Heartland Rural Mobility Plan Update

Prepared for: The Florida Department of Transportation

Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, Florida 33620

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Background and Purpose ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Chapter 2: Original HRMP Plan Recap ...... 3 Strategy, Goals and Objectives ...... 3 Public Participation Plan ...... 3 Findings ...... 4 Future Steps ...... 5 Chapter 3: Socio-Economic Data and Trends Heartland Demographic Trends ...... 7 Chapter 4: Existing Services ...... 13 Transportation Disadvantaged Services ...... 13 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plans ...... 13 Community Transportation Coordinators ...... 13 DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit ...... 13 ClewBelle Community Bus Route...... 13 Commuter Assistance ...... 14 Inter-County / Inter-Region Services ...... 14 Health, Education, and Other Programs ...... 14 Chapter 5: Update Plan Analysis ...... 16 Introduction ...... 16 Mobility Options ...... 16 Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, and Threats ...... 19 Strengths ...... 20 Challenges ...... 20 Opportunities ...... 20 Threats ...... 21 Goals 21 Urban Transportation Development Plan Goals ...... 21 Rural Transportation Development Plan Goals ...... 21 Coordinated Systems & Mobility Management Strategies ...... 21 Overall Plan Strategy ...... 22 Chapter 6: Priorities and Strategies ...... 24

Page | ii

Introduction ...... 24 Priorities ...... 24 Relationships and Coordination ...... 24 Services ...... 25 DeSoto County ...... 26 Glades County ...... 26 Hardee County ...... 27 Hendry County ...... 27 Highlands County ...... 28 Okeechobee County ...... 29 Funding ...... 29 Community Transportation Coordinator Funding (2017) ...... 33 DeSoto County ...... 34 Glades County ...... 34 Hardee County ...... 35 Hendry County ...... 35 Highlands County ...... 36 Okeechobee County ...... 36 Other Funding Opportunities ...... 36 Heartland Rural Mobility Plan Strategies ...... 37 Strategy I Maintain A Pronounced Mobility Management Approach In Coordinating Rural Transportation Services Emphasizing Customer Characteristics, Needs And Communication Outreach...... 37 Strategy II Support An On-Going Coordination Of Rural Public Transportation Planning To Maintain and Enhance Mobility Services ...... 38 Strategy III Establish A Rural Public Transportation Project Development Program Utilizing Service Concepts In The HRMP ...... 38 Strategy IV Develop a Technical Assistance and Project Management Program for Rural Transportation Services Maintenance and Implementation ...... 40 Appendix A: Mobility Advisory Committee Membership ...... 1 Appendix B: Heartland County Demographic Data and Trends ...... 1 Appendix C: Mobility Options ...... 1

Page | iii

List of Figures

Chapter 1

Figure 1-1. Heartland Region ...... 2

Chapter 2

Figure 2-1. HRMP Pilot Projects ...... 5

Chapter 3

Figure 3-1. County Population Change - 2010-2015 ...... 7 Figure 3-2. County Population Change by Age Groups - 2010-2015 ...... 8 Figure 3-3. Percent Population Below Poverty - 2010-2015 ...... 9 Figure 3-3. Percent Population Below Poverty - 2010-2015 ...... 9 Figure 3-4. Total Jobs in Heartland Region - 2004-2015 ...... 10 Figure 3-5. Monthly Income for Heartland Region Jobs - 2004-2015 ...... 11 Figure 3-6. In and Out Flow of Workers by County ...... 11 Chapter 4

No Figures

Chapter 5

Figure 5-1. SR 80 Corridor: Extension of the ClewBelle Community Bus Route ...... 17 Figure 5-2. Inter-Regional Service ...... 18 Figure 5-3. US 27 Corridor Options ...... 19

Chapter 6

Figure 6-1. Mobility Management Relationships ...... 25 Figure 6-2. HRTPO / CFRPC ...... 38

Page | iv

List of Tables

Chapter 1

No tables

Chapter 2

Table 2-1. HRMP Pilot Project Descriptions ...... 6

Chapter 3

Table 3-1. Population Change Forecasts by Age Group - 2010-2045 ...... 7 Table 3-2. Median Income Change by County - 2010-2015 ...... 9 Table 3-3. Population Below Poverty Changes - 2012-2015 ...... 10 Table 3-4. In and Out Flow of Workers By County ...... 12

Chapter 4

No tables

Chapter 5

No tables

Chapter 6

No tables

Page | v

Chapter 1: Background and Purpose

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District One Office of Modal Development has contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida to revisit the 2009 Heartland Rural Mobility Plan (HRMP) report. This update’s purpose was:

• To document the changes and progress that has occurred since the completion of the HRMP; • To conduct a review and assessment of the HRMP; • To engage with the Central Florida Regional Planning Council for local government and public involvement efforts; and, • To prepare an updated HRMP document.

This project was accomplished in cooperation and collaboration with FDOT District One and Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) staff, as well as the involved parties in the Heartland Regional Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO).

Utilization of the HRTPO mobility planning structure will provide or a coordinated planning approach and will provide the ongoing structure for project review, monitoring, programming and long term planning for the Heartland region.

This plan update effort was supported by the Heartland Rural Transportation Planning Organization’s (HRTPOs) Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC), an ad hoc committee formed to provide reaction and input to the project team. The members of the MAC are listed in Appendix A.

Through this planning effort, the FDOT’s intent is to gain a better understanding of the mobility needs for the six county Heartland region, to develop candidate approaches and projects to address the findings, and to assist with the prioritization of funding resources.

The project’s focus was on the mobility needs of the six counties comprising the Heartland region (Figure 1-1).

Background

In the 2007-2009 timeframe, the Florida Department of Transportation District One Modal Development Office partnered with the Florida Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative, Inc. (FHREDI) to develop an overall mobility improvement process for the six counties and four communities included in the FHREDI region, commonly referred to as the Heartland region.

The original HRMP, issued in July 2009, was the product of this cooperative effort and detailed a comprehensive planning effort that:

Page | 1 • Outlined a strategic approach to provide mobility services to Heartland region residents; • Provided a sound business foundation for mobility services in the Heartland region; • Identified mobility service concepts based upon a needs analysis that included significant public outreach and participation; • Recommended a finance plan for new Heartland mobility services; and, • Met the requirements of Section 341.071, Florida Statutes, regarding transportation development plans, to enable access to all potential funding from federal, state and local sources.

Page | 2 Chapter 2: Original HRMP Plan Recap

The original Heartland Rural Mobility Plan (HRMP) was designed to identify and address the mobility challenges within a six-county rural area in south central Florida designated as a “Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern.” The HRMP study area included the six counties and four communities included in the region. These jurisdictions include DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties and the communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay in Palm Beach County and Immokalee in Collier County. The study area encompasses more than 5,000 square miles and includes approximately 300,000 people.

Strategy, Goals and Objectives

The HRMP was a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional planning effort designed to meet the requirements for the development of a Transit Development Plan established in Section 347, Florida Statutes, which is normally an urban transportation work effort. The HRMP development strategy included:

• Significant public participation and outreach; • An approach that would examine, address, and respond to the mobility needs of the area with a focus on economic development and land use choices; • A sound business foundation for a resulting mobility program; • A finance and implementation plan; and, • Options for a governing structure that could include the establishment of a regional mobility entity such as a regional transit organization. At the onset of the effort, goals and objectives were developed to serve as the guide for the development and evaluation of mobility options for the region. The identification of these goals and objectives for the Heartland region was a fundamental step in the development of the plan. The HRMP goals and supporting objectives were developed around five major themes:

• Promoting mobility within the Heartland region; • Supporting the Heartland Region’s economic development opportunities; • Providing coordination between the Heartland region’s land use development and the promotion of smart growth; • Promoting mobility from the Heartland region to regional destinations (to include major urbanized areas); and • Coordinating regional mobility governance, planning, and funding. Public Participation Plan

The HRMP effort employed an extensive public involvement program to inform the public and local decision-makers about the plan development process, as well as to foster consensus throughout the large Heartland study area. The public participation plan program included several public involvement techniques to ensure the active participation of citizens in the

Page | 3 community including direct involvement (engaging the public with “hands-on” workshops or other discussion venues) and information distribution (distributing materials that are used to inform the general public of issues regarding the project).

Direct involvement techniques included agency coordination meetings, HRMP steering committee meetings, a presentation kit and materials, public workshops, discussion groups, public hearings, presentations and coordination with elected and policy boards, and surveys, comment cards, and citizen feedback.

Information distribution techniques included newsletters, e-mail updates, and a project web site.

Findings

The uniqueness of this study was the focus on public transportation coordinated an economically depressed rural region. The study resulted in 12 recommendations within five core service areas, including low income/employee needs, mobility options for seniors, mobility planning, marketing services, and land use and development. A summary of the 12 recommended Pilot Projects are presented in Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1.

As the study progressed, it became apparent that no single mobility option or institutional arrangement would effectively address all the mobility needs of the area. The diversity and geographic layout of the Heartland region presented a wide variety of transportation and mobility needs. This resulted in a plan that identifies a series of potential mobility alternatives that could be pursued to address these needs, including:

• Exploring the feasibility of the application of a limited number of major travel corridor fixed routes, route deviation concepts to maximize geographical coverage, or circulator transit services to serve local city and activity areas; • Using and building upon the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged structure administered by Community Transportation Coordinators serving each of the counties in the Heartland region; • Promoting the FDOT Commuter Assistance Program that encourages the formation of carpools and vanpools and other transportation demand strategies; • Seeking ways to encourage the return or replacement of inter-city transportation services, such as Greyhound or Amtrak, which have been reduced or withdrawn from the Heartland region in recent years; • Encouraging the development and coordination of volunteer mobility services; • Expanding and coordinating inter-county and regional mobility alternatives to address Transportation Disadvantaged, medical, veterans’ services, and other essential transportation needs to provide access to required services; • Pursuing additional ‘mobile service delivery’ options to eliminate or minimize the need for transportation;

Page | 4 • Developing programs that support community taxi services through subsidized travel vouchers and other innovative programs; and • Establishing a regional mobility coordinator structure/organization. Future Steps

The final recommendation of the reports was to identify a “Mobility Working Group” that would provide the forum to:

• Formulate implementation strategies • Pursue additional federal, state, and local funding • Establish a coordinated, regional process • Identify and implement pilot projects as some preliminary pilot projects were identified (see figure 2-1) • Continue to identify and evaluate options for meeting the mobility needs of the region’s residents and visitors.

Figure 2-1. HRMP Pilot Projects 2009

Page | 5

Table 2-1. HRMP Pilot Project Descriptions

Maintain Existing Lake Region Commuter Services (SR 80 Corridor- Clewiston in 1 Hendry County to Belle Glade in Palm Beach County)

2 US 17 Corridor Transit Service (Bowling Green to Zolfo Springs in Hardee County)

3 US 27 Corridor Transit Service (Avon Park to Lake Placid in Highlands County)

4 US 17 and US 27 Connector Transit Service (Hardee County to Highlands County)

SR 80 Corridor Transit Service (LaBelle to Clewiston in Hendry County with Deviation 5 to Moore Haven in Glades County)

6 Sebring Circulator (Highlands County)

7 City of Okeechobee Circulator (Okeechobee County)

8 Arcadia Circulator (DeSoto County)

9 Clewiston Circulator (Hendry County)

10 Intercity Bus Service Expansions and Enhancements

11 Support and Foster FDOT Commuter Services Program

12 Maintain and Enhance Paratransit Services and Transportation Disadvantages Services

Page | 6

Chapter 3: Socio-Economic Data and Trends Heartland Demographic Trends

This section examines the demographic and employment characteristics for the Heartland region. The population, economic and employment trends for each county and the region were examined using data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 2015 data, the Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, and data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. The examination of the economic and population activity of the region reveals potential public transportation markets. A more detailed county-level examination can be found in Appendix B.

In the past five years, the overall population growth trend has slowed with several counties losing population since 2010 and only Glades and DeSoto County experiencing population growth since 2010. In spite of this recent trend, analysis by BEBR predicts population growth of 16.7% with nearly 60,000 more people from 2015, to near 410,000 in 2045.

6.0% Percent Population Change 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% -3.0% DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee

Figure 3-1. County Population Change - 2010-2015

Table 3-1. Population Change Forecasts by Age Group - 2010-2045

Age Group 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 0 – 17 21.3% 20.5% 20.0% 19.6% 19.2% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 18 – 44 30.1% 29.3% 28.4% 28.2% 27.8% 27.3% 26.7% 26.6% 45-64 24.2% 24.3% 24.3% 23.1% 21.9% 21.7% 22.1% 22.3% 65-85 21.7% 22.6% 23.4% 24.9% 26.3% 26.7% 26.4% 25.5% Over 85 2.7% 3.2% 3.8% 4.2% 4.8% 5.3% 5.9% 6.8% Total 351,221 349,959 369,041 381,035 390,485 398,028 404,158 409,942 A closer examination of age characteristics clarifies demographic trends that affect transportation demand for the region. More specifically, because of the reduced access to personal vehicles, the youth and senior market have higher demand for public transportation services. Further, due to the significant influence, employment has on transportation demand; the working-age population segment represents another public transportation market. According to projections produced by BEBR, the Heartland region is getting older, with the

Page | 7

percentage of the population older than 65 expected to represent 32.3% of the region’s population by 2045. Conversely, the population under age 18 is becoming a smaller proportion of the Heartland’s population. The youth is projected to decrease by 1.8% to 18.7%. Additionally, the working age population (18-64) for the region will decrease 4.7% by 2045. These trends may effects the region’s economic well-being as well as the demand for transportation.

Figure 3-2. County Population Change by Age Groups - 2010-2015

Accompanying the population trends are economic and employment conditions that similarly influence transportation needs. An examination of median income levels, poverty levels and employment conditions begin to define transportation markets and alternatives.

The median income of the region is lower than the statewide median of $47,507 to varying degrees throughout the Heartland region. More significantly, since 2010 the median income for all but Highlands County has decreased with Glades, Okeechobee and Hardee experiencing a reduction greater than 5%. Portions of the Heartland region with lower median incomes may benefit most from the availability of public transportation services. These segments are identified in the county-based analysis in Appendix B.

Page | 8

Table 3-2. Median Income Change by County - 2010-2015

County Name Median Inc 2015 Median Inc 2010 Change Percent Change DeSoto County $ 35,165 $ 35,979 $ (814) -2.3% Glades County $ 34,877 $ 39,429 $ (4,552) -11.5% Hardee County $ 35,457 $ 37,466 $ (2,009) -5.4% Hendry County $ 36,771 $ 37,298 $ (527) -1.4% Highlands County $ 35,093 $ 34,946 $ 147 0.4% Okeechobee County $ 35,405 $ 38,339 $ (2,934) -7.7% Areas with higher levels of poverty have more acute transportation needs. Overall, the Heartland region’s poverty rate is higher than the State of Florida rate of 15.5%. Since 2010, DeSoto, Highlands and Okeechobee poverty rates have increased. However, Highlands has the lowest poverty rate in the region.

