HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-197A,2,c) • 1 q 7 A
Plan
YEAR 2014 -
Transit Development
2023
GoLthe
getting you there!
:311ENSitittegiligiNglaq
Chapter l-ludiau&iverCouoty Community Characteristics ......................................................
1.1 Demographics, Economics and Travel ................................... ............
.l'l
lllDecennial Census ............................. ....................................................................
l'l
1l2 2011 American Community Survey .....................................................................
l`3
1.2 Study Area Setting ........................................................................................................
1'2
13 Demographic and Socioeconomic Data .................................................................... ...
1'3
1.9JPopulation ............................................ ........................................
|-3
).].% Age Distribution .................................................................................................... l'6
113 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. .................
l'Q
1.3.4 Educational Attainment --------------------------.........
|-9
13.5 {000uz .-----...—..—_--.........----.----l-lO
1.3.6 Ao1ouxobUo Ownership and Availability ............................................................
1-12
1.3.7 Work Commuting Pattoruo--------..---------.---------]-l3
1.3.8 County Workflow Data ................... ...................................................................
l-\4
1.3.9 Employment Characteristics ....................................................... .......................
l -l6
13]0 Tourist and Visitor Levels .................................... ..............................................
t'l6
Chapter2' Existing Sonvices ........................................................................................................ %-|
2.1 Identification of Existing Public Transportation Services ............................................ 2-1
2.1.1 Indian River County Transit ............................................................ .................... 2-i
2].2 Space Coast Area Transit ............................ .......................................................... 2'3
2.1.3 Council ooAging ofSt. Lucie, Inc ....................................................................... 2-6
2]4 Other Neighboring Counties ................................................................................. 2-6
Chapter 3 - Performance Evaluation ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction ..................... ............................................ ................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Purpose ofoPerformance Review ........................................................................ 3-i
3.1.2 National Transit Database .......................................... ....................... ............... .3-\
3.2 Part One: Fixed -Route Transit Service ....... .................... ............................................ 9-2
3.2.1 Trend Area and Peer Group Graphs ...................................................................... 3'S
3.12 Peer and Trend Tables .......................................................................................... 2~5
3.2.3 9oux Summary .--.----.--...----.---.----.---.-----.2-24
3.3.1 Peer and Trend Tables........................................................................................3-26
3.3.2 Peer Summary.....................................................................................................3-41
Chapter4 - Public Involvements...................................................................................................4-1
4.1 GoLine Customer Survey .............................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Survey Methodology.............................................................................................4-2
4.1.2 Survey Analysis....................................................................................................4-2
4.1.3 Customer Demographics.......................................................................................4-3
4.1.4 Trip Characteristics............................................................................................... 4-7
4.1.5 Travel Behavior..................................................................................................4-10
4.1.6 GoLine Customer Profile....................................................................................4-13
4.1.7 Customer Satisfaction.........................................................................................4-14
4.2 Community Coach Survey..........................................................................................4-16
4.2.1 Survey Methodology...........................................................................................4-16
4.2.2 Customer Demographics.....................................................................................4-17
4.3 Employee Survey........................................................................................................4-29
4.3.1 Survey Results....................................................................................................4-29
4.4 Community Stakeholder Interviews............................................................................4-33
4.4.1 Perceptions of Current System Performance......................................................4-34
4.4.2 Barriers to Transit Service..................................................................................4-34
4.4.3 One Wish to Improve Public Transportation......................................................4-35
4.4.4 Transit's Role in Improving Livability...............................................................4-35
4.4.5 Considerations for Future Transit System..........................................................4-35
4.4.6 Appropriateness of Free vs. Fee-based System...................................................4-36
4.4.7 Recommendations for Future Service, Improvements .........................................4-36
4.4.8 Changes to County/City Policies to Assist Transit to Reach its Goals ...............4-37
4.5 Public Forums.............................................................................................................
4-37
4.5.1 Interactive Dot Exercise......................................................................................4-38
4.5.2 Summary of One -on -One Discussion and Comment Cards...............................4-38
4.5.3 Non -User Surveys...............................................................................................4-41
Chapter5 - Situation Appraisal.....................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Transportation Planning Agency..................................................................................
5-1
5.2 Transit Provider Organizational Structure....................................................................5-1
5.3 MPO Coordination Process...........................................................................................5-4
5.4 Assessment of Land Use Patterns within the County...................................................5-4
5.5 Major Employers..........................................................................................................5-6
5.6 Roadway Level of Service............................................................................................5-8
5.7 Jobs and Housing Balance..........................................................................................5-10
5.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure..........................................................................5-12
5.9 Technology.................................................................................................................5-13
5.10 Summary of State and Local Plans.............................................................................5-13
5.10.1 The 2060 Florida Transportation Plan................................................................5-13
5.10.2 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan..........................................................5-14
5.10.2.1 Future Land Use Element................................................................................5-14
5.10.2.2 Transportation Element....................................................................................5-15
5.10.3 City of Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan...........................................................5-17
5.10.3.1 Transportation Element....................................................................................5-17
5.10.4 City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan...............................................................5-19
5.10.4.1 Transportation Element....................................................................................5-19
5.11 Conclusions.................................................................................................................5-21
can Stanley Consultants -'
Section 6 - Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Data Collection and Evaluation....................................................................................6-1
6.2 Goals, Objectives, Policies and Performance Measures...............................................6-2
Chapter 7 - Evaluation of Alternatives, Ten -Year Service Plan and Strategic Initiatives ............7-1
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................
7-1
7.2 Challenges and Opportunities.......................................................................................7-1
7.3 Current GoLine Route Network....................................................................................7-2
7.4 Realignment of Route 11..............................................................................................7-2
7.5 New Transit Hub Proposed Circulation Plan................................................................7-3
7.6 Service Needs................................................................................................................7-4
Table 1-9 Travel Time (2011)....................................................................................................1-14
7.6.1 Weekday Span (Hours) of Service........................................................................7-5
Table 1-10 CTPP Commuter Outflow Estimates Based on 2006-2008 ACS Data ...................1-15
7.6.2 Weekday Frequency of Service............................................................................7-5
Table 1-11 CTPP Commuter Inflow Estimates Based on 2006-2008 ACS Data......................1-15
7.6.3 Saturday Span (Hours) of Service.........................................................................7-5
Table 1-12 Employment Rate (2011).........................................................................................1-16
7.6.4 Sunday Service......................................................................................................7-5
Table 1-13 Indian River County Employment by Type of Work (2011) ..................................1-16
7.7 T -BEST Scenarios........................................................................................................7-5
Table 1-14 Indian River County Tourism Tax Revenues..........................................................1-17
7.7.1 Cost Comparison of Scenarios — Cost per Passenger Trip....................................7-7
7.8 Ten -Year Program of Service Improvements...............................................................7-8
7.9 Strategic Initiatives.....................................................................................................7-11
7.10 Vehicle Replacement Plan..........................................................................................
7-12
Chapter 8 - Capital and Operating Program..................................................................................8-1
8.1 Operating Program........................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Capital Program............................................................................................................
8-2
TABLES
Table 1-1 2000 — 2011 Population Change by County and State................................................1-3
Table 1-2 2000 — 2011 Population Change by Municipalities.....................................................
1-6
Table 1-3 Population Age Distribution (2011)............................................................................1-6
Table 1-4 Race/Ethnicity of Total Population (2010)..................................................................1-9
Table 1-5 Educational Attainment (2011)...................................................................................1-9
Table 1-6 Household Income Distribution (2011).....................................................................1-10
Table 1-7 Poverty Thresholds for 2011 by Size of Family........................................................1-12
Table 1-8 Household Vehicle Availability(2011) .....................................................................1-12
Table 1-9 Travel Time (2011)....................................................................................................1-14
Table 1-10 CTPP Commuter Outflow Estimates Based on 2006-2008 ACS Data ...................1-15
Table 1-11 CTPP Commuter Inflow Estimates Based on 2006-2008 ACS Data......................1-15
Table 1-12 Employment Rate (2011).........................................................................................1-16
Table 1-13 Indian River County Employment by Type of Work (2011) ..................................1-16
Table 1-14 Indian River County Tourism Tax Revenues..........................................................1-17
Table 2-1 GoLine Route Characteristics......................................................................................2-3
Table 3-1 Selected Performance Review Measures Operational Measures.................................3-3
Table 3-2 Selected Performance Review Measures Financial Measures.....................................3-4
twit Stanley Consultants ..t'
Table 3-3 GoLine Fixed Route Peer Systems..............................................................................3-5
Table 3-4 Peer & Trend — GoLine Service Characteristic Measures...........................................3-6
Table 3-5 Peer & Trend — GoLine Vehicle Utilization Measures...............................................3-9
Table 3-6 Peer & Trend — GoLine Service Utilization and Productivity Measures ..................3-15
Table 3-7 Peer & Trend — Financial Measures..........................................................................3-20
Table 3-8 Peer & Trend — Community Coach Service Characteristic Measures .......................3-26
Table 3-9 Peer & Trend — Community Coach Vehicle Utilization Measures ...........................3-29
Table 3-10 Peer & Trend— Community Coach Service Utilization and Productivity
Measures.....................................................................................................................................3-33
Table 3-11 Peer & Trend —Financial Measures........................................................................3-37
Table 4-1 Response Rate by Question.........................................................................................4-2
Table 4-2 Ethnicity (Q14) by Customer Age (Q13)....................................................................4-5
Table 4-3 Household Income (Q15) by Customer Age(Q13).....................................................4-6
Table 4-4 Vehicles Available (Q18) by Household Income (Q15) .............................................4-7
Table 4-5 Reason for Riding the Bus (Q9) By Age Group (Q13) .............................................4-11
Table 4-6 Length of Use (Q11) By Customer Age (Q13).........................................................4-12
Table 4-7 GoLine Customer Profile...........................................................................................4-13
Table 4-8 Service Characteristics in Need of Improvement......................................................4-16
Table 4-9 Community Coach Survey Response Rate................................................................4-17
Table 4-10 Public Workshop Dates and Locations....................................................................4-38
Table 7-1 Changes in Ridership Based on Improvement Scenarios............................................7-6
Table 7-2 Cost Comparison Exercise — Cost Per Passenger Trip — T -BEST Scenarios ..............7-8
Table 7-3 Average Ratings for Service Improvement Scenarios Indian River MPO Survey ...... 7-9
Table 7-4 Ten -Year Program of Service Improvements............................................................7-10
Table 7-5 Strategic Initiatives....................................................................................................7-11
Table 7-6 Paratransit Vehicle Replacement Plan.......................................................................7-12
Table 7-7 Fixed -Route Vehicle Replacement Plan .................... :............................................... 7-13
Table 7-8 Summary of Vehicle Acquisitions by Year...............................................................7-14
Table 8-1 Indian River Transit Operation Program FY 2014 through FY 2018 ..........................8-3
Table 8-2 Indian River Transit Operating Program FY 2019 through FY 2023 ..........................8-4
Table 8-3 Indian River Transit Capital Program FY 2014 through FY 2018 ..............................8-5
Table 8-4 Indian River Transit Capital Program FY 2019 through FY 2023 .............................. 8-6
iv
urn Stanley Consultants ,.'
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Total Population (20 10) By Census Block Group ....................................................... 1-4
Figure 1-2 Population Density (2010) By Census Block Group ................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-3 Population Density Over Age 65 (2011).....................................................................1-7
Figure 1-4 Population Density Under 18 Years of Age (2011) ....................................................1-8
Figure 1-5 Annual Household Income<$15,000 (2011).............................................................1-11
Figure 1-6 Zero Vehicle Availability (2011)..............................................................................1-13
Figure2-1 GoLine System Map...................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2 Space Coast Area Transit System Map.......................................................................
2-5
Figure3-1 Average Speed............................................................................................................
3-7
Figure 3-2 Revenue Miles in thousands ......•••• ............................3-7
Figure 3-3 Revenue Miles / Vehicle Miles...................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-4 Revenue Hours (in thousands)....................................................................................
3-9
Figure 3-5 Vehicles Available and Operated in Maximum Services (VOMS) ...........................3-10
Figure3-6 Total Vehicles...........................................................................................................
3-11
Figure3-7 VOMS.......................................................................................................................
3-11
Figure3-8 Spare Ratio................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 3-9 Revenue Miles per VOMS (in thousands)................................................................3-12
Figure 3-10 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE.........................................................................3-13
Figure 3-11 Vehicle Miles per Gallon........................................................................................3-14
Figure 3-12 Revenue Miles between Failures (in thousands).....................................................3-14
Figure 3-13 Average Age of Fleet..............................................................................................3-15
Figure3-14 Passenger Trips.......................................................................................................
3-16
Figure3-15 Passenger Miles.......................................................................................................
3-17
Figure 3-16 Average Passenger Trip Length..............................................................................3-18
Figure 3-17 Passenger Trips per VOMS.....................................................................................3-19
Figure 3-18 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour.........................................................................3-19
Figure 3-19 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile..........................................................................3-20
Figure 3-20 Operating Expense in thousands $
3-21
Figure 3-21 Maintenance Expense m thousands $
3-22
Figure 3-22 Operating Expense per Capita.................................................................................
3-22
Figure 3-23 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip...................................................................
3-23
Figure 3-24 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour....................................................................3-23
Figure 3-25 Maintenance Expense per Vehicle Mile..................................................................
3-24
Figure 3-26 Peer Analysis — Operational Measures, FY 2010 ....................................................3-25
v
C,
Stanley Consultants
,2
Figure 3-27 Peer Analysis —Financial Measures, FY 2010 ........................................................
3-25
Figure 3-28 Revenue Miles (in thousands).................................................................................
3-27
Figure 3-29 Revenue Miles / Vehicle Miles...............................................................................
3-28
Figure 3-30 Revenue Hours (in thousands)................................................................................
3-28
Figure 3-31 Vehicles Available and Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) ..........................
3-30
Figure3-32 Spare Ratio..............................................................................................................3-30
Figure 3-33 Revenue Miles Per VOMS (in thousands)..............................................................
3-31
Figure 3-34 Vehicle Miles per Gallon........................................................................................
3-31
Figure 3-35 Revenue Miles Between Failures (in thousands)....................................................
3-32
Figure 3-36 Average Age of Fleet..............................................................................................
3-32
Figure 3-37 Passenger Trips.......................................................................................................
3-34
Figure 3-38 Passenger Miles.......................................................................................................
3-34
Figure 3-39 Average Passenger Trip Length..............................................................................3-35
Figure 3-40 Passenger Trips per VOMS.....................................................................................3-36
Figure 3-41 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour.........................................................................3-36
Figure 3-42 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile..........................................................................3-37
Figure 3-43 Operating Expense (in thousands$)........................................................................3-38
Figure 3-44 Maintenance Expense (in thousands$)...................................................................3-39
Figure 3-45 Operating Expense per Capita.................................................................................3-39
Figure 3-46 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip...................................................................
3-40
Figure 3-47 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour....................................................................3-40
Figure 3-48 Maintenance Expense per Vehicle Mile..................................................................3-41
Figure 3-49 Peer Analysis — Operational Measures, FY 2010 ....................................................3-41
Figure 3-50 Peer Analysis — Financial Measures, FY 2010 ........................................................
3-42
Figure4-1 Q13: Your Age Is?......................................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-2 Q12: Your Gender Is?.................................................................................................
4-4
Figure 4-3 Q14: Your Ethnic Heritage Is?....................................................................................4-4
Figure 4-4 Q15: What was the range of your Total Household Income for 2012 ........................4-6
Figure 4-5 Q18: Household Vehicle Availability.........................................................................4-7
Figure 4-6 Q3: How did you get to the bus?.................................................................................
4-8
Figure 4-7 Q4: Where are you going on this trip?........................................................................ 4-8
Figure 4-8 Q5: Do you need to transfer to complete today's trip? ...............................................
4-9
Figure 4-9 Q6: How will you reach your final destination once you depart from
thebus?...................................................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-10 Q7: How often do you ride the bus?.......................................................................4-10
Vi
u7R Stanley Consultants n,'
Figure 4-11 Q9: What is the most important reason you ride the bus?.......................................4-lC
Figure 4-12 Q10: How would you make this trip if not by bus?................................................4-11
Figure 4-13 Q11: How long have you been using GoLine Bus Seivice?...................................4-12
Figure 4-14 Q17: If there was a fare, how much would you be willing to pay
fora ride?............................................................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-15 Level of Satisfaction with Service Characteristics..................................................4-15
Figure4-16 Q14: Your Age Is?..................................................................................................4-18
Figure 4-17 Q15: You Are?........................................................................................................4-18
Figure4-18 Q16: You Are?........................................................................................................4-19
Figure 4-19 Q17: Your Total Household Income Is?.................................................................4-19
Figure 4-20 Q18: How many working vehicles are available in your household?.....................4-20
Figure 4-21 Q19: Do you have a valid driver's license?............................................................4-20
Figure 4-22 Q10: How did you become aware of Community Coach?......................................4-21
Figure 4-23 Ql: How often do you use Community Coach Service?.........................................4-21
Figure 4-24 Q7: How long have you been using Community Coach? .......................................
4-22
Figure 4-25 Q12: What is your primary purpose for using Community Coach?........................4-22
Figure 4-26 Q13: Check all purposes for which you use Community Coach.............................4-23
Figure 4-27 Q2: Do you use a wheelchair for your travels on Community Coach?...................4-23
Figure 4-28 Q11: How would you get to your destination if Community Coach
wasnot available?..................................................................................................4-24
Figure 4-29 Q3: How would you rate the overall quality of Community Coach
Service?................................................................................................................. 4-24
Figure 4-30 Q4: How would you rate the comfort of Community Coach vehicles? .................. 4-25
Figure 4-31 Q5: How would you rate the cleanliness of Community Coach vehicles? .............4-25
Figure 4-32 Q6: How often do you arrive at your appointments on time? ................................. 4-26
Figure 4-33 Q8: How would you rate the courtesy and helpfulness of the drivers
when riding Community Coach?........................................................................... 4-26
Figure 4-34 Q9: How would you rate the courtesy and helpfulness of the
telephone reservationist?....................................................................................... 4-27
Figure 4-35 Q21: Please tell us one thing you like most about riding Community
Coach..................................................................................................................... 4-27
Figure 4-36 Q22: Please tell us one thing you like least about riding Community
Coach..................................................................................................................... 4-28
Figure 4-37 Q23: Please tell us how you feel we could improve the quality of our
service.................................................................................................................... 4-28
Vii
R Stanley Consultants-'
Figure 4-38 Employee Recommended Priority for Improvement Projects .-----.—.—.--4-29
Figure 4-39Most Customer Complaints —.---.—.--..---.—.—.-----.4-30
Figure 5-1 Senior Resource Association Organizational Structure .............................................. 5-3
Figure 5'2Major Employers in Indian River County ................................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-3 Ratios of Roadways in 2035 Cost Affordable Plan ................... S-9
Figure 5'4Jobs and Housing Balance iuIndian River County -------..—.-------5'l|
Figure 7-1 Realignment of Route D --.--...---_—_—.—.....----.—.---.—.'7-3
APPENDICES
Appendix /\'On -Board Surveys ~--------.----...--.—.-----.—.—.---..A-1
Appendix B' Community Coach Survey .................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C'SRA Employee Survey ......................................................................................... {-1
Appendix E-PobDo Workshop Sign IuSheets .................................................................. ........ E-1
Appendix K - Public Comment Survey ........................................................................................ Fcl
Appendix I{ - TDP Public Involvement Plan .—...----..-----------------.D-1
Appendix I'70LOS20l3y�PO\/emion...—_—.--...---.—.—.-----.---.—_.I-(
Appendix J'FnreboxR000voryReport 20ll--_----..------..-----.-----..J-1
Viii
WM Stanley Consultants
��
LMMMIOM
1.1 Demographics, Economics and Travel Characteristics
An understanding of the environment within which the Indian River County transit system
operates is important when planning for future development. This chapter provides a descriptive
overview of the community, including the demographic and socioeconomic conditions within the
County. The demographic and the socioeconomic characteristics of the County were largely
derived from the 2010 Decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). A
description of each of these two data sources and their strengths and limitations are presented
below.
1.1.1 Decennial Census
The 2010 Decennial Census is the most comprehensive recent data available for evaluating
the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the County. Decennial Census figures
are based on actual counts of persons residing in the US and serve as the basis for
apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives. They are also used for in-
state redistricting and distribution of Federal funds to states and localities.
During the Decennial Census process, the Census Bureau collects detailed demographic,
socioeconomic, and housing information at the county, census tract, census block group, and
the neighborhood level. The Census data provide vital information about a community's
demographic composition, including a description of traits such as age, sex, race, ethnicity,
household income, auto -ownership, and age characteristics.
Beginning in 2010, the US Census Bureau eliminated the census "long -form" questionnaire
and instead distributed only the census "short -form" questionnaire. In the past, the US Census
Bureau sent the short form questionnaire to most housing units and the long form
questionnaire to a sample of about 17% of households. In 2010, the long -form questionnaire,
which historically collected detailed socioeconomic and housing data from a sample of the
Is
4 uTR Stanley Con40.
sultants .,d
population, was replaced with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS data are
further described in the next section.
The 2010 short form questionnaire asked only for age, sex, race, and ethnicity of each person
in the household, as well as the individual's relationship to the person filling out the form.
The change from long form data to ACS data has impacted the ability to collect data at the
neighborhood level due to potential errors resulting from a smaller sample size of the ACS
data compared to the historical long form sample size.
This report largely uses the 2010 Decennial Census data for demographic and socioeconomic
indicators and supplements the information with the 2011 ACS data. Other sources of data
are also used where available to develop a demographic overview of current conditions in
Indian River County.
1.1.2 2011 American Community Survey
The U.S. Census Bureau has recognized the challenges faced by communities when
demographic data are available only on a decennial basis. In response, the Census Bureau
developed the American Community Survey (ACS) in 2005.
ACS is a "continuous measurement" survey, sampling between 250,000 — 300,000
households per month from 2005 through 2011. ACS gathers largely the same data as its
predecessor, the census long form. Since the sample size for ACS is smaller than the sample
size for the long form, the data are aggregated at the county level.
The ACS provides annual data for areas with populations of at least 65,000 people, including
about 800 counties, and about 500 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. For less
populous areas, the Bureau produces multi-year averages based on ACS data collected over
several years. In December 2010, the first five-year averages became available for areas from
the most populous to those with fewer than 20,000 people. The 2011 one-year ACS data has
been used in this report to supplement the 2010 Decennial Census data.
The two above -listed data sources were combined to provide a current demographic profile of
Indian River County. While these sources may not necessarily be in agreement with the
actual numbers, the data sources will be identified when discussing the detailed demographic
conditions within the County.
1.2 Study Area Setting
Indian River County is located along the southeast Atlantic coast of Florida. It is bordered by
Brevard County to the north, Osceola and Okeechobee Counties to the west and St. Lucie County
to the south. The County's geography is characterized by its extensive coastlines and waterways.
In fact, the County was named after the Indian River Lagoon which stretches the entire length of
the County's eastern border. Of the County's 617 total square miles, over 18 percent is water, and
there are nearly 23 miles of Atlantic coastline. Proximity to the water and recreational activities
make Indian River County desirable to visitors and residents alike, resulting in more densely
populated areas in the eastern portion of the County. This is in sharp contrast to the central and
1-2
k40
, Stanley Comultants
western portions of the County which are more rural in nature, with agriculture being the
predominant industry.
There are five municipalities in Indian River County (Fellsmere, Indian River Shores, Orchid,
Sebastian and Vero Beach). While Vero Beach had the largest population as of the 2000 census,
Sebastian surpassed Vero Beach in 2010, with growth of approximately 36 percent between 2000
and 2010.
1.3 Demographic and Socioeconomic Data
1.3.1 Population Characteristics
Indian River County has experienced a steady increase in population over the last two
decades. Between 1990 and 2000, the County experienced a 25% increase in population from
90,206 to 112,947. Between 2000 and 2010, the County experienced a 22% increase in
population from 112,947 to 138,028. The U.S. Census Bureau's estimates show a one percent
increase in population between 2010 and 2011.
Indian River County's growth rate is comparable to the growth rates of Brevard County and
the State of Florida as a whole, but is far less than the bordering counties of St. Lucie and
Osceola (See Table 1-1).
