalee Road (82) to Lehigh Acres. 1 hour Monday-Sunday 45 minutes or 2019 Add an additional Marco Island Circulator to improve frequency better Monday-Sunday
2020 Route connecting Everglades City to the Government Complex Transfer Center Route from the Government Center to Everglades City going south on US 41. 1 hour Monday-Sunday
2020 Everglades City Flex-Route Circulator Flex-route circulator within Everglades City to US 41. N/A Monday-Sunday 1. The alternatives identified are subject to the availability of funding. If alternative revenue sources are identified for the implementation of any alternative regardless of the implementation year identified in this table, that alternative may be advanced for implementation in an earlier year.
Appendix I
CAT Farebox Recovery Ratio Report
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 I-1 Transit Development Plan
ANNUAL FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO REPORT – 2010 CAT – FIXED-ROUTE SYSTEM, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CURRENT FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO
The farebox recovery ratio for Collier Area Transit (CAT), the public transportation provider for Collier County, was 19 percent in FY 2009. The background with regards to the farebox recovery ratio includes the following:
PRIOR YEAR FARE STUDIES AND CHANGES
The Board of County Commissioners approved fare changes to the base passenger fare in December 2008, with a March 1, 2009 implementation date. The base passenger fare increased 20 percent in FY 2009 from $1.25 to $1.50. Also, effective March 1, 2009, CAT introduced a weekly pass and implemented a $0.75 transfer fee for full base fares and $0.35 for reduced fares. The weekly pass is $15.00 for full fare and $7.50 for the reduced fare. Prior to March 1, 2009, riders received one free transfer with each paid fare.
While the County recognized that some initial ridership reduction typically occurs with fare increases, this was felt to be temporary, and total fare receipts would increase with the changes in fares.
PROPOSED FARE CHANGES FOR THE UPCOMING YEARS
At this time, no additional fare changes are anticipated in FY 2010. The existing fare structure should be examined bi-annually to evaluate the need for fare changes due to increased expenditures.
STRATEGIES THAT WILL AFFECT THE FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO
The FY 2011-2020 TDP Major Update identifies several strategies that will be used to maintain or increase the farebox recovery ratio, including the following:
. Increase ridership through the implementation of a marketing program to attract choice riders . Ensure that transit serves major employers and activity centers . Conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) to assess the efficiency of the existing fixed-route system and determine the most cost-effective service type on all major corridors, given demand, routings, and coverage areas . Provide local employers with incentives for transit use . Improve the existing schedule to attract new riders . Monitor key performance measures for individual fixed routes . Conduct an bi-annual assessment on increasing the charge for bus fares and bring to the Board of County Commissioners for further consideration . Increase ridership by continuing to transition transportation disadvantaged services patrons to the fixed-route system . Improve frequencies on the fixed-route system to attract new riders . Review the existing on-street transfer policy to improve efficiency . Ensure that bus passes can be purchased at locations that are convenient to the riders . Set a goal to increase farebox recovery and have staff commit to achieving the goal through a suggestion program that encourages more efficient ways to provide service
Appendix J
Collier County BoCC TDP Approval
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier Area Transit August 2010 J-1 Transit Development Plan
14 Recommendation to accept from the Federal Transit Administration the Final Report for the FY201 0 Triennial Review of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Collier Area Transit A review that evaluates grant management practices and program implementation conducted every 3 years
15 Recommendation to approve a Work Order for Shoulder Improvement project to Better Roads Inc for Immoka1ee Road CR 846 west of Camp Keais Rd for approximately two miles in the amount of 212 270 84 Contract No 09 5197
16 Recommendation to approve one 1 Adopt A Road Program Agreement with two 2 roadway recognition signs at a total cost of 150 With E M Transportation Services for Randall Blvd heading one mile west from Everglades Blvd
17 Recommendation to approve an extension of a coordination agreement between Collier County as Community Transportation Coordinator CTC and Eden Institute Inc for the provision of community transportation services to transportation disadvantaged clients Extending the termination date of the agreement to May 26 2012
18 Recommendation to approve the FY 2011 2020 Collier County Transit Development Plan TOP Ten Year Major Update Required to receive State Block Grant Funds for systems operations
19 Recommendation to approve the 2010 Urban And Community Forestry Grant Program Bid Number RFP DF 09l0 59 grant agreement in the amount of 24 500 to acquire pen tablet computers update the existing tree inventory and train staff recommend that the Chairman enter into a Resolution and Maintenance Agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry Resolution 2010 132
Page 13 July 27 28 2010