Figure 3-34. Percent Population Below Poverty - 2010-2015

Page | 9

Table 3-3. Population Below Poverty Changes - 2012-2015 2015 Percent Pop 2012 Percent Pop County Name Below Poverty Below Poverty DeSoto County 30.6% 26.8% Glades County 20.2% 25.3% Hardee County 27.4% 29.7% Hendry County 26.4% 28.7% Highlands County 19.4% 19.0% Okeechobee County 27.7% 27.2% The total number of jobs in the Heartland region has remained stagnate with 67,600 jobs reported in 2015 as compared to the number reported five years earlier as shown in Figure 3-4. However, since 2004 the total number of jobs in the Heartland region decreased by over 16,700. Data from the LEHD dataset reveals a changing trend of income levels in the Heartland region. Since 2004, the percentage of jobs in the Heartland region paying less than $1,250 per month decreased from 43% to 28.43% and the higher income category of greater than $3,333 per month increased from 14.7% in 2004 to 26.5% in 2015 (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-5. Total Jobs in Heartland Region - 2004-2015

Page | 10

Heartland Jobs by Monthly Income

2004

2006

2008

2010

2013

2015

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $1,250 per month or less $1,251 to $3,333 per month More than $3,333 per month

Figure 3-6. Monthly Income for Heartland Region Jobs - 2004-2015

Based on 2015 LEHD data, 58% of the workers employed in the Heartland region commute in and between Heartland counties. The remaining 42% of the workers in the Heartland region commute to counties outside the region. An examination of each county reveals the in and out commuting patterns of the region’s workers. Figure 3-6 illustrates the distribution of commuters for each county.

In and Out Flow of Workers

Heartland Totals

Okeechobee

Highlands

Hendry

Hardee

Glades

DeSoto

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Live and Work in Same County Work Outside County

Commute from Outside County

Figure 3-7. In and Out Flow of Workers by County

Page | 11

Table 3-4. In and Out Flow of Workers By County Inflow / Outflow Live and Work in Work Outside Commute from County Name Total Jobs Total Workers of Commuters Same County County Outside County DeSoto 8,681 10,724 (2,043) 3,497 7,227 5,184 Glades 2,001 3,198 (1,197) 466 2,732 1,535 Hardee 7,701 8,769 (1,068) 3,054 5,715 4,647 Hendry 11,498 13,146 (1,648) 5,339 7,807 6,159 Highlands 26,984 32,858 (5,874) 15,850 17,008 11,134 Okeechobee 10,762 12,517 (1,755) 5,266 7,251 5,496 Heartland Totals 67,627 81,212 (13,585) 33,472 47,740 34,155

The trends and demographic patterns provide a backdrop from which to recommend potential public transportation and other mobility options for the region as well as each county.

Page | 12

Chapter 4: Existing Services

This chapter identifies and describes the current transportation services available in the Heartland region.

Transportation Disadvantaged Services

The Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program is a statewide initiative to provide transportation for children at risk, seniors, persons with disabilities, and people considered low-income. The program coordinates Federal, state, and local funding sources to provide transportation to these groups for medical appointments, employment, education, and other life sustaining activities.

Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plans

Each Florida county or service region has the responsibility of accomplishing the coordination of safe, efficient, cost effective transportation services to those individuals who are considered Transportation Disadvantaged. To facilitate this, each county in coordination with the Designated Official Planning Agency, Local Coordinating Board, and Community Transportation Coordinator are tasked with the development of a Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) for each county. The TDSP is a comprehensive analysis of the service area that identifies the transportation services available and service standards.

Community Transportation Coordinators

A Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) exists in each of Florida’s 67 counties. The CTC is responsible for coordinating transportation services for people who are designated as being Transportation Disadvantaged. The CTC for DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties is MV Transportation, Inc., a private transportation contracting firm, while Glades and Hendry Counties have CTC services provided by Good Wheels, Inc., a 501(c)(3) not for profit corporation.

DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit

The DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit (DART) bus service is a flex route bus service operating in the town of Arcadia, Florida in DeSoto County. Flex route means the bus has a set route, but it will deviate up to three-quarters of a mile from the advertised path. This service, which was identified as an opportunity and possible pilot project in the 2009 Heartland Rural Mobility Plan and is operated by the DeSoto Board of County Commissioners. The service operates from 7:30 a.m. to – 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday and averages 28 riders per day.

ClewBelle Community Bus Route

The ClewBelle Community Bus Route, operated by Good Wheels, Inc., is a fixed route service that services passengers traveling between Clewiston in Hendry County and Belle Glade in Palm Beach County, where it connects to Palm Tran Routes 47 and 48. This route provides service from Clewiston to areas in Palm Beach County such as South Bay, Palm Beach State College, and

Page | 13

Big Lake Plaza. Maintaining this service was a priority in the 2009 Heartland Rural Mobility Plan and Good Wheels, Inc. is currently exploring extending the route from Clewiston to Riverdale in Lee County. The service operates from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sunday through Saturday and averages 60 passengers per day.

Commuter Assistance

Commuter Services of Southwest Florida is a program of the Florida Department of Transportation that serves the Heartland Counties. Working with businesses and governments, this program helps facilitate carpooling, vanpooling, transit options, walking and bicycling programs, emergency ride home, and initiates the establishment of park and ride lots. The program promotes company, employee, and the community benefits of mobility services

Inter-County / Inter-Region Services

Throughout the Heartland region, there are limited inter-county and inter-region transportation services. As previously described, the ClewBelle Community Bus Route operated by Good Wheels, Inc. provides service between Hendry and Palm Beach Counties, MV Transportation, Inc. contracts with several service providers in the area to provide service within and outside of DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties, and Commuter Services of Southwest Florida facilitates inter-county and inter-region transportation. While not as heavily used as they are in their urban counterparts, traditional taxicab services exist in each county as well as transportation network companies (TNCs), however, TNC service is never guaranteed, as it is reliant on independent drivers driving their own personal vehicles. Both taxicabs and TNCs such as Lyft and Uber have the ability to take the passenger to a destination in any service area. The Dr. Ella Piper Center in Lee County provides two volunteer transportation programs focused on seniors in DeSoto and Hendry Counties, which can take passengers from their home in one of these two Heartland region counties to surrounding counties.

Health, Education, and Other Programs

In each of the Heartland counties, the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged through the CTCs, provides transportation to those who are Transportation Disadvantaged. For those who do not qualify to TD services, the ClewBelle Community Bus Route provides access to Palm Beach State College and access to healthcare and other services in Palm Beach County that are not available in Hendry County. The proposed extension of this route into Lee County would make access to healthcare, such as the VA Healthcare Center, as well as adult education and alternative learning centers in Lee and Collier Counties. In addition, the American Cancer Association provides volunteer-based transportation in each of the Heartland Counties for persons seeking treatment. Good Wheels, Inc., MTM, JJ Transport, Positive Medical Transport, and Safety Transportation all provide non-emergency medical transportation in the Heartland region.

Page | 14

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

Page | 15

Chapter 5: Update Plan Analysis

Introduction

This section builds upon the previous chapters and provides an analysis of the findings of the original 2009 Heartland Rural Mobility Plan (HRMP). Additionally, input received from FDOT District One and Central Florida Regional Planning Council staff, and the Heartland Regional Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) – specifically the HRTPO’s Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC), helped shape the overall study.

Utilization of the HRTPO mobility planning structure provides for a coordinated planning approach and the ongoing structure for project review, monitoring, programming and long term planning for the Heartland region.

As previously stated, through this planning effort, the FDOT’s intent is to gain a better understanding of the mobility needs for the six county Heartland region, to develop candidate approaches and projects to address the findings, and to assist with the prioritization of funding resources.

The Heartland region comprises over 5,000 square miles in six counties including: DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee. For the 2009 Heartland Rural Mobility Plan, it was estimated there were 300,000 people living in this area. While more recent data suggests that all but two counties in the Heartland region have experienced population losses, it is still predicted the six county Heartland region population will reach 369,041 persons by 2020, an increase of 20% from 2015 forecasts and will continue to grow to 409,942 by 2045. The forecasted population trends reveal a 6.5% increase in the number of persons living past the age of 65, but a decrease of 1.8% to 18.7% in the number of people under the age of 18. For persons ages 18-64, known as the working age population, it is expected the number living in the region will decrease by 4.7% in 2045.

In addition to changes in population, there was also a drop in the median income in every county except Highlands with all six counties having poverty rates between 19% and 30%.

By taking into account the forecasted population trends where the number of residents are expected to increase, live longer, and have lower-incomes, the need for transportation services to be available grows as well. As stated in the previous chapter, access to transportation is essential for a person’s wellbeing, whether it be for work, healthcare, shopping, socializing or furthering their education.

Mobility Options

The existing mobility services currently available in the Heartland region were summarized in Chapter Four and included:

• Transportation Disadvantaged Program Service • DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit (DART) Flex Route Bus Service

Page | 16

• ClewBelle Community Bus Route • Commuter Assistance • Inter-County /- Inter-Region Services • Health, Education and Other Services It should be noted that this planning effort is focused on the rural areas of the Heartland region. Potential new fixed route and flexible transit services for the Avon Park/Sebring urbanized area of Highland County are detailed in the Highlands County Transit Development Plan.

The examination of each Heartland region county shows employment travel flows within each county. Commuter movement within the region and outside the region reveal the potential of employing commuter assistance programs to address employment travel needs.

With a few specific exceptions, traditional public transportation services do not appear to be realistic for the majority of the Heartland region. In addition to the existing DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit (DART) flex route bus service and the ClewBelle Community Bus Route previously described, the most realistic options for inter-regional and intra-regional mobility services include the following potential projects include:

• SR 80 Corridor: Extension of the ClewBelle Community Bus Route to the West Florida Coast to Provide a Connection with the LeeTran system

Figure 5-1. SR 80 Corridor: Extension of the ClewBelle Community Bus Route

Page | 17

• Inter-Regional Service Connecting Hardee and Highlands Counties via SR 64

Figure 5-2. Inter-Regional Service

Page | 18

• US 27 Corridor Options, including Sebring Lake Jackson Flex Service, Avon Park Flex Service and Sebring-Avon Park Express Service

Figure 5-3. US 27 Corridor Options

An overall strategy for the HRMP Update is a focus on addressing a comprehensive mobility management approach built around the existing Heartland Regional TPO planning initiatives and Transportation Disadvantaged Community Transportation Coordinators (CTC) services. Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, and Threats

During the second meeting of the MAC, a SCOT (Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, and Threats) exercise was conducted to focus on the member’s perceptions and thoughts on what strengths, challenges, opportunities, and threats face the Heartland region’s mobility options. This effort was followed with a discussion of the original HRMP goals, as well as the Highlands

Page | 19

County Transit Development Plan (TDP). Following is an overview of results of the SCOT exercises.

Strengths

The MAC identified four strengths of the region that attract and keep persons in the region- access to education, natural resources, recreation (noting the proximity to Lake Okeechobee), and access to healthcare.

Challenges

While strengths were identified for the area, the Heartland region is not without its challenges. The MAC members identified specialty healthcare, formalized recreation, housing, access to transportation, and senior/low-income mobility needs as weaknesses or challenges for the Heartland region.

Regarding healthcare, it is perceived by the MAC, that primary healthcare is easily accessible in the Heartland region. However, if a person needs to see a medical specialists, they typically have to travel to Tampa, Fort Myers, or West Palm Beach. While transportation services are available, the long distance of a single round-trip, creates coordination, cost, and capacity challenges.

Recreation is available, and particularly Lake Okeechobee draws people to the region. The MAC stated, with activity centers being spread further apart in the Heartland region, transportation between locations becomes more of a challenge, as a person has to coordinate their travel at a lower frequency than if they were in a more urbanized area.

Housing is always an issue for the Heartland region according to the MAC. The region experiences significant turnover in regards to high-skilled workers, such as doctors and nurses. The MAC noted that these medical professionals are living outside the region and commuting to the area only a few days a week. The challenge in regards to housing is that there is not much available for residents relocating to the area, especially housing that includes amenities and services many people look for which may present opportunities to develop regional commuter assistance services.

The last two challenges identified by the MAC are access to transportation and addressing the mobility needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income families. It is typical in a rural area for housing and needed services to be more widely dispersed which requires a higher degree of transportation service coordination which can be addressed in part through the use of improved communication technology.

Opportunities

The Heartland region has two fixed route operators, two demand response services, planning councils, mobility management operators, and commuter assistance programs that provide the base for future mobility enhancements. In an area such as the Heartland region, however, it is difficult to provide services outside the more urbanized areas of the region, particularly as it

Page | 20

relates to cost. There are some limited resources that can help fill the gaps needed to provide service to areas that may not otherwise be reachable. These resources exist in Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) trip and equipment grants, FTA/FDOT grant programs, local funding, and public/private partnerships.

Threats

The threats identified by the MAC were the region’s ability to attain new transportation funding, the limited means for rural local governments to make investments, the lack of middle to upper income housing, and the ability to address all emergency management transportation needs specifically for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Goals

The MAC reviewed the existing HRMP goals and compared these goals to the adopted goals in the Highlands County urbanized area TDP.

Urban Transportation Development Plan Goals

The following goals were created for the urbanized areas of the Heartland region: • Expand mobility choices for residents and visitors; • Create and maintain reliable and efficient public transportation systems; and • Support tourism, recreation and economic development.

Rural Transportation Development Plan Goals

For the rural area of the Heartland region, a total of six goals were created and reviewed by the MAC. • Develop and coordinate an effective multimodal public transportation system that safely and efficiently moves people within the Florida Heartland region; • Develop and coordinate mobility services and multiple systems within existing and future economic and employment development; • Promote smart growth strategies in the Heartland region's land development activities to support alternative mobility options; • Accommodate and promote mobility from the Heartland region to regional destinations; • Coordinate regional governance, planning, and funding for the Heartland region; and • Support tourism, recreation and economic development. Coordinated Systems & Mobility Management Strategies

The Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) released the guidebook, Expanding Access to Our Communities: A Guide to Successful Mobility Management Practices in Small Urban and Rural Areas. The guidebook described the following strategies for Coordinated Systems and Mobility Management Initiatives.

• Encourage innovation and flexibility to reach the ‘right fit’ solution for customers

Page | 21

• Plan for sustainability • Strive for easy information and referral to assist customers in learning and using services • Continually incorporate customer feedback as services are evaluated and adjusted • Develop partnerships between multiple agencies and organizations including taxi and other private transportation options through individualized trip planning • Create one-stop travel information and trip planning centers that provide information on available transportation options and coordinate request for transportation services. This may include operation of a central call center for customers to gain information on available transportation options and to schedule trips.”1 With the push towards more mobility management and coordinated service options, these strategies can help the Heartland region reach the goals set forth earlier in this chapter. These strategies will not only enhance the options for those who live in the more urban area, but make transportation more accessible to those who live in the rural portions of the area.