Table 1-1 2000-2011 Population Change by County and State
Community
__
2000 2010 2000-2010 2010-2011
--% Change 2011 (est)* % Change (est)
Indian River 112,947 138,028 22% 138,894 1%
County
Florida 15,982,378 18,801,310 18% 19,057,542 1%
Brevard County 476,230 543,376 14% 543,566 0%
Osceola County 172,493 268,685 56% 276,163 3%
St, Lucie 192,69S 277,789 44% 280,379 1%
County
Source: 2010 Census and 2011 American Community Survey I-Year Estimates
Figure 1 -1 displays the County's total population at the block group level and its relationship
to Indian River County's fixed route bus service (GoLine). Although total population
provides valuable information, it is not very useful for comparison purposes primarily due to
the large differences in geographical area between the block groups. Instead, an analysis of
population densities (defined as persons per square mile) makes the comparison more useful
from a transit service perspective when comparing population between two geographically
and spatially similar areas.
1-3
k. Stanley Consultants .s3
Figure 1-2 displays the County's population densities at the block group level and its
relationship to the GoLine fixed route bus service. As illustrated in the figure, the most
densely populated areas of the County are located around Vero Beach on the south side of SR
60 around US 1, the South County portion of the eastern mainland, and in Sebastian in the
area generally south of CR 512 and north of CR 510 between Barber Street and US 1. There
is also a small pocket of higher population density at the southwest corner of the intersection
of CR 510 and CR 512 in Vero Lakes Estates. Most of these areas have some level of transit
coverage, with the exception of Poinciana Park, and the neighborhoods west of the Indian
River Mall.
Legend
GoUne Rouics
Total Population
0-1000
1,001 - 2,000
2,001- 2,500
2,501 or greeter
13, o v � , d
Cnnnty \
U
-- -------- --
Ohnorhnb�+n -; SL Guclo
CuunlV \ Caunty -
Figure 1-1
Total Population (2010) By Census Block Group
1-4
r
AU1ss ((
s...
142)
ut11 Stanley Consultants
1
AU1ss ((
s...
142)
ut11 Stanley Consultants
0',
Co.
Legend
GoUne Routes
Population per Square Mile
0-1,000 T
1,001 -2,000
2,001 -2,500
Me,] 2.601 orgreeter
Okeechobee
County
NI
Figure 1-2
Population Density (2010) By Census Bloek Group
An evaluation of the areas where the greatest amount of growth is occurring can assist in
identifying where future transit demand is likely to occur as well as determine what types of
services may be most appropriate.
Changes in population for the five municipalities and the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County are displayed in Table 1-2. Between 2000 and 2010, Sebastian surpassed Vero
Beach as the County's largest municipality, with a growth rate of approximately 36 percent
over the decade. Vero Beach experienced a 14 percent decline in total population during that
time period. Fellsmere also experienced a growth rate of approximately 36 percent over the
decade.
1-5
It.
Stanley Consultantst
Table 1-2 2000 — 2011 Population Change by Municipalities
Municipality
I Population i
Population
% Change '
14%
2000 I
2010
2000-2010
Fellsmere
3,813
5,197
36%
Indian River Shores
3,448
3,901
13%
Orchid
140
415
196%
Sebastian
16,181
21,929
36%
Vero Beach
17,705
15,220
-14%
_Unincorporated
71,660 1
91,366
27%
Source: 2010 Decennial Census
1.3.2 Age Distribution
As illustrated in Table 1-3, the 2011 age distribution in Indian River County tends to be
somewhat older than that of neighboring counties and the State of Florida. Indian River
County has the lowest percentage of individuals aged 54 and younger and the highest
percentage of individuals aged 65 years and older. In the category of individuals aged 55-64,
Indian River County is consistent with the other communities listed in the table.
Table 1-3 Population Age Distribution (2011)
0-17 18-34 I 35-54 55-64 65+
Indian River County
19%
16%
23%
14%
28%
Florida
21%
22%
27%
13%
17%
Brevard County
19%
18%
27%
15%
21%
Osceola County
26%
23%
( 29%
11%
11%
St. Lucie County I 22% 18% I 26% 13% 21%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates (rounded numbers had to be
modified to equal 100%)
Figure 1-3 displays the population density of individuals over 65 years of age by census block
groups in Indian River County. The areas with the highest density of residents (ages 65 years
and older) are as follow:
® The west SR 60 corridor between Interstate 95 and 66th Avenue (Pointe West, Vista
Plantation, Indian River Estates)
® The south US 1 corridor north of Oslo Road (Vista Royale, Vista Gardens)
Other areas of moderately high density of seniors are located in Vero Beach (Rock
Ridge/Oakmont Park, Tropic Grove, Glendale East), Sebastian East, Sebastian
North/Roseland, and sections of the North Barrier Island to the south of Wabasso Bridge
Road.
1-6
UM Stanley Consultants-,
Legend
Gonne Routes
Population Per Square Mile Age 65 and Over
0.199
230-399
1 449 - 799
aX1 or greater
Brevard
County \
{ qi,
f
Oh oec1, 1.e `�\\
Cnunfy \�>�
rrt
Figure 1-3
Population Density Over Age 65 (2011)
Figure 1-4 displays the census block groups that have the highest density of individuals who
are 18 years of age and younger. That group may have a high propensity to use transit due to
limited accessibility to a vehicle or the absence of a driver's license. The highest
concentrations of younger residents are in the Fellsmere, Rock Ridge, Tropic Grove,
Glendale East and Rosewood areas. Downtown Vero Beach and Central Sebastian also have
higher concentrations of younger people, but not as high as the other areas referenced above.
1-7
tnR Stanley Consultants -1
Legend
GOLtne Routes
Population Per Square Mile Age 18 and Under
0-149
150-299
300 - 599
000 yr yrealer
0kvvvhv frvr
C aunty
ur
Drava rd
Cea n t
--ti6c
Figure 1- 4
Population Density Under 18 Years of Age (2011)
1.3.3 Race and Ethnicity
Table 1-4 shows the race and ethnic composition of Indian River County residents compared
to the State of Florida and the neighboring counties. Less than 12 percent of the population is
considered Hispanic/Other. Of the Non -Hispanic population, more than 77 percent are White,
and less than 9 percent are Black. Indian River County has relatively fewer Hispanic and
Black residents compared to the statewide average and neighboring St. Lucie County. The
race and ethnic characteristics of Indian River County are somewhat similar to Brevard
County.
An understanding of race and ethnic characteristics can be useful to a transit agency in
identifying the appropriate format and media for public outreach and communication
activities. Additionally, minority populations generally represent a higher percentage of
transit users in the Unites States.
HE
k'40 ;
Uta Stanley Consultants -,
Table 1-4 Race/Ethnicity of Total Population (2010)
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic/ Other
Non -Hispanic White
Non -Hispanic Black
Indian River County
11.2%
77.4%
8.7%
Florida
22.5%
57.9%
15.2%
Brevard County
8.1%
77.6%
9.7%
Osceola County
45.5%
40.3%
9.1%
St. Lucie County
16.6%
61.2%
18.5%
Source: 2010 US Census
18%
-
High School Grad or Equivalent
1.3.4 Educational Attainment
Table 1-5 shows the educational attainment of Indian River County residents compared to the
State of Florida residents.
Table 1-5 Educational Attainment (2011)
The key differences between the Indian River County and the State of Florida are found in
the 18-24 age group, which are summarized below:
® Indian River County residents aged 18-24 tend to be less well-educated (having
completed some college or higher) compared to the statewide average.
® More Indian River County 18-24 year olds have not completed high school (21
percent) compared to the statewide average (18 percent).
lID
UStanley Consultants.<+
Indian River County
Florida
Educational Attainment
18-24 Yrs 25+ Yrs
18-24 Yrs
25+ Yrs
Less Than 91h Grade
-
3%
-
6%
9`h to 12th Grade, No Diploma
-
7%
-
8%
Less Than High School Grad
21%
-
18%
-
High School Grad or Equivalent
41%
31%
30%
30%
Some College, No Degree
-
23%
-
21%
Some College or Assoc. Degree
31%
-
44% I
-
Associates Degree
- I
9%
-
9%
Bachelor's Degree
-
17%
-
17%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher
7% (
-
8% (
-
Graduate or Professional Degree
- I
10%
- I
9%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey
1 -Year Estimates
The key differences between the Indian River County and the State of Florida are found in
the 18-24 age group, which are summarized below:
® Indian River County residents aged 18-24 tend to be less well-educated (having
completed some college or higher) compared to the statewide average.
® More Indian River County 18-24 year olds have not completed high school (21
percent) compared to the statewide average (18 percent).
lID
UStanley Consultants.<+
• More Indian River County 18-24 year olds have only a high school diploma (41
percent) compared to the statewide average (30 percent).
• By contrast, fewer Indian River County 18-24 year olds have attended college (31
percent) compared to the average statewide (44 percent).
The distribution of all other educational categories is similar.
1.3.5 Income Characteristics
Income is another important factor in assessing transportation needs and the use of public
transportation systems. In general, low income persons are more likely to rely upon public
transportation for mobility and access to jobs, shopping, medical services and recreational
activities, than more affluent individuals. Table 1-6 shows a comparison of the distribution of
median household income in Indian River County to the surrounding counties and the State
of Florida. In general, the comparison reveals few differences.
Table 1-6 Household Income Distribution (2011)
I I
$10,000-
$15,000-
$35,000-
$50,000-
$75,000 -
Over
Area <$1 0,000
$14,999
$34,999 I
$49,999
$74,999
$99,000
$100,000
Indian River
6%
County
7%
31%
13%
16%
9%
17% I
i
Florida 8%
6%
25% I
15%
18%
11%
16%
Brevard County I 7% I
5%
I 25%
16%
19%
11%
17%
Osceola County I 6% (
6%
I 29% I
19%
19% I
10%
11%
St. Lucie
County I 9% I
— 7%
28% I
16%
19% I
10%
11%
Source: 2011 Am�JJerican Community SurveJy
1 -Year Estimates
Figure 1-5 depicts households with annual incomes of less than $15,000 by census block
groups. The block groups with the highest concentration of lower income households are
located in downtown Sebastian, Vero Beach Northeast, Gifford and the Rock Ridge/Oakmont
Park neighborhoods. The Highland and Fellsmere neighborhoods also contain a high number
of households with annual incomes below $15,000, which are distributed throughout their
larger census block groups.
This data set was selected because it depicts the poverty level for a two person household.
Indian River County's average household occupancy is just slightly higher than two persons
per household.
1-10
CStanley Consultants
B re v..ird
county
a
s'
6
rs)
Legend
GoLlne Routes
Number of Households with Income Below $15k
\ 0-49
50-99
100-149
M_ 150 or greater
A-91 I
Oheechohee Sr. Luce
county `\, county
Figure 1-5
Annual Household Income < $15,000 (2011)
9
Another factor to consider is poverty, which is a different index than income. The U.S.
Census Bureau bases poverty levels on the number of persons living in the household, and
thresholds of income based on the number of persons. Household income data are from the
household data set of the U.S. Census. Table 1-7 provides the income levels defining the
poverty threshold based on the number and type of residents in a household for the entire
United States. Based on data from the 2011 ACS 1 -year estimates, 18,530 Indian River
County residents (13.5% of the population) had incomes below the poverty level. This is
slightly lower than the State of Florida which had 17% of the total population living below
the poverty level in 2011.
k. 4M.
StanleyCornultants '
Table 1-7 Poverty Thresholds for 2011 by Size of Family
Size of family unit
Related children under 18 years
None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
One person (unrelated individual).......
Under 65 years .............................. $11,702
65 years and over ........................... $10,788
Two people ......................................
Householder under 65 years........... $15,063 $15,504
Householder 65 years and over........ $13,596 $15,446
Three people ....................................
$17,595
$18,106
$18,123
Three or
Four people .....................................
$23,201
$23,581
$22,811
$22,891
47.2%
37.1%
Five people ......................................
$27,979
$28,386
$27,517
$26,844
$26,434
Brevard County
Sixpeople........................................
$32,181
$32,309
$31,643
$31,005
$30,056
$29,494
Seven people ...................................
$37,029
$37,260
$36,463
$35,907
$34,872
$33,665 $32,340
Eightpeople....................................
$41,414
$41,779
$41,027
$40,368
$39,433
$38,247 $37,011 $36,697
Nine people or more ..........................
$49,818
$50,059
$49,393
$48,835
$47,917
$46,654 $45,512 $45,229 $43,487
1.3.6 Automobile Ownership and Availability
Table 1-8 shows the distribution of vehicle availability among households in Indian River
County compared to the State of Florida and other counties in the region. Lack of vehicle
availability is a key indicator of the propensity to use transit. As of 2011, Indian River
County's household vehicle availability was comparable to the State of Florida and
surrounding counties.
Table 1-8 Household Vehicle Availability (2011)
Location Number of Vehicles Available
per Occupied Housing Unit
Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates
1-12
cults Stanley consultants -'
Zero
One
Two
Three or
More
Indian River County
6.4%
47.2%
37.1%
9.3%
Florida
7.3%
41.7%
37.8% I
13.1%
Brevard County
4.3%.1
43.6%
38.6%
13.5%
Osceola County
7.9%
37.5% I
40.8%
13.8%
St. Lucie County
7.0%
45.5%
36.0%
11.5%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates
1-12
cults Stanley consultants -'
Figure 1-6 displays the number of households per square mile with zero vehicle availability.
The most densely populated areas with zero vehicle availability are generally located in the
eastern areas of the County, including Gifford, and in Fellsmere where the GoLine provides
the greatest level of geographic service area coverage. However, there is still a considerable
number of households in the central and western areas of the County with zero vehicle
availability.
BrL%
CO
Legend
GoLine Routes
Households per Square Mile with Zero Vehit
0-24
25.49
51-99
100 or greater
Okeechobee
Co all I
an
Figure 1-6
Zero Vehicle Availability (2011)
1.3.7 Work Commuting Patterns
Table 1-9 shows the work commute patterns for Indian River County residents employed
outside the home in 2011, compared to the State of Florida and surrounding counties. The
analysis reveals that Indian River County residents had shorter commute times than residents
throughout the State and other counties in the region with one minor exception. More than
80% of the County residents travel less than 30 minutes to work. Brevard County has the next
lowest commute time with less than 70% of its residents traveling less than 30 minutes to
work.
1-13
UTR Stanley Consultants -'
Table 1-9 Travel Time (2011)
Indian Florida Brevard Osceola St. Lucie
River County County County
Travel Time County
Less than 10 minutes 11.7% 9.9% 11.8% 1 7.0-%-1 -6.6%
10 -14 minutes 18.7% 12.9% 14.7% 7.1% 11.8%
15 -19 minutes 19.1% 15.6% 17.0% 11.5% I 19.5%
20 - 24 minutes 25.3% 16.6% 17.6% 13.6% 20.3%
25 - 29 minutes 5.7% 6.9% 8.6% 6.4% 5.6%
30 - 34 minutes I 7.5% 16.4% I 12.7% I 22% 14.8%
35 -44 minutes 3.1% 7.1% 5.7% y 9.6% 4.2%
45 - 59 minutes I 3.1% I 8.1% I 5.1% I 13.6% 8.2%
60+ minutes I 5.7% 6.4% I 6.6% I 9.2% 9.0%
Mean Travel Time 22.5 25.8 25,0 30.6 27.0
Source: 2011 American Community Survey I- Year Estimates
1.3.8 County Workflow Data
The County Workflow data were primarily collected from the Census Transportation
Planning Package (CTPP) which uses the census data as the base information. The CTPP is a
set of special tabulations designed by transportation planners using large sample surveys
conducted by the Census Bureau. From 1970 to 2000, the CTPP and its predecessor, UTPP,
used data from the decennial census long form. Since the decennial census long form has now
been replaced with ACS, the CTPP now uses the ACS sample for the special tabulation.
The first CTPP that used the ACS was the 2006-2008 CTPP. That CTPP used three years of
the ACS and was restricted to geographic units with population of 20,000 or more. The 2006-
2010 CTPP, using five years of ACS, will not be available until May 2013 and will include
small geographic units such as census tracts and Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). This
report uses the latest available 2006-2008 CTPP data,
Tables 1-10 and 1-11 display commute patterns from the CTPP based on the 2006-2008 ACS
data, The 2006-2008 3 -Year ACS estimates are the latest available data for the CTPP. The
CTPP data report that 45,565 Indian River County residents live and work within the County.
A majority of intercounty commuter outflows and inflows occur to and from St. Lucie and
Brevard counties.
1-14
1JTR Stanley Consultants
Table 1-10 CTPP Commuter Outflow Estimates Based on 2006-2008 ACS Data
Total
Origin
Destination
Commuters
2006-08
Indian River County
Indian River County
45,565
Indian River County
St. Lucie County
4,465
Indian River County
Brevard County
1,595
Indian River County
Palm Beach County
570
Indian River County
Martin County
520
Indian River County
Orange County
385
Indian River County
Broward County
430
Indian River County
Miami -Dade County
80
Indian River County
Hillsborough, County
70
Indian River County
Osceola County
55
Indian River County
Okeechobee County
45
Indian River County
Duval County
45
Indian River County
Polk County
30
Indian River County
Pinellas County
20
Source: CTPP based on 2006-2008 ACS Data
Table 1-11 CTPP Commuter Inflow Estimates Based on 2006-2008 ACS Data
Origin
Destination
I Total Commuters
2006-08
Indian River County
Indian River County
45,565
St. Lucie County
Indian River County
5,445
Brevard County
Indian River County
4,095
Palm Beach County
I Indian River County
270
Broward County
Indian River County
35
Miami -Dade County
Indian River County
30
Orange County
Indian River County
I 70
Osceola County
I Indian River County
85
Martin County
I Indian River County
I 155
Hillsborough County
Indian River County
n/a
Okeechobee County
Indian River County
I 20
Pinellas County
Indian River County
n/a
Source: CTPP based on 2006-2008 ACS Data
1-15
R. Stanley Consultants .<
1.3.9 Employment Characteristics
Table 1-12 compares the size of the labor force 16 years of age and older to the total
population of the State and County. Approximately 86% of Indian River's civilian labor force
is employed. The unemployment rate in Indian River County is higher than the statewide
unemployment rate. In comparison, the 2006 unemployment rate in the County was 5% and
was 1 % lower than the statewide unemployment rate.
Table 1-12 Employment Rate (2011)
Total Civilian
Area Labor Force
Indian River County 60,207
Labor Force Unemployment
Percent of Rate
Total
Population
52% 14%
Florida 9,327,307 60% 12%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey
Table 1-13 contains the distribution of employment in Indian River County by the type of
industry in 2011. The highest concentration of jobs occurs in the education/health/social
service sector (22%), followed by the Professional/Management/Administrative sector (15%)
and Retail Trade sector (13%). In comparison, the highest concentration of jobs was in the
construction industry (16%) in 2006.
Table 1-13 Indian River County Employment by Type of Work (2011)
Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimate
1.3.10 Tourist and Visitor Levels
Indian River County does not collect data regarding the number of individual visitors to the
County. Table 1-14 displays tourism tax revenues collected for FY 2007-08 through FY
2011-12. Variations in annual taxes collected can be attributed to the number of visitors
and/or their expenditures. Between FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, tax revenue dropped by 13
1-16
ILfTR Stanle°/ ConsuManu ,+
Percentage of All
Type of Employment
Employment
Education/Health/Social Service
22%
Retail Trade
13%
ProfessionaUManagement/Administrative
15%
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
12%
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
7%
Construction
7%
Manufacturing
5%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
5%
Transportation and Warehousing
4%
Wholesale Trade
2%
Information
2%
Agriculture
1%
Public Administration
5%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimate
1.3.10 Tourist and Visitor Levels
Indian River County does not collect data regarding the number of individual visitors to the
County. Table 1-14 displays tourism tax revenues collected for FY 2007-08 through FY
2011-12. Variations in annual taxes collected can be attributed to the number of visitors
and/or their expenditures. Between FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, tax revenue dropped by 13
1-16
ILfTR Stanle°/ ConsuManu ,+
percent; however, it has experienced a steady increase since then. The tax revenue in FY
2011-12 were approximately 7.5 percent higher
than FY 2007-08.
Table 1-14 Indian River County
Tourism Tax Revenues
FY
FY
FY 2007/2008
FY 2008/2009
FY 2009/2010
2010/2011
2011/2012
Revenues
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
October
$ 75,880.71
$68,825.40
.$ 67,380.55
$77,149.04
j
$82,935.09
November
$87,469.97
$89,438.23
$74,398.70
$88,176.12
$96,897.79
December
$104,579.45
$105,859.87
$88,764.49
$103,686.14
$143,039.60
January 1
$187,660.581
$155,326.571
$159,755.96
$125,630.00
$156,572.85
February 1
$205,581.28
$158,214.09
$163,597.70 1
$201,599.76 1
$201,316.10
March 1
$269,198.211
$199,262.371
$209,213.69
$209,808.72
$267,951.76
April
$123,880.44
$112,401.60
$124,318.211
$144,064.171
$168,305.40
May 1
$97,484.041
$85,301.951
$88,522.49
$108,974.41
$100,924.91
June 1
$95,551.88
$94,744.05
$85,468.52)
$99,544.91
$100,243.91
July
$101,668.831
$87,915.861
$99,057.53
$126,972.68
$126,841.561
1 August
$97,000.21
$77,442.201
$93,166.821
$83,399.99
$95,602.41
September 1
$52,067.271
$67,458.091
$79,636.03
$74,479.86
$69,253.75
Total Fiscal Year 1
$1,498,022.83 1
$1,302,190.28 1
$1,333,280.69 1 $1,443,485.80
1 $1,609,884.13
Source: Indian River County Budget Office
1-17
4M)
urn Stanley Cwsultams Kl
Chapter 2
Existing Services
This chapter presents a brief overview of the public transportation providers in Indian River and
neighboring counties.
2.1 Identification of Existing Public Transportation Services
2.1.1 Indian River County Transit
The Senior Resource Association, Inc. (SRA) serves as the public transportation provider in
Indian River County. The SRA is a private non-profit organization that receives funding from
the Federal Transit Administration, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners, and other state and local sources.
The SRA's role as the designated Community Transportation Coordinator is to provide door
to door demand response service (known as Community Coach) for eligible individuals age
60 and older, those with physical disabilities, children -at -risk, Medicaid recipients, low
income residents and the general public. The SRA requires a minimum 48 hours (2 business
days) advance reservations and service is provided on a first come -first served basis. For non -
sponsored trips the Community Coach fare is $2.00. In 2011, Community Coach had a
ridership of 46,629 passenger trips.
In 1999 fixed route bus service was initiated in Indian River County. The service, now known
as GoLine, is operated by the SRA. Currently there are 14 routes (see Figure 2-1) that serve
the general public. GoLine service operates Monday through Friday from approximately 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 12 routes offer Saturday service from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. In FY
2011, GoLine provided 1,060,465 passenger trips. GoLine users are not charged a fare,
although donations are accepted. GoLine route characteristics are displayed in Table 2-1.
2-1
CR Stanley Consultants,,'
New Route 11 was recently modified and no longer travels north to Barefoot Bay in Brevard
County.
—C— u
�dha.�p
iC'M]
rxz«q
•rr_.
Figure 2-1 GoLine System Map
2-2
Stanley Consultants —'
Table 2-1 GoLine Route Characteristics
Route
Route Name
Days of
Span of Service
Frequency
FY 11/12
Major Corridors Served
No.1
Service
Ridership
BEACHSIDE /MAIN
Mon -Fri
8:00a —
6:00p
60 min
81,262
215` Street, Beachland
TRANSIT HUB
Sat
9:00a —
3:00p
60 min
Blvd., Ocean Drive
2
INDIAN RIVER MALL /
Mon -Fri
8:00a —
6:00p
60 min
191,114
20'h Street, Osceola Blvd
MAIN TRANSIT HUB
Sat
9:00a —
3:00p
60 min
3
GIFFORD HEALTH
Mon -Fri
8:00a—
6:00p
60 min
98,477
U.S. 1, 37" Street
CENTER / MAIN
Sat
9:00a —
3:00p
60 min
TRANSIT HUB (EAST)
4
SOUTH VERO PLAZA /
Mon -Fri
8:00a—
6:00p
60 min
142,435
U.S. 1
MAIN TRANSIT HUB
Sat
9:00a —
3:00p
60 min
5
SEBASTIAN (NORTH
Mon -Fri
8:00a—
6:00p
60 min
50,963
U.S. 1, 95`h Street /
AREA)
Sat
9:00a—
3:00p
60 min
Fellsmere Rd
6
SOUTH VERO PLAZA /
Mon -Fri
7:00a—
6:00p
60 min
47,612
U.S. 1, Highland Drive
OSLO PLAZA
Sat
9:00a—
3:00p
60 min
7
OSLO PLAZA / INDIAN
Mon -Fri
7:30a—
6:00p
60 min
58,485
16`h Street, 27h Avenue,
RIVER MALL
Sat
9:00a —
3:00p
60 min
Emerson Ave.
8
GIFFORD HEALTH
Mon -Fri
8:00a —
6:00p
60 min
93,019
26`h Street,43`d Ave.
CENTER / MAIN
Sat
9:00a
— 3:00p
60 min
TRANSIT HUB (WEST)
9
SEBASTIAN /
Mon -Fri
8:30a
— 5:30p
60 min
59,072
26" Street, Kings
WABASSO / INDIAN
Sat
9:00a
— 3:00p
60 min
Highway, 85`h St.
RIVER MALL
10
FELLSMERE /
Mon -Fri
8:00a
— 6:00p
60 min
81,778
95"i Street, Sebastian Blvd.
SEBASTIAN
Sat
9:00a
-3:00p
60 min
11
SEBASTION / VERO
Mon -Fri
7:30a
— 5:00p
120 min
26,832
U.S. 1, Indian River Blvd.
BEACH
Sat
n/a
n/a
SEBASTIAN (SOUTH
Mon -Fri
8:00a—
6:00p
60 min
38,699
U.S. 1, 95`h St. / Fellsmere
12
AREA)
Sat
9:00a
-3:00p
60 min
Rd.
INDIAN RIVER MALL
Mon -Fri
6:50a—
5:00p
120 min
20,994
20" St., 195
13
/ IRSC MAIN CAMPUS
Sat
n/a
n/a
OSLO PLAZE / MAIN
Mon -Fri
8:00a
— 6:00p
60 min
69,723
Indian River Blvd., Old
14
TRANSIT HUB
Sat
9:00a
— 3:00p
60 min
Dixie Hwy., Oslo Rd.
2.1.2 Space Coast Area Transit
Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) is the public transportation provider and designated
Community Transportation Coordinator serving Brevard County to the north of Indian River
County. SCAT operates 16 fixed routes as shown in Figure 2-2. The span of service varies by
2-3
ILTR Stanley Consultants ,,
route, by generally service operates between approximately 7:00 am and 8:00 pm, although
one route starts as early as 5:50 am and ends at 11:35 pm. Most routes operate on Saturday,
and one route serving the communities of Cocoa and Cocoa Beach, operates on Sunday. The
base fare is $1.25. Discounted rates are available with the purchase of multi -ride passes,
along with reduced rates for seniors, the disabled, veterans and students. SCAT also operates
a reservation based Dial -a -Bus service which serves residents traveling from the general
vicinity of Viera south to Barefoot Bay. The Dial -a -Ride bus operates Monday, Tuesday and
Thursday. The regular full fare is $2.50 with a discounted fare of $1.25 for the elderly,
disabled, students, and veterans. In addition to bus services SCAT coordinates a volunteer
driver program to serve elderly residents who are unable to utilize fixed route services,
provides paratransit and ADA services, and supports a commuter vanpool leasing program. In
2011, SCAT provided approximately 1.84 million hips on its fixed route service and 492
thousand trips on its paratransit system.
2-4
i. Stanley Consultants _'
Figure 2-2 Space Coast Area Transit System Map
2-5
440 i
'JTfk Stanley Consultants -
Mims
02a
TI SVILLE
KENNEDY
SPACE
CENTER
FORT
ST.JoHt!
MERRITT
ISLAND
PORT CANAVERAL
R6
COCOA
CAPE CANAVERAL
Routs 21— Ccrwgrmn Mdftcurno
T7
COC13ABEACII
ROCKLEDGE
ATLANTIC
S
OCEAN
VIERA
Ratito 25 — P4111 UtY
PATRICK
AIR FORCE BASE
PALM
SATELLITE BEACH
INDIAN
MELBOURNE
HARBOUR
7D
BEACH
_--I\INDIALANTIC
c(Rast
MFIROURNE
BEACH
WEST MCI 01AIRili
%.
A mEA —7P JvS1 T
-A
7
PALM BAY
MCI]
-
C
okiv�
Figure 2-2 Space Coast Area Transit System Map
2-5
440 i
'JTfk Stanley Consultants -
2.1.3 Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc.
In St. Lucie County, public transportation services are operated by Community Transit, a
division of the Council on Aging under contract to the St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners. Community Transit offers two services which are open to the general public;
a door-to-door demand response service requiring advance reservations (Community
Connector), and a fixed route system that consists of six routes. The Treasure Coast
Connector fixed route system operates Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m, and 6:00
p.m. The base fare for Community Connector and the Treasure Coast Connector services is
$2.00 with discounted fares available for multi -ride pass holders and seniors or persons with
disabilities. In 2011 Community Transit reported that approximately 146,000 passenger trips
were taken on the fixed route system, and approximately 97,000 passenger trips were taken
on the Community Connector demand response system.
2.1.4 Other Neighboring Counties
In neighboring Osceola County, public transportation is provided by the Central Florida
Regional Transportation Authority (d.b.a. LYNX). Within Osceola County, LYNX operates
approximately ten fixed routes, three reservation based route deviation services, and
paratransit services. In Okeechobee County, the County contracts with a private provider for
the provision of paratransit services.
2-6
uTR sWnley censuitants _'
Chapter 3
Performance Evaluation
3.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the results of the performance evaluation of Indian River County's fixed
route (GoLine) and demand response (Community Coach) systems operated by Senior Resource
Association, Inc. The performance evaluation was conducted using a sample of peer systems that
have operating characteristics similar to GoLine and Community Coach and serve areas with
demographics similar to those of Indian River County.
3.1.1 Purpose of a Performance Review
A performance review is one method of evaluating transit performance and consists of those
aspects of the transit agency's operation that can be measured quantitatively with data from a
standard reporting instrument, in this case the National Transit Database (NTD). A
performance review does not, however, provide insight into the quality of service or the level
of passenger satisfaction. On -board surveys and other public involvement activities are used
to complement the performance review.
The performance review does not distinguish between certain aspects of performance that are
within the control of the agency and those that are not. Local policy decisions on land use,
zoning, and parking, for example, often dictate the types and levels of service best suited for
the community. Operating expense is one performance measure used in this analysis.
Operating expenses can vary greatly between transit systems based on work rules and
collective bargaining agreements.
3.1.2 National Transit Database
To receive federal funds, transit agencies are required to report a variety of data in a
standardized format to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Those data get compiled
into the National Transit Database (NTD). The NTD provides standardized measures of
3-1
km Stanley Consultants-!
reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information between agencies. Since
1979, when this reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinements in data
collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and comparability of the data.
Data Reliability — All NTD data submitted to FTA are subject to considerable review and
validation through manual and automated methods. Each report is thoroughly examined by
FTA's data analysts for identification of any errors or inconsistencies. The analysts then
notify the reporting agency of those errors and require the agency to resubmit its data after
addressing FTA's concerns. Once FTA is satisfied with the data, the final report is accepted.
The latest validated NTD data are from fiscal year (FY) 2010. This report uses FY 2010 data
for the peer analysis and uses the most recent five complete years of NTD data available
(2006-2010) to examine trends. For this performance review, no original data were collected
and no audits or on-site analyses were conducted.
Data Definitions — The term "passenger trip" refers to an individual boarding a transit
vehicle. A person riding a bus from the corner near his home to the office takes one passenger
trip and a second passenger trip to return home. A person transferring from one bus to another
is counted as two passenger trips. In spite of the definitions and continued refinements in data
collection procedures, some discrepancies and double counting remain in the NTD system
reports.
Performance Measure Categories — The evaluation measures that are used throughout the
performance review are divided into two major categories: operational measures and financial
measures. Operational measures indicate the productivity and effectiveness of day-to-day
transit operations. Financial measures display the overall expenses and revenues, as well as
the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the system. Those categories are further subdivided
into service characteristics, vehicle utilization, service utilization/productivity, and financial
measures. Performance measures that typically provide a good representation of overall
transit system performance have been selected for this review.
3.2 Part One: Fixed -Route Transit Service
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show the performance measures selected for the review of GoLine's fixed
route transit service as well as the definitions of each measure. Table 3-1 outlines the operational
measures and Table 3-2 outlines the financial measures.
3-2
Stanley Consultants �{
Table 3-1 Selected Performance Review Measures Operational Measures
Service Area Population — Approximation of market size far comparison of relative spending and
service levels among communities in the absence of actual service area population.
Service Area Density — Person per square mile based on service area population and size reported to the
NTD.
Average Speed — Revenue miles of service divided by revenue hours of service.
Vehicle Miles — Miles a vehicle is scheduled to or actually travels from the time it pulls out from the
garage to go into revenue service to the time it pulls in from revenue service.
Revenue Miles — Number of miles a vehicle operates while in active service (available to pick up revenue
passengers).
Revenue Miles / Vehicle Miles Ratio — Ratio of miles in active service to total miles traveled including
to/from garage.
Revenue Hours — Number of hours a vehicle operates while in active service (available to pick up
revenue passengers).
Total Employee Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) — Total number of labor hours for one year divided by
2080 hours. 3
Vehicles Available — Number of vehicles available to meet maximum service requirements, including
spares, out -of -service vehicles and vehicles awaiting maintenance.
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) -- Number of vehicles operated in maximum (peals)
service.
Spare Ratio — Difference between vehicles available for maximum service, and vehicles operated in
maximum service, divided by vehicles operated in maximum service.
Revenue Miles per VOMS — Number of revenue miles divided by vehicles operated in maximum
service.
Revenue Hours per Employee FTE — Number of revenue hours divided by employee full time
equivalents. j
Vehicle Miles per Gallon — Number of vehicle miles divided by gallons of fuel consumed.
Revenue Miles between Failures — Number of revenue miles divided by the number of vehicle system
failures.
Avera Lye ALe of Fleet (in vearq) — Total nac. of all vah;rlac ;11 flpPf ,,,,.,-,t,,,.. --p Ft 4 —t---, --
i rassengcr t rips — ivumber of passenger boardings.
Passenger Miles — Number of passenger trips multiplied by the system's average trip length.
Average Passenger Trip Length — Total passenger miles divided by passenger trips.
,Passenger Trips per VOMS — Number of passenger trips divided by vehicles operated in maximum
service.
Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour — Number of passenger trips divided by total revenue hours.
Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile — Number of passenger trips divided by total revenue miles.
i
3-3
11M Stanley Unsultants -1
Table 3-2 Selected Performance Review Measures Financial Measures
Total Operating Expense — Total cost of operating the fixed route service, including administration,
maintenance and operation expenses.
Total Maintenance Expense — A subset of operating expenses that includes vehicle and non -vehicle
maintenance expenses.
Operating Expense per Capita — Operating expenses divided by the service area population.
Operating Expense per Passenger Trip — Operating expenses divided by total per passenger trips.
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour — Operating expenses divided by total revenue hours.
Maintenance Expense per Vehicle Mile — Maintenance expenses divided by total vehicle miles.
The fixed -route peer review analysis was conducted to compare GoLine's performance with other
similar transit systems in the United States. The Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) online
program, which was jointly developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and
the Lehman Center for Transportation Research (LCTR) at Florida International University
(FIU), was utilized to select potential peer systems using the methodology outlined in TCRP
Report 141 — A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public
Transportation Industry.
TCRP Report 141 was developed by Kittleson & Associates, Inc. with assistance from the Center
for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), LCTR at FIU,
and Nakanishi Research & Consulting. The peer selection methodology was programed into the
FTIS online program along with corresponding 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) data
when they were released. It has since been updated with 2010 ACS data. Within the FTIS
software, there is a tool that allows for the selection of peers on an agency -wide basis or on a
specific mode basis.
The methodology used by the tool calculates a likeness score for each measure and then averages
the likeness scores across all variables. Some of the variables include:
• Urban Population
• Population Density
• Population Growth Rate
• Vehicle Miles
• Operating Budget
• Percent Low Income
• Percent College Students
• Service Area Type (8 different types specified in the report)
• Geographic Distance Between Potential Peers
3-4
IL
lkUM Stanley Consultants-'
In order to narrow down the potential peers, the top 30-40 peers with the lowest likeness scores
(values closest to zero) were initially selected. For those peers, an additional measure was added
to the analysis: Vehicles in Maximum Service (an NTD measure). From the final list, the six
systems with the closest likeness scores to GoLine were selected as peer systems for the analysis.
Those six peer systems are listed in Table 3-3.
A fixed route trend analysis was also conducted using GoLine's FY 2006 through FY 2010 NTD
reports. Performance measures, including the percent change for each measure for the trend
period, are grouped into categories and presented in tabular form (Tables 3-4 through 3-7).
3.2.1 Trend Area and Peer Group Graphs
Figures 3-1 through 3-27 in this evaluation illustrate the selected operational and financial
measures. There are two types of graphs displayed: trend area graphs and peer group bar
graphs. The trend area graphs show GoLine's trends for each performance measure during
the five-year period. The percent change over the five-year period is shown at the top right of
each trend area graph. The peer group graphs show GoLine's performance in relation to the
peer systems selected for the most recent validated year of data (FY 2010). The peer median
of the entire group is displayed with a dark gray bar and a vertical black line. GoLine's values
are shown with a light blue bar. All other systems are shown with gray bars. Figures 3-26
and 3-27 present a graphical representation of GoLine as compared to its peer group in all
measures (showing the minimum, median, and maximum values for each performance
measure).
3.2.2 Peer and Trend Tables
Peer and trend tables show GoLine's values for each.,performance measure for FY 2006
through FY 2010 as well as the percent change over the trend period. They also show how
GoLine's FY 2010 values compared to the peer median for each measure.
® Operational Measures: Service Characteristics
Service characteristic measures are the basis for many of the other operational measures
presented in the peer and trend analysis. Table 3-4 shows GoLine's five-year trend and the
peer comparison for these measures.
3-5
k4W
LTM Stanley Consultants—!
Table 3-4 Peer & Trend - GoLine Service Characteristic Measures
88
129
108
108
117
42.2%
410 I
37.6%
0.97
-2.1%
32.6%
1,339
737
615
615
670
-50.0%
10.73
10.24
10.43
11.27
14.59
36.0%
248
200
( 317
( 391
595
139.7%
244
193
I 297
I 366
564
131.3%
0.98
0.97
I 0.94
( 0.94
0.95
-3.5%
19
28
32
70.1%
23
39
13.39
12.74
121.17
( 19.84
26.14
95.2%
91 28.2%
1,638
-59.1% 1
15.72
-7.2%
418
42.2%
410 I
37.6%
0.97
-2.1%
29 1 33.1%
25.30 1 3.3% 1
Service area population is usually calculated using a formula (area around % of a mile
from service) specified by the National Transit Database (NTD). Many agencies do not
update this figure on an annual basis and, therefore, it remains unchanged over the trend
period. GoLine, however, did report an adjusted service area population several times
over the trend period representing an increase of approximately 33 percent. Although
transit is typically more effective and efficient in denser areas, the decrease (50%) in
GoLine's service area density was related primarily to changes in the way service area
size was reported (an increase from 66 square miles in 2006 to 175 miles in 2007 and
subsequent years). Service area density had been reported based on the fixed route
service area at the time versus the entire area served by paratransit. The change also
impacted the service area population reported in Table 3-4.
Average speed is calculated by dividing the number of revenue miles of service by the
number of revenue hours of service. That number generally reflects the amount of
roadway congestion, but may also reflect the amount of urban versus rural service as well
as the number of regular routes versus limited stop or express routes. A fixed route
system that serves less dense areas and provides a greater percentage of express service
will have a higher average speed. GoLine's trend was positive with an increase in
average speed of 36 percent with the majority of the change occurring in fiscal year 2010.
GoLine was slightly below (7.2%) the peer median.
WV
km Stanley Consuhants -i
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-1 Average Speed
Revenue miles of service is a measure that gives an indication of the level of service
provided by a transit system. GoLine's revenue miles of service increased approximately
131 percent over the trend period, ranking third among its peers. The significant increase
is very positive for Indian River County, particularly since it was accompanied by a
corresponding increase (114.8%) in passenger trips as displayed in Table 3-6 (Page 15).
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-2 Revenue Miles (in thousands)
The ratio of revenue miles to vehicle miles measures the number of "deadhead" miles an
agency has. Deadhead miles are defined as miles that the bus operates without
1�.
Stanley Consultants -1
passengers onboard (to and from the garage). GoLine's ratio dropped 3 percent (from
0.98 to 0.95) over the trend period which is on the low end of the peer median.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-3 Revenue Miles / Vehicle Miles
Revenue hours of service is another measure of the amount of service provided. GoLine's
revenue horns of service increased 70 percent over the trend period. GoLine ranked
second among its peers for this measure, and 33 percent higher than the peer median,
both positive indicators in terms of community access to transit.
3-8
MCUTR Stanley Consultants -f
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-4 Revenue Hours (in thousands)
• Operational Measures: Vehicle Utilization
Vehicle utilization measures reflect transit vehicle usage, performance, and other data
associated with the vehicles in the system. Table 3-5 shows GoLine's five-year trend and
the peer comparison for these measures.
Table 3-5 Peer & Trend - GoLine Vehicle Utilization Measures
13
15
18
18
21
61.5%
16
31.3%
9
10
11
11
14
55.6%
11.5
21.7%
4.4%
50.0%
63.6%
63.6%
50.0%
12.5%
70.3%
-28.9%'
27,10
19,30
26,99
33,27
40,30
48.7%
48,365
i
-16.7%
5
7
6
0
9
i
1.70
1.48
1.35
1.64
1.48
-12.8%
1.16
27.8%
7.47
7.96
5.53
6.11
7.87
5.4%
5.35
47.0%
L
.'M'
ILTR Stanley Consultants _.
244 193 33 18 30 -87.8% 1 5.91 402.4%
• " • �� 5.38 3.20 3.94 4.94 3.38 -37.2% 4.45 -24.0%
Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 depict the peer and trend data for vehicles available and vehicles
operated in maximum service (VOMS). Both measures have risen steadily over the five-
year trend period, with vehicles available increasing 62 percent and VOMS increasing 56
percent. Increases in these measures are consistent with the increased levels of service
provided by GoLine during the trend period. GoLine ranked third and above the peer
median for total vehicles available (Figure 3-6) and first and above the peer median in
VOMS (Figure 3-7).
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-5 Vehicles Available and Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS)
3-10
et.rTA Stanley Consultants �i
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-6 Total Vehicles Figure 3-7 VOMS
Spare ratio measures the difference between the number of vehicles available and the number
of vehicles operated in maximum service, divided by the number of vehicles in maximum
service. Low spare ratios may indicate potential issues in terms of the ability to schedule
preventative maintenance and a lack of vehicle capacity to respond to increased demand for
service, while high spare ratios may indicate an inefficient use of capital. Based on 2010
NTD data, the average spare ratio for agencies with between 10 and 30 vehicles was 43
percent. The median of GoLine's peer group was higher (approximately 75 percent). In
2010, GoLine's 50 percent spare ratio was within an acceptable range.
3-11
Stanley Consultants a
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-8 Spare Ratio
Revenue miles per vehicles operated in maximum service is a measure showing the degree of
utilization of each vehicle in service. Figure 3-9 shows that GoLine's revenue miles per
vehicles operated in maximum service increased 49 percent over the trend period. Despite the
positive increase, GoLine did not compare favorably to four of the six peer systems.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-9 Revenue Miles per VOMS (in thousands)
3-12
i.Stanley CDnsuItants -I
Revenue hours per employee Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is a measure of how efficient an
agency is with its labor resources. GoLine showed a slightly negative trend (13 percent) in
this measure over the trend period, but was still the most efficient compared to the peer
systems.
Source; National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-10 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE
Vehicle miles per gallon measures the fuel efficiency of the agency's vehicles. There is a
correlation between this measure and average speed, since vehicles typically get better
mileage when not in stop and go traffic. More dense service areas with a greater frequency of
stops will likely have lower measures. GoLine increased its vehicle miles per gallon
efficiency (from 7.5 to 7.9) over the trend period, and compared favorably to the peer
systems.
3-13
kum Stanley Consultants -i
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-11 Vehicle Miles per Gallon
Revenue miles between failures is a measure that may provide insight into the overall
condition of the vehicle fleet. It measures how often vehicles break down while in service.
GoLine had an increase in vehicle failures from FY 2006 and FY 2007 when only one failure
was reported in each year, to the last three years when between 9 and 20 failures were
reported. At a rate of 29,701 revenue miles between failures, GoLine compares favorably to
the peer systems and was well above the peer median of 5,911 revenue miles between failures
in FY 2010.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-12 Revenue Miles behveen Failures (in thousands)
3-14
1. Stanley Consultants -1
The average age of GoLine's fleet decreased 37 percent over the trend period from 5.38 years
to 3.38 years, which is a positive trend, but with a younger fleet there should be a
corresponding decrease in revenue miles between failures. GoLine's average age of fleet
ranked right in the middle of its peers and 24 percent below the peer median.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-13 Average Age of Fleet
• Operational Measures: Service Utilization and Productivity
These performance measures look at how passengers use the service that is provided,
as well as the productivity or effectiveness of those services. Table 3-6 shows
GoLine's five-year trend and the peer comparison for those measures.
Table 3-6 Peer & Trend — GoLine Service Utilization and Productivity Measures
329 276 382 594 707 114.8% 466 51.6% !_
236 1,190 1,714 2,715 2,899 1127.9% �_ 1,790 62.0%
0.72 4.31 4.49 4.57 4.10 471.6% 4.34 -5.4%
3-15
RM
Stanley Consultants
36.6
27.6 34.7 54.0 50.5
14.49 14.64 13.41 18.30 18.29
1.35 I 1.43 1.29 1.62 1.25
38.1%
46.6
8.4%
26.3%
16.31
12.1%
-7.1%
1.04
20.7%
Ridership on GoLine's fixed route service increased significantly (approximately 115
percent) over the trend period, with annual increases between FY 2007 and FY 2010. GoLine
ranked third among its peers in ridership behind only High Point, NC and Bay County Transit
and 51.6 percent above the peer median, both positive measures.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-14 Passenger Trips
The number of passenger miles is a NTD measure that multiplies the number of passenger
trips by the average passenger trip length to estimate the total number of passenger miles
traveled. Passenger miles verses total passengers more accurately portray actual utilization of
the bus system since a system could have a high volume of short passenger trips while the bus
is empty for a majority of its trip. An extremely positive measure, GoLine's passenger miles
3-16
ku, Stanley cmultant3.<+
increased more than tenfold over the trend period. GoLine ranked second in passenger miles
among the peer systems, trailing only Bay County Transit.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-15 Passenger Miles
GoLine's average passenger trip length increased 472 percent over the trend period
(increasing from 0.72 miles to 4.1 miles). Although the methodology used to calculate the
average passenger trip length of 0.72 reported in 2006 resulted in a significantly understated
number, the methodology was corrected beginning with the 2007 report. Even with the 2006
anomaly, there has been a positive trend in average trip length which may be due in part to
better service design and the need for fewer transfers. In FY 2010, GoLine's average
passenger trip length ranked just below the peer mean of 4.34 miles.
3-17
IttM Stanley Consultants ti-"
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-16 Average Passenger Trip Length
Three measures that reflect the productivity of a fixed route system are: passenger trips per
vehicle operated in maximum service, passenger trips per revenue hour, and passenger trips
per revenue mile. The peer and trend data for GoLine are shown in the next set of Figures (3-
17 through 3-19). Both passenger trips per vehicles operated in maximum service and
passenger trips per revenue hour increased, while passenger trips per revenue mile slightly
decreased. GoLine was above the peer median for all three measures, ranking either third or
fourth among its peers.
3-18
Stanley Consultants -4
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-17 Passenger Trips per VOMS
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-18 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour
3-19
- U,, Stanley Consultants K'
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2012
Figure 3-19 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile
® Financial Performance Measures
The financial performance measures include expense measures as well as financial
efficiency and effectiveness measures. Table 3-7 shows GoLine's five-year trend and
the peer comparison for these measures.
Table 3-7 Peer & Trend - Financial Measures
$845 $683 $1,04 $1,15 $1,28
9 4 3
$65
$122
$144
$208
$232
$10.7
$10.9
$9.56
$5.29
$9.74
3
4
$2.57
$2.47
$2.75
$1.94
$1.81
$37.1
$36.1
$36.8
$35.5
$33.1
9
8
4
3
8
$0.26
$0.61
$0.45
$0.53
$0.39
3-20
51.8% j $1,742 -26.4% 1
253.8% 1 $360 -35.7% 1
14.4% N $22.79 -52.0% ';
-29.3% 1 $3.55 -49.1%
-10.8% $56.84 -41.6%
47.6% $0.75 -47.7%
JL 40 -
Stanley Consultants .<{
Figure 3-20 shows that GoLine's operating expenses increased 52 percent over the five-year
trend period, which is consistent with the increased levels of sei vice provided. Even with the
large increase, GoLine still ranked last among the peer group and 26.4 percent below the peer
median which are both positive measures.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-20 Operating Expense (in thousands $)
As a subset of total operating expenses, GoLine's maintenance expenses increased 254
percent. With an increase of approximately 140 percent in vehicle miles of service, an
increase in maintenance expenses is expected. Even with the maintenance expense increases,
GoLine still compared favorably to the peer systems at 35.7 percent below the peer median.