Overall Plan Strategy

The overall strategy of the HRMP Update is to establish a comprehensive Mobility Management approach for public transportation services utilizing the HRTPO and Community Transportation Coordinator structure as the core foundation for service planning and implementation.

The final chapter lays out a conceptual relationship of an umbrella mobility management information and support role recognizing various mobility planning / funding source entities that individually may have an emphasis on specific customer markets and transportation programs. In this concept, FDOT currently supports a funding partnership with the CFRPC for mobility management and the CTC’s play an important role in directly providing services as well as coordinating services with other providers. The CFRPC, which is also staff to the HRTPO, allows for a seamless relationship in both rural and urban environments.

1 Expanding Access to Our Communities: A Guide to Successful Mobility Management Practices in Small Urban and Rural Areas. The Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program. January 2018. PDF.

Page | 22

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

Page | 23

Chapter 6: Priorities and Strategies

Introduction

The purpose of the Heartland Rural Mobility Plan Update is to provide a coordinated public transportation plan for the rural portions of the Heartland region (DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Okeechobee, counties and the rural portions of Highlands County) similar to the urbanized Transit Development Plan (TDP) recently prepared for the Avon Park – Sebring area.

The HRMP planning process was initiated by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District One in an effort to provide relevant data, analysis and coordination among local interests to comprehensively address mobility needs and service implementation in the unique rural environment of Central Florida.

A key perspective of the HRMP is the relationship of FDOT to local agencies and organizations throughout the region providing and/or seeking mobility services. This perspective is emphasized with the partnership established with the Heartland Regional Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), which provided significant participation and facilitation throughout the HRMP Update process. The HRTPO was established under federal requirements for urbanized transportation programs and was further enhanced under the guidance of the Central Florida Regional Planning Council to also represent the rural portions of the region.

FDOT administers various federal and state public transportation resources that currently provide essential mobility services to the region. The HRMP will help optimize these resources and enhance mobility options and services to residents and visitors throughout the region.

This chapter presents priority services to maintain and service concepts that may be developed as described in Chapter 5. Mobility management and coordination strategies are also provided to actively address the implementation of local and regional mobility services.

Priorities

The HRMP mobility development priorities are presented in the categorical levels of coordination, service, and funding to recognize the alignment of required elements for effective and sustainable mobility services for the Heartland Region.

Relationships and Coordination

Figure 6-1 displays the conceptual relationship of an umbrella mobility management information / support role for specific customer markets and transportation programs. In this relationship concept, FDOT currently supports a funding partnership with the CFRPC for mobility management and the CTC’s play an important role in directly providing services as well

Page | 24

as coordinating services with other providers. The CFRPC is also staff to the HRTPO allowing for a seamless relationship in both rural and urban environments.

The second tier of Figure 6-1 relates the various mobility and service programs and provider interests that need to be recognized resources and solutions for regional mobility management and coordination among programs throughout this tier.

The third tier of this figure presents examples of specific service oriented programs and private sector / technology options that complement an overall mobility management approach.

Heartland Mobility Management

Private HRTPO CTC Services Social Service FDOT Federal and State Sector / Planning and and Health Transit Programs Technology Process Coordination Programs Services

Florida Dept. Health FTA 5310, 5311, Commuter Dept. Elderly TNC’s Urban and Rural CTD Trips & Discretionary Assistance Affairs Synergy Equipment grants, Etc. Program Family & Ridesharing Children Services

Figure 6-1. Mobility Management Relationships

Services

After analysis of the socio-economic data of the region and existing services, work sessions were conducted with the MAC to review data and service options as described in Chapter 4. A number of service modes were recognized:

• Fixed Route • Demand Response • Hybrid Flex Route Services • Community Circulator • Ridesharing • Commuter Assistance

Page | 25

These service types were analyzed relative to countywide and regional applications.

The following section specifies service concepts by county and at a regional level (both intra and inter regional). The intent of the HRMP is to be strategic in nature providing general locations for service concepts that can then be further developed into specific service proposals, which provide operational and cost estimates.

DeSoto County

. DART (Arcadia Circulator) was a concept from the original HRMP. This concept was further refined into a specific route configuration and service operation (frequency of service and hours of operation). Maintaining service and annual improvement assessments should be conducted.

. Demand response CTC services managed and coordinated by MV Transportation, Inc. are provided throughout the County. An emphasis on mobility management coordination with the CFRPC / HRTPO should continue to support through the provision of capital and operating resources as well as seeking new service opportunities and partnerships.

. CFRPC / HRTPO – plays a significant role in planning, capital and operating support. Project development and annual grant applications are priority support services.

. Mobility Management / Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus. Maas takes into consideration choice riders and seeks to address mobility with service so completely that private auto ownership is unnecessary

. Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) – services funded by FDOT and managed by a third party vendor also play an important mobility function focused on work trips in major travel corridors throughout the region.

Glades County

. Demand Response CTC Services managed and coordinated by Good Wheels, Inc. are provided throughout the County. An emphasis on mobility management coordination with the CFRPC / HRTPO should continue to provide capital and operating resources as well as identify new service opportunities and partnerships.

. CFRPC / HRTPO should continue to support through the provision of capital and operating resources HRTPO – plays a significant role for planning, capital and operating support. Project development and annual grant applications are priority support services.

Page | 26

. Mobility Management / MaaS Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus.

Hardee County

. Demand Response CTC Services managed and coordinated by MV Transportation, Inc. are provided throughout the County. An emphasis on mobility management coordination with the CFRPC / HRTPO should continue the support of capital and operating resources as well as seeking new service opportunities and partnerships.

. CFRPC / HRTPO should continue to support through the provision of capital and operating resources Project development and annual grant applications are priority support services.

. Mobility Management / MaaS Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus.

. The Bowling Green / Zolfo Springs US 17 corridor recognized in the original HRMP continues to be a priority corridor for potential transit service development conceptually for commuter services, fixed route, limited express, ridesourcing and possibly reservation services.

Hendry County

. ClewBelle / Palm Tran fixed route services remain a priority supported in the original HRMP. Service analysis and discussion with the MAC recommends priority consideration for an interregional extension of this service to the west and connectivity with LeeTran service in Lee County.

. Demand Response CTC Services managed and coordinated by Good Wheels, Inc. are provided throughout the County. An emphasis on mobility management coordination with the CFRPC / HRTPO should continue the support of capital and operating resources as well as seeking new service opportunities and partnerships.

Page | 27

. CFRPC /. HRTPO should continue to support through the provision of capital and operating resources Project development and annual grant applications are priority support services.

. Mobility Management / MaaS Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus.

Highlands County

. CFRPC / HRTPO should continue to support through the provision of capital and operating resources. Project development and annual grant applications are priority support services. In Highlands County, such support requires additional responsibilities specifically in the Avon Park / Sebring Urbanized Area.

. The Highlands County TDP for the urbanized area also recognizes the relationship between certain regional rural corridors and connectivity for rural/ urban access trips. Proposed service improvements in the TDP include: . A US 27 Corridor Service (Avon Park to Lake Placid in Highlands County) . A Sebring Circulator . A Sebring Flex Route . An Avon Park / Sebring Express . An Urban Dial-a-Ride . Mobility Management / MaaS Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus.

Page | 28

Okeechobee County

. Demand Response CTC Services managed and coordinated by MV Transportation, Inc. are provided throughout the County. An emphasis on mobility management coordination with the CFRPC / HRTPO should continue to support through the provision of capital and operating resources as well as seeking new service opportunities and partnerships.

. CFRPC / HRTPO – provides significant support for planning, capital and operating support. Project development and annual grant applications are priority support services.

. Mobility Management / MaaS Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus.

. The SR 80 Corridor is also recognized as an inter-regional priority with potential transit service provided with the extension of the Clew-Belle Route.

. Inter-Regional service through the US 27 Corridor in Highlands and eventually accessing Polk County is a service concept priority for demand response, fixed route, ridesourcing and other forms of commuter assistance services.

. Intra-Regional services for east/west corridors (e.g. SR64 and SR66) between Highlands and Hardee Counties are considered potential transit service corridors for demand response, fixed route, reservation services, ridesourcing and other forms of commuter assistance services.

. Mobility Management / MaaS Services (CFRPC) – mobility management services continue to be a priority to coordinate various resources toward a customer service focus.

Funding sources for mobility services exist from a number of programs and at times are constrained by program objectives to very specific customer markets and geographical areas that present a challenge for overall mobility management. For example, certain federal funds

Page | 29

are designated for urban areas while others are designated for only rural areas. Additionally, some funding objectives are targeted to specific market needs such as senior and / or persons with disabilities. By taking a regional mobility management approach these programs may be organized to complement each other and be better oriented toward customer information and service.

The Florida Department of Transportation administers a number of Federal and state transportation assistance grant programs that currently provide essential mobility services. These programs play an important role relative to the HRMP and can be optimized through funding partnership with local governments, social service agencies, the Transportation Disadvantaged program, and other human service organizations. The following programs are the most significant sources to serve the rural portions of the region.

1) FTA SECTION 5310 ENHANCED MOBILITY OF SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. The Section 5310 grant program’s focus is to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities. This can be done by: • Removing barriers to transportation service; and • Expanding transportation mobility options. The 5310 program supports transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special transportation needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities in all areas, including: • Large urbanized (over 200,000) • Small urbanized (50,000-200,000) • Rural (under 50,000)

Eligible projects include both “traditional” capital investment and “nontraditional” investment beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services.

2) FTA SECTION 5311 FORMULA GRANTS FOR RURAL PROGRAMS. The purpose of this program is to enhance the access of people in rural areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services and recreation. Eligible activities are to assist in the maintenance, development, and improvement of public transportation systems in rural areas. 3) FTA SECTION 5339 GRANTS FOR BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES PROGRAM (49 U.S.C. 5339) The purpose of this program is to make Federal resources available to states and designated recipients to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. A sub-program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero-emission vehicles.

Page | 30

Recent levels of FTA grant 5310, 5311, and 5339 funding in the Heartland region have supported capital (vehicle) purchases and operating assistance as shown below by year. When totaled, these federal programs invested over $1.5 million in 2016 and $2 million in 2017.

Page | 31

2016

Section 5310 Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Central Florida RPC – Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – 3 minivans and operating assistance – $363,171 Ridge Area, Arc, Inc. – Highlands – Operating assistance - $50,620

Section 5311 - Rural Central Florida RPC – Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – Operating Assistance - $579,847 Central Florida RPC – DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – Mobility Management - $190,000 DeSoto County BOCC – DeSoto – Operating Assistance - $100,000 DART - DeSoto - $61,000 Good Wheels, Inc. – Glades, Hendry - $141,020

Sec 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Central Florida RPC – Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – 2 low-floor minivans – $74,702

2017

Section 5310 Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Central Florida RPC – Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – 3 minivans and operating assistance - $612,049 Ridge Area, Arc, Inc. – Highlands – Operating assistance - $31,594

Section 5311 - Rural Central Florida RPC – Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – Operating Assistance - $400,000 Central Florida RPC – DeSoto – Operating Assistance - $100,000 Central Florida RPC – DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – Mobility Management - $192,000 Good Wheels, Inc. – Glades, Hendry - $355,458

Sec 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Central Florida RPC – Highlands, Hardee, Okeechobee – 3 minivans – $112,481 Good Wheels, Inc. – Hendry, Glades – 2 (23’ buses) - $124,893

Page | 32

Community Transportation Coordinator Funding (2017)

The Transportation Disadvantaged Program is a coordinated statewide effort, which groups together riders for a shared ride service. Transportation services are available in all 67 Florida counties for those who are eligible and have no access to transportation. Federal, State and Local agencies join together to provide necessary transportation to medical appointments, employment, educational and other life sustaining services.

As part of the TD Program there are established Community Transportation Coordinators with the responsibility to plan, administer, monitor, coordinate, arrange and deliver coordinated Transportation Disadvantaged services originating in their designated service area.

The two CTCs in the Heartland Rural Mobility Plan region are MV Transportation, Inc. (serving Desoto, Hardee, Highlands, and Okeechobee counties) and Good Wheels, Inc. (serving Glades and Hendry counties). These CTCs provide services with funding from various sources as detailed in their Annual Operating Reports. Local funding is provided by each county with a significant amount of CTD funding provided, the CTD funds in most cases serves as a “local match” to leverage additional Federal funding.

The following tables provide selected ridership and financial data by county from the 2017 AOR reports to provide some additional insight on funding throughout the region utilized by the CTC’s to provide service.

Page | 33

DeSoto County

Coordinator’s Name: MV Contract Transportation Total Passenger Trips: 8,159 Total Expenses: $400,204 Cost per Trip: $49.05

Passenger Trips by Funding Source CTD 5,343 AHCA 0 APD 0 DOEA 0 DOE 17 Other 2,799 Total Trips 8,159 Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2017 Annual Performance Report, January 1, 2018, p. 70.

Glades County

Coordinator’s Name: Good Wheels, Inc. Total Passenger Trips: 10,677 Total Expenses: $301,776 Cost per Trip: $28.26

Passenger Trips by Funding Source CTD 1,566 AHCA 2,491 APD 899 DOEA 5,720 DOE 0 Other 1 Total Trips 10,677 Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2017 Annual Performance Report, January 1, 2018, p. 78.

Page | 34

Hardee County

Coordinator’s Name: MV Contract Transportation Total Passenger Trips: 33,167 Total Expenses: $527,419 Cost per Trip: $15.90

Passenger Trips by Funding Source CTD 2,514 AHCA 1,004 APD 5,821 DOEA 174 DOE 0 Other 23,654 Total Trips 33,167 Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2017 Annual Performance Report, January 1, 2018, p. 81.

Hendry County

Coordinator’s Name: Good Wheels, Inc. Total Passenger Trips: 22,510 Total Expenses: $874,375 Cost per Trip: $38.84

Passenger Trips by Funding Source CTD 7,586 AHCA 8,097 APD 3,078 DOEA 3,603 DOE 0 Other 146 Total Trips 22,510 Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2017 Annual Performance Report, January 1, 2018, p. 82.

Page | 35

Highlands County

Coordinator’s Name: MV Contract Transportation Total Passenger Trips: 78,334 Total Expenses: $2,009,903 Cost per Trip: $25.66

Passenger Trips by Funding Source CTD 21,147 AHCA 6,855 APD 31,754 DOEA 61,382 DOE 21 Other 14,175 Total Trips 78,334 Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2017 Annual Performance Report, January 1, 2018, p. 84.