3-21
Itm Stanley Consultants -{
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-21 Maintenance Expense (in thousands $)
The first set of financial efficiency measures use the overall operating expense and other
performance measures to create ratios of cost efficiency. The measures include operating
expenses per capita, per passenger trip, and per revenue hour. Figures 3-22 through 3-24
display GoLine's peer and trend data for those measures. In terms of financial efficiency
measures, GoLine performs very well. GoLine had decreases in two of the three measures,
with the lone increase occurring in operating expense per capita. The peer graphics in those
figures show the most efficient agencies from top to bottom. GoLine ranked first by a
sizeable margin in all three measures. Compared to the peer median, GoLine's expense ratios
were approximately 50 percent lower.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-22 Operating Expense per Capita
3-22
ILStanley consultants d
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-23 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-24 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
Maintenance expense per vehicle mile is another measure that can indicate the overall health
of the vehicle fleet. If this measure is high, it may mean that the condition of the vehicles is
poor and more maintenance is required. If it is low, then the fleet is in overall good condition.
GoLine's maintenance expense per vehicle mile increased 48 percent over the trend period.
Even with the increase, it still ranked above the peers with a maintenance expense of $0.39
per vehicle mile, an amount which was 47 percent lower than the peer median of $0.75 per
vehicle mile.
3-23
VM Stanley Consultants �{
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-25 Maintenance Expense per Vehicle Mile
3.2.3 Peer Summary
Figure 3-26 shows a summary of how GoLine's values for the operational measures compare
to the peer group minimum, maximum and median. For a majority of the measures, GoLine
is close to the peer group maximum for the positive measures. Only a few measures fall
below the peer group median, including average age of fleet which is seen as a positive
(younger fleet).
3-24
k4m
Stanley Consultants «e
250% - - - - - - - -
200%
150% -.
Ilk100%
50%
0%
\`Q�o,
J J
oA
��a a� ,vc �yP �Q yQ Q� yQ 4� yP' zc
Pa ��y �� rte\ \� � e � Qati Qm
v �y Q�e �i�Q Q�Q .QyQ
J� � J� `rapt PJB Qac
o Q
Figure 3-26 Peer Analysis — Operational Measures, FY 2010
Peer Max
IR
Median
Peer Min
Figure 3-27 shows a summary of how GoLine's values for the financial measures compared
to the peer group minimum, maximum, and median. GoLine was below the peer median for
every financial measure and ranked the lowest in every measure. In most cases, a low
ranking is preferable. A lower operating expense per revenue hour, for example, reflects more
cost effective service.
250%
200%
150%
100% - _ -
50% — ! Peer
Max
0% ,
CIP OQOQ�`
Figure 3-27 Peer Analysis - Financial Measures, FY 2010
3-25
- Urn Stanley Consubnts —
3.3 Part Two: Demand Response Transit Service
A trend analysis was conducted using Community Coach's FY 2006 through FY 2010 NTD
reports. Performance measures, including the percent change for each measure for the trend
period, are grouped into categories and presented in tabular form (Tables 3-8 through 3-11).
A peer review similar to the one conducted for GoLine fixed route service was also completed for
Community Coach. The FTIS software was utilized to select six peer systems, but due to wide
variations in demand response service measures, Community Coach is compared to the peer
median versus individual systems.
Figures in this evaluation illustrate the selected operational and financial measures. The trend area
graphs show Community Coach's trends for each performance measure. The percent change over
the period is shown at the top right of each graph. Figures 3-49 and 3-50 (at the end of this
chapter) present a graphical representation of Community Coach compared to the peer group in
all measures (showing the minimum, median, and maximum values for each performance
measure).
3.3.1 Peer and Trend Tables
Peer and trend tables display Community Coach's values for each performance measure for
FY 2006 through FY 2010 as well as the percent change over the trend period. They also
show the peer median for each measure and how Community Coach's FY 2010 values
compare to the peer median.
• Operational Measures: Service Characteristics
Service characteristic measures refer to measures that comprise the basic data of the
transit system and from which other measures can be derived. Table 3-8 shows
Community Coach's five-year trend for the selected service characteristic measures
and the peer comparison for those measures. Those evaluations are described following
the table.
Table 3-8 Peer & Trend — Community Coach Service Characteristic Measures
616
384
494
486
482
590
362
469
463
462
0.96
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.96
3-26
-21.8%
497
-3.1%
-21.6%
433
6.7%
0.3%
0.83
15.1%
Utp Stanley Consultants -i
Revenue miles of service gives an indication of the level of service provided by a transit
system. As shown in Table 3-8, Community Coach's revenue miles of service decreased
approximately 22 percent over the trend period, but Community Coach still provided
approximately 7 percent more service than the peer median.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-28 Revenue Miles (in thousands)
The ratio of revenue miles to vehicle miles measures deadhead miles (miles that the bus
operates without passengers onboard). After a low in FY 2607, Community Coach's
revenue miles per vehicle miles ratio increased in subsequent years to end the five year
period up less than one percent. Compared to its peers, Community Coach is more
efficient, with a 15 percent higher revenue mile to vehicle mile ratio.
3-27
UTit StanleyConsultants..J
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-29 Revenue Miles / Vehicle Miles
Revenue hours of service is an indicator of the amount of service provided by the transit
agency. Community Coach's revenue hours of service decreased 31 percent over the
trend period. Most of that decrease occurred in the first year of the trend period. Despite
the decrease, GoLine provides 13 percent more revenue hours than the median of the peer
group.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-30 Revenue Hours (in thousands)
3-28
tttR Stanley Consultants K
• Operational Measures: Vehicle Utilization
Vehicle utilization measures reflect transit vehicle usage, performance, and other
vehicle related data. Table 3-9 shows Community Coach's five-year trend and the
peer comparison for those measures.
Table 3-9 Peer & Trend - Community Coach Vehicle Utilization Measures
11.
11
I1.
II`
I I
I1 1 i
��7r
42
34
32
32
32
-23.8%
21
56.1%
33
25
25
25
25
-24.2%
17
1
51.5% j
0
27.3%
36.0%
28.0%
28.0%
28.0%
2.7%
27.5%
1.7%
I
17.9
14.5
18.7
18.5
18.5
3.5%
27.3
-32.3%
10.9
9.4
8.0
8.8
8.7
i
-19.8% '-
7.5
16.6%
0
295
362
78
19
20
-93.2%
l
9
127.1%
0 3.54
3.09
3.97
4.94
4.41
24.6%
4.02
9.8% 3
Figure 3-31 depicts the trend data for vehicles available and vehicles operated in
maximum service (VOMS). Both measures dropped approximately 24 percent, with the
largest decrease in the first year of the trend period. Even with the decrease, Community
Coach operated 56.1 percent more vehicles and 51.5 percent more VOMS than the peer
median.
3-29
urR Stanley Consultants -1
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-31 Vehicles Available and
Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS)
Spare ratio measures the difference between the number of vehicles available and the
number of vehicles operated in maximum service, divided by the number of vehicles
operated in maximum sei vice. A low spare ratio can make the scheduling of maintenance
activities difficult and may limit an agency's ability to respond to increased service
demand, while a high spare ratio may indicate an inefficient use of capital equipment.
The spare ratio for Community Coach increased 3 percent over the trend period and, at 28
percent, is similar to the peer median for that measure.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-32 Spare Ratio
3-30
Stanley Consultants —1
Revenue miles per vehicle in maximum service indicates the degree of utilization of each
vehicle in service. Figure 3-33 shows that Community Coach's revenue miles per vehicle
in maximum service increased 3 percent over the trend period. Despite the increase,
Community Coach did not compare favorably to the peer systems (32.3 percent below the
peer median).
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-33 Revenue Miles Per VOMS (in thousands)
Vehicle miles per gallon measures the fuel efficiency of the agency's vehicles.
Community Coach's vehicle miles per gallon decreased from 10.9 to 8.7 over the trend
period, but the fleet was still more efficient than the peer median of 7.5 vehicle miles per
gallon.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-34 Vehicle Miles per Gallon
3-31
ILStanley Cansultants �+
Revenue miles between failures is an indicator of the overall condition of the fleet. It
measures how often vehicles break down while in service. Community Coach had an
increase in vehicle failures from FY 2006 and FY 2007, when only one or two failures
were reported each year, to the following three years when between 6 and 25 failures
were reported. Even with the increase in failures, Community Coach, at a rate of 20,099
revenue miles between failures, compared favorably to the peer median of 8,852 revenue
miles between failures in FY 2010.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-35 Revenue Miles Between Failures (in thousands)
The average age of the Community Coach fleet increased 25 percent, from 3.54 years to
4.41 years, over the trend period, and was slightly higher than the peer median of 4.02
years.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-36 Average Age of Fleet
3-32
trtx Stanley Consultants K+
• Operational Measures: Service Utilization and Productivity
Operational measures are indicators of passenger utilization, service productivity and
effectiveness. Table 3-10 shows Community Coach's five-year trend and the peer
comparison for those measures.
Table 3-10 Peer & Trend — Community Coach Service Utilization and Productivity
Measures
Measured in passenger trips, ridership on Community Coach decreased approximately 48
percent over the trend period. Community Coach ridership was 38.9 percent below the
peer median. One potential reason for ridership decline could be greater access to
GoLine. That could be viewed as a positive trend since the operating cost per passenger
trip on GoLine was $1.81, versus Community Coach's cost of $31.39 in 2010. The
decline could also be the result of capacity constraints related to vehicle availability.
3-33
A
M
NUStanley Consultants -1
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-37 Passenger Trips
The number of passenger miles is an NTD measure that multiplies the number of
passenger trips by the average passenger trip length to estimate the total number of
passenger miles traveled. Passenger miles verses total passengers more accurately portray
actual utilization of the system. As shown in Figure 3-38, passenger miles did not
decrease as much as passenger trips, but still decreased 30 percent over the trend period.
Similar to the previous measure, Community Coach was substantially below (43 percent)
the peer median for this measure.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-38 Passenger Miles
3-34
R",
Stanley Caauultants —A
Although Community Coach's average passenger trip length has declined significantly
since 2008, there was an overall increase of 34 percent over the trend period. In FY
2010, Community Coach's average passenger trip length of 8.2 miles was 4 percent
higher than the peer median.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-39 Average Passenger Trip Length
Three measures that reflect the productivity of a system are passenger trips per vehicle
operated in maximum service, passenger trips per revenue hour, and passenger trips per
revenue mile. The peer and trend data for Community Coach are shown in the next set of
Figures (3-40 through 3-42). All three measures showed substantial declines over the
trend period (31, 25, and 33, percent respectively). The values were between 40 - 60
percent below the peer medians for those measures.
3-35
Stanley Consultants a?
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-40 Passenger Trips per VOMS
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-41 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour
3-36
UiR Stanley Consultants
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2012
Figure 3-42 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile
® Financial Performance Measures
The financial performance measures include expense measures as well as financial
efficiency and effectiveness measures. Table 3-11 shows Community Coach's five-
year trend and the peer comparison for those measures.
Table 3-11 Peer & Trend — Financial Measures
3-37
urn StanEey ConsuHams -{
Figure 3-43 shows that Community Coach's operating expenses decreased one percent
over the five-year trend period, although there were significant declines in the overall
levels of service provided. A decrease occurred in FY 2007, but since that time operating
expenses trended higher through 2010. At 10 percent higher than the peer median,
Community Coach does not compare favorably in this measure given the lower levels of
service provided.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-43 Operating Expense (in thousands $)
As a subset of total operating expenses, Community Coach's maintenance expenses
increased 12 percent and were 44 percent higher than the peer median for this measure.
3-38
stanley Consultants
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-44 Maintenance Expense (in thousands $)
The first set of financial efficiency measures use the overall operating expense and other
performance measures to create ratios of cost efficiency. The measures include operating
expenses per capita, per passenger trip, and per revenue hour. Figures 3-45 through 3-47
display Community Coach's trend data for those measures. Community Coach
experienced a decline in operating expense per capita, but had large increases in the other
two measures. Compared to the peer systems, the community is spending approximately
28 percent less per capita for paratransit services, and does not compare favorably with a
cost per passenger trip of approximately 54 percent above the peer median.
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-45 Operating Expense per Capita
3-39
Stanley Consultants �I
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-46 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-47 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
Maintenance expense per vehicle mile is another measure that can indicate the overall
condition of the fleet. If that measure is high, it may mean that the condition of the
vehicles is poor. Community Coach's maintenance expense per vehicle mile increased 43
percent over the trend period and was 45 percent above the peer median for that measure.
3-40
IL- 40
Stan►ey Consultants «�
Source: National Transit Database 2006-2010
Figure 3-48 Maintenance Expense per Vehicle Mile
3.3.2 Peer Summary
Figure 3-49 shows a summary of how Community Coach's values for the operational
measures compared to the peer group minimum, maximum, and median. Community
Coach was closer to the peer minimum for more measures than it was to the peer
maximum.
600%
500%
400% —
300% —
200%
100% —
0% i — — ----- -
��' t1``' hoc ���' � �.Q' \�5 C'
�°Jt 4ze
ayy�c�yQ���
J� 2J c ,tet e'er
Peer Max
IR
— ®Median
Peer Min
Figure 3-49 Peer Analysis — Operational Measures, FY 2010
3-41
Stanley Consultants I
Figure 3-50 shows a summary of how Community Coach's values for the financial measures
compared to the peer group minimum, maximum, and median, Community Coach was above
the peer median for four of the financial measures. In most cases a lower value is preferable.
A lower operating expense per revenue hour, for example, reflects more cost effective
service.
350%
300%
250%
200%
150°l0
100% Peer Max
500/0IR
0% Median
—Peer Min
0
IZZ
& 04 R; -4-
&
Oq ac Q4
4q
/IQ
Figure 3-50 Peer Analysis — Financial Measures, FY 2010
3-42
&d�
km Stanley Comitants
Chapter 4
Public Involvements
This chapter presents the results of several activities undertaken during the TDP Update process
to obtain public input on the County's transit system. As integral component of the TDP Update
process, public involvement was an ongoing TDP activity. Throughout the TDP Update process,
several methods of public participation were implemented to obtain a broad based perspective
from a diverse group of stakeholders. The following sections provide information about
community transportation needs and issues identified through the following public involvement
activities:
• Onboard survey of GoLine customers
• Mai back survey of Community Coach paratransit service customers
• One-on-one interviews with community leaders and major stakeholders
• Employee survey of Senior Resource Association members
• Five public workshops held at various locations in the County
The comments, questions, and feedback received from each of the above mentioned activities are
summarized below.
4.1 GoLine Customer Survey
As a means to obtain input from GoLine users on quality of service, onboard surveys were
administered to customers riding GoLine fixed -route services. In order to collect a representative
sample of GoLine routes, onboard surveys were conducted on Wednesday, November 28, 2012,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The purpose of the surveys was to collect detailed information about
customer demographic characteristics and travel activity, and solicit input from customers
regarding their level of satisfaction with various aspects of GoLine's fixed -route service.
4-1
tt Stanley Consultants
4.1.1 Survey Methodology
To obtain public input, the Consultant Team, with input from Senior Resource Association
and Metropolitan Planning organizationstaff designed
ructurdthesurvey questions were
deAg std'e2-question
urvey instrument is included in Appendix
designed to be simple and short, so the survey could be completed while passengers were
onboard. A total of 560 completed surveys were received.
The response rate for each question is listed in Table 4-1. As shown, most of the questions
had a high response rate (above 85%).
Table 4-1 Response Rate by Question
4.1.2 Survey Analysis four
The analysis of the on -board survey is divided
d comer SatisfactionsEintoachtsection 1 ustt is the
Trip Characteristics, Travel Behavior, and
survey results in a graphical format along with a description of the results. Since the survey
4-2
- — R Staj f consubnts «c +
i
Response Rate I
ii
Question i;
Responses
Response Rate
Question ;
Q
Responses
90%
Q 1
560
°
100 /0
- -Q19d _ ,
- - - - -504
- - - - - - — 3
90% I
- -
Q2
- --
553
0
99 /0 1
Q 19e
19f
Q19
505
o °
90
—Q3
- 543
97%
j
98%-
_
Q g
—
497
89% _ I
Q4 {,
550
-
100%
Ql9h
488 -
87%0_- -
-
Q5 -
560
- -
- -
40%
Ql9i {
491
88%0_
-
QSa
222
99%
Q19j
487
87%
Q6
552
o
96 /0
Q19k
483
86% _
Q7
i' 539 -
100%
Q191
484
86%
Qg
560
546
98%
Q19
497
g9% i
Q9
Q10
547-
98%
n
Q19n
475
- -
',
85%
87%-
Q11
5.44
97%
{ Ql90
488.
489
_
87%
Q12
543
0
97/0
19
Q P
Q19q
-
_
88%
Q13
524
94%
Q19r
4903
88%
Q14
519
93%
- o
Q19s
-
494
88% i
- Q 15
468
84 /o
o
100 /0
Q19t
495
88%_ - -
-
- Q16
560 _
- - --
- - —79%
Q19u
493
8 °
88%
Q17
:, 442
o
91 /o
Q20 (1)
—336
60% - - -
- - - - - -
- -Q18
- - 512
- - -92%
- - 20 (2)
Q
307
S5%
Q19a
513
90%
920 (3)
273
49%
- --- - - -- -- -i
504
-
- -- -- -
Q19c -
- 500
- ;!
89%
� - -
-
4.1.2 Survey Analysis four
The analysis of the on -board survey is divided
d comer SatisfactionsEintoachtsection 1 ustt is the
Trip Characteristics, Travel Behavior, and
survey results in a graphical format along with a description of the results. Since the survey
4-2
- — R Staj f consubnts «c +
instrument used for the onboard survey was similar to the one used in the 2008 TDP Major
Update, a comparison of the results from the 2008 survey is provided where applicable.
The Customer Demographics section includes information about the customers' age, gender,
ethnic heritage, total household income, and household vehicle availability. This profile is
used to characterize the GoLine customer base and to identify specific populations that can be
included for future expansion and marketing activities.
The Trip Characteristics section contains specific attributes of the customers' individual
trips. The data include mode of access and egress to/from bus stops and the primary trip
purpose.
The Travel Behavior section provides an overview of the customers' overall transit usage
characteristics, including frequency and tenure of use. This chapter also identifies the reasons
most riders use the GoLine and potential alternative modes of transportation.
The Customer Satisfaction section presents the findings from a series of questions regarding
the respondent level of satisfaction with a variety of GoLine service characteristics.
4.1.3 Customer Demographics
Several survey questions were structured to identify the demographic characteristics of
GoLine customers. These characteristics include age, sex, ethnicity, household income and
vehicle availability. As indicated in Figure 4-1, GoLine's user base reflects a high
concentration of younger customers, with more than 42% of users below age 30. At 28% the
20-29 age group is the highest ridership group age. That compares to 15% for riders ages 60
and older. Overall, the age distribution in 2012 was similar to the age distribution identified
in the 2008 onboard surveys. These surveys show that there was a steady decline in senior
ridership and an associated increase in younger ridership between the 1999 and 2012 survey
periods.
19 or under 14.69%
20 to 29 4aL;4d:j 27.67%
30to 39 13.17%
40 to 49 6k , 4 E-4416 E12",^i 13,93%
50 to 59 ff. e g 15A6%
60 to 644�'_'°'44, 7.44%
65 or older �4s�-41 7.63% 0 Percent of Survey Responses
0.00% 20.00% 40.00%
Figure 4-1 Q13: Your Age Is?
4-3
OU 4W
Starky Cmultants - 1
As illustrated in Figure 4-2, approximately 53 percent of the respondents were females, and
47 percent were males. Between 2008 and 2012, there was a six percent increase in male
ridership between 2008 and 2012. There is consistent with the trend of increased male
ridership between 1999 and 2005, with the exception of a slight decrease between 2005 and
2008.
I
Male 0: 10 46.96%
M:
a Percent of Survey
Responses
Female 53.04,D/o
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-2 Q12: Your Gender Is?
As shown in Figure 4-3, 46% of respondents identified themselves as White. The next
highest user group identified themselves as Black (40 percent), while Hispanics were a
distant third at approximately nine percent. A cross tabulation of age and ethnic heritage is
shown in Table 4-2. This table reveals that the single largest group of riders identify
themselves as Black (14.26 percent) and between 20 to 29 years of age. The next largest
group of riders identify themselves as White (9.25 percent) and between 20 and 29 years of
age.
White
46.05%
Black
39.88%
Hispanic B.67%
El Percent of Survey
Asian 11.54% Responses
Native 1.35%
Arnerivan
Other 2.50%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-3 Q14: Your Ethnic Heritage Is?
4-4
Rx" Stanley Consultants
Table 4-2 Ethnicity (Q14) by Customer Age (Q13)
White—
5
0.1 170
1 /U_t-
—
- --
------
Black
-
5.39%
14.26%,
5.01%
5.39%
5.59%
2.31%
1,93%
39.88%
ffispanic
2.70% j�
2.50 %1
1.54% 1
1.16%ill
0.58
-- --%
0. "0./ 1
0.19%
8.67%
Asian
0.39%
0.39%
049%
0-.39%-1--
0.19%
0 - .00%-:1-
0.00%
1.54%0
Native
19% 1'
0.518% jl,
0.00%
0.39%!
0.00%'!'
j
0.19%'.-1.35%]
American
__0_.00%
Other
-0.
0.58%
0.77%
0.39%
0.19%
0.19%
0.00%
- 039%
2.50%
Total
14.84% 1'
27.75%
13.29%
13,49%
15.22%
7.51%1
7.90%
100.00%
According to survey results, approximately 56 percent of riders earn less than $10,000 per
year. Another 23 percent earn between $10,000 and $19,999 per year. In total, approximately
79 percent of the respondents have an annual household income of $19,999 or less. Figure 4-
4 displays the household income results.
4-5
lu .!RyCo-nsultants w- 1
Less than $10,000 56,.41/
-.'N#k6'L`>dN9%1�=�C.;41`.A9k&+""'I *.e%:=, i+Ta�t;.1 �>5"�'n`,--^.•E�.en^'-T �.FASds'-L
$10,000 to $19,000 b 22.86%
$20,000 to $29,000 8.55% Ei
Percent of Survey Responses
$30,000 to $39,000 W 6.62%
$40,000 or over: ` 5.56%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-4 Q15: What was the range of your Total Household Income for 2012?
Table 4-3 cross -tabulates household income and customer age. This table shows that the
single largest group of respondents (18.64 percent) were riders ages 20 to 29 with annual
household incomes less than $10,000. That is an increase of four percentage points compared
to the 2008 survey and is consistent with the increase in younger riders.
Table 4-3 Household Income (Q15) by Customer Age (Q13)
Less than $10,000
9.90% :
18.64%
8.87%'
9.38% 10.41%
5.01% '
5.14%
$10,000 to $19,000
1.41%
4.50% f
1.67%
II
2.70% 1.93%0 CC
0.64%
0.77%11 13.62% (f
$20,000 to $29,000
0.64%i
1.80%
0.26%
0.51% 0.77%;
0.51%
0.64% ; 5.14%
--��
$30,000 to $39,000
0.51%
0.77% 1I1_
°
0.26/0]L
° 0
0.51 /0� 0.26/0]
0
0.64/0-0,39/0
0 �� _ -1
334%
1
- - __J
$40,000 or over
-__
2.19% .
-
1.41%
1.54%
0.77% 0.77%
_
1.67% :
2.19% 10.54%
Total jj
l:
14:65%1
- -- -
27.1 2%
- 2%Ile
12.60% j
13.88%11
14.14%Il
----
8.4'8%11
-- --
%
9_. .13-
-�-
100.00%
� -
As shown in Figure 4-5, over 55 percent of respondents indicated that they have no working
vehicles available in their household. That is slightly lower than the number of respondents
who reported zero vehicle availability in 2008. The decrease may be attributable to the
growing number of younger GoLine riders who may not have a vehicle available for their
use, but live in a household that owns a vehicle.
M.
Stanley Wtants t
3 or More5.27%
Ca rs
0.00/o
0 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-5 Q18: Household Vehicle Availability
Table 4-4 shows a comparison of vehicle availability and household income. For those
households with annual incomes less than $10,000, 36 percent had no access to a vehicle. At
the $10,000 to $19,999 level, 12 percent had no access to a vehicle. For households with an
annual income of $20,000 or more, the distribution was fairly similar in vehicle availability.
Table 4-4 Vehicles Available (Q18) by Household Income (Q15)
1 Vehicle
11.54% '..
7.26%
2.991/0,
G. / 070
2, Vehicles
S 56%"
1.50% 1I
,1 92%4 -
f; . ,
0 .85% _—���L
"
3+
2.56% ',
1.71%
--
0.43% `
0.43%
2.14% ,, 7.26%
Vehicles
Total
SB 4:1%.
I
"22.86%,I
8.55%
�-
5.56%
100 00%
�II
_--_=
_6.62%-A
4.1.4 Trip Characteristics
According to survey results, over 77 percent of respondents indicated that they walked less
than 3 blocks to reach the bus stop, while 16 percent indicated they had walked three or more
blocks. A significant majority of the customers, 93 percent, begin and end their transit trip by
walking. Figure 4-6 shows these results.
4-7
IL
" Sta°�y Cnosu Lards r i
Walked 3 blocks or less -'4
77.30%
Walked more than 3 blocks 1�36%
Drove Zj 1.50%
Bicycle � 2,81% El Percent of Survey Responses
Taxi 1:0.75%
1 requested a special pickup 31 1,50%
Other [ 0.38%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
Figure 4-6 Q3: How did you get to the bus?
In learning of trip purpose, survey results showed that shopping was the top destination of 26
percent of respondents, while work was cited as the top destination by 16 percent of
respondents. Medical appointments accounted for 10 percent of the total. Figure 4-7 shows
those results.
Home 23.08%
Work
15.93
School 4.21%
College 2.93%
Doctor/Dentist 10,07% I a Percent of Survey Responses
Shopping/Errands �z= =ext. 25.82%
Visiting/Re creation IIgff
I -, g 8.79%
Other fm'f 9.16%
0.00% 20,00% 40.00%
Figure 4-7 Q4: Where are you going on this trip?
As illustrated in Figure 4-8, approximately 54 percent of respondents indicated that they
need to transfer to another route to complete their trip.
4-8
Stanley Consultants
Yes 54.416%
13 Percent of Survey
Figure 4-8 Q5: Do you need to transfer to complete today's trip?
As to how riders reach their final destination once they depart from the bus, a vast majority
(71%) stated that they would either walk less than 3 blocks (71.5 percent) or would walk
more than 3 blocks (18.6 percent). In total, 90% of riders walk to their destination after
departing the GoLine. That is approximately 10 percentage points higher than the 2008
survey total. Approximately 2.4 percent bike to their final destination. A summary of
responses is illustrated in Figure 4-9.
Walk 3 blocks or less IRMO, 71.45A
Walk more than 3 blocks 1 444� 18.60%
Drive 1.47%
Bicycle ,a 239%
'Fax! 1 0.37%
I requested a special pickup Z;J 4.79%
Other 1 0.92%
1 0 Percent of Survey Responses
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80,00%
Figure 4-9 Q6: How will you reach your final destination once
you depart from the bus?
4-9
RM Sun* Cmultants-
4.1.5 Travel Behavior
According to the survey, approximately 50 percent of respondents use the GoLine four or
more days each week, while 33 percent use the bus two or three days per week. Another I I
percent of respondents indicated that they use the service only once a week. Overall, the
results show that a majority of GoLine riders are frequent users of the system. Figure 4-10
shows the results.
4 or rnore days per week M 12", , gnk 49.81%
- - L -1w,
2 or 3 days per week 33,27%
About 1 day per week 11.15%
Once or twice a month =5.58%
Seasonal 0.19%
OM%
El Percent of Survey
Responses
20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-10 Q7: How often do you ride the bus?
Approximately 55 percent of the respondents indicated that they use the service more than
once per day.
As to why GoLine customers ride the bus, the most common responses selected were "I don't
drive" and "car is not available". Those respondents represent 74 percent of the total. The
next highest reason selected is "I don't have a valid driver's license". The results of question
9 are shown in Figure 4-11.
I don't drive 4' 33.8%
Car is not available
40.00%
Bus is more economical 6.42%
Traffic is too bad 0.55%
Parking is dificult/expensive 0,00% 0 Percent of Survey
Responses
Bus is more convenient -M,,, 4.77%
1 don't have a valid driver's..."11.74%
Other =
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-11 Q9: What is the most important reason you ride the bus?
4-10
Stanky CMUItanh
Table 4-5 lists the most important reason customers ride the bus by their age group. Based on
survey results, approximately 13 percent of younger riders (below age 29) use the bus
because they don't drive. That is significantly more than the 3.4 percent seniors who cited
the same reason. Another 17 percent of younger riders indicated that they do not have a car
available.
Table 4-5 Reason for Riding the Bus (Q9) By Age Group (Q13)
I don't drive
Car is not available 3.70% i
Bus -more economical -0.97%
Traffic is too bad 0.00%
Parking is difficultlexp. 0.00%
Bus is more convenient 0.78% a
No valid driver's license 1.75%
13.04%
3.70%
6.61%
6.23%
4.09%
3.89%
41.25%
--
..
1.56% 1
- �
0.58/ i1.56%;
0.78%0.19%
I'-
- 6-.23%0.58/
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.19%
0.19%
0.00%
0.58%
0.00% !;_-
0.0006 :!.__0.00%-;I
_0.00% i';_-
0.00% ! _
0.00% 1__
0.00%1
1.17%
0.58%
0.58%
0.78%
0.39%
0.58%
4.86%
4.28%1
- 1.56% '
1.17% i!
2.14% ji
0.39% �;
0.78% i;
12.06%
Other 0.97% 0.97% 0.00%
Total 14.79% 27.43% 13.23% '
0.00% 0.58% 0.19% 0.39%11- 3.11%
14.20% 15.18%1, 7.39%J, 7.78%-1
., -100.00%
Question 10 asked the respondents how they would make the trip if transit were not available.
Approximately 30 percent of respondents indicated that they would ride with someone else,
while another 29 percent indicated that they would walls to their destination. Approximately
20 percent of respondents indicated that they would not make the trip at all if transit were not
available. The responses are displayed in Figure 4-12.
Drive > ` 5.49%
Ride with someone ; = "9 30.40%
Bicycle s t 6.96%
Walk a- - ; 29.12%
Taxi 3.66% I 0 Percent of Survey Responses
Wouldn't make trip a 19.78%
Other 4.58%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00%
Figure 4-12 Q10: How would you make this trip if not by bus?
4-11
IL 4M
Stanley cDasultants <1
Question 11 asked customers how long they have been using the GoLine service. There were
five available categories to choose from: "more than 5 years", "2 to 5 years", "6 months to 2
years", "less than 6 months", and "first -tune rider". As shown in Figure 4-13, the highest
number of responses (30 percent) was in the between 6 months and 2 years category. The
next two highest categories were in the between 2 to 5 years (26.5 percent) and less than 6
months (23 percent). Approximately 16 percent of the customers indicated that they have
been riding for more than 5 years. Figure 4-13 displays those results.
This is my first day
4.23%
Less than 6 months
f;,
6 months to 2 year
6 months to 2 ears ,.
- �' -
2 years to 5 years
°
9.92%;i ;-
More than 5 year
"<t°^?` . 15
4,
0.00%
20.00%
22.98%
30.33%
EM Percent of Survey Responses
-4126.47%
40.00%
Figure 4-13 Q11: How long have you been using GoLine Bus Service?
Table 4-6 displays length of use by customer age. The table shows that the GoLine is not
attracting new ridership among older age categories since fewer than two percent of riders 60
years of age and older are new users. Instead, the GoLine is attracting new younger riders,
with 8 percent of total ridership consisting of riders aged 20 to 29 who have used the service
less than six months.
Table 4-6 Length of Use (Q11) By Customer Age (Q13)
This is my first day i 0.57% ; 0.19% !' 0.57%11 0.38%
Less than 6 months
5.34%
7.44%
3.05%
2.48%
6 months to 2 ears ,.
- �' -
° ,.
5.73 /o
°
9.92%;i ;-
°
3.24 /o_ i
1
- -4.01%
2 years to 5 years
2.29%
6.11%
3.44%
4.77%
More than 5 years
-,
0.76% !
_ 4.01%
2.86%
2.29%
Total
14.69%
27.67%
13.17%
13.93%
2.67%
4.58%11
3.44%
3.82%
15.46%
1.15%
1.15%
23.28%
-
1.15% :'.
0.76%
29.39%
2.86%
2.67%
25.57%
1.34%;
_-2.48%_ _'_
17.56%
7.44%
7.63%
100.00%
4-12
- - R Stanley Consultants 1
4.1.6 GoLine Customer Profile
Based on the on -board survey responses, a profile of the typical GoLine rider was developed.
As shown in Table 4-7 below, the typical GoLine rider is a young white female with an
annual household income of $10,000 or less with no access to a personal automobile. Those
results indicate how significant the transit service is to economically disadvantaged segments
of the County's population.
Table 4-7 GoLine Customer Profile
--- -
Gender
Female - �- -----
53.04%
- -- -
---- - -
Age - - - ---- - - - - -
--- -
20to 29
I• - - -
27.67%
o
46.05/0
Ethnicity
, White
,
Annual Household Income
Less than $10,000
-
56.41%
- --
--
Vehicles in Household
---------
1,0 Cars
--
Trip Purpose
Shopping/Errands
25.82%
Mode of Access
1,Walked 3 blocks or less !,
77.30po�
Mode of Egress
Walk 3 blocks or less
71.45%
Frequency of Use _
IlAbout 1 day per week :;
11.15%i
Tenure of Use
6 months to 2 years
30.33%
Question 17 asked customers to indicate how much fare they would be willing to pay for a
ride, if a fee based system were to be implemented. As shown in Figure 4-14, more than 95
five percent of respondents indicated a willingness to pay a nominal fee for using transit
service. While more than 40 percent of respondents indicated that they are willing to pay a
fee between $0.01 and $1.00 per trip, another 25 percent of respondents indicated a
willingness to pay between $1.01 and $2.00 per trip. Figure 4-14 displays those results.
more than $5 l 0.4 %
$4.01 to $5.00 • .25%
$3.01 to $4.00 -.30%
$2.01 to $3.00 9.17%
$1.51 to $2.00 12.43%
$1.01 to $1.50 F 13.59%
$.51 to $1.00 20. 9%
$.01 to $.50 2 .91
Free 4.42°P
0.00%5.00 X10.00%5.00 %20.00S 5.00%
Figure 4-14 Q17: If there was a fare, how much would you
be willing to pay for a ride?
4-13
N.
stanley consultants c
4.1.7 Customer Satisfaction
Question 19 asked customers to indicate their level of satisfaction with a variety of GoLine
service characteristics. As pail of the survey, respondents were asked to select a number
between 1 and 5 to indicate their satisfaction level (1= very unsatisfied, 2= somewhat
unsatisfied, 3= neutral, 4= somewhat satisfied, 5= very satisfied). Based on the survey results,
the three highest scoring categories were "the bus driver's knowledge of the transit system
and routes," with an average score of 4.61, "the bus driver's ability to drive the bus", with an
average score of 4.56, and "your overall satisfaction with GoLine," with an average score of
4.51. The three lowest scoring categories were "the time of day the latest buses run on
Saturdays," with an average score of 3.27, "the time of day the latest buses run on
weekdays," with an average score of 3.68, and "the time of the day the earliest buses run on
Saturdays," with an average score of 3.69. Figure 4-15 displays the score for each of the
characteristics that were rated.
4-14
Stanley C40,multant3
Your overall satisfactionwith GoLlne 4.51
Frequency of service (how often runs)
4.26
Your ability to got where you want to go using die bus
EMO 4.47
How easy It Is to transfer between buses 4.46
How regularly buses arrive on time
4.19
The timeittakes to make atripbybus . . . . . . 4.14
os
How easy It Is to get bus mute and schedule Information 4.27
How easy It Is to use bus route and schedule Information
4.33
The time of the daythe earliest buses run on weekdays
4.08
The Ilm a of the day die latest buses run on weekdays 3.68
The time ofthe day�ffie earliest buses run on Saturdays 13.69
The time of the day the latest buses run on Saturdays tn„ 3.27
How clean the buses are 4.20
How to clean die shelters are e,:,_
4! 11
How clean the stops are 4.14
Safety at the busslop"I - - - - - - - -
4.36
The nmberofdesignatedstops.longtlier-te
ms's.
4.18
Temperature Inside die buses
4.92
The bus driver's ability to drive the bus
4.56
[lie bus ddve(s courtesy 4.49
The bus ddvees knowledge of the transit system and routes
4.61
2 4
Figure 4-15 Level of Satisfaction with Service Characteristics
In Question 20, customers were asked to select the three GoLine characteristics from question
19 that they would most like to see improved. Out of 336 respondents, 144 indicated that they
would like service hours to be extended later into the evening on Saturdays. The second most
cited service need was to extend service hours later into the evenings on the weekdays. The
third most frequently requested improvement was to increase the frequency of transit service.
Table 4-8 shows the results of Question 20.
4-15
Table 4-8 Service Characteristics in Need of Improvement
1 Time of day latest buses run on Saturdays
2 - - Time of day latest buses run on weekdays -
3 Frequency of service
4 Time of day earliest buses run on Saturdays
5 Your ability to get where you want to go using the bus
6 How regularly buses arrive on time
4.2 Community Coach Survey
-
144 � ------16.09
o
/0
�.
103
11.51%
89 �',
9.94%
78
8.72%
49 -�
5.47%
49
5.47%
This section includes the results of the Community Coach paratransit system customer survey.
The purpose of that survey was to collect detailed information about customer demographic
characteristics and travel activity, and solicit input from customers on their level of satisfaction
with various aspects of Community Coach services.
4.2.1 Survey Methodology
The survey was designed to be simple and easily understood. Due to the difficulty of
administering an on -board survey in a paratransit environment, mail back survey format was
chosen. Because the surveys were mailed to paratransit riders, a self-addressed stamped
envelope was included with the surveys to facilitate the return. From a list of active
Community Coach customers provided by Senior Resource Association staff, the Consultant
Team randomly selected 312 individuals to survey. The surveys were then distributed to
those individuals and returned during the months of November and December 2012.
The survey instrument had 23 numbered questions - 19 utilizing multiple choice responses
and four with open ended responses. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix B.
Of the 360 Community Coach Passenger surveys that were mailed out, 50 were returned as
undeliverable, while 79 were returned and determined to have a majority of valid responses.
That represented a 28 percent response rate. The response rate for each survey question is
detailed in Table 4-9.
4-16
km
Stanley Consultants 3
Table 4-9 Community Coach Survey Response Rate
4.2.2 Customer Demographics
A series of questions were included in the survey instrument to provide information about
Community Coach customer base demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity, income,
and vehicle availability.
In the survey, Question 14 was structured to determine the age of the respondents. The
results, displayed in Figure 4-16, show that over 60 percent of Community Coach
Customers are 75 years of age or older.
4-17
Stanley Consultants -4
Q1
75
r6.15%
Q2
75
.%
Q3
75
96.15% 1
Q4
74
94.87% 1
Q5
72
92.31% i
Q6
70
89.74% 1
Q7
71
91.03% 1
Q8
72
92.31% 1
Q9
72
92.31% 1
Q1 0
62
79.49% 1
Q11
72
92.31% 1
Q12
74
94.87% 1 i
Q13
71
91.03%
Q14
71
91.03%
Q15
64
82.05%
Q16
71
91.03%
Q17
64
82.05%
Q18
72
92.31%
Q19
71
91.03%
Q20
58
74.36%
Q21
58
74.36%
Q22
58
74.36%
Q23
58
74.36%
4.2.2 Customer Demographics
A series of questions were included in the survey instrument to provide information about
Community Coach customer base demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity, income,
and vehicle availability.
In the survey, Question 14 was structured to determine the age of the respondents. The
results, displayed in Figure 4-16, show that over 60 percent of Community Coach
Customers are 75 years of age or older.
4-17
Stanley Consultants -4
24 or under
-W 2.82%
25 to 34
ia- 1,41%
35to44
=2.82%
45to54
NjJ54.23%
55 to 64 44444gAUgM 9,86%
El Percent of Survey
Responses
65 to 74 18.31%
75 to 8429.58%
85 or older
sgs
30.99%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00%
Figure 4-16 Q14: Your Age Is?
The purpose of Question 15 was to determine the gender of the respondents. That
information is displayed in Figure 4-17. According to the survey results, almost 90 percent
of the respondents indicated that they were female.
Male 10.54%
El Percent of Survey
Responses
xg,
8
Fen -1-
9.0c%
1A I
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Figure 4-17 Q15: You Are?
Question 16 asked respondents their race. The options provided were: White, Black,
Hispanic Asian, Native American and Other. The results are displayed in Figure 4-18.
Approximately 89 percent of Community Coach customers reported that they were White,
while approximately 6 percent of customers reported they were Black.
4-18
"16m Stanley Consultants
White Ilk M*M 0A 88.8s,%
V MINOR I
10 ff
, jwww�
Black _7-:3 5.56%
Hispanic KJ'- 2.78%
Asian 0.00%
Native 1,39%
American
1 13 Percent of Responses I
Other 1.39%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.000/0
Figure 4-18 Q16: You Are?
In Question 17, respondents were asked about their total household income. The results are
displayed in Figure 4-19. As shown in Figure 4-19, nearly 95 percent of respondents
reported they had annual household incomes at or below $29,999.
Less than $10,000
35 38%
$10,000 to... 41.54%
$20,000 to $29,999
18.46%
$30,000 to $39,999 3.08%
$40,000 to $49,999 .11.54% I El Percent of Responses
$50,000 to $59,999 0.00%
$60,000 to $69,999 0.00%
$70,000 and over 0.00%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60,00%
Figure 4-19 Q17: Your Total Household Income Is?
In Question 18, respondents were asked to indicate the number of working vehicles available
in their household. As shown in Figure 4-20, approximately 60 percent of households had no
working vehicle available, while approximately 34 percent had one vehicle.
4-19
k. -Stamey Consuttanu - i
Zero 60.27%
One EJ- 6.99% NO,
Two a, 2,74%
Three or 0.00%
more
El Percent of Responses I
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
Figure 4-20 Q18: How many working vehicles are available in your household?
In Question 19, respondents were asked if they have a valid driver's license. As shown in
Figure 4-21, approximately 51 percent of the respondents indicated that they did not have a
valid driver's license. That is consistent with the 60 percent who reported zero vehicle
availability.
Yes
49.30%
Im"I"a , NO off, 9
El Percent of Survey
Responses
No 50.70%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-21 Q19: Do you have a valid driver's license?
Another series of questions included in the survey, addressed travel behavior and trip
characteristics. Those questions related to familiarity with the Community Coach service
travel frequency, tenure of utilization, trip purpose, utilization of wheelchair lifts and
alternative travel options.
Question 10 asked respondents how they became aware of Community Coach. As shown in
Figure 4-22, word of mouth by family or friend accounted for 61 percent of the responses.
Information through a doctor's office was the second most cited information source (19
percent),
4-20
JL
Stanley Consuttanis
Council on Aging 111.56%
Doctor or health staff 118,75%
Word of mouth family/ friend -�j 60.94%
Senior Center
Aj u.257o 0 Percent of Responses
Advertisement = 4.69%
Internet search 1-11.56%
Saw the coach 6.25%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
Figure 4-22 Q10: How did you become aware of Community Coach?
In Question 1, respondents were asked how often they use Community Coach. Figure 4-23
summarizes the responses received, As shown in Figure 4-23, 46 percent of respondents
reported using the service a few times per month, while 33 percent reported using the service
occasionally. Approximately 13 percent of the respondents reported using the service every
day,
I
Daily 12.82%
Once perweek Z615,13%
2 to 4 times a week 0.00%
E3 Percent of Survey
Responses
A few times per U #;„,
wmafhm2��— g L� 46.15%
month
Only occasionally 33.33%
Multiple times 2.56%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-23 Q1: How often do you use Community Coach Service?
As shown in Figure 4-24, more than 54 percent of respondents have used Community Coach
for more than two years. On the other hand, new customers (those who have used the service
for less than one year) accounted for over 25 percent of responses. I
4-21
Stantey Cansuttants
I
Less than 6 months ON 12.5(-%
Six months to a year -A
12.50%
I to 2 years 20.83% 0 Percent of Responses
More than 2 years 54.-',7%
ME -
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-24 Q7: How long have you been using Community Coach?
In question 12, respondents were asked about their primary trip purpose when using
Community Coach. By far, the purpose with the highest response was medical (69 percent),
with shopping (5.4 percent) as the next highest. As shown in Figure 4-25, approximately 23
percent of the responses included multiple uses, most of which included both medical and
shopping.
Horne
0.00%
Work
0.00%
School
0.00%
Workshop
0.00%
Senior Center
2 2.70%
Doctor/Dentist
68-s
a Percent of Responses
Shopping
Recreation/Visiting
0.00%
Nutrition
0.00%
Multiple Purposes
22.97%
0.00%
20.00% 40.00% 60,00% 80,00% 100.00%
Figure 4-25 Q12: What is your primary purpose for using Community Coach?
In question 13, respondents were asked to identify all other purposes for which they use
Community Coach. As shown in Figure 4-26, the most common secondary trip purpose was
medical (54 percent), followed by shopping (22 percent) and recreation (10 percent).
4-22
Stamey tdtants
Noe °E ` 7.20°%
tr
Work 0.00%
School 10.80%
Workshop
0.00%
Senior Center
- 5.60%y
Doctor/Dentist]
... 54.40%
Shopping
22.40%
Recreation/Visiting
9.6
:7
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Figure 4-26 Q13: Check all purposes for which you use Community Coach
In Question 2, respondents were asked to identify any mobility devices that they use for
travel on Community Coach. Approximately 11 percent of respondents reported using a
wheelchair, while another 43 percent reported using a cane or walker. Those results are
shown in Figure 4-27.
Manual Wheelchair ;1= 6.02%
Power Wheelchair Z.': 4.82%
Power Scooter 0.00%
El Percent of Responses {
Cane°:;°'21lt 2.5.30%
°'"o> _ .
Walker ��<�;�. �.��=�����;I� 18.07%
Service Animal 1.20%
do not use any :• >>
4. _ .— '..-.:.. 44.58%
- f
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-27 Q2: Do you use a wheelchair for your travels on Community Coach?
In Question 11, respondents were asked how they would get to their destination if
Community Coach service was not available. Approximately 33 percent of respondents
reported that they would not be able to make the trip without this service. Another 32 percent
of respondents reported that they would ride with someone else. Figure 4-28 shows all the
responses received.
4-23
In 4W
Stanley Consultants -1
Drive 8.33%
Ride with someone�m?s v n.!ansMum.vsaa.. _ ,.31.94%
Bicycle 1.39%
Walk 4.17%
Taxi= KIA 12.50%
1 would not make the trip . .4;: e ' = -`=wT -` s `-:i° 33.33%
a z �,
Multiple Responses 8.33% ,�
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
Figure 4-28 Q11: How would you get to your destination if Community Coach was not
available?
The third and final series of survey questions were included to gauge the respondents' level
of satisfaction with various service characteristics of Community Coach.
Question 3 asked respondents to rate the overall quality of Community Coach service as
shown in Figure 4-29. As illustrated in Figure 4-30, approximately 86 percent of respondents
ranked the overall quality of Community Coach service as either excellent (51 percent) or
good (34 percent).
u:,. :r:.yx. - _ -r _:.;�•:. 51.32%
s _ } ''
Excellent =�,�_�.. �._ ��-:�K� �� �-1�w��:�`" - ��`-�=y� . �'" -.0 ..,�. °
Good, z= t$; 34.2'.%
Average 7.89%
Fair 4 5.26%
Poor 1.32%
0.00% 20.00%
U Percent of Responses
40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-29 Q3: How would you rate the overall quality of Community Coach Service?
4-24
Stanley Consultants -I
In Question 4, respondents were asked to rate the comfort of Community Coach vehicles. As
shown in Figure 4-30, over 92 percent ranked vehicle comfort as excellent or good.
ExcellentrVAUMN57,33%
IMM'MM
"�MW7 WM
I�WW
Good
34E7%
Average Z-5 2.67f° Cl Percent of Responses
Fair -:5 5.33%
Poor 0.00%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-30 Q4: How would you rate the comfort of Community Coach vehicles?
Respondents also gave vehicle cleanliness high rankings, with approximately 89 percent
rating cleanliness as excellent or good. See Figure 4-31.
Excellent
�-'t 53.42%
Good 35.52%
Vit,.. 7 -4 -214W -M
Average 8.22%
0 Percent of Responses
Fair UA 1.37%
Poor P;
1.37%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-31 Q5: How would you rate the cleanliness of Community Coach vehicles?
In question 6, respondents were asked how often they arrive at their appointments on time.