Okeechobee County

Coordinator’s Name: MV Contract Transportation Total Passenger Trips: 9,330 Total Expenses: $378,380 Cost per Trip: $40.56

Passenger Trips by Funding Source CTD 3,741 AHCA 0 APD 0 DOEA 583 DOE 7 Other 4,999 Total Trips 9,330 Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2017 Annual Performance Report, January 1, 2018, p. 104.

Other Funding Opportunities

There are additional transportation funding opportunities through competitive discretionary grant programs such as the FDOT Service Development Grant Program. This grant program is currently utilized by DeSoto County for the DART system in downtown Arcadia. The funding partnership includes FDOT grant funds along with matching federal funds, farebox revenue, and local government funding. After three years of the “service development” period, funding must be provided by local funds and possibly federal funds. There are also funding models the region could utilize that involve land use development and private business interests.

Page | 36

With the identification of service concepts in this rural mobility plan and an on-going process of planning and mobility management outreach, funding scenarios can be applied to bring implementation of services to fruition. This process exists in other urban areas with MPOs. The HRTPO can assist the rural areas of Central Florida in capturing competitive opportunities.

Heartland Rural Mobility Plan Strategies

Key service development and implementation strategies have been established for the HRMP after consideration of the situation assessment, data analysis and service concepts developed through the planning process, which has involved the HRTPO staff and Mobility Advisory Committee.

Strategy I Maintain A Pronounced Mobility Management Approach In Coordinating Rural Transportation Services Emphasizing Customer Characteristics, Needs And Communication Outreach.

Mobility management is recognized as the foundation of the HRMP. A key strategic partnership has been established between FDOT and the CFRPC that will be further enhanced with the focus of the HRMP. Since the CFRPC serves as staff to the HRTPO, there is a seamless flow of processes and procedures to coordinate mobility management activities among local and regional interests.

Mobility Management activities include:

. Operating transportation brokerages to coordinate service providers, funding resources, and customer needs;

. Coordinating transportation services for older adults, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with low incomes;

. Supporting local partnerships that coordinate transportation services; . Staffing for the development and implementation of coordination plans; . Providing travel training and trip planning activities for customers; . Developing and operating traveler call centers to coordinate travel information, manage eligibility requirements, and arrange customer travel; and

. Planning and implementing the acquisition and purchase of intelligent transportation technologies to operate a coordinated system.

Page | 37

Strategy II Support An On-Going Coordination Of Rural Public Transportation Planning To Maintain and Enhance Mobility Services

The HRMP establishes a planning process similar to the urban transportation planning process throughout Florida and most recently established in the Avon Park / Sebring urbanized area. This strategy recognizes the role of the HRTPO / CFRPC and the FDOT partnership to embrace and build upon the role and responsibilities of the Community Transportation Coordinators established under the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Program.

This approach emulates the “3C” transportation planning process of “Comprehensive, Cooperative, and Continuing planning.” This process would align service providers under the TD Program, the leadership of the Local Coordinating Boards, the Leadership of the HRTPO and FDOT administered grant programs along with the regional Commuter Assistance Program (CAP). The HRTPO / CFRPC staff would play a central planning and facilitation role among partnerships

FDOT

Local Service Governments Providers HRTPO / CFRPC

LCBs CTCs

Figure 6-2. HRTPO / CFRPC

Strategy III Establish A Rural Public Transportation Project Development Program Utilizing Service Concepts In The HRMP

The HRMP provides an inventory of rural transportation services as well as service concepts for future consideration. A regular review and technical service planning procedure should be conducted under the coordination of the HRTPO to establish a Rural Public Transportation Project Development Program (RPTPDP) with the strategy of prioritizing and queuing projects for implementation (conceptually displayed in Figure 6-3 below). This rural planning program would also support FDOT’s effort to afford access to the annual Federal / FDOT grant program process as well as identifying possible discretionary grant opportunities.

Page | 38

The process of producing a rural public transportation development program should be flexible and appropriate to the resources available to the HRTPO as well as the CFRPC to maintain a Mobility Management function for the region in partnership with FDOT. This process would ensure a continuous assessment of rural needs, regularly update the HRMP and assist in identifying funding availability and optimize funding source matching funds.

•Customer Market HRMPM Service •Service Type Concepts •Mobility Management

Rural Public Transportation •Technical Analysis Development •Operational Plan Program

•Grants Project Proposals •Regional / Local Initiatives

Page | 39

Strategy IV Develop a Technical Assistance and Project Management Program for Rural Transportation Services Maintenance and Implementation

To further the intent and efforts of the previous three strategies, this strategy would involve coordination among FDOT, the HRTPO / CFRPC, and the CTCs to actively provide technical assistance and project management to address rural transportation services including service implementation start-up, operational issues, public involvement, customer communications, financial analysis, and monitoring performance measurements.

Keeping in mind a comprehensive Mobility Management function hosted within the HRTPO / CFRPC in partnership with FDOT, a customer-oriented family of services can assist in matching trip purpose, customer eligibility, and the best service mode. The objective of this strategy is to blend all the service provider silos throughout the region into a coordinated customer sensitive service system.

FDOT

CTCs HRTPO

Project Management

Local Service Agencies Providers

Public Participation

Page | 40

Appendix A: Mobility Advisory Committee Membership

Counties Name Agency Focus Area Committees Represented

Central Florida Health Hardee, Ermelinda Centeno Health Care CAC Care Highlands

Melony Culpepper Highlands County Local Government TAC Highlands

DeSoto, Hardee, Ann Martin CareerSource Heartland Workforce LCB Highlands, Okeechobee

Glades, Kristina Rodriguez Hope Connections Senior Services LCB Hendry

Bruce Behrens Retired Senior Citizen CAC Highlands

Charles Chapman Hendry County Local Government Hendry

Glades, Alan Mandel Good Wheels, Inc. Transit Provider LCB Hendry

DeSoto, Hardee, Kelly Kirk Books MV Transportation, Inc. Transit Provider LCB Highlands, Okeechobee

Tara Poulton DeSoto County Local Government DeSoto

Shared Services Erin Moore Network of Okeechobee Citizen Advocate Okeechobee County

Elected Official / Gary Ritter City of Okeechobee Okeechobee Business

A-1. Mobility Advisory Committee Membership

Page | A-1

Appendix B: Heartland County Demographic Data and Trends

This appendix provides a summary of the 10-year regional trends and forecasts the demographics for the Heartland Counties through 2045. It examines the location and scale of population segments in each of the six Heartland counties to identify potential public transportation markets. Population clusters, senior and youth populations and commute characteristics are potential public transportation markets. An examination of these markets reveals the opportunities and types of services that may serve the citizens of the Heartland region. The analysis relies upon three data sources, two data products provided by the U.S. Census; the American Community Survey (ACS) 2015 5 Year data, the Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD) 2015 data and population projections from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The 5-year ACS dataset was selected to support analysis of smaller geographic units such as the Census Block Group to facilitate sub-county analysis and to illustrate the distribution of demographic characteristics within each county. The LEHD data provides high quality local labor market information based on different administrative sources, including Unemployment Insurance earnings data and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). BEBR produces the official state and local population estimates which are used to distribute state revenue sharing dollars to cities and counties. This section relied upon the population projections for each county.

Page | B-1

DeSoto County Demographics

DeSoto County is located on the Western edge of the Heartland region (B-1). Since 2010, DeSoto County’s population grew slightly to 34,957 in 2015. The City of Arcadia is the only municipality in the county and is home to approximately 7,700 people representing 22% of the county’s total population. Another population cluster is located immediately south of the City of Arcadia in the Census Designated place southeast Arcadia with a population of 8,129. Much of the county has a low population density with around 100 persons per square mile. An examination of DeSoto County’s Census BlockGroups reveals pockets of modest density surrounding the City of Arcadia and the CDP of southeast Arcadia. A less dense and smaller cluster of population resides in the B-1. DeSoto Locator Map southwest region of the county immediately north of the Charlotte County boundary along State Road 27. Figure B- 2 illustrates the distribution, density and location of DeSoto County’s population.

DeSoto County’s population is becoming older with the proportion of the population older than 65 increasing and the under age 18 segment becoming a smaller percentage of the population. Figure B-3 illustrates the changes that have occurred since 2010 with the proportion of the over age 65 population increasing from 17.4% to 18.9% and the under 18 segment of the population decreasing from 22.8% to 21.2% in 2015.

Data in Figure B-4 shows this trend continuing in the future with 23% of Hendry County’s population over the age 65 and the under 18 population decreasing to 26.5% by 2045. To highlight these trends, Figures B-5 and B-6 portray the over 65 and under 18 populations respectively. The distribution of the senior and youth markets can be found in maps labeled Figures B-7 and B-8.

Page | B-2

B- 2. DeSoto Population Density (Persons per sq. mile) 1,2

2010 2015 Change Age Group Total Percent Total Percent Total 0 – 17 7,879 22.80% 7,411 21.20% -468 18 – 44 12,579 36.40% 12,200 34.90% -379 45-64 8,052 23.30% 8,739 25% 687 65-85 5,529 16% 6,117 17.50% 588 Over 85 518 1.50% 489 1.40% -29 Total 34,557 100% 34,957 100% 400 B- 3. DeSoto County Population Changes 1

Page | B-3

DeSoto County 14,000

12,000

10,000 8,000 0 – 17

18 – 44 6,000 45-64

Total Population Total 4,000 65-85 2,000 Over 85 - 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Trends and Projection Years

2 B-4. DeSoto County Population Projections

DeSoto County

24.0% 22.0%

20.0%

18.0%

16.0% over 65

Population Total 14.0% 12.0%

10.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-5.DeSoto County Percentage of Population over 65 2

Page | B-4

DeSoto County

23.5% 23.0% 22.5% 22.0% 21.5% 21.0% 20.5% 0 – 17 20.0% Total Population Total 19.5% 19.0% 18.5% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-6. DeSoto County Percentage of Under Age 18 Population Trend and Projections 2

B-7. DeSoto Under Age 18 Population 1

Page | B-5

B-8. Percent of Population over 65 1

Page | B-6

Employment, Income and Household Characteristics

Work activities, income levels and household characteristics influence travel behavior. Accordingly, examining these characteristics reveals additional public transportation markets in DeSoto County. For example, public transportation may offer reliable transportation to low- wage workers and people living below poverty to retain existing or access new employment. This section describes markets related to employment, income and household characteristics.

Income and Poverty

The median income in DeSoto County is $35,165, below the state median income of $47,507. Figure B-9 below illustrates the median income for block groups in the county. The block groups with the lowest median income can be seen at the intersection of SR 70 and US 17 in the heart of the City of Arcadia. The median income for the city of Arcadia is $27,260. Figure B- 10 below illustrates the distribution of household income levels for the county.

B-9. Median Household Income 1

Page | B-7

DeSoto County Percent of Household

Income Categories 2015 2010 $10,000 or less 10.7% 9.0% $10,000 to $14,999 5.9% 8.5% $15,000 to $24,999 20.8% 20.8% $25,000 to $34,999 12.4% 13.5% $35,000 to $49,999 17.0% 16.2% $50,000 to $74,999 19.0% 20.4% $75,000 to $99,999 5.9% 8.0% $100,000 to $149,999 5.9% 5.9% $150,000 to $199,999 1.4% 0.8% $200,000 and above 1.0% 1.1% Median Income $35,165 $35,979 B-10. Income Distribution for DeSoto County 1

Segments of the population living below the poverty line are another public transportation market, with low wage workers needing access to employment and other impoverished segments needing access to food, healthcare and other vital destinations. Since 2010, the population of the county living below poverty has increased, with slightly under 30 percent living below the poverty level in 2015. Figure B-11 illustrates the population living below the poverty line by Census Block Group. Pockets of higher poverty percentages are in the southeast and near the City of Arcadia and the CDP southeast Arcadia which have higher proportions of improvished people at 36.6% and 35.6% respectively. The highest poverty rate block groups are located inside the city of Arcadia as well as the southeast corner of the county (South of SR 70). Providing public transportation options to areas with higher poverty rates could improve employment opportunities and expand access to vital activities.

Page | B-8

B-11. Percent of Population Below Poverty Level1

Vehicle Available

The availability of vehicles are crucial for accessing vital activities. Areas with higher numbers of households without vehicles available have higher demand for public transportation services. According to the 2015 Census, the percentage of homes with zero vehicles has gone up markedly to 7.9% from 3.7% in 2010. The largest number of zero vehicle households are located in and around the City of Arcadia and the CDP southeast Arcadia. Figure B-12 shows the distribution of the zero vehicle households. Figure B-13 below shows the distribution of vehicle availability for 2010 and 2015.

Page | B-9

B-12. Zero Vehicle Households DeSoto County1

DeSoto County Vehicles Per Household 2015 2010 Zero Vehicle Households 7.90% 4% One Vehicle Households 24.60% 25% Two Vehicle Households 40.30% 43% Three or more Vehicle Households 27.20% 27.20% B-13. Vehicle Availability by Households 2010 - 20151

Employment and Commuting

Employment and commuting patterns influence transportation options. The working age population, labor force participation and unemployment rates affect transportation systems. More importantly, commuting characteristics, job and home locations of workers and low wage workers influence reliance on the public transportation market.

The analysis in this section utilizes two different employment data sets, the ACS and LEHD. The ACS data and LEHD data have different total jobs and employment figures due to the nature of the data. ACS is a survey of residents and the LEHD is based on administrative records such as unemployment insurance. The LEHD does not report on “agricultural labor” and a few other employment types. For the purposes of identifying employment commuting flows and patterns, the LEHD data is more than sufficient.

Based on the ACS 2015 data, DeSoto County’s working age population is over 28,000 with 47% (13,563) participating in the labor force. DeSoto County’s unemployment rate was 9.4% in

Page | B-10

2015, the lowest among the Heartland counties. Unemployed residents may benefit from public transportation services to access employment opportunities as well as other life sustaining activities such as retail and medical purposes.

According to the U.S. Census LEHD 2015 data, DeSoto County had 8,681 jobs located inside its boundary. DeSoto residents held 10,724 jobs but only 3,497 were located within DeSoto County. The remaining 7,227 jobs were located outside DeSoto County. Figure B-14 lists the top 10 counties with jobs held by DeSoto residents. To help visualize the distribution of those jobs, Figure B-15 highlights the clusters and pattern of the job locations. Where DeSoto County Workers Commute(Top 10) DeSoto County Total 10,724 DeSoto County, FL 3,497 Charlotte County, FL 996 Lee County, FL 923 Polk County, FL 570 Sarasota County, FL 556 Miami-Dade County, FL 420 Hillsborough County, FL 396 Hardee County, FL 330 323 Broward County, FL Manatee County, FL 320 B-14. Commute Destinations of DeSoto Residents 3

B-15. Commute Destination of DeSoto Workers 3

Page | B-11

There are 8,681 jobs located within DeSoto County and 5,184 are held by residents of other counties. DeSoto residents hold 40.2% of the jobs located in DeSoto County. Figure B-16 lists the top 10 counties with residents holding jobs in DeSoto County and Figure B-17 is a map illustrating where workers are commuting from.