Over 58 percent reported always arriving on time, while nearly 31 percent reported they
arrive on time most of the time. See Figure 4-32.
4-25
kv. Stan-ZMnsultants
Y- X7.75%
Always 3a
a9 l'N ✓XASC.P_i �t�,!T }ld"Ya.S A.'F.T �W�h; fU K/�n__. +1, y,m/Xf�J 1.. r gYnSV 9.4-fA
Most of the time � � I - 30,99%
. - vly3Yust{eJIl9.lSPLL-`@a€ - - rt='k•aErd.fq`S.�
Sometimes l 9.86%
Never 1.41%
113 Percent of Responses
0.00% 20.00% 40,00% 60.00%
Figure 4-32 Q6: How often do you arrive at your appointments on time?
In Questions 8 and 9, respondents were asked to rate the courtesy and helpfulness of Senior
Resource Association employees. Question 8 was related to the Community Coach drivers,
while Question 9 was related to the telephone reservationists. Approximately 93 percent of
the respondents ranked the drivers as good or excellent, while approximately 81 percent
ranked the reservationists as good or excellent. See Figure 4-33 and Figure 4-34.
I I I I
w ,._.. • >: $c 69.86%
Excellent
Good °' 23.29%
Average :3 5.48%
I [3 Percent of Responses I
Fair ] 1.37%
Poor 0.00%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
Figure 4-33 Q8: How would you rate the courtesy and helpfulness of the drivers when
riding Community Coach?
4-26
—iL stanley Consultants i
Excellent 49.32%
'very ur+"ts*:�.sey;:.�si�w„�.s"a bias ^t 0`- �.yse ��. sa�•.r.+�w ror %:a ,r�,,xsi:
Good _ ° 31.51%
Average
10.96%
o Percent of Responses
Fair _E � 5.48%
Poor 2.74% a
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Figure 4-34 Q9: How would you rate the courtesy and helpfulness of the telephone
reservationists?
In Question 21, respondents were asked about the one thing they liked most about riding
Community Coach. As shown in Figure 4-35, 30 percent ranked convenience, 28 percent
ranked driver courtesy and 17 percent ranked dependability as the most lilted characteristic
about the Community Coach service.
Clean
�N- 3.13%
On time
tv i4— g x_ 6.25%
Only means of Transportation
� ' 3.13%
Safety
, _ 4.69%
Courteous Drivers and Staff
ro:
Dependable= --1,4 17
Convenience
Friendliness of passengers Z- 1.56%
Quality of Service . 6.25%
0.00% 20.00%
: 28.13%
0 Percent of Responses
29,69%
40.00%
Figure 4-35 Q21: Please Tell Us One Thing You Like Most About Riding Community
Coach.
4-27
Stanley Consultants r
When asked what characteristic they liked least about Community Coach, approximately 30
percent of respondents selected "long wait times" as the least liked characteristic. Almost 20
percent of the respondents indicated that they had no complaints regarding the service.
Scheduling system
(limited spaces) 1667%
Other24,07%
AN", I NOR
0,00% 20.00% 40,000%
Figure 4-36 Q22: Please tell us one thing you like least about riding Community Coach.
In Question 23, respondents were asked to identify service improvements. The results are
illustrated in Figure 4-37. Approximately 31 percent of respondents reported that they are
happy to have the service. Scheduling improvements (16 percent) and additional bus stops (9
percent) were identified as characteristics that would improve the quality of Community
Coach service.
Happy to have this service "g, 31,03%
Schedule improvements p-g-4i4gp, a
,p 15.521%
Add more stops 8.62%
Add more busses r 3,45%
Shorten wait time • 3.451 0 Percent of Responses
Extend hours =, 3,45%
Communication of changes to service =7,77. 3.45%
Personel attitudes =-Z 3.45%
Comfort of seating 3.45%
Door to door assistance for disables persons = 3.45%
Add more drivers 3,45%
Other* --244;" 17,24%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00%
Figure 4-37 Q23: Please tell us how you feel we could improve the quality of our service.
4-28
Stanley Consultants - I
4.3 Employee Survey
This section summarizes the results of the Senior Resource Association employee survey. The
survey instrument, included in Appendix C, was distributed to all bus operators, customer service
personnel and others employees who interact with the public. The purpose of the survey was to
seek input from the employees about existing services and potential improvements to the service.
The surveys were distributed in November 2012. A total of 60 surveys were mailed out, and 18
completed surveys were returned.
4.3.1 Survey Results
Question I asked for the employee's job classification. Out of the 18 completed surveys
received, 17 were filled out by bus drivers, while one survey was filled out by an operator.
Question 2 asked employees to rank the level of importance of a series of potential service
improvements and asked them to indicate their top three choices. As shown in Figure 4-38,
the top ranked priority was to improve maintenance of transit vehicles, improve bus stops,
and add shelters at frequent pick up points.
I
Operate more frequent weekday service P12W" 5,26%
Operate earlier weekday service 8.77%
Operate later weekday service
7.02%
Operate more Saturday service
8.77% 11 Percent of Survey Responses
Operate Sunday service 7.02%
Improve maintenance of transit vehicles 28.079,6
Add shelters at frequent pickup points i.`- 10.53%
Improve bus stops 12.28%
Other* INF_ -
122 %
0.00% 20.0016
Figure 4-38 Employee Recommended Priorities for Improvement Projects
4-29
A
ILStanley Consultants
40.00%
In Question 3, employees were asked to rank the most frequently heard passenger complaints
regarding a variety of service characteristics. The employee responses are shown in Figure
4-39. As indicated, the most commonly heard complaint identified by the respondents use
the perception of the service as being unsafe. The other more frequently cited customer
complaints included the cleanliness of the vehicles, service not matching customers' needs,
lack of bus shelters and benches, and the inability of passengers to obtain updated service
information.
Passengers can't get information
10. 0 0%
Service doesn't go where I wantm.
12.86%
Transit service is early or late
4.29%
Need later evening service
7,14%
E) Percent of Survey Responses
Transltvehicle is not comfortable4
, 29%
Need earlier morning service
7.14%
Service seems unsafe
N
15.71%
No out -of -county connections
5.71%
Transit vehicle Is not clean
14.29%
No shelters/benches
10.0096
No Sunday service
7*�] 4;-.VN181 LAM
8.57%
Other complaint- please describe:
1.43%
0.00%
10.00°
Figure 4-39 Most Frequent Customer Complaints
In Question 4, employees were asked to verify the validity of the customer complaints. For
each of the characteristics identified in Question 3, the employees were asked to select one of
the following options — "always agree", "often agree", "sometimes agree" and "seldom
agree". The employees were of the opinion that the following complaints are the most valid:
• Service doesn't go where I want
• No out of county connections
• Passengers can't get information
• Transit vehicle is not clean
• No shelters/benclies
• Need later evening service
4-30
20.00%
• No Sunday service
In Question 5, employees were asked to identify recommended improvements to the GoLine
service. The responses included:
I
• improving coordination between dispatch, drivers and passengers
• Re-evaluating routes to avoid overlapping service
• Adding more stops and routes
• Expanding service into the evening hours
• Providing newer and larger buses on heavily traveled routes
• Dedicating a vehicle for wheelchair trips so routes can better adhere to the schedule
• Giving drivers more flexibility to slightly deviate from fixed route
Question 6 asked respondents if additional early morning or later evening service was
necessary. Seven employees responded with a "yes" while the remaining I I responded with
a "no." Question 7 asked if Sunday service is a needed improvement to the existing transit
system. Out of the 18 respondents, 14 indicated that Sunday service is not necessary.
In Question 8, employees were asked to indicate the greatest strength of the GoLine service.
The strength identified by a majority of respondents was the ability to offer a valuable service
to the transit dependent population at no cost. A significant number of respondents identified
courtesy, dedication and professionalism of the drivers as GoLine's greatest strength.
In Question 9, employees were asked to identify GoLine's greatest shortcoming. The
responses included:
• Employee pay rates
• Perceived disconnect between employees and management
• Not enough routes/coverage for GoLine and Community Coach
• Lack of shelters
• Lack of adequate signage
• Dissemination of general information to drivers/passengers
• Overcrowded buses
• Overall condition of bus facilities
In Question 10, respondents were asked to recommend improvements to the transit service if
money were no object. Following are the responses received for each of the questions in the
series,
4-31
Stanley Cmultants -+
To ivhat part of the County not currently served by Community Coach should service be
added?
• Add the recently disconnected Barefoot Bay route
• Expand service to Fort Pierce
• Provide service to Vero Lakes Estates
• Provide service to areas of Brevard County that were previously served by GoLine
• Add hourly service on SR 60 from Vero Beach Mall to Outlet Mall
• Service all areas of Indian River County
What is the most important passenger amenity or service improvement that should be
provided?
• Repair of air conditioning system in buses
• Improved coordination between telephone operators and drivers
• Provision shelters, benches and signage at bus stops
• Update of route maps as routes and services change
• Reducing headways between buses
• Newer buses and equipment
• Better vehicle maintenance
• Bigger buses for heavily traveled routes
• Improved seating and shelter at the Vero Beach hub
• Improved toilet facilities at hubs
• Better route destination signs
What is the most important (vehicle, technology, facility or maintenance) improvement that
should be made?
• Cleaner buses
• On-site mechanics
• Improved maintenance (especially lights and wheelchair lifts)
• More reliable vehicles
• Newer GoLine vehicles and Community Coach Technology Rangers do not work as
they should
• Improved employee pay rates
• Bigger buses for GoLine routes
4-32
Stanley Consultants'e
• Automatic passenger counters
What single process or tool would you recommend to improve your ability to be more
involved in decision making related to schedule and policy changes?
• Better (two-way) communication between management and employees
• Seek and incorporate driver input when making decisions
• Ability for drivers to make decisions if passenger issues arise on the bus
• More consistent and rational decision making on stop locations; provide stops on
streets and not in parking lots or apartment complexes
• Standardization of rules and regulations
• Design a labor management Board to discuss better ways to operate GoLine
• Regular information meetings between transportation director, transportation managers
and drivers where drivers are listened to and feel part of the team
4.4 Community Stakeholder Interviews
As part of the public involvement process, interviews were conducted with representative
community leaders and major stakeholders within the County. The purpose of the interviews was
to gain an understanding from a diverse group of community representatives regarding their
opinions, perceptions and vision for future opportunities and challenges regarding public
transportation.
The interviews were utilized to gain a collective perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing transit system, expectations from the transit service and the community vision for the
future of the transit system. 'those interviews were conducted during the months of April and
May 2013 from the following group of community stakeholders:
• Mayor Bob McPartlan, City of Sebastian
• Penny Chandler, President, Indian River Chamber of Commerce
• Richard Stetson, CEO, Workforce Solutions
• David Sullivan, Indian River State College
• Julianne Price, Environmental Specialist, Indian River County Health Department
• Larry Hyrnowitz, Mobility Coordinator, Florida Department of Transportation District
4
The community stakeholder interviews were conducted in an open format to allow the
participants to provide their perspective on the following general themes:
1. Perceptions of current system performance
2. Barriers that prevent people from using the service
4-33
3. One wish to immediately improve public transportation
4. Transit's role in furthering the livability goals of the community
5. Aspects to consider while planning the future transit system
6. Continuing to offer a free service or implementing a fee-based system
7. Recommendations for future service improvements
8. Changes to County/City policies to improve transit operations
The responses from the community stakeholders are presented in the following section and are
grouped by the above-mentioned themes.
4.4.1 Perceptions of Current System Performance
All stakeholders indicated that both GoLine and Community Coach offer a very valuable
service to the community and that they have received positive comments from residents and
visitors to the County. The additional comments received from the stakeholders are listed
below.
• Buses are generally well utilized and travel to highly utilized destinations
• SRA is doing a wonderful job of managing and operating the service
• Limited service hours remain a challenge for commuters who would like to combine
work and shopping trips
• Lack of flexibility regarding stop locations sometimes poses a challenge for riders
• Limited funding is a major issue while planning service improvements
• Limited transit service in the western portions of the county
• Inadequate level of transit service in Fellsmere and Gifford
• Stop locations are not often convenient for the elderly and the disabled population
• Lack of access to grocery stores for Gifford residents
4.4.2 Barriers to Transit Service
The barriers to transit service identified by the community stakeholders are listed below:
• Headways are generally too long
• Limited and inconvenient access for disabled users
• Limited bicycle and pedestrian access to bus stops
• Lack of basic rider amenities such as shelters, lighting, and pedestrian crosswalks
• Limited healthcare access for the elderly and very low income people due to the
limited service hours of operation
• Bus schedules do not allow users to shop at grocery stores and be back at a reasonable
time to catch the next bus
4-34
- - `Stanlrj Cnnwltants K �
• Long distances from store entrances to bus stop
• Connection between routes is are not always convenient
• Too many transfers between routes to get to common destinations
• Lack of awareness of available transit service and stigma associated with using transit
• Current service does not accommodate disabled population appropriately
• Current service does not serve the needs of younger adults and college students
4.4.3 One Wish to Improve Public Transportation
The community stakeholders were asked to specify one wish to immediately improve the
public transportation system that they believe would have an immediate positive impact. The
stakeholder responses are listed below.
• Provide a dedicated bus route servicing major employers and businesses during
morning and evening peak hours
• Extend hours of operation during weekdays
• Add a stop at the Indian River State College Vero Campus, thus providing stops on
either side of the campus (Library and Building B)
• Provide Saturday service to the Indian River State College Vero Campus to allow
students to utilize tutoring programs
• Extend Friday and Saturday evening service hours to allow young adults to go to the
Indian River Mall
• Provide service to the County beaches to allow recreational access for families
• Improve the image of transit within the community through investment in transit
infrastructure
4.4.4 Transit's Role in Improving Livability
A majority of stakeholders believe that transit plays an important role in improving livability
by reducing traffic congestion, improving the overall health of residents and providing a
viable commuting option. Some stakeholders believe that transit can become a viable
commuting option if GoLine provides sei vice to the major employment centers in the region
through connections with other regional transit systems. Some stakeholders indicated that
transit can improve the overall health of residents by accommodating bicycles on buses and
extending service to the recreational areas of the County.
4.4.5 Considerations for Future Transit System
The stakeholders were asked to outline specific considerations that need to be incorporated in
the planning of the County's future transit system. Their responses are listed below.
4-35
Stanley Consultants .r+
• Coordinate with medical facilities to spread awareness of GoLine and Community
Coach services
• Implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that provides
incentives for businesses that promote ridesharing and transit use
• Improve the quality of service within the existing service area before expanding
service to new areas
• Monitor attractiveness of major origins and destinations within the County to assess
the need for future commuter service during peak hour
• Investigate the need for park-and-ride facilities close to 1-95 or downtown Vero Beach
9 Expand service hours on weekdays and offer weekend service
• Build capacity and partnerships with municipalities to improve financial capability
• Improve transit image through provision of rider amenities to attract choice riders
• Improve service area coverage to serve all captive transit riders
• Improve headways to make transit a realistic commuting option
• Provide free wi-fi on buses will help attract students and commuters
• Implement technology improvements that will enable users to obtain up-to-date
information on bus location on their cell phones
• Improve service coverage and accessibility in the western regions of the County
• Establish effective performance measures for the transit system and evaluate success in
achieving those measures
4.4.6 Appropriateness of Free vs. Fee-based System
The stakeholders were asked whether the GoLine service should continue as a free service or
if a nominal fee should be charged to the users. All stakeholders indicated that the transit
service should continue as a free service since it offers tremendous benefit and assistance to
the socioeconomically disadvantaged population. Additionally, the stakeholders said that
implementing a fee-based system will negatively impact ridership in the short term and may
impact the County's ability to receive formula funds for transit operations.
Some stakeholders believe that charging a nominal fee is reasonable, especially if the ftinds
are used for service improvements. One stakeholder recommended that the County adopt a
diversified funding strategy which includes formula funds, municipal contributions, county
contributions and a ridership fee.
4.4.7 Recommendations for Future Service Improvements
The recommendations for future service improvements are listed below.
• Implement longer service hours during weekdays and Saturdays
• Provide Sunday service
4-36
iL-
%'nky 4R..
• Improve service coverage and accessibility in the western regions of the County
• Reduce headways to 30 minutes or less
• Evaluate conversion of buses to natural gas or other sources of fuel
• Improve GoLine's image by enhancing the aesthetic component of bus shelters and
providing riders with a quality waiting experience. Shelters should be designed to
provide shade and landscaping.
• Integrate bicycling and transit by providing bicycle accommodations on buses, and
providing access to recreational areas.
4.4.8 Changes to County/City Policies to Assist Transit to Reach its Goals
The community stakeholders were asked to identify changes to local govermnent policies and
procedures that would allow transit system to reach its goals. Their responses are listed
below.
• Promote transit supportive land use strategies where transit corridors are strategically
located in high density areas to increase ridership
• Modify land development regulations to incorporate transit supportive building and
site design standards.
• Incorporate additional flexibility in the transit system schedule by adjusting route
timings
• Create a mix of land uses similar to downtown Vero Beach in strategic areas
throughout the County
• Modify land development regulations to require development design features that are
supportive of transit operations and accommodate transit riders
4.5 Public Forums
In accordance with the Public Involvement Plan developed for the TDP Update, the Indian River
County MPO staff and the Consultant Team conducted five public workshops over two days in
various parts of the County. The workshops were designed to facilitate discussion between
members of the general public and the MPO staff. The purpose of the workshops was to gain a
better understanding of transportation needs within the County, and to gauge the awareness and
perceptions of public transportation services among members of the general public.
The public workshops dates and locations are listed below in Table 4-10. A total of 85 people
attended the five public workshops and provided their input. GoLine system maps were also
distributed at the workshops.
4-37
Stanley Consultants w ?
Table 4-10 Public Workshop Dates and Locations
Number of
Location
Date
Time
Attendees
Fellsmere City Hall
Feb 5, 2013
9:00 a.m. —10:00 a.m.
16
Gifford Youth Center
Feb 5, 2013
9:45 a.m. —10:30 a.m.
33
Sebastian City Hall
Feb 5, 2013
11:00 a.m. —12:00 p.m.
13
County Administration Building
Feb 5, 2013
5:30 p.m. — 6:30 p.m.
12
North Indian River County Library
Feb 13, 2013
2:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m.
11
The workshops started with a brief presentation by MPO staff and the Consultant Team
regarding the purpose, process, schedule, and scope of the TDP Update. The presentation was
followed by an interactive exercise, distribution of surveys and comment cards,
and an open
format for one-on-one discussion with the staff and consultants. The findings from the
interactive dot exercise, the comment cards and the non -user surveys are further explained in
the following sections.
4.5.1 Interactive Dot Exercise
During the interactive exercise, the participants were asked to identify where they lived with
a blue dot and the three places within the County they frequent the most with green dots.
Additionally, participants who are existing transit users were asked to identify three areas
they would like to see transit service expanded to that are not currently served by transit with
orange dots. Those could include new areas for service expansion or extended service hours
and weekend service in existing areas. Several people participated in this exercise and
provided their input.
The most frequently traveled places identified by the workshop participants are listed below:
• Major commercial destinations — Indian River Mall, Vero Fashion Outlets
• Shopping centers — Publix, Wal-Mart, Target, Winn Dixie, Is' --Mart, Home Depot
• Community destinations — North Indian River County Library, Indian River County
Administration Complex, Gifford Health Center
• Medical facilities — Sebastian River Medical Center, Indian River Memorial/Health
Center
• Educational destinations — Indian River State College
4.5.2 Summary of One -on -One Discussion and Comment Cards
MPO Staff and the Consultant Team were available for one-on-one discussion with the
workshop participants to explain the Transit Development Plan update process and receive
input on transit needs and opportunities. For the participants who have never used the public
transportation service, that opportunity was used to educate them about the existing GoLine
service and the Community Coach paratransit service. In addition, comment cards were
4-38
distributed to existing transit users who were more comfortable with documenting their issues
and recommendations rather than speak out in public.
Generally, users indicated a high level of satisfaction with the transit service and emphasized
the importance of continuing to provide the service to the community. A majority of the
comments were related to existing issues and barriers and recommended improvements. A
summary of comments is listed below. That summary includes the information from the
comment cards as well as the one-on-one discussions. Detailed comments by location are
included in Appendix F.
Existina Issues and Barriers:
• Long distances between the transit stop and building entrances, especially for seniors
and disabled users
• Lack of safe and comfortable pedestrian pathways through shopping plazas
• Buses stopping on US 1 and SR 60 rather than dropping off users inside the
commercial centers create difficulty in navigating the plazas with cars and people with
carts
• Buses not stopping at special stops even when users are waiting for the bus
• Community Coach not consistent with rules about eligibility of participants
• Difficulty in transferring between routes 11 and 5
• Location of the downtown hub creates noise and speed in the downtown
neighborhoods
• Too many transfers to get to destinations within the County
Service Planning Improvements:
• Improve transit access to all beaches and inlets, including Wabasso Beach/Inlet, Winter
Beach, North Beach and South Beach
• Improve service to Sebastian River Medical Center and surrounding commercial
destinations including Walgreens, Wal-Mart and IRMC Urgent Care
• Extend bus service to Brevard County to connect with the Space Coast Area Transit
• Improve transit access to parks, recreation facilities and community centers
• Add Sunday service to allow users to travel to weekend destinations
• Provide bus shelters at stops located near senior and older adult communities
• Provide convenient access from residential areas to grocery stores and fanners markets
• Improve advertisement mechanisms to increase attendance at public meetings
• Replace diesel buses with natural gas powered buses.
• Provide buses with platforrns that can be lowered for ease of entry of passengers.
4-39
k= Stanley Consultants K i
• Provide van service for major employers during peak hours
• Expand service coverage to serve western regions of the County
• Provide extended service hours during the weekdays and weekends
• Provide bicycle racks on all buses
• Provide seniors more information about Community Coach
• Prohibit school children from riding buses during school hours without adult
supervision
• Reduce headways to increase transit usage within the County
• Review the organizational and pay structure within the Senior Resource Association to
alleviate driver concerns
Service Operational Recommendations:
• Extend routes (5, 10 and 12) into the residential neighborhoods to create a more
connected route
• Extend service along North Broadway Street north of CR 512
• Adjust schedules to improve transfers between routes 5 and 11
• Modify route along SR 60 to allow easy access to Walgreens and Wal-Mart
• Provide sidewalks to connect destinations along CR 512 in Fellsmere (health center)
• Homeowner at 198 Main Street indicated that the bus stop is too close to the driveway
and requested that the stop be moved approximately 50 — 60 feet west
• Provide direct route to the Publix on 53rd Street for Gifford residents
• Provide/improve transit service to Roseland Plaza
• Locate future hub in the vacant property to the north and east of the county
administration building
• Provide bus stops at or near the following locations:
o Bank of America located at the Ryanwood Center
o Sebastian, including, the North County Library and Riverview Park
o Area between S. Wimbrow Drive and Easy Street
o Vero Beach Museum of Art
o Chesser's Gap (CR 512 at Fleming St.)
o Service area requests for stores at Bealls Outlet area and at Sebastian Library
4-40
km Stanley Cmultants - i
4.5.3 Non -User Surveys
For non-users, a two-page non -user survey was distributed to gauge community awareness
about the County's transit service. A total of 37 non -user surveys were received from the
workshops. More than 95% percent of the respondents had never used bus service in Indian
River County while the remainder had used the service occasionally. The survey results are
summarized below. The survey instruments and response rates are included in the Appendix
D.
All respondents reported that they were aware of public transportation system offered by
Indian River County prior to the workshops. When asked about their familiarity with specific
transportation services, a significant majority had heard of Go Line (97%) and Community
Coach (92%). In terms of service providers or sponsors, respondents were most familiar with
the Indian River County Council on Aging (86%). Approximately 60% of the respondents
were familiar with the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization and the
Senior Resource Association.
There was a very high level of support for public transportation. Nearly all respondents
strongly agreed that public transportation was an important service for residents, visitors and
the local economy. The primary reason given for not using public transportation was the
availability of a vehicle (84%), service not being available to places where they need to go
(11%) and lack of familiarity with the public transportation services (11%).
The respondents expressed a strong willingness to consider using public transportation if the
following preferences are met:
• headways at or below 30 minutes
• stop location close to the respondent's home or workplace
• better information about routes and schedules
• late evening and weekend service
4-41
km Stanley [mwltanu' a
Chapter 5
Situation Appraisal
A situation appraisal is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a transit system, as well
as the external barriers and opportunities that impact the delivery of transit services.
This chapter presents an overview of the transit provider's organizational structure, agency
coordination efforts, land use patterns within the County, major employers, roadway level of
service, jobs and housing balance, pedestrian infrastructure, technology, and state and local
transportation plans, including efforts being undertaken by land use authorities to foster a more
transit -friendly operating environment.