Workers Commuting to DeSoto County (Top 10) Total Jobs in DeSoto County 8,681 DeSoto County, FL 3,497 1,037 Charlotte County, FL 493 Sarasota County, FL 398 Lee County, FL 369 Highlands County, FL 365 Polk County, FL 258 Hardee County, FL 258 Hillsborough County, FL 209 Manatee County, FL Miami-Dade County, FL 162 B-16. Workers Commuting to DeSoto County (Top 10) 3

B-17. Commuters Traveling to DeSoto 3

Page | B-12

The distribution of lower-wage jobs are of particular note due to the unique benefits public transportation can afford to lower wage workers. The Figure B 18 shows block groups with higher percentages of low-wage jobs. The highest block groups are in and adjacent to the City of Arcadia. Public transportation to these areas highly impact the economic conditions of these workers.

B 18. Location of Lower-Wage Jobs by Block Group 3

Sub-sections of commuters with short and longer commutes are also potential public transportation users. The average commute time for DeSoto County residents was an average of 25 minutes. This is a nominal change from 2010 where the average commute time was 24.7 minutes. However, the percentage of workers commuting longer than 60 minutes increased to 11.3% in 2015 from 7.7% in 2010. The location of block groups with higher numbers of 60 minute commuters is shown in Figure B-19 below.

Page | B-13

B-19. Workers with 60 Minute Commutes by Block Group 1

Racial and Ethnic Population

Comparison of the minority population since 2010 reflects a negligible demographic shift in the county. Since 2010, the black and African American population increased from 4,583 in 2010 to 4,624 in 2015 but its proportion of the county population decreased slightly from 13.3% to 13.2%. The Hispanic population has grown since 2010, from 10,046 to 10,672 in 2015. The proportion of the population that is Hispanic increased slightly, from 29.1% to 30.5%. DeSoto County residents living in a home where English is not the primary language spoken comprised 28.7% of the population.

Page | B-14

Glades County Demographics

Glades County is located in the center of the Heartland region and west of Lake Okeechobee (Figure B-20). An examination of the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data reveals Glades County’s population has increased by 5% to 13,272 since 2010. Small clusters of population are near Moore Haven and the census designated place (CDP) of Buckhead Ridge. Figure B-21 below shows the U.S. Census block group population distribution by persons per square mile. The majority of the block groups in the county have a population density below 100 persons per square mile. There are two block groups located in the City of Moore Haven with high population density which s may B- 20 Glades County represent a good public transportation market.

Age characteristics also affect public transportation demand; older populations lose driving privileges because of diminishing skills associated with the aging process and younger populations have limited resources or are not eligible to drive. Examining the age categories and trends helps identify the age related public transportation markets. Figure B-22 shows the changing age demographics with the over age 65 category increasing from 20.9% to 25.5% and the under 18 age population becoming a smaller proportion from 19.6% to 16.9%. Figure B-23, with population projection data from BEBR illustrates a continuation of this trend with the over age 65 making up nearly 30% and the under 18 population 15% of the total population in 2045.

To highlight this trend Figure B-24 is a chart showing the over age 65 population trend for 2045 and Figure B-25 is a map of the over age 65 population. Figure B-26 and Figure B-27 highlight the under age 18 population projections and geographic distribution.

Page | B-15

B-21. Glades County Population Density 1,2

Page | B-16

2015 2010 Change Age Group Total Percent Total Percent Total 0 – 17 2,243 16.90% 2,473 19.60% -230 18 – 44 4,260 32.10% 4,227 33.50% 33 45-64 3,451 26.00% 3,293 26% 158 65-85 2,853 22% 2,561 20.30% 292 Over 85 465 3.50% 76 0.60% 389 Total 13,272 100% 12,617 100% 655 B-22. Population Change (2010-2015) 1

Glades County 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 0 – 17 20.0% 18 – 44 15.0% 45-64 10.0% 65-85

Percent Population of Percent 5.0% Over 85 0.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-23. Population Trends and Projections 2

Page | B-17

B-24. Glades County Over 65 Population Trends 2

B-25. Glades County Over 65 Population by Census Block Group1

Page | B-18

B-26. Glades County under 18 Population2

B-27. Glades County Under Age 18 Population1

Page | B-19

Employment, Income and Household Characteristics

Work activities, income levels and household characteristics influence travel behavior. Accordingly, examining these characteristics reveals additional public transportation markets in Glades County. For example, public transportation may offer reliable transportation to low- wage workers and people living below poverty to retain existing or access new employment. This section describes markets related to employment, income and household characteristics.

Income and Poverty

The median income in Glades County was $34,877 in 2015, which was below the state median income of $47,507. Glades County’s median income declined significantly since 2010 when Glades County’s median income was $39,429. The map below (Figure B-29) illustrates the median income for block groups in the county. The block groups with the lowest median income are located along the southwestern edge of Lake Okeechobee in the City of Moore Haven. The median income for the City of Moore Haven is $29,918. Areas with lower incomes benefit from public transportation services due to lower disposable income, which affects the ability to maintain and own reliable transportation. Figure B-28 below also illustrates the distribution of household income levels for the county.

Glades County Percent of Household Income Categories 2015 2010 $10,000 or less 12.1% 9.9% $10,000 to $14,999 7.9% 7.3% $15,000 to $24,999 15.3% 15.3% $25,000 to $34,999 14.9% 11.8% $35,000 to $49,999 17.3% 22.5% $50,000 to $74,999 19.7% 16.6% $75,000 to $99,999 4.0% 5.7% $100,000 to $149,999 5.8% 5.8% $150,000 to $199,999 1.2% 1.2% $200,000 and above 1.8% 0.8% Median Income $34,877 $39,429 B-28. Household income levels1

Page | B-20

B-29. Median Household Income by Census Block Group1

Segments of the population living below the poverty line are another public transportation market, with low wage workers needing access to employment and other impovrished segments needing access to food, healthcare and other vital destinations. Since 20122, the percent of the county living below poverty decreased from 25.3% to 20.2% in 2015. Figure B- 30 illustrates the population living below the poverty line by census block group. Providing public transportation options to areas with higher poverty rates could improve employment opportunities and expand access to vital activities.

2 Poverty Data for Rural Counties were not available from the American Community Survey Five Year Dataset. Consequently, the 2012 data were used for Glades County.

Page | B-21

B-30. Percent of Population Living Below Poverty-Glades1

The availability of vehicles are crucial for accessing vital activities. Areas with a high number of households without vehicles available have higher demand for public transportation services. According to the 2015 census, 1.7 % of households had zero vehicles in Glades County. Very few households are without a personal automobile, and given the rural nature and the lack of public transportation, this is typical. The only area with a discernable number of households with zero vehicles is located in Moore Haven. Figure B-31 displays vehicle availability for 2010 and 2015. Figure B-32 below shows the distribution of households with zero vehicles available.

Vehicles Per Household 2015 2010 Zero Vehicle Households 1.7% 0.0% One Vehicle Households 22.9% 32.0% Two Vehicle Households 51.6% 45.0% Three or more Vehicle Households 23.7% 27.2% B-31. Vehicle Availability per Household1

Page | B-22

B-32. Number of Households with Zero Vehicles Available by Census Block Group1

Employment and Commuting

The analysis in the employment and commuting section relies upon two different employment data sets, the ACS and LEHD. The ACS data and LEHD data have different total jobs and employment due to the nature of the data. ACS is a survey of residents and the LEHD is based on administrative records such as unemployment insurance. The LEHD does not report on “agricultural labor” and a few other employment types. For the purposes of identifying employment commuting flows and patterns the LEHD data is sufficient.

Based on the ACS 2015 data, Glades County’s working age population was over 11,100 with 33% (3,700) participating in the labor force. Glades County’s unemployment rate was 12.9% in 2015, the second highest unemployment rate in the Heartland counties. Unemployed residents may benefit from public transportation services to access employment opportunities as well as other life sustaining activities such as retail and medical purposes.

According to the U.S. Census Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD) 2015 data, Glades residents held 3,198 jobs but only 466 were located within Glades County. The remaining 2.732 jobs were located outside Glades County. Figure B-33 lists the top 10 counties

Page | B-23

with jobs held by Glades residents. To help visualize the distribution of those jobs a map of the job locations illustrates the pattern and distribution of the jobs. (Figure B-34).

Glades County Commuting Destinations (Top 10) Total Workers in Glades County 3,198 Hendry County, FL 519 466 Glades County, FL 384 Lee County, FL 156 Polk County, FL 152 Okeechobee County, FL 139 Palm Beach County, FL 135 Miami-Dade County, FL Hillsborough County, FL 133

131 Broward County, FL Collier County, FL 110

B-33. Glades County Commuting Destinations (Top 10) 3

B-34. Commute Destinations of Glades Workers3

Page | B-24

There are 2,001 jobs located in Glades County and 1,535 are held by residents of other counties. Glades residents hold 23.2% of the jobs located in Glades. Figure B-35 lists the top 10 counties with residents holding jobs in Glades County and Figure B-36 is a map illustrating from where workers commute.

Workers Commuting to Glades County (Top 10) Total Jobs in Glades County 2,001 Glades County, FL 466 405 Hendry County, FL 207 Okeechobee County, FL 182 Palm Beach County, FL 170 Highlands County, FL 127 Lee County, FL 52 Broward County, FL 50 Miami-Dade County, FL 34 Polk County, FL Collier County, FL 33 B-35. Commute Destinations3

B-36. Workers Commuting to Glades3

Page | B-25

The lower-wage workers represents a subsection of the employment market. Figure B-37 shows block groups with the highest number of low-wage jobs in Glades County. The highest low-wage block groups were in and adjacent to the Moore Haven. Public transportation to these areas are highly impactful to the economic conditions of these workers.

B-37. Low Wage Jobs by Block Group3

Sub-sections of commuters with short and longer commutes are also potential public transportation users. The average commute time for Glades County residents was 27.5 minutes in 2015. This is a nominal change from 2010 where the average commute time was 27.6 minutes. However, the percentage of workers commuting longer than 60 minutes increased to 19.1% in 2015 from 11.3% in 2010. The location of block groups with higher numbers of 60+ minute commuters is shown in Figure B-37 below.

Page | B-26

B-38. Workers with Commutes Longer than 60 Minutes1

Racial and Ethnic Population

Comparison of the minority population since 2010 reflects a small demographic shift in the county. Since 2010, the black and African American population increased from 1,182 in 2010 to 1,729 in 2015 representing an increase of 3.6% to 13.0%. The Hispanic population has grown since 2010, from 2,480 to 2,817 in 2015. Further, the proportion of the Hispanic population increased slightly, from 19.7% to 21.2%. Based on U.S. 2015 ACS Census data, 8.6% of Glades County citizens speak English less than very well.

Page | B-27

Hardee County Demographics

Hardee County is located in the northwestern corner of the Heartland region. (Figure B-39) Hardee County’s population decreased slightly from 27,549 in 2010 to 27,495 in 2015. The City of Wauchula was home to slightly more than 4,900 people representing 17.8% of the county’s total population. Another population cluster was in the town of Zolfo Springs with 2,003 citizens. Much of the county has low population density with around 100 persons per square mile. Approximately 54% of the county’s population lives in the Census Block Groups that run along the U.S. Hwy 17 corridor, connecting the census-designated place of Bowling Green with Wauchula and Zolfo Springs. Figure B-40 illustrates the B- 39. Hardee County distribution and location of Hardee County’s population.

Age affects public transportation markets and Hardee County is increasingly becoming older with the proportion and total of the over age 65 population increasing and the population under age 18 becoming a smaller proportion of the county’s total population. The population over age 65 grew from 13.4% in 2010 to 14.0% in 2015. The percent of the population below age 18 decreased from 27.1% in 2010 to 26.6% in 2015. Figure B-41 shows the changing age demographics since 2010 and Figure B- 42 shows a continuation of this trend with population projections from BEBR through 2045. To highlight this pattern, the BEBR data for the over age 65 and under 18 are illustrated in Figure B-43 and B-45. Maps of the location and intensity of the over 65 and under 18 markets highlight the age pattern in the county (Figure B-44 B-46).

Page | B-28

B-40. Population Density - Hardee County 1,3

2015 2010 Change Age Group Total Percent Total Percent Total 0 – 17 7,306 26.60% 7,458 27.10% -152 18 – 44 10,163 37.00% 10,761 39.10% -598 45-64 6,180 22.50% 5,642 21% 538 65-85 3,324 12% 3,358 12.20% -34 Over 85 522 1.90% 330 1.20% 192 Total 27,468 100% 27,521 100% -53 B-41. Population Comparisons1

Page | B-29

Hardee County 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 0 – 17 25.0% 18 – 44 20.0% 45-64 15.0% 65-85 10.0% Percent Population of Percent 5.0% Over 85 0.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-42 Population Trend and Projections3

Hardee County 19.0% 18.0% 17.0% 16.0% 15.0% 14.0% 13.0% over 65 12.0% Percent Population of Percent 11.0% 10.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-43 Over Age 65 Trends and Projections3

Page | B-30

B- 44. Population Over Age 65 by Block Group1

Hardee County 27.5% 27.0% 26.5%

26.0%

25.5% 0 – 17 25.0%

Percent Population of Percent 24.5%

24.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-45. Under Age 18 Population Trends and Projections3

Page | B-31

B-46. Population Under Age 181

Page | B-32

Employment, Income and Household Characteristics

Work activities, income levels and household characteristics influence travel behavior. Accordingly, examining these characteristics reveals additional public transportation markets in Hardee County. For example, public transportation may offer reliable transportation to low- wage workers and people living below poverty to retain existing or access new employment. This section describes markets related to employment, income and household characteristics.

Income and household characteristics affect transportation demand. Public transportation is more vital to areas with a higher number of households with zero vehicles available or with lower income. Similarly, public transportation may help low wageworkers retain employment as well as access new opportunities.

The median income in Hardee County was $34,457 in, which was below the state median income of $47,507. Hardee County’s median income decreased significantly since 2010 when the County’s median income was $37,466. The map below (Figure B-47) illustrates the median income for block groups in the county. The block groups with the lowest median income were located in block groups south of City of Wauchula and further south of the Town of Zolfo Springs along the U.S. Hwy. 17. In the northern part of the county along U.S. Hwy. 17 and south of the CDP of Bowling Green is another small pocket of lower wage residents. Areas with lower incomes benefit from public transportation services due to lower disposable income, which affects the ability to maintain and own reliable transportation. Figure B-48 below also illustrates the distribution of household income levels for the county.