In accordance with Transit Development Plan Rule 14-73.001, the TBest Model was utilized to
forecast transit ridership in Indian River County. Those results are included in the demand
estimate section of Chapter 7.
5.1 Transportation Planning Agency
The Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the designated legislative
agency responsible for transportation planning in Indian River County. It has the power to
develop and adopt plans and to set priorities for the programming of improvements to the
County's transportation system. It is housed within the County's Community Development
Department. The MPO assists the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, by
providing oversight and implementation assistance for the County's Transportation
Disadvantaged Program.
5.2 Transit Provider Organizational Structure
The Senior Resource Association (SRA) is the designated Community Transportation
Coordinator for the County. Through a contractual arrangement with the Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners, the SRA is also charged with the provision of public
transportation services for all members of the general public. In addition to public transportation,
5-1
- � —C,'Stanley Consultants IJ
the SRA provides a variety of senior services including adult day care, Meals on Wheels and
personal and respite care as shown in the Association's Organizational chart displayed in Figure
5-1.
5-2
k,
Stanley Consultants .4
1
f
M
5.3 MPO Coordination Process
The MPO performs long range transportation planning functions through a continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive process within the urbanized area of the County. Since its
formation in 1993, the MPO has actively undertaken planning, coordination and outreach efforts
to develop viable short-term and long-term transportation plans and studies for member
jurisdictions and agencies within the Indian River County urbanized area.
Over the years, the MPO's transportation planning vision has increasingly focused on
implementing a more inclusive multimodal planning approach rather than an automobile focused
approach. To support this approach, the WO seeks input from a diverse group of stakeholders in
the development of MPO projects. Currently, the MPO committees consist of the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), the Bicycle/Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BAC) and the MPO Board. In addition, project review committees are
formed on a project by project basis to receive input from representative stakeholders from
communities impacted by a project. MPO meetings also have a standing agenda item for public
comment as one mechanism to ensure that the public is well represented in decisions related to
transportation.
In addition to its longstanding interagency coordination functions, the MPO is an active partner in
regional planning activities along the Treasure Coast. For example, MPO staff participated in the
activities of the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast. In 2005, the MPO executed an
interlocal agreement for regional coordination with the Mal -tin and St. Lucie County MPOs to
pursue funding to improve regionally significant transportation facilities, and participation in a
regional transportation board, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council. MPO, staff actively
participates and remain involved in all regional planning studies and efforts, including the efforts
to create a Regional Transportation Organization, the All Aboard Florida Study, and the Amtrak
service expansion. By coordinating on regional mobility needs, the MPO helped the State achieve
the Florida Transportation Plan objective of having 100 percent of MPOs being parties to regional
agreements by 2010.
On a quarterly basis, MPO staff conducts formal meetings with SRA staff to assess the state of
transit services within the County. Those meetings have been instrumental in coordinating transit
planning and managing and maximizing federal and state grant funding. In addition to those
formal meetings, staff from the two organizations interacts on a more frequent basis to share ideas
and address issues related to day to day operations. MPO and SRA staff members actively engage
in community outreach through membership in various organizations and ongoing dialogue with
members of the business community, public and private agencies, and educational institutions.
MPO and SRA staff members also attend quarterly meetings with the St. Lucie and Martin
County T/MPOs and transit agencies to coordinate and share ideas.
5.4 Assessment of Land Use Patterns within the County
Land use patterns play an important role in the effectiveness and efficiency of public
transportation services, particularly those factors related to the types of land use, residential and
employment densities, and development patterns. This section presents an overview of the
County's land use patterns and how they impact transit service within the County.
5-4
Suinky Cw"Wws K
i
As discussed in Chapter 1, Indian River County is characterized by relatively low population
densities. Between 2000 and 2010, the County experienced a 22 percent growth in population.
Though this increase was higher than the statewide growth rate of 18 percent for the same time
period, it is considerably lower than the population growth in neighboring St. Lucie and Osceola
Counties (44 percent and 56 percent respectively). The most densely populated areas of the
County are generally located along major transportation corridors in Vero Beach, South County,
Sebastian and a small pocket in Fellsmere.
From 2000 to 2010, the population density of the Indian River County Urbanized Area increased
from 2.35 persons per acre to 2.44 persons per acre, while the urbanized area increased by
approximately 8,000 acres during that period. Applying the 2010 urbanized area boundary to the
2000 population count, the population density between 2000 and 2010 increased from 2.08
persons per acre to 2.44 persons per acre. Even with the increase in density, the density is
substantially less than the 8.8 persons per acre or 4 dwelling units per acre, that researchers
consider to be a transit supportive density. Due to the predominantly lower densities, emphasis is
being given to increasing the density standards in transit supportive corridors or sub -areas.
The predominant non-agricultural land use category in Indian River County is low and medium
density residential. The western portion of the County (generally west of 1-95), with the exception
of Fellsmere, is largely rangeland, pastureland and agricultural areas. New residential
development in all residential categories has occurred at or below the maximum densities allowed
in the comprehensive plan, resulting in low-density sprawl development in many parts of the
County. Even though a majority of the residential land in the unincorporated county Urban
Service Area (USA) has been either developed or has a building permit, significant development
potential still exists within the USA.
In addition to low densities, the County's development patterns offers limited connectivity to
adjacent developments, limited sidewalk availability, and bigger block sizes. The lack of
integration and connectivity between commercial and residential developments results in primary
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to those developments along major roadways and
prevents transit access to those developments. The absence of sidewalks in many portions of the
County, combined with the cul-de-sac street nature of residential developments, severely limits
the ability of residents to walk to transit facilities.
Many of the County's older neighborhoods have a local grid street network with good
connectivity to adjacent areas and are more conducive to transit. The County's land use patterns,
particularly in the newer low density, single family, gated residential communities make large-
scale transit access inconvenient and pose transit service delivery challenges. The situation is
further exacerbated by the fact that there are few disincentives to driving in the County. Drivers
rarely experience congestion on the County's roadways, and there is an adequate supply of free
parking, even in the central business district.
5-5
wah1ey twn:
All of those factors severely limit the County's ability to provide efficient transit service with
shorter headways and increased route coverage. To address that issue, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted new objectives and policies in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Those
objectives and policies support a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) approach for both
residential and commercial developments, and encourage clustered development, walkable and
interconnected neighborhoods and mixed use projects. The County also allows for a form -based
development approach for regulating development within the Planned Development (PD) district.
During the 2035 LRTP Update Process, the MPO adopted the Infill Alternative land use vision,
an option which was developed as the preferred land use scenario for the 2035 LRTP Update. The
Infill Alternative land use vision identifies specific districts and corridors for increased density
and mixed-use development, as well as workplace districts focused on providing increased
employment opportunities. Those districts and corridors offer the potential of providing transit
supportive land uses. Examples of those districts and corridors include the Vero Beach and
Sebastian downtowns, workplace districts adjacent to I-95 interchanges and airports, and the US
1 corridor. In order to serve and connect those transit supportive land uses, the vision supports
operating premium transit service along the US 1, SR 60, CR 512, and I-95 corridors. The
premium transit service may consist of service improvements (increased frequency and operating
hours), enhanced stops/transfer hubs, and intelligent transportation system improvements such as
transit signal priority and real-time passenger information.
5.5 Major Employers
Figure 6-2 displays the location of Indian River County's major employers. A majority of the
major employers are concentrated in Vero Beach and Sebastian, where GoLine service is
available. Several major employers located along SR 60 to the west of Vero Beach, including
CVS Warehouse, Indian River Estates and Vero Beach Outlets, are also served by transit.
While employment is somewhat dispersed throughout the county, there are areas with
concentrations of employment. There is a high concentration of employment near downtown
Vero Beach due to the city and county government offices and Piper Aircraft with a large
employment base. There is also a high concentration of employees near Sebastian River Medical
Center and Indian River Memorial Hospital, resulting from the agglomeration of medical services
proximate to those hospitals.
5-6
Sfanleyc"Wt-u l
t
Figure 5-2 Major Employers in Indian River County
5-7
- stankyComultas K
I
5.6 Roadway Level of Service
Roadway Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure, describing motorists' perceptions of
operating conditions along a roadway. Roadway LOS is generally designated by letters A through
F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow) and LOS F the worst (forced
or breakdown flow).
For Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)/Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) roadways, the
County has adopted an LOS of "B" in the rural areas and an LOS of "C" in the urban areas. For
all other roadways, the County has adopted an LOS of "D" with the exception of the following,
which will operate at 20% in excess of level of service "E":
• 27th Ave — South County Line to SR 60
• 43rd Ave — Oslo Road to 16th Street
Based on the latest available 2012 peak hour traffic counts, all roadways within the County are
operating at or above the adopted LOS. As part of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) Update, the MPO identified future deficiencies on the roadway network and a cost
affordable set of improvements needed to accommodate future demand. The future deficiencies
were identified based on 2035 traffic projections overlaid on the existing plus committed (E+C)
roadway network, which reflects the existing roadway network plus improvements for which
construction funding has been committed over the next five years.
Based on those initial results, the County adopted the approach of developing a dense roadway
grid network as an alternative to roadway widening as the future transportation vision. A grid
network will increase travel route choices for shorter trips and reserve capacities on major roads
for longer distance trips. The final Needs Plan was developed based on a combination of grid
densification improvements and targeted capacity enhancements for US 1, SR 60, Indian River
Boulevard, Oslo Road and a few other major corridors.
In 2035, the majority of roadways are expected to operate at or above LOS "D", with many of the
roadways operating at or above LOS `B". As shown in Figure 6-4, a small number of roadways
are expected to operate below LOS "D." Those include 1-95 between SR 60 and the South County
Line; a section of SR AIA (17th Street -Vero Beach City Limits); parts of US 1 in the City of
Sebastian and in the South County; SR 60 between 1-95 and 66"` Avenue; and Oslo Road between
I-95 and 58`" Avenue.
5-8
starftcomltwts m
i
Brevard 11\aunty
Legend
VIC (LOS D)
Vic 0.9
Vic = 0.9 - 1.0
A t I a n t It c
0 c e a n
MWRE,
VIC= 1. 0 - 1.2
4"
A
St. Lucie County I
Source — IRC MPO 2035 LRTP
Figure 5-3 Volume -to -Capacity Ratios of Roadways in 2035 Cost Affordable Plan
5-9
5.7 Jobs and Housing Balance
A study published by the American Planning Association indicates that the balance between jobs
and housing in an area has a significant influence on that area's commuting patterns. That
research indicates that the average trip length in areas with a balanced jobs -housing relationship
(meaning those areas that have a jobs/household ratio between 0.8 and 1.2) is 29 percent shorter
than in other areas.
The latest jobs -to -housing balance evaluation was conducted by the MPO in 2005 for the three
major subareas of the county. The data indicated that the North County jobs -to -housing ratio was
0.7714 jobs per household; the Central County ratio was 1.3063 jobs per household; and the
South County ratio was 0.6974 jobs per household. As shown in Figure 6-4, only the Central
CountyNero Beach subarea had a nearly balanced jobs -to -housing ratio of 1.3.
As the various areas of the County continue to develop, the land use plan of the County will have
an impact on improving the jobs -housing balance. According to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
the County has sufficient commercial and industrial acreage to accommodate employment
centers. The County also actively encourages Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles
in the planning process. Unlike traditional sprawl development, TND communities are
characterized by residential, commercial, and employment centers in close proximity to one
another. The County now requires developments to incorporate internal street/pedestrian
connections to adjacent developments and requires multiple entrances through adjacent roadways.
With the existing policies and regulations in place, it is anticipated that the jobs -housing balance
and the mix of land uses will continue to improve in the future.
To improve the connections between land use and transportation planning, the County has
adopted policies to encourage transit oriented development and transit accessible facilities in
transit corridors; to prioritize new transit services to traditional neighborhoods and transit oriented
communities; and to provide more opportunities for employment and shopping center
development nearer to residential neighborhoods. As those policies are implemented, it is
anticipated that the areas of the County that fall within the Urban Service Area will have a
significantly improved jobs -to -housing balance.
5-10
_ - StanfiyCo�uttants�
Brevard County
Indian River County
til
tN�
N
St Lucie County
dmit1C (_)ce.111
I 1 i 1 l•^�� ( �_
1 I I
Jobs/Housing Ratio in � _ _ South County: .6974 (LOW)
Indian River County, 2005 1-
L -- ; North County: .7714 (LOW)
Source - Indian River County MPO ` � Central CountyNero Beach: 1.3063 (HIGH)
-Like Map created November,2007 �=-Y=�
Figure 5-4 Jobs and Housing Balance in Indian River County
5-11
- tR suntey Cmultanu 3
- - - - - - - - - -
�1
�=:.
c 5 1 '
i '•�
111 �1•
i
I 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
St Lucie County
dmit1C (_)ce.111
I 1 i 1 l•^�� ( �_
1 I I
Jobs/Housing Ratio in � _ _ South County: .6974 (LOW)
Indian River County, 2005 1-
L -- ; North County: .7714 (LOW)
Source - Indian River County MPO ` � Central CountyNero Beach: 1.3063 (HIGH)
-Like Map created November,2007 �=-Y=�
Figure 5-4 Jobs and Housing Balance in Indian River County
5-11
- tR suntey Cmultanu 3
5.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Pedestrian and bicycle access to transit is often a neglected component of transit planning, design
and operations. It is, however, an important indicator of transit usage for both captive and choice
riders. There is a strong correlation between the availability of good quality pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure and transit utilization. Transit patrons, particularly the elderly and disabled,
need to feel comfortable, safe and secure when accessing transit facilities.
Without good pedestrian and bicycle access to transit, the only way commuters can be attracted
out of their cars is by providing extensive and expensive parking at transit stops. In contrast,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities planning often requires small scale and cost effective additions or
modifications to existing facilities which can dramatically improve transit utilization. Oftentimes,
those facility modifications can be done in coordination with roadway improvement projects.
Since the adoption of the 1997 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and subsequent updates, there have
been significant improvements in the quantity and quality of pedestrian and bicycle facilities
throughout the County. The objective of the MPO's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to provide a
continuous bicycle system, consisting of five-foot wide paved shoulders on both sides of all
collector and arterial roads, where no major constraints exist, throughout the County. The plan
also calls for a pedestrian system along major roads, ideally a five-foot wide sidewalk on each
side of major roadways, in addition to off road pedestrian facilities.
The County's comprehensive plan policies and the land development regulations, and the MPO's
implementation of the Bicycle Pedestrian Plan, have resulted in a significant increase in the
number of new sidewalks and bicycle lanes throughout the county. Even with those significant
improvements, the bicycle and pedestrian Levels of Service (LOS) have declined in many cases.
Factors impacting the decline include the increase in traffic volumes and travel speeds, the
increase in heavy vehicles, intersection geometry, lack of dedicated crossings and the increase in
crashes. Between 1998 and 2012, the percentage of the roadway network with a bicycle level of
set -vice of "E" or "F" increased from four percent to 12 percent. During the same period, the
pedestrian LOS of `B" or "F" increased from 20 percent to 36 percent.
In addition to the general availability of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and improved
connections to transit, the presence of passenger amenities such as bus shelters and benches are
important to existing and potential transit customers. According to the 2008 statewide
publication, "Accessing Transit — Design Handbook for Florida Bus Passenger Facilities", a
transit agency's goal should be to provide all transit patrons, of all ages and abilities, with
comfortable equipment and facilities that provide shelter from the sun, rain, and other elements.
GoLine has sheltered waiting locations at Pocahontas Park and the Gifford Community Center,
and informal arrangements for joint use of covered spaces at some of its major transfer locations,
such as the Indian River Mall. In recent years, shelters have been constructed at approximately 30
bus stops throughout the County. While additional shelters will be constructed in the future, a
majority of the stops lack shelters and basic passenger amenities. The presence of bus stop sign
and shelters was one of the main service characteristics identified as in need of improvement by
the 2012 GoLine on -board survey respondents and the 2013 public workshop participants.
5-12
- - StaAteS+[omultants my
i
5.9 Technology
The Senior Resource Association currently uses basic technologies for the provision of public
transportation services. The 2008 Evaluation and Appraisal report of the County's
Comprehensive Plan identified the need to adopt policies for future implementation of signal
preemption devices and real time travel information at transit hubs. In 2011, the Senior Resource
Association upgraded its computerized scheduling system for Community Coach. This
technological improvement has allowed for better coordination of paratransit trip scheduling
resulting in more efficient use of resources, including increased multi -loading of passengers on
paratransit vehicles. Changing conditions may also warrant the future consideration of additional
technologies such as automatic passenger counters and electronic fareboxes.
5.10 Summary of State and Local Plans
An integral component of a situation appraisal is an evaluation of state and local plans and how
the transportation elements of those plans impact the provision of transit in the provider's service
area. The sections below contain a summary of the major transit components of the plans that
affect transit within Indian River County.
5.10.1 The 2060 Florida Transportation Plan
The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) is the state's long range transportation plan. The FTP
is a plan for all of Florida, including local, regional, and private agencies responsible for
transportation planning and funding decisions. The FTP identifies goals and objectives to
guide transportation decisions over the next 50 years. The 2060 FTP was adopted in 2010 and
identifies six goals. Three goals focus on how transportation supports Florida's future
prosperity and quality of life, while the other three focus on the performance of the
transportation system
The goals and objectives are largely consistent with and complementary of the local plans in
Indian River County. The goals and objectives that promote a transit supportive multimodal
vision for transportation are listed below.
Goal: Make transportation decisions to support and enhance livable communities
Obiectives:
• Develop transportation plans and make investments to support the goals of the FTP
and other statewide plans, as well as regional and community visions and plans.
• Coordinate transportation investments with other public and private decisions to foster
livable communities.
• Coordinate transportation and land use decisions to support livable rural and urban
communities.
Goal: Make transportation decisions to promote responsible environmental stewardship
5-13 -C
Obiectives:
Plan and develop transportation systems to reduce energy consumption, improve air
quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
E2gh Improve mobility and connectivity for people and freight
Obiectives:
• Expand transportation options for residents, visitors, and businesses.
• Reinforce and transform Florida's Strategic Intermodal System facilities to provide
multimodal options for moving people and freight.
• Develop and operate a statewide high speed and intercity passenger rail system
connecting all regions of the state and linking to public transportation systems in rural
and urban areas.
• Expand and integrate regional public transit systems in Florida's urban areas.
• Increase the efficiency and reliability of travel for people and freight.
• Integrate modal infrastructure, technologies, and payment systems to provide seamless
connectivity for passenger and freight trips from origin to destination.
5.10.2 Indian Rivet• County Comprehensive Plan
The Transportation Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan contains a wide range
of transit supportive objectives and policies as shown below. The County routinely monitors
its success in meeting its policy objectives as noted in the Action/Accomplishment notations
during the 2008 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The last major update of the County's
Comprehensive Plan contained a restructuring of several objectives and policies, including a
bicycle/pedestrian objective based on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Level of Service measure, and a
transit objective based on the transit quality/level of service measures.
5.10.2.1 Future Land Use Element
OBJECTIVE 4: Efficient mix of uses to reduce traffic dentand and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Policy 4.5: Where proposed development projects abut undeveloped or developed
property, the county shall require that such development be designed and constructed or
guaranteed to accommodate both vehicular and bicycle/ pedestrian interconnections.
Interconnections may include shared roadways or driveways that provide local traffic
circulation. Exemptions shall be granted where interconnections would create a
"funneling effect" through an existing neighborhood or have no potential for providing
interconnectivity or through -street benefits (e.g. segments that dead-end into water
bodies, built facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas).
5-14
Policv 4.7: The county shall require that developers construct sidewalks on both sides of
internal project streets in higher density residential developments and mixed-use projects.
5.10.2.2 Transportation Element
OBJECTIVE 4: Pedestrian/Bicycle System
Through 2030, 80% percent of roadways in Indian River County will operate at
Bike/Ped LOS "D" or above.
POLICY 4.1: The county hereby adopts the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan.
Implementation of the plan in the unincorporated county will occur through the
incorporation of improvements identified in that plan in its TCIP. The plan will be used
as a basis for applying for and programming federal enhancement project funds. Funds
will be used to program improvements such as the construction of new bicycle and
pedestrian lanes and paths, and the retrofit of existing lanes and paths. The
implementation schedule will be determined by the priority ranking of each roadway
segment as contained in the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. The following prograrns shall
also be implemented by the county according to the plan: an off-road facilities program, a
safety improvement program, and a mode shift program. These programs will be
implemented as the funding, right-of-way, or other necessary resources become available.
POLICY 4.2: By 2020, the county shall evaluate utility easements, railroad rights-of-way
and drainage canal rights-of-way as locations for off road trails. This evaluation will be
based upon safety and cost considerations as well as negotiations with appropriate
agencies which control these easements and rights-of-way.
POLICY 4.3: By 2012, the county will assess all thoroughfare plan roadways to identify
hazards to bicyclists. Where hazards are identified, improvements to correct them will be
programmed.
POLICY 4.4: The county will use at least $200,000 per year of 1 cent local option sales
tax revenue for bike/pedestrian system improvements.
POLICY 4.5: The county will continue to apply for SAFETEA-LU enhancement funds to
construct bike/ped improvements.
POLICY 4.6: The county will, through its land development regulations, require that all
developments fronting on thoroughfare plan roadways provide for construction of bicycle
and pedestrian improvements as identified in the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and MPO
Greenways Plan.
POLICY 4.7: The county will, through its land development regulations, require that
internal sidewalks are provided in all residential subdivisions with densities higher than 1
unit per four acres.
POLICY 4.8: The county will install bike -ped signals at all new signalized intersections
and will install bike racks on its buses.
5-15
i
POLICY 4.9: By 2015, the county will establish a sidewalk matching funds program for
construction of residential sidewalks by homeowners.
OBJECTIVE 7. Adequate Transit Services
Through 2030, the county's transit system will continue to operate at or above the
minimum service level specified in policy 1.1.
POLICY 7.1: The county hereby adopts transit quality and level of service (TQLOS):
"B" for Service Coverage in Indian River County.
POLICY 7.2: The county will continue to maintain its fixed route transit system.
POLICY 7.3: The county hereby adopts the MPO's Transit Development Plan.
POLICY 7.4: The county will continue to apply for state and federal mass transit grant
funds and use those funds to provide transit service in the county.
POLICY 7.5:. The county will on an annual basis coordinate with the MPO to assess
whether transit improvements should be included in the project priorities submitted to
FDOT for state and federal funding.
POLICY 7.6: The county will continue to provide funding for transit services. Currently,
that funding is provided to the Indian River County Senior Resource Association.
POLICY 7.7: Through the County's CTC, the County will ensure that transportation
disadvantaged trips are provided through the coordinated system, whereby all providers
and purchasers have contracts and fully allocated cost amounts. In so doing, the County
will ensure that the CTC:
• Compiles information on routes, schedules, facilities and vehicles for each
provider;
• Assesses this information and schedules trips to avoid duplication; and
• Regularly coordinates with providers to serve as a forum for discussing paratransit
service
5-16
- - Stan*Comltou-
OBJECTIVE 8: Land Use/Transportation
By 2030, all three geographic sub -areas of Indian River County hill have a jobs -
housing balance between .8 and 1.2
POLICY 8.1: The county will implement Future Land Use Element policies which
restrict urban sprawl, limit strip commercial development, promote infill, encourage TND
projects, promote public transportation, and encourage higher intensity uses in major
coif idors.
POLICY 8.4: The county shall establish land use guidelines for development in exclusive
public transit corridors to ensure accessibility to public transit, in the event such corridors
are established.
5.10.3 City of Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan
A review of the City of Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Evaluation and
Appraisal Report was conducted. The City of Vero Beach's policies pertaining to transit
support those of the County's. The goals, objectives, and policies contained in the City's
Comprehensive Plan that are supportive of multimodal transportation are listed below.
5.10.3.1 Transportation Element
OBJECTIVE 2: The transportation system shall continue to emphasize safety ivith
special attention to decreasing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular accidents.
Policv 2.4: The City shall promote safe movement of bicycle and pedestrian traffic as
part of the development approval process outlined in the Land Development Regulations.
OBJECTIVE 3: Provisions shall be made for a safe, convenient and efficient 11101-
inodal transportation systent.
Policv 3.1: The City shall support implementation of the Indian River Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO} Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and Greenways Plan. Priority will
be given to those bikeways/sidewalks/greenways for which heavy recreational and/or
commercial usage is projected and which can be implemented concurrently with other
roadway improvements.
Policv 3.2: The City shall, through its Land Development Regulations, require that all
developments fronting on thoroughfare plan roadways provide for construction of bicycle
and pedestrian improvements as identified in the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan.