Page | B-33

B- 47 Median Income by Census Block Group 1

Hardee County Percent of Household Income Categories 2015 2010 $10,000 or less 10.5% 6.3% $10,000 to $14,999 6.2% 8.3% $15,000 to $24,999 16.2% 16.2% $25,000 to $34,999 16.6% 16.9% $35,000 to $49,999 15.9% 18.2% $50,000 to $74,999 14.0% 17.5% $75,000 to $99,999 8.7% 10.7% $100,000 to $149,999 8.3% 8.3% $150,000 to $199,999 2.1% 1.1% $200,000 and above 1.7% 0.6% Median Income $35,457 $37,466 B- 48 Income Distribution1

Page | B-34

Segments of the population living below the poverty line are another public transportation market, needing access to employment, food, healthcare and other vital destinations. Since 20123, the percent of the county living below poverty decreased from 29.7% to 27.4% in 2015. Figure B-49 illustrates the population living below the poverty line by Census Block Group. Providing public transportation options to areas with higher poverty rates could improve employment opportunities and expand access to vital activities.

B- 49 Percent of Population Living Below Poverty Level - Hardee1

3 Poverty Data for Rural Counties were not available from the American Community Survey Five Year Dataset. Consequently, the 2012 data were used for Hardee County.

Page | B-35

The availability of vehicles are crucial for accessing vital activities. Areas with a higher number of households without vehicles available have higher demand for public transportation services. According to the 2015 Census, the percentage of homes with zero vehicles declined from 6% in 2010 to 5% in 2015. The block group with the largest number of zero vehicle households was located along U.S 17 between the CDP of Bowling Green and the City of Wauchula. Figure B-50 displays the distribution of the zero vehicle households by U.S. Census Block Groups. Figure B- 51 shows the distribution of vehicle availability for 2010 and 2015.

B- 50 Zero Vehicle Households by Block Group1

Vehicles per Household 2015 2010 Zero Vehicle Households 5.0% 6.0% One Vehicle Households 31.2% 22.0% Two Vehicle Households 35.9% 49.0% Three or more Vehicle Households 28.0% 28.0% B- 51 Vehicle Availability by Percent of Household1

Page | B-36

Employment and Commuting

The analysis in the employment and commuting section relies upon two different employment data sets, the ACS and LEHD. The ACS data and LEHD data have different total jobs and employment due to the nature of the data. ACS is a survey of residents and the LEHD is based on administrative records such as unemployment insurance. The LEHD does not report on “agricultural labor” and a few other employment types. Nonetheless, for the purpose of identifying employment commuting flows and patterns the LEHD data is sufficient.

Based on the ACS 2015 data, Hardee County’s working age population was over 20,987 with 50.9% (10,682) participating in the labor force. Further, Hardee County’s unemployment rate was 11.0% in 2015, the second lowest of the Heartland counties. Unemployed residents may benefit from public transportation services to access employment opportunities as well as other life sustaining activities such as retail and medical purposes.

According to the U.S. Census Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD) 2015 data, Hardee County residents held 8,769 jobs with 3,054 located within Hardee County. The remaining 5,715 residents commute to counties located outside Hardee County. Figure B-52 lists the top 10 counties with jobs held by Hardee residents. To help visualize the distribution of those jobs, Figure B-53 illustrates the pattern and distribution of the jobs.

Where Hardee County Workers Commute(Top 10) Total Workers in Hardee County 8,769 Hardee County, FL 3,054 1,339 Polk County, FL 544 Highlands County, FL 413 Lee County, FL 359 Hillsborough County, FL 339 Miami-Dade County, FL 323 Manatee County, FL 258 DeSoto County, FL 256 Palm Beach County, FL Broward County, FL 234 B- 52 Hardee County Commute Destinations 3

Page | B-37

B- 53 Commute Destinations of Hardee County Residents 3

There were 7,701 jobs located in Hardee County and 60% of the jobs are held by residents of outside the counties with Highlands and Polk County making up 11.1% and 10.8% respectively. The top ten counties with residents commuting to Hardee County are listed in Figure B- 54. The map of the where the commuters travel from is listed in Figure B-55. Where Hardee County Workers Commute From (Top 10) Total Jobs in Hardee County 7,701 Hardee County, FL 3,054 858 Highlands County, FL 838 Polk County, FL 370 Hillsborough County, FL 330 DeSoto County, FL 245 Manatee County, FL 175 Lee County, FL 166 Collier County, FL 154 Hendry County, FL Charlotte County, FL 114

B-54 Hardee County Commute 3

Page | B-38

B- 55 Workers Commuting to Hardee3

Page | B-39

Hendry County Demographics

Hendry County is located in the southern portion of the Heartland region (Figure B-56). Since 2010, the county’s population decreased slightly by 667 people to 38,363 people in 2015. Hendry County is the third most populous county in the Heartland region with 38,363 residents. Slightly more than 30% of the population reside within cities of Clewiston (7,240) and La Belle (4,648). Two other census- designated places (CDP), Harlem and Montura also are home to 2,347 and 3,087 residents respectively. The remaining 55% live in the more rural portions of the county. Figure B-57 illustrates the population distribution and density of Hendry County. B-56 Hendry County Figure B- 58 illustrates the changing distribution of age categories since 2010. Demographically, the county’s population is increasingly becoming older with the proportion of the under age 18 population decreasing and the over age 65 proportion increasing. The over age 65 population in Hendry County increased to 4,719 in 2015, representing 12.3% of the population. Conversly, the proportion of the population under age 18 declined. Based on projections from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) this trend will become more predominant with 20% of Hendry County’s residents projected to be over age 65 and the under 18 population decreasing from 28% to 26.5% by 2045. B-59 illustrate the age trends and projections of the population by age. To highlight these trends Figures B-61 and B-63 isolate the trends for the over 65 and under 18 population respectively. The distribution of the senior and youth markets can be found in Maps B-60 and B-62.

Page | B-40

B-57 Hendry County Population Density1,2

2015 2010 Change Age Group Total Percent Total Percent Total 0 – 17 10,703 27.90% 11,006 28.20% -303 18 – 44 14,118 36.80% 15,378 39.40% -1260 45-64 8,823 23% 8,313 21.30% 510 65-85 4,028 10.50% 3,903 10% 125 Over 85 691 1.80% 429 1.10% 262 Total 38,363 100% 39,030 100% -667 B-58 Population Change by Age Categories1

Page | B-41

Hendry County

45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 0 – 17 25.0% 18 – 44 20.0% 45-64 15.0% 65-85 10.0% Percent Population of Percent 5.0% Over 85 0.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-59 Population Trends and Projections - Hendry County 2

Page | B-42

Hendry County

21.0% 19.0% 17.0% 15.0% 13.0% 11.0% over 65 9.0% Percent Population of Percent 7.0% 5.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-61 Population Trend and Projection for the Over 65 Population1

B-60 Total Population Over Age 65 by Census Block Group1

Page | B-43

B-62. Under Age 18 Population by Census Block Group1

Hendry County 28.5% 28.0%

27.5% 27.0%

26.5% 0 – 17 26.0%

Population of Percent 25.5%

25.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Trends and Projection Years

B-63. Population Trends and Projection of Under 18 Population2

Page | B-44

Income and Household Characteristics

Income levels, vehicle availability and poverty levels have implications for public transportation demand and mobility options. This section describes the income and household characteristics that influence the needs and alternatives of Hendry County residents.

Hendry County’s median income of $36,771 was the highest in the Heartland region and the county had the third lowest poverty rate. The median income in Hendry County has gone down by $527 since 2010. By examining the median income of Census Block Groups in Hendry County, the clustering of higher and lower income communities becomes clearer. In Figure B- 64, the areas with higher median incomes are closely aligned with the cities of Clewiston and La Belle. Mapping populations living below the poverty line reveal similar patterns with small clusters of poverty inside the City of Clewiston and La Belle as well as the CDP’s of Harlem and Montura (B-65.) A lower percentage of Hendry County residents live below the poverty level since 2010. However, more than 1 in 4 (26.4%) residents lived below the poverty level, which was much higher than the statewide poverty rate of 15.5% in 2015.

B-64 Median Income by Census Block Group

Page | B-45

B-65 Population Living Below Poverty Level by Census Block Group1

Among the Heartland Counties, Hendry County had the second lowest percentage of homes with income below $10,000 while the Florida statewide percentage was 7.8%. The table below illustrates the distribution of household incomes for 2010 and 2015 (Figure B-66).

Hendry County, Florida Percent of Household Income Categories 2015 2010 $10,000 or less 9.5% 9.9% $10,000 to $14,999 7.4% 5.7% $15,000 to $24,999 20.4% 20.4% $25,000 to $34,999 10.2% 17.1% $35,000 to $49,999 14.3% 16.3% $50,000 to $74,999 17.5% 18.9% $75,000 to $99,999 9.6% 8.3% $100,000 to $149,999 6.5% 6.5% $150,000 to $199,999 2.7% 1.3% $200,000 and above 1.9% 1.3% Median Income $36,771 $37,298 B-66 Distribution of Household Income1

Page | B-46

Hendry County had the second highest percentage of homes without a vehicle. With 6.3% of homes without a vehicle available, Hendry had a higher zero vehicle percentage than Florida’s statewide average of 3%. Examining the distribution of homes without a vehicle available reveals that small pockets of households in and around the cities of Clewiston and La Belle have no cars available. Figure B-67 below illustrates the distribution and change in the percentage of households by vehicle availability. Changes to zero vehicle households since 2010 can be found in Figure (B-68).

B-67 Total Households with Zero Vehicles1

Vehicles Per Household 2015 2010 Zero Vehicle Households 6.3% 7.0% One Vehicle Households 26.2% 25.0% Two Vehicle Households 35.7% 39.0% Three or more Vehicle Households 31.8% 31.8% B-68 Vehicles Per Household1

Page | B-47

Twenty-eight percent of the jobs located in Hendry County had a monthly income below $1,250. Figure B-69 below illustrates the location and distribution of the low wage employment.

B-69 Monthly Income Below $1,2501

Page | B-48

Commuting Patterns

The analysis in the employment and commuting section relies upon two different employment data sets, the ACS and LEHD. The ACS data and LEHD data have different total jobs and employment due to the nature of the data. ACS is a survey of residents and the LEHD is based on administrative records such as unemployment insurance. The LEHD does not report on “agricultural labor” and a few other employment types. Nonetheless, for the purposes of identifying employment commuting flows and patterns the LEHD data is sufficient.

Based on the ACS 2015 data, Hendry County’s working age population was 28,750 in 2015 with 58.1% (16,704) participating in the labor force. Hendry County’s unemployment rate was 11.9% in 2015, the fourth lowest in Heartland counties. Unemployed residents may benefit from public transportation services to access employment opportunities as well as other life sustaining activities such as retail and medical purposes.

Hendry residents held 13,146 jobs, of which 41% or 5,339 were located in Hendry County. The remaining 7,700 jobs were located outside of the county, with 12% and 8% located in Lee and Palm Beach counties respectively. The ten highest counties with jobs held by Hendry County residents are listed in Figure B-70. The distribution of jobs held by Hendry County residents are represented in Figure B-71.

Hendry County Commuting Destinations (Top 10) Total Participating in Workforce 13,146 Hendry County, FL 5,339 1,623 Lee County, FL Palm Beach County, FL 1,087 Collier County, FL 581 Hillsborough County, FL 413 Glades County, FL 405 401 Miami-Dade County, FL Polk County, FL 384 Broward County, FL 374 Orange County, FL 270 B-70 Hendry County Commuting Destinations (Top 10) 3

Page | B-49

B-71 Hendry County Job Locations 3

Of the 11,498 jobs located in Hendry County 6,159 or 53% of the jobs were held by residents living outside of Hendry County. Palm Beach and Lee County residents held 21% of the jobs in Hendry County. Figure B-72 lists the top 10 counties with workers commuting to Hendry County. The distribution and location of all commuters that work in Hendry County is shown in Figure B-73.

Workers Commuting to Hendry County (Top 10) Total Jobs in Hendry County 11,498 Hendry County, FL 5,339 1,252 Palm Beach County, FL Lee County, FL 1,171 Glades County, FL 519 Collier County, FL 493 Miami-Dade County, FL 356 274 Broward County, FL Highlands County, FL 238 Hillsborough County, FL 163 St. Lucie County, FL 122 B-72 Workers Commuting to Hendry County (Top 10) 3

Page | B-50

B-73 Workers Commuting to Hendry 3

Racial and Ethnic Population

Comparison of the minority population since 2010 reflects a demographic shift in the county. Since 2010, the black and African American population decreased by 1,270 and its proportion of the county population decreased to 12% from 15%. The Hispanic population has grown since 2010, from 18,621 to 19,382 in 2015. Further, the Hispanic population is making up a larger percentage of the total population, from 47.7% to 50.5%. Hendry County also had a large percentage (46.8%) of the population of which English is not the primary language spoken at home.

Page | B-51

Highlands County Demographics

Highlands County is located on the northern border of the Heartland region (Figure B-74). Since 2010, Highlands County population changed little with a small decrease of 479 people. The vast majority (76%) of the population lived in unincorporated areas of Highlands County. Twenty-three percent of the population lived within three municipalities of Sebring, Avon Park, and Lake Placid. Since 2010, only Lake Placid experienced any growth. Figure B-75 is a map illustrating population distribution and density.

Figure B-76 illustrates the changing age distribution since 2010 of Highlands County. The county is increasingly becoming older with the B-74 Highlands County over age 65 population increasing from 31.5% to 33.3% of the total population. This trend is expected to continue with 40.6% of the population over age 65 estimated by the year 2045. The under age 18 population decreased from 18.5% to 17.9% since 2010 and will continue to decrease with projections reflecting the under age 18 constituting 16.3% of the county’s population. B-77 illustrates these trends and is accompanied by Figure B-79 and B-81 which isolates the under 18 and over age 65 trends. Figures B-78 and B- 80 illustrate the geographic distribution of the under 18 and over 65 population segments.

Page | B-52

B-75 Population Density Highlands County1,2

2015 2010 Change Age Group Total Percent Total Percent Total 0 – 17 17,601 17.90% 18,279 18.50% -678 18 – 44 24,090 24.50% 24,307 24.60% -217 45-64 23,992 24.40% 25,097 25% -1105 65-85 28,417 29% 27,271 27.60% 1146 Over 85 4228 4.30% 3853 3.90% 375 Total 98,328 100% 98,807 100% -479 B-76 Population Change by Age Category1

Page | B-53

Highlands County 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 0 – 17 20.0% 18 – 44 15.0% 45-64 10.0% 65-85 Percent Population of Percent 5.0% Over 85 0.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-77 Population Trends and Projection by Age Category2

B-78 Under Age 18 Distribution by Census Block Group1

Page | B-54

Highlands County 19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 17.5% 17.0% 16.5% 0 – 17 16.0% Percent Population of Percent 15.5% 15.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-79 Trends and Projection of Under Age 18 Population2

B-80 Over Age 65 Population Distribution by Census Block Group1

Page | B-55

Highlands County 43.0% 41.0% 39.0% 37.0% 35.0% 33.0% over 65 31.0% 29.0% Percent Population of Percent 27.0% 25.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-81 Trend and Projection for Population Over Age 652

Page | B-56

Income and Household Characteristics

Income and household characteristics effect transportation demand. Public transportation is more vital to areas with higher number of households with zero vehicle available or with lower income. Similarly, public transportation may help low wageworkers retain employment as well as access new opportunities.

Highlands County’s median income was $35,093 in 2015, which was the second lowest among the Heartland counties. The poverty rate in Highlands was the lowest in the Heartland region) 19.4%). Figure B-82 illustrates the geographic distribution and the median income range by U.S. Census Block Group. Highlands County had the lowest percentage of homes with incomes below $10,000 as illustrated in Figure B-83.

B- 82 Median Income by Census Block Group 1

Page | B-57

Highlands County Percent of Household Income Categories 2015 2010 $10,000 or less 9.4% 8.3% $10,000 to $14,999 7.1% 7.5% $15,000 to $24,999 16.6% 16.6% $25,000 to $34,999 16.7% 17.8% $35,000 to $49,999 16.6% 19.2% $50,000 to $74,999 17.6% 15.9% $75,000 to $99,999 7.6% 7.7% $100,000 to $149,999 5.5% 5.5% $150,000 to $199,999 1.6% 1.1% $200,000 and above 1.3% 0.7% Median Income $35,093 $34,946 B-83 Distribution of Household Income 1

Highlands County had 6.6% of its households with zero vehicles available. This was an increase of 5.3% since 2010. Figure B-84 is a map showing the block groups with a higher number of zero vehicle households. Figure B-85 contains the distribution of the vehicles per household. The location of low wage workers is a vital market to examine. Figure B-86 is a map showing the distribution of the workers with incomes below $1,250 a month.

Page | B-58

B-84 Total Households with Zero Vehicles 1

Page | B-59

2015 2010 Zero Vehicle Households 6.6% 5.3% One Vehicle Households 53.1% 49.8% Two Vehicle Households 30.2% 34.2% Three or more Vehicle Households 10.2% 10.7% B-85 Vehicles Per Household 1

B-86 Monthly Income Below $1,250 3

Page | B-60

Commuting Patterns

The analysis in the employment and commuting section relies upon two different employment data sets, the ACS and LEHD. The ACS data and LEHD data have different total jobs and employment due to the nature of the data. ACS is a survey of residents and the LEHD is based on administrative records such as unemployment insurance. The LEHD does not report on “agricultural labor” and a few other employment types. Nonetheless, for the purposes of identifying employment commuting flows and patterns the LEHD data is sufficient.

Based on the ACS 2015 data, Highlands County’s working age population was 82,755 with 43.4% (35,916) participating in the labor force. Highlands County’s unemployment rate was 13.3% in 2015, the highest in the Heartland counties. Unemployed residents may benefit from public transportation services to access employment opportunities as well as other life sustaining activities such as retail and medical purposes.

The average commute time for Highlands County residents was 20.9 minutes, a decrease from 22 minutes in 2010. In 2015, 79.5% of the workers drove alone while 11.3% of the commuters carpooled.

Highlands residents held 32,858 jobs of which 48.2% or 15,850 were located in Highlands County. The remaining 17,008 jobs were held in counties outside of Highlands County. Figure B-87 lists the top 10 counties with jobs held by Highlands residents.

Where Highlands County Residents Commute (Top 10) Total Workers in Highlands County 32,858 Highlands County, FL 15,850 Polk County, FL 2,613 Lee County, FL 1,608 Miami-Dade County, FL 1,165 Hillsborough County, FL 1,140 Palm Beach County, FL 983 Hardee County, FL 858 Broward County, FL 843 Sarasota County, FL 669 Charlotte County, FL 656 B-87 Top 10 Counties with Jobs Held by Highlands Residents

Page | B-61

B-88 Highlands County Commute Destinations3

There were 26,984 jobs located in Highlands County and 57.7% or 15,580 were held by Highlands County residents. The remaining 41.2% of the jobs are held by residents of other counties. Figure B-89 lists the top 10 counties of workers commuting to Highlands County.

Where Highlands County Workers Commute From (Top 10) Total Jobs in Highlands County 26,984 Highlands County, FL 15,850 Polk County, FL 1,815 Hillsborough County, FL 650 Lee County, FL 560 544 Hardee County, FL Orange County, FL 526 Miami-Dade County, FL 501 Indian River County, FL 424 B-89 Top 10 Counties with Residents Holding Jobs Located in Highlands County 3

Page | B-62

B-90 Workers Commuting to Highlands 3

Page | B-63

Okeechobee County

Located in the northeastern section of the Heartland region, Okeechobee had the second largest population among the Heartland counties (Figure B-91). Okeechobee County had a population of 39,255, representing a decrease of 628 people or - 1.5% since 2010. Twenty-six percent or 10,447 people of the county lived along the southern section of the county immediately north of Lake Okeechobee inside the City of Okeechobee, Cypress Quarters and Taylor Creek regions. Since 2010, these locations have experienced an uneven change with Cypress Quarters experiencing population growth of 8.2% while Taylor Creek’s population decreased by 21.6%Figure B-92 B-91 Okeechobee County shows the distribution and density of Okeechobee’s population.

Figure B-93 is a table illustrating the distribution of the population by age categories. Okeechobee experienced little overall change with the over age 65 population changing slightly but still representing 17.3% of the total population. Population projections produced by BEBR indicate an increase in total over 65 population and its proportion. The proportion of the county under age 18 will decrease slightly to 22% by 2045. Figure B-94 is a chart highlighting these trends and projections produced by BEBR. Figure B-95 isolates the over 65 population trends and projections to emphasize the importance of this demographic trend. Additionally, Figure B-96 is a map displays the distribution of the over age 65 population segments. The under age 18 demographic is isolated to highlight the importance of this segment. Figure B-97 illustrates the population age trend and Figure B-98 highlights the distribution of the under 18 population segment.

Page | B-64

B-92 Okeechobee Population Density1,2

2015 2010 Change Age Group Total Percent Total Percent Total 0 – 17 9,029 23.0% 9,532 23.9% -503 18 – 44 13,543 34.5% 13,999 35.1% -456 45-64 9,853 25.1% 9,412 23.6% 441 65-85 6,085 15.5% 6,381 16.0% -296 Over 85 707 1.8% 518 1.3% 189 Total 39,255 100% 39,883 100% -628 B-93 Population Change by Age Categories1

Page | B-65

Okeechobee County 40.0% 35.0% 30.0%

25.0% 0 – 17 20.0% 18 – 44 15.0% 45-64 10.0% 65-85 Percent Population of Percent 5.0% Over 85 0.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-94 Population Trends and Projections - Okeechobee County2

Okeechobee County 24.0%

22.0%

20.0%

18.0%

16.0% over 65 14.0% Percent Population of Percent 12.0%

10.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-95 Population Trend and Projection for the Over 65 Population2

Page | B-66

B-96 Population Over Age 65 by Census Block Group1

Page | B-67

Okeechobee County

24.5%

24.0%

23.5%

23.0%

22.5% 0 – 17 22.0% Percent Population of Percent 21.5%

21.0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Trends and Projection Years

B-97 Population Trends and Projections of Under 18 Population2

B-98 Under Age 18 Population by Census Block Group1

Page | B-68

Income and Household Characteristics

Okeechobee County’s median income was $35,457 and had the third highest median income in the Heartland region, representing a 7.7% decrease since 2010. Figure B-99 illustrates the median income ranges by Census Block Groups for Okeechobee County. (Please note, due to data limitations for the median income data at the block group level there are some block groups without data). The poverty rate for Okeechobee County was the second highest in the Heartland region. Figure B-100 highlights the location of the population living below the poverty line. The county had the second highest percentage of households with incomes below $10,000. Figure B-101 details the household income distribution including the change since 2010. Areas with a higher number of households with zero vehicles available are represented in Figure B-102. Figure B-101 shows the change in vehicle availability since 2010.

B-99 Median Income by Census Block Group1

Page | B-69

B-100 Population Living Below Poverty Level by Census Block Group1

Okeechobee County Percent of Household Income Categories 2015 2010 $10,000 or less 11.2% 6.6% $10,000 to $14,999 8.3% 9.7% $15,000 to $24,999 13.4% 15.3% $25,000 to $34,999 16.5% 14.4% $35,000 to $49,999 17.2% 16.0% $50,000 to $74,999 17.5% 19.7% $75,000 to $99,999 6.6% 10.1% $100,000 to $149,999 6.8% 4.9% $150,000 to $199,999 1.1% 1.1% $200,000 and above 1.4% 2.3% Median Income $35,405 $38,339 B-101 Distribution of Household Income1

Page | B-70

B-102 Total Households with Zero Vehicles1

2015 2010 Zero-Vehicle Households 4.6% 5.9% One Vehicle Households 41.6% 36.1% Two Vehicle Households 39.3% 42.1% Three or more Vehicle Households 14.4% 16.0% B-103 Vehicle Available per Households1

Based on data from the U.S Census Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics Data (LEHD) 25.5% of jobs located in Okeechobee County earned $1,250 and below monthly. Figure B-104 is a map representing the location of job opportunities with monthly wages below $1,250. A cluster of lower-wage jobs were located inside the City of Okeechobee.

Page | B-71

B-104 Monthly Income Below $1,2501

Page | B-72

Commuting Patterns

The analysis in the employment and commuting section relies upon two different employment data sets, the ACS and LEHD. The ACS data and LEHD data have different total jobs and employment due to the nature of the data. ACS is a survey of residents and the LEHD is based on administrative records such as unemployment insurance. The LEHD does not report on “agricultural labor” and a few other employment types. Nonetheless, for the purposes of identifying employment commuting flows and patterns the LEHD data is sufficient.

Based on the ACS 2015 data, Okeechobee County’s working age population was 31,497 with 47.6% (14,993) participating in the labor force. Further, Okeechobee County’s unemployment rate was 11.8% in 2015, the 3rd lowest in the Heartland counties. Unemployed residents may benefit from public transportation services to access employment opportunities as well as other life sustaining activities such as retail and medical purposes.

Eighty-seven percent of workers in Okeechobee County commute alone, representing the second highest percentage in the Heartland region. Further, it had the second lowest percentage of carpoolers at 13.2%. The average commute time in 2015 was 24.3 minutes with 10.7% of the workers commuting more than 60 minutes.

Okeechobee residents hold 12,517 jobs and 42.1% were located in Okeechobee County. The remaining 57.9% of the jobs were located in counties other than Okeechobee. Figure B-105 lists the top 10 counties where Okeechobee residents hold jobs. Figure B-106 displays the location of the jobs held by Okeechobee residents.

Okeechobee County Commuting Destinations (Top 10) Total Workers in Okeechobee County 12,517 Okeechobee County, FL 5,266 942 Palm Beach County, FL 931 St. Lucie County, FL 675 Broward County, FL 674 Martin County, FL 514 Brevard County, FL 472 Miami-Dade County, FL 461 Orange County, FL 331 Indian River County, FL Highlands County, FL 320 B-105 Okeechobee Commuting Destinations3

Page | B-73

B-106 Okeechobee Commuter Destinations3

Page | B-74

Of the 10,762 jobs located in Okeechobee 51% traveled from outside the county. St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties constituted 8.2% and 5.8% respectively of the commuters traveling to Okeechobee for work. Figure B-107 illustrates the ten counties with the highest number of commuters traveling to Okeechobee County for work and Figure B-108 is a map depicting the origin location of the commuters.

Workers Commuting to Okeechobee County (Top 10) Total Jobs in Okeechobee County 10,762 Okeechobee County, FL 5,266 891 St. Lucie County, FL 623 Palm Beach County, FL 466 Highlands County, FL 323 Broward County, FL 278 Miami-Dade County, FL 276 Indian River County, FL 273 Martin County, FL 211 Polk County, FL Hillsborough County, FL 188 B-107 Workers Commuting to Okeechobee County (Top 10) 3

B-108 Workers Commuting to Okeechobee County3

Page | B-75

Appendix C: Mobility Options

Appendix C provides a summary of the family of mobility options that could be viewed as options for the Heartland region.

Fixed Route Service

Fixed route service is a traditional public or private bus service that that transports the general public on a regular basis on vehicles that travel a designated route on a fixed schedule. If the system is a fixed-route service, the system is required to provide complementary paratransit service to customers unable to use the fixed route system.4

In Glades and Hendry Counties, the ClewBelle Community Bus Route, operated by Good Wheels Inc., provides service between Belle Glade and Clewiston, connecting to Palm Tran routes 47 and 48.

The ClewBelle is the only fixed route service in the Heartland region.

Demand Response and Dial-A-Ride Service

Demand-Response Transportation (DRT), also called dial-a-ride or paratransit, provides service at the passenger’s request. Typically, transit agencies dispatch vehicles in response to a patron’s request while accommodating other patrons with similar geographical requests. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit is a type of DRT service, however DRT does not solely provide services to the paratransit market.5 DRT helps enhance the mobility of people who either cannot drive, are unable to use or do not have access to a fixed-route system, or simply prefer to use the demand-response system. DRT service provides mobility to people who otherwise would be unable to travel at all.5

Demand response and dial-a-ride services can be found throughout the Heartland region. In DeSoto County, MV Transportation, Inc., services as the Community Transportation Coordinator and contracts with JJ Transport of Arcadia to provide healthcare and medical transport service.

Flex Route and Route Deviation Service

Flex route service, also called route deviation, is a hybrid service that combines fixed route and paratransit. Like demand response/dial-a-ride it is open to all passengers, including those who are unable to use fixed route service due to age or disability. It has stops along a fixed route, however it has the ability to go off route and provide door-to-door or curb-to-curb service.

4 Fixed Route Requirements. National Rural Transit Assistance Program. N.d. Web. 5 Demand-Response Transportation. National Center on Senior Transportation. National Aging and Disability Transportation Center. N.d. PDF.

Page | C-1

The DeSoto-Arcadia Regional Transit service (DART), operated by the DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners, is a deviated fixed route service. Deviations are made up to ¾ mile from the fixed route and are limited to twice per trip to maintain the schedule.

DART is the only deviated fixed route service in the Heartland region, however the 2017 Highlands County Transit Plan proposes three options for flex services in the Avon Park and Sebring/Lake Jackson areas in addition to a dial-a-ride or express service. Because flex route and route deviation services are able to fulfill the ¾-mile requirement of paratransit, paratransit service is not required.