Policv 3.3: The City shall, through its Land Development Regulations, require sidewalks
along all non-residential development that front roadways and that internal sidewalks are
provided in residential subdivisions with densities of three units per acre or higher where
pedestrian activity can be expected.
5-17
EAR Amendment to Policy 3.3.: The 2010 EAR recommends amending Policy 3.3.
requiring an amendment to the land development regulations with a completion date for
requiring sidewalks in new residential subdivisions. The EAR also recommends creating
a new policy under Objective 3 establishing a specific policy for completing gaps in
residential sidewalks and along arterials and collectors.
Policy 3.4: The City shall consider bicycle and pedestrian ways in the planning of
transportation facilities.
Policy 3.5: The City shall continue to support Indian River County in its authorization
and provision of public transit services throughout the urban area. Such support shall
include the enforcement of adopted level of service standards, roadway design standards,
and effective transportation mode options that enhance efficient person -trip and vehicular
movements and reduces accident potential. Support shall also include participation in the
intergovernmental coordination activities of the Indian River County Metropolitan
Planning Organization, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Transportation
Planning Technical Advisory Committee of Indian River County in the formulation of
transportation policy and efforts to maintain adopted levels of service.
Policy 3.6: The City shall support the County's transit level of service standard of one-
hour headways on all fixed transit routes.
Policy 3.7: The City shall, on an annual basis coordinate with the MPO, through its
technical advisory committee, to assess whether transit improvements should be included
in the project priorities submitted to FDOT for state and federal funding.
Policy 3.8: The City shall support the MPO in its role as the designated official planning
agency for coordinated transportation disadvantaged services.
Objective 7: The City shall ensure that transportation system plans and programs are
coordinated with applicable federal, state and local government entities.
Policy 7.2: The City shall coordinate its transportation system with the Indian River
County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) plans and programs, including but
not limited to, the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. This coordination will include
staff and council member representation on MPO committees.
OBJECTIVE 8: Through 2020, City aviation and intermodal facility demand will be
met in a manner consistent with existing and future land use.
Policy 8.2: The City shall ensure adequate access to the one public use airport, passenger
rail station, transit transfer points, and other intermodal facilities by supporting the
roadway and transit improvements identified in this element.
5-18 --
Am -
storey caaftwts -4
Policy 8.3: The City shall review airport master plans, transit development plans, and
intermodal facility plans to ensure adequate bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and auto access
and circulation within airports and related facilities.
OBJECTIVE 10: The transportation system shall preserve environmentally sensitive
areas, conserve energy and natural resources, and maintain and enhance community
aesthetic values.
Policy 10.4: The City shall pursue and support transportation programs that will help to
maintain or improve air quality and help conserve energy.
5.10.4 City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan
A review of the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Evaluation and
Appraisal Report was conducted. The City of Sebastian's policies pertaining to transit support
those of the County's. The goals, objectives, and policies contained in the City's
Comprehensive Plan that are supportive of multimodal transportation are listed below.
5.10.4.1 Transportation Element
Policy 1.3.4: The City shall require that new development be compatible with Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Transportation Element and that new development shall
further the achievement of aforementioned Goals, Objectives and Policies, of the
Transportation Element. Requirements for the compatibility of new development may
include but are not limited to:
• Locating parking to the side or behind the development to provide pedestrian
accessibility of building entrances and walkways to the street, rather than separating
the building from the street by parking.
• Providing clearly delineated pedestrian routes through parking lots to safely
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation and to minimize potential
bicycle/pedestrian and automobile interaction.
Policy 1.3.7: The City shall encourage land uses that promote public transportation in
designated public transportation corridors, such as CR512.
Policy 1.5.10: New subdivisions shall be required to "stub -out" to adjoining undeveloped
lands to promote road connectivity, and to connect to existing roadways that are
"stubbed -out" at their boundaries.
Policy 1.5.11: The City shall establish access management standards in the land
development regulations to ensure appropriate access to the City's transportation system.
Standards may include the requirement of joint use driveways and/or cross access
easements to access sites.
5-19
3tai*Conwtt" �
I
OBJECTIVE 1. 6. Multi -modal System. The City shall promote alternative modes of
transportation to provide a safe and efficient multi -modal system and to provide for a
possible reduction of individual motor vehicle travel.
Policy 1.6.1: All major roadways shall be designed as complete transportation corridors
incorporating bicycle and pedestrian features, and planning for transit features to start
creating a true multi -modal system.
Policy 1.6.2: By 2011, the City shall prepare a Greenways Plan for Bicycle and
Pedestrian access.
Policy 1.6.3: The City should provide adequate ROW and construct bicycle ways along
corridors to be specified in the Bicycle Plan.
Policy 1.6.4: Bike paths shall be established linking arterial and collector streets.
Policy 1.6.5: Sidewalks shall be mandatory on all new roadway construction.
1. Sidewalks shall be constructed, concurrently with new non-residential
development, by the developer.
2. New residential developments with densities of one or more dwelling units per
acre shall provide sidewalks on both sides of every street.
Policy 1.6.6: A Pedestrian Improvement Plan shall be prepared, adopted and
implemented by 2011.
Policy 1.6.7: Capital funding priority will be given to Greenways, heavy recreational use
areas, and along roadways between residential areas and schools.
Policy 1.6.8: By 2011, the City shall develop standards in the land development
regulations for access to bicycle and pedestrian systems (such standards shall apply to
new developments, substantial improvements of existing developments, and to road
improvements).
Policy 1.6.9: By 2011, the City shall review the land development regulations and
address the provision of bicycle parking and circulation, pedestrian walkways, and
handicap accessible facilities within new developments and existing developments
undergoing substantial improvements.
Policy 1.6.10: Intersections shall be made pedestrian -friendly by limiting the pedestrian
crossing width; use of adequate lighting; adequate timing for traffic signals; and the
provision of facilities for the handicapped.
5-20
— — _ 3tanf@yLaauiWMs uc
4
Policv 1.6.11: The City shall develop standards, for new non-residential development, to
establish a maximum number of parking spaces allowed in excess of the parking space
requirements of the City's land development regulations, in order to encourage walking,
bicycling, ridesharing, and shared parking, and to minimize the creation of excess
impervious surface area.
Policv 1.6.12: Adequate pedestrian circulation and safety shall be considered as a
required component of roadway system management, with implementation and required
construction.
Policv 1.6.13: The City shall protect the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS) by
establishing strategies to facilitate local traffic to use alternate routes or modes.
Policv 1.6.14: By2014, in coordination with the Indian River County MPO, the City shall
evaluate the need for additional public transit routes in conjunction with the Indian River
Transit GoLine bus system and major trip generators and attractors.
Policv 1.6.15: By 2014, the City shall update the land development regulations to include
site and building design standards for development in exclusive public transit corridors to
assure the accessibility of new development to public transit.
5.11 Conclusions
In Indian River County, there is a high level of communication and cooperation between the
Indian River County MPO and the Senior Resource Association, resulting in the delivery of
efficient public transportation services. The County also regularly coordinates with its regional
transportation partners on regional transit initiatives, and such coordination and partnership
efforts are expected to continue in the future to better address the needs of inter -county
commuters.
In Indian River County, the land use patterns are not particularly conducive to transit at this time.
Overall, the County is low density, but because most new development is occurring within the
urban set -vice area, densities are likely to increase in many parts of the County. The road network
within the older residential neighborhoods offers good connectivity, but the newer gated
neighborhoods are much more difficult to serve with transit. The County's adoption of
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) policies in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the
MPO's Infill Land Use Vision and Grid Densification approach in the 2035 LRTP will likely
improve travel opportunities through multiple modes of transportation.
Congestion is not a significant problem, and free parking is plentiful in Indian River County, yet
transit ridership grew over 115% between 2006 and 2010. That is due in part to the addition of
new routes and the increase of service hours, but it may also be attributed to the fact that Indian
River County has a relatively large senior population as compared to surrounding counties and
the average within the State of Florida. There has also been a significant increase in the number
of younger GoLine riders, with more than 42% of the total riders under the age of 30.
5-21
sfan% KWtWru
Although there has been a significant improvement in the availability of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in the County, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to transit facilities still remain a
major challenge. In addition, the availability of passenger amenities and facilities at transit stops
remains a major issue to patrons and requires careful planning and consideration moving forward.
A review of the various local government plans revealed several goals, objectives and policies
that prioritize transit supportive development patterns. The 2010 Update of the County
Comprehensive Plan, as well the comprehensive plans of the cities of Vero Beach and Sebastian,
included both new and revised policies in the areas of safety, bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, land use, transit, and intermodal facilities. Those policy changes will support the
provision of existing and expanded public transportation services in Indian River County and
throughout the region.
5-22
sta" Cu itants
i
Section 6
Goals and Objectives
In the process of developing goals and objectives for the Transit Development Plan, it was
important to 1) evaluate the needs of the community, 2) understand customer, employee, and
stakeholder perspectives and opinions, 3) obtain public comment and input in the development of
those goals, 4) relate public transportation objectives to the plans and policies of local
governmental agencies, and 5) identify areas where operating performance enhancements and
efficiencies could be achieved. This chapter includes Indian River County's 2014-2023 Transit
Goal, Objectives and Policies.
6.1 Data Collection and Evaluation
As outlined in the previous chapters of this plan, a significant amount of data was collected to
understand the enviromnent within which GoLine operates and to evaluate GoLine's strengths
and weaknesses from the perspective of the community and of other transit agencies with similar
characteristics. First, a thorough analysis of Indian River County's population demographic and
socioeconomic data was conducted for purposes of identifying new customer markets with a high
potential for transit utilization. Second, a comprehensive evaluation of trends related to GoLine's
operating and financial performance was conducted along with a peer group comparison to
highlight strengths and weaknesses in a variety of measures. Finally, on -board surveys,
paratransit user surveys, Senior Resources Association (SRA) employee surveys, public
workshops and community leader interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of the
community's perceptions of existing GoLine services, to determine the enhancements most
desired by users and non-users, and to identify the community's vision for transit in the future.
6-1
— Stanley Consultants K�
6.2 Goals, Objectives, Policies and Performance Measures
This section presents the Indian River County's Goals, Objectives and Policies which will the
policy guidance and framework for the provision of public transportation services within the
County. The section contains one goal, seven objectives, 15 sub -objectives and 26 policies to
support implementation of the Transit Development Plan (TDP).
Performance measures are identified for each sub -objective and policy, which will be used to
evaluate progress in achieving the objectives and policies during Annual Updates. Some sub -
objectives require reporting, such as sub -objective 1.1 that calls for increasing ridership by five
percent annually. The measure requires recording ridership by route on a monthly basis and
report monthly ridership changes from year to year. Other sub -objectives require specific actions,
such as sub -objective 3.3 requiring Senior Resource Association to comply with its System Safety
Program Plan (SSPP). For sub -objective 3.3, the performance measure requires Operations
division to conduct periodic reviews of SSPP elements. The performance measures are designed
in a manner that can be easily documented, recorded and reported for progress during Annual
TDP Updates. Performance measures will serve as a benchmark for the annual evaluation of
accomplishments.
The County's Goals, Objectives and Policies are listed below.
GOAL: TO PROVIDE A SAFE, EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WHICH PROVIDES MOBILITY FOR ALL
RESIDENTS AND VISITORS, OFFERS TRANSIT AS A VIABLE TRANSPORTATION
CHOICE, AND IS WELL INTEGRATED WITH THE COUNTY'S MULTI -MODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
Objective 1— Increase Transit Ridership and Enhance System Performance
Sub -Objective 1.1 — Increase the number of fixed route passenger trips by an average of five
percent annually, from 1,060,506 in fiscal year 2013 to 1,727,453 in fiscal year 2023.
Performance Measure 1 — Comparison of monthly ridership figures to the same months fi-oin
previous years.
Peiforinance Measure 2 — Comparison of annual ridership figures to previous years.
Sub -Objective 1.2 — Attract a minimum of 0.25 one-way passenger trips per revenue mile on all
fixed routes.
Performance Measure 1 — Comparison of inonthly passengers per revenue mile figures to the
same months from previous years.
Peiforinance Measure 2 — Comparison of annual passengers per revenue mile figures to previous
years.
Policy 1.1 — Discontinue or modify fixed bus routes that do not achieve Sub -Objective
1.2, unless a compelling reason is identified to continue the service.
6-2
km
Stanley Cbnsuitants ,.�
Performance Measure -- Number of discontinued or modified fixed bus routes that meet
the criterion for Sub -Objective 1.2; Define criteria for compelling reason to continue
service.
Policy 1.2 — Maintain current user-friendly brochures and Ride Guides, and maintain
bilingual (Spanish) speaking capabilities of SRA staff.
Performance Measure — Number of bilingual ride guides printed and distributed;
Modifications to job announcements to encourage applicants with bilingual or
multilingual capabilities.
Policy 1.3 — Post and maintain current and easily accessible GoLine route and schedule
information on the SRA and MPO websites, and maintain a minimum of 10 distribution
outlets for informational materials.
Performance Measure — Up-to-date web based route and schedule information for all
fixed routes; Number of distribution outlets maintained annually.
Policy 1.4 — Limit headways to a maximum of one-hour on all GoLine core routes with
appropriate adjustments made based on TQOS performance analysis.
Performance Measure — Actual headways by route reported annually.
Objective 2 — Improve Cost Efficiency
Sub -Objective 2.1 — Limit any annual cost per passenger trip increases to no more than five
percent.
Performance Measure — Cost affixed route service recorded on a monthly basis and compared to
the same months fi-oin previous years; Change in annual cost per trip with year to year
comparison.
Policy 2.1 — Provide a fleet of fixed route vehicles with an average age of less than six
years.
Performance Measure — Conformance with Fleet Replacement Plan presented in Chapter
7
Policy 2.2 — Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit vehicles.
Performance Adheasure — Maintenance of up-to-date records of pre -trip inspections and
maintenance logs; Peiforniance ofperiodic internal spot checks.
Objective 3 — Improve Safety
Sub -Objective 3.1 — Maintain a ininitnuin of 75,000 revenue miles between incidents including
security incidents and reportable incidents as defined in the National Transit Database Annual
Reporting Manual.
W
&1— AMftl
I L . .5,RL . �
Performance Measure — Number of reported incidents recorded monthly and compared to same
months f -om previous years; Annual revenue miles divided by total incidents compared to
previous years.
Sub -Objective 3.2 — Maintain a minimum of 50,000 revenue miles between system failures
including those based on agency policy and those due to major mechanical failure as defined in
the National Transit Database Annual Reporting Manual.
Performance Measure — Number of reported failures recorded monthly and compared to the
same months from previous years; Annual revenue miles divided by total failures compared to
previous years.
Sub -Objective 3.3 — Maintain compliance with the Annual Systems Safety Program Plan and
incorporate driver and passenger safety related technology improvements as appropriate.
Performance Measure — Operations Division to conduct periodic reviews of Systems Safety
Program Plan elements as though the review is conducted by an outside entity.
Policy 3.1 — Provide safety training to all new bus drivers as well as retraining for
existing drivers at a minimum of every three years.
Performance Measure — Operations Division to develop schedule for training/retraining
of all operators; Develop training curriculum.
Policy 3.2 — Incorporate safety awards in the ongoing employee recognition Program.
Performance Measure — Develop recognition programs like "employee of the month"
or/and "annual recognition event. "
Objective 4 — Increase Transit Funding and Revenue
Sub -Objective 4.1 — Maintain local support and leverage grant support, to the maximum extent
feasible, for fixed route bus service consistent with the financial plan in the Major Update of the
TDP (2014-2023).
Performance Measure — Number of grant opportunities pursued annually.
Policy 4.1 — Foster partnerships with municipalities, developers and major activity
centers to obtain financial support for service expansions.
Performance Measure — Document outreach activities to obtain financial support; Report
number of successful partnerships annually.
Policy 4.2 — Maintain fare donation boxes on all fixed route vehicles and promote the fare
donation policy in marketing and outreach activities.
Performance Measure —Number offare donation boxes installed; Report annual revenue
fr•oin donations.
6-4
_'Stanley Consultants _J
Policy 4.3 — Submit grant applications for additional funding through applicable FTA and
FDOT Grant Programs.
Petforinance Measure — Applications for Sections 5307, 5310, 5311, and 5,339.
Applications for FDOT Block Grant, Set -vice Development, and Corridor. grants.
Objective 5 — Increase Accessibility
Sub -Objective 5.1 — Provide fixed route bus service to all multi family dwelling projects
exceeding 500 units and all commercial areas exceeding 200, 000 square feet.
Peifol-inance Measure — Work with County staff to identify existing and proposed developments
meeting this criterion. Establish process for County to notify of new proposed developments
ineeting this criterion.
Sub -Objective 5.2 — Establish public transit connections to major employment and entertainment
destinations in adjacent counties.
Petfortnance Measure — Conduct assessment of major employment and entertainment
destinations in adjacent municipalities. Seek regional (FDOT) and local sources offending.
Sub -Objective 5.3 — Continue to improve and optimize connectivity among fixed routes
throughout the county.
Peiforinance Measure — Conduct transfer analysis at transit centers to monitor timed transfer
and heavy transfer activity. Make adjustments and plan for a new hub.
Sub -Objective 5,4 — Improve accessibility for all residents, especially the socioeconomically
disadvantaged segments of the population, to gi*oceiy stores andfi-esh food markets.
Performance Measure — Realign Route 11 to serve the Publix superinai-ket at 53d Street and US
1; Conduct assessinent oJ'other grocery stores not currently served by GoLlne.
Policy 5.1 — Implement service enhancements as outlined in the 10 -year implementation
plan of the FY 2014 - 2023 Major TDP.
Petforinance Measure -- Prepare annual update to the TD -P indicating progress toward
implementing set -vice enhancements; Document reasons if not enhanced.
Policy 5.2 — Conduct public outreach to obtain input prior to making significant changes
to bus route alignments or service characteristics.
Peifbrinance Measure — Develop criteria for determining when a set -vice change meets
FTA's 25% rule requiring a public Bearing; Number ofpublic workshops conducted.
Policy 5.3 — Meet quarterly with transit staff in neighboring counties to better understand
existing and future transit services and to identify coordination requirements associated
with public transit services across county lines.
6-5
kmt 7Stanfey ComItants
Performance Measure — Number oftneetings attended annually.
Policy 5.4 — Maintain a network of major transfer points within the fixed -route bus
system.
Performance Measure — Designation and construction of new transit hub at 16'h Street
and RR tracks, Maintain North County Transit Hub; Gifford Health Center Transit Hub;
Indian River Mall Transit Hub; Oslo Plaza Transit Hub; and South Vero Plaza Transit
Hub.
Policy 5.5 — At a minimum, provide transit rider amenities such as shelters, benches,
route information, and other passenger waiting amenities at all major transfer points by
FY 2023.
Performance Measure — Program funds in Capital and Operating Plan for transit hub
improveinents. Number of transit hubs improved
Policy 5.6 — Incrementally improve transit rider amenities at all transit stops to include, at
a minimum, route sign, shelter and benches,
Petfortnance Measure — Number of benches and shelters procured and installed.
Policy 5.7 — Continue efforts to identify and install suitable bike racks on the fixed route
fleet.
Performance Measure — Number of bicycle racks procured and installed; Number of bike
boarding recorded inonthly and annually.
Objective 6 — Improve Transit Quality of Service
Sub -Objective 6.1 — Maintain or exceed the overall quality of set -vice rating of 4.5 on a scale of
5.0 as measured by the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Report.
Peiformance Measure — Develop strategies to achieve overall rating of 4.5, if the rating dips
below this number.
Policy 6.1— Prepare quarterly transit performance report.
Petforinance Measure — Four (4) quarterly transit peifortnance reports annually.
Policy 6.2 — Monitor performance standards on a quarterly basis.
Peiforinance Measure -- Four (4) quarterly transit performance standard reports
annually.
Policy 6.3 — Conduct a triennial Transit Capacity and Quality of Service analysis.
Petforniance Measure — One analysis every three years.
M.,
Stanley Conwkants
Policy 6.4 — Conduct an on -board survey every five years as part of major TDP updates
to monitor changes in user demographics, travel behavior characteristics, and user
satisfaction.
Peiybrinance Measure — One on -board survey every five years.
Objective 7 — Improve Transit Service Coverage and Coverage
Sub -Objective 71— Increase the span of service on highly utilized transit routes and along major
transportation corridors.
Peiforinance Measure — Establish a standard span of service for fixed routes to operate from
6: 00 a. in, to 8: 00 p. in.
Sub -Objective 7.2 — Increase the frequency of service and reduce travel tunes on highly utilized
transit routes and along major transportation corridors.
Peiforinance Measure — Establish a standard frequency of service at one bus every 30 ininutes on
high peiforinance routes; Implement when financially feasible.
Policy 7.1 — Realign Route 11 to provide a direct connection for Gifford residents to the
Indian River Mall and grocery stores as outlined in the 2014-2023 TDP.
Peiforinance pleasure — Realign route 11 in accordance with routing shown in Chapter
7.
Policy 7.2 — Incrementally expand weekday span of service to attain service hours from
6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. by FY 2023.
Peiforinance Measure -- Report progress on incremental improvements.
Policy 7.3 — When feasible, incrementally reduce the weekday service headways from 60
minutes to 30 minutes for routes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 by FY 2023.
Peiforinance Measure — Reportprogress on incremental improvements.
Policy 7.4 — Incrementally expand Saturday span of service to attain service hours from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. by FY 2023.
Petforniance Measure -- Reportprogress on incremental improvements.
Policy 7.5 — Depending on funding availability, provide limited transit service on
Sundays to attain service hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by FY 2023.
Peiforinance Measure — Report progress on improvements included in strategic
initiatives.
6-7
SJIMQ;Iultants
Chapter 7
Evaluation of Alternatives, Ten -Year Service Plan and
Strategic Initiatives
7.1 Introduction
During the FY 2008 Major TDP Update, GoLine operated 11 routes and served 326,000 annual
passenger trips. In FY 12, GoLine operated 14 routes carrying 1,100,000 amival passengers,
resulting in a 237 percent increase over FY 2008. No other transit systems in Florida have
experienced this phenomenon of exponential gains in ridership, with the exception of Naples and
Panama City. In Indian River County, the transit system has kept up with customer demand by
increasing service levels, introducing new services, and expanding weekend service. The
continued demand from customers for greater service levels presents the County with both
challenges and opportunities to continue to improve transit service.
This chapter outlines the anticipated challenges and opportunities for GoLine during the next ten-
year period, followed by an evaluation of alternatives that sets the stage for a programmed Ten -
Year Service Plan. The Ten -Year Service Plan will be used as the basis for preparing annual
updates to the TDP. During the annual updates, the transit agency will explain whether or not
programmed improvements were implemented during the year and if not, an explanation of how
the program will get back on track. Each annual update will add a new 10th year to the program.
The chapter also identifies strategic initiatives that are not part of the programmed improvements
but can be moved into the ten-year program at any time depending on need and funding
availability. A vehicle replacement plan is also included at the end of this chapter.
7.2 Challenges and Opportunities
Indian River County must prepare for a new transfer hub and associated re-routing of routes
within the next few years. The main transit hub located adjacent to the County Administration
complex was recently moved to a temporary location near the Vero Beach Municipal Airport.
7-1
1 40
cUrn Stanley Consultants..
However, there is a new site located on 16th Street next to the FEC railroad tracks near Old Dixie
Highway that is scheduled for construction of a new transit transfer center. Upon construction of
the new site, Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 14 will be re-routed in order to serve the new hub.
Over the last five years, ridership has increased exponentially and Indian River County has
continued to meet customer demand with limited resources. The TDP calls for service
improvements that are financially feasible in order to remain competitive for FDOT Service
Development and Corridor funds. If improvements are not programmed, FDOT grants will go to
other systems in the District.
While the current route network is strong and solid with good connectivity and directness, Route
It needs to be realigned, Previously, Route 11 served north on U.S, I to Brevard County.
However, the Brevard segment was subsequently terminated and ridership began to decline.
Therefore, Indian River County staff recommended, and the project team concurred, that Route
11 be realigned to provide a direct connection from Gifford to Indian River Mail, thus eliminating
the need for Gifford residents to travel to the transit hub in order to get to the mall.
7.3 Current GoLine Route Network
The project team examined the GoLine route network and made a determination that this is a
solid network of well-designed routes. The system is anchored by two transfer centers to the
South, Oslo Plaza and South Vero Plaza, by the Indian River Mall to the west, by the main transit
hub to the east, and by Gifford and the North County Transit Hub to the north. Each of these
centers is connected by at least two routes such that customers have many travel choices to get
around the County without being forced to go to the transit hub. The only network enhancement
identified as necessary is the realignment of Route 11.
7.4 Realignment of Route I