Coordinated System

A coordinated system is a collaboration of various transportation providers, local officials, and those working for customer interests to collectively use limited resources to provide transportation.6 An example of this is United We Ride. United We Ride was a federal interagency that worked with states to identify service-related gaps, duplication, create a more efficient and productive service, and building local partnerships. The ultimate goal of this initiative was to create the “one-call” system, where a person would be able to coordinate a complete trip to the doctor, employment, worship services, shopping, or other life-sustaining activities and only have to make one phone call.7 Though the United We Ride initiative has expired, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, which is a partnership of federal agencies, works to continue and promote the mission of United We Ride.8

Throughout the state of Florida, the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) designates a Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) in each county. Any person who qualifies as being Transportation Disadvantaged, because of age, income, disability, or unable to drive and do not have access to other transportation options, has the option of receiving coordinated, shared-ride transportation services through the CTC.

MV Transportation, Inc. is the designated CTC for DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, and Okeechobee counties, whereas Good Wheels, Inc., serves as the CTC in Glades and Hendry.

Transportation Network Companies and Integrating Them with Accessible Transportation Services

On-demand ride services, also called transportation network companies (TNCs) or “ridesourcing,” use smartphone applications to connect drivers with passengers. In many cases, the outcome, from a consumer perspective, is not very different from conventional taxi services: people are still paying for individual, point-to-point, on-demand rides in a car. In

6 Accessible Transportation in Rural Areas: An Easter Seals Project ACTION Resource Sheet. Easter Seals. National Aging and Disability Center. 2003. PDF. 7 The United We Ride. The Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. Federal Transportation Administration. US Department of Transportation. 2007. Doc. 8 Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. Federal Transportation Administration. US Department of Transportation. N.d. Web.

Page | C-2

addition, carpooling apps are helping to facilitate conventional ridesharing, where the goal is to share the expenses of a ride, instead of having a paid driver provide a service.9

While Uber and Lyft state they offer services in almost every area of Florida, service is dependent on a private driver being available in their own vehicle to provide service. Service is more likely to be provided in urbanized areas with a higher population density than in smaller, more rural areas. However, emerging from the need in rural and small urban areas is another TNC called Liberty that focuses on areas with lower population densities. While not available yet in Florida, Liberty’s mission is to “…connect communities through technology, public-private partnerships, and deploying Liberty Drivers where there is need,” where “individuals can access multiple transportation options with one tap, click or call.10”

Taxi Services

The basic definition of a taxi is a vehicle, usually fitted with a taximeter that may be hired, along with its driver, to carry passengers to any specified destination.11 A taxi is like a TNC in the fact that it provides a transportation in a hired vehicle driven by a hired driver. In contrast to this, “a representative from a taxi company would be more likely to tell you that ride sharing is a taxi service that uses a new format in order to cut corners and avoid regulations which keep taxi drivers and passengers safe and able to deliver a minimum standard of quality. A five-star rating system might not be able to give you a complete picture of what you’re in for, especially for first-time drivers and passengers, and while Uber and Lyft may require a certain standard of quality out of drivers and their vehicles, they can’t give their contract-based employees the same level of supervision as a taxi service manager.”12

Taxi services are available in every county of the Heartland region. While the business itself may not be located in each county, there are services available in Arcadia, Avon Park, Clewiston, LaBelle, Okeechobee, Sebring, and Wauchula. Taxi services are also headquartered in the surrounding areas as well, in counties not considered part of the Heartland region, such as Immokalee, Lehigh Acres, Punta Gorda, and Port St. Lucie.

Commuter Assistance Program

The Florida Department of Transportation defines a Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) as a “…coordinated effort to provide transit and commuter service alternatives in communities, using existing or low cost resources, can be beneficial to the development of public transit statewide and also can assist in efforts to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and assure energy conservation. These programs encourage public/private partnership to provide brokerage services to employers and individuals for: carpools, vanpools, park and rides, regular

9 On-Demand Ride Services: Transportation Network Companies. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. United States Department of Transportation. 2015. Web. 10 About Us. Liberty Mobility Now. 2016. Web. 11 Taxi. Dictionary.com. British Dictionary Definition for Taxi. 2017. Web. 12 Sutter, Brian O. What’s the Difference Between Ride Sharing and Taxis? Law Firm Blog. All Injuries Law Firm, PA. N.d. Web.

Page | C-3

and express bus service, emergency ride home services, group taxi services, implementation of shuttle services, preferential parking for ride sharers, telecommuting, and bicycling/walking programs.13”

Commuter Services for Southwest Florida provides CAP service for the area of Florida known as the Heartland region, which includes carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking & bicycling, park and ride, and emergency ride home. Commuter Services for Southwest Florida offer an online platform and toll-free number to facilitate ride matching for people who wish to car and vanpool, a list of emergency ride home providers throughout the coverage area, and available park and rides. The only park and ride in the Heartland region is an informal location at the Clewiston Wal-Mart in Hendry County for the ClewBelle fixed route. Transit services are restricted to the DART deviated fixed route service and ClewBelle fixed route and there are no walking & bicycling programs in the Heartland region.

Voucher Service

Low-income riders have available to them transportation vouchers to reimburse community and human service agency transportation providers. The U.S. Department of Education has funded the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) to investigate a rural employment transportation voucher model: the Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Voucher Program.6

While no voucher service exists in the Heartland region, there was a proposed pilot project with the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority in 2015. The participants for the voucher plan were those who qualified for paratransit service. It authorized for the Chief Executive Officer of HART in November of 2017 to submit 5310 Grant applications and supporting documents to continue this program.

Volunteer Service

A volunteer service is where the passenger has the opportunity to recruit their own driver, who is then reimbursed for transporting the person. An example of this is Ride to Care, which is part of the FamilyCare and Health Share of Oregon. A person who is deemed eligible can be reimbursed for driving himself or herself or having someone drive them to their medical appointments. Any person is able to drive the passenger as long as they have a valid driver’s license and are listed under the trip provided when the trip was scheduled with Ride to Care. The service is managed by Access2Care and a partner for FamilyCare and Health Share of Oregon to administer their Non-Emergency Medical Transportation.14

In DeSoto and Hendry Counties, the Dr. Elle Piper Center in Lee County provides Senior Companion program and Faith in Action, both of which coordinate volunteer transportation service for individuals who are considered elderly. For the entire Heartland region the

13 US 27 Transportation Alternatives Study. State of Florida Department of Transportation. January 2013. PDF. 14 Mileage Reimbursement. Ride to Care. Family Care and Health Share of Oregon. Access2Care. April 2015. PDF.

Page | C-4

American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients in De Soto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee counties.

Bike Sharing

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center Describes Bike sharing as “…an innovative transportation program, ideal for short distance point-to-point trips providing users the ability to pick up a bicycle at any self-serve bike-station and return it to any other bike station located within the system's service area. Bike-sharing differs from traditional bicycle rental services in that it is typically used for short, spontaneous trips that are often combined with other transportation modes (e.g. transit).”15

There are no bike sharing initiatives currently in the Heartland region, however they do exist elsewhere in the state of Florida. The Florida Bicycle Association shows available programs in Aventura, Cocoa Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Gainesville, Jacksonville Beach, Key Biscayne, Key West, Lakeland, Miami, Orlando, St. Lucie County, Tallahassee, Tampa/St. Petersburg, and West Palm Beach. In addition, programs exist with Florida State University, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, and University of South Florida. A bike-sharing program is currently in development in St. Augustine.16

Other

Other modes of transportation that exist in the Heartland region include home and health care services, airport/limo services, non-emergency medical transportation, senior services. These services are provided for people that have cancer, are disabled, elderly, and public/private pay consumers. These services are typically fulfilled using buses, taxis, sedans, minivans, or micro/cutaway buses.

15 Bike Sharing. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. April 2018. Web. 16 Bike Share Programs. Florida Bicycle Association. April 2018. Web.

Page | C-5

Transportation Initiatives in the Heartland Region

The following sections provide a summary of known existing mobility services found in the Heartland region, organized by county.

DeSoto County

• TD and rural public transportation services are provided by MV Transportation, Inc., serving as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for service area • All service is door to door. Ambulatory and wheelchair service is offered countywide • The DeSoto - Arcadia Regional Transit (DART) deviated fixed-route service in the area is managed and operated by the DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners • As of July 1, 2017, DeSoto County will become the fourth county in the Hardee - Highlands - Okeechobee TD Service Area • JJ Transport also provides Medicaid trips under a separate contract • Home and health care services, airport/limo services, non-emergency medical transportation, senior services. These services are provided for people that have cancer, are disabled, elderly, and public/private pay consumers. These services are typically fulfilled using buses, taxis, sedans, minivans, or micro/cutaway buses are provided in the area • Volunteer Transportation: Dr. Elle Piper Center in Lee County provides Senior Companion program and Faith in Action • American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients • Trip demand increases by a 7-8% rate each five years from 1995 through 2020. From a transportation demand figure of 46,037 in 1995, to 49,853 in 2000, and 54,130 in 2005. Information past 2005 is not available in the most recent TDSP.

Glades County

• TD and rural public transportation services are provided by Good Wheels, Inc., a private not-for-profit agency, serving as the CTC for the area. o Group Trips o Subscription service o Demand response service o Non-Emergency Medical Stretcher Service o Wheelchair Service o Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid Program Trips • Good Wheels, Inc. is also the major transportation provider for Medicaid trips, and operates the Clewiston - Belle Glade Community Bus Route. The "Clew - Belle" is a fixed route service that connects to the Palm Tran system.

Page | C-6

• The Glades County Comprehensive plan has been adopted and continues not to have a mass transit program because of the County’s small population numbers and the lack of a viable demand for those transportation services. • Home and health care services, airport/limo services, non-emergency medical transportation, senior services. These services are provided for people that have cancer, are disabled, elderly, and public/private pay consumers. These services are typically fulfilled using buses, taxis, sedans, minivans, or micro/cutaway buses are available in Glades County • American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients • It is forecasted there would be 7,038 persons who are considered Transportation Disadvantaged in Glades County in 2018 per the 2017 Glades-Hendry County TDSP minor update. This is an increase of 192 person from the 2014 forecast.

Hardee County

• TD and rural public transportation services are provided by MV Transportation, Inc., as the CTC for the service area. • MV Transportation, Inc. contracts with two companies to provide service in the area. They are Positive Medical Transport and Safety Transportation, both located in Sebring. MV contracts with MTM, Inc. to provide a portion of the Medicaid trips within the service area. • No fixed route public transportation system exists in the four county service area, but private taxi service does exist. • All service is door to door. Ambulatory and wheelchair service is offered countywide. • American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients • Per the 2016 Hardee-Highlands-Okeechobee TDSP, it is estimated there were 921 daily trips needed by the Critical Need Transportation Disadvantaged Population in 2010 which equaled to 336,058 that year in Hardee County. It is forecasted the need that by 2020, demand will be 1,092 daily trips and 398,466 annually.

Hendry County

• TD and rural public transportation services are provided by Good Wheels, Inc., a private not-for-profit agency, serving as the CTC for the area. • Good Wheels, Inc. is also the major transportation provider for Medicaid trips, and operates the Clewiston - Belle Glade Community Bus Route. The "Clew - Belle" is a fixed route service that connects to the Palm Tran system. • Volunteer Transportation: Dr. Elle Piper Center in Lee County provides Senior Companion program and Faith in Action • American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients

Page | C-7

• Although the County’s Comprehensive Plan provides for a Traffic Circulation Element that provides for a multimodal type of transportation system that includes roads, bicycles and pedestrian access, the plan does not address public transportation facilities or other mobility issues related to disabled users. • It is forecasted there would be 18,382 persons who are considered Transportation Disadvantaged in Hendry County by 2019 per the 2017 Glades-Hendry County TDSP minor update. This is an increase of 571 person from the 2013 forecast.

Highlands County

• TD and rural public transportation services are provided by MV Transportation, Inc., as the CTC for the service area. • MV Transportation, Inc. contracts with two companies to provide service in the area. They are Positive Medical Transport and Safety Transportation, both located in Sebring. MV contracts with MTM, Inc. to provide a portion of the Medicaid trips within the service area. • No fixed route public transportation system exists in the four county service area, but private taxi service does exist. • All service is door to door. Ambulatory and wheelchair service is offered countywide. • Home and health care services, airport/limo services, non-emergency medical transportation, senior services. These services are provided for people that have cancer, are disabled, elderly, and public/private pay consumers. These services are typically fulfilled using buses, taxis, sedans, minivans, or micro/cutaway buses and are available in Highlands County • American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients • According to the 2016 Hardee-Highlands-Okeechobee TDSP, it is estimated there were 8,243 daily trips needed by the Critical Need Transportation Disadvantaged Population in 2010 for Highlands County, which equates to 3,008,563 that year. It is forecasted the need that by 2020, daily trips will range to about 9,773 and 3,567,273 annually.

Okeechobee County

Page | C-8

• Home and health care services, airport/limo services, non-emergency medical transportation, senior services. These services are provided for people that have cancer, are disabled, elderly, and public/private pay consumers. These services are typically fulfilled using buses, taxis, sedans, minivans, or micro/cutaway buses and are available in Okeechobee County. • American Cancer Society Transportation Program offers volunteer transportation coordination for cancer patients • According to the 2016 Hardee-Highlands-Okeechobee TDSP it is estimated there were 3,119 daily trips needed by the Critical Need Transportation Disadvantaged Population in 2010 for Okeechobee County, which comes to 1,138,562 for that year. It is forecasted the need that by 2020, daily trips will range around 3,699 and 1,350,000 annually.

Opportunities and Pilot Projects from 2009 HRMP

• Opportunities o Commuter Assistance Program o Transportation Disadvantaged Program o Veterans’ Services o Volunteer Services o Faith-Based Services o Local Taxi Services o Local Circulators o Corridor Services o Intercity Services

• Pilot Projects o Maintain Existing Lake Region Commuter Service (SR 80 Corridor - Clewiston in Hendry County to Belle Glade in Palm Beach County) o US 17 Corridor Transit Service (Bowling Green to Zolfo Springs in Hardee County) o US 27 Corridor Service (Avon Park to Lake Placid in Highlands County) o US 17 and US 27 Connector Transit Service (Hardee County to Highlands County) o SR 80 Corridor Service (LaBelle to Clewiston in Hendry County with Deviation to Moore Haven in Glades County) o Sebring Circulator (Highlands County) o City of Okeechobee Circulator (Okeechobee County) o Arcadia Circulator (DeSoto County) o Clewiston Circulator (Hendry County) o Intercity Bus Service (Corridors/Locations to be Determined) o Support and Foster FDOT Commuter Services Program o Maintain and Enhance Paratransit Service

Page | C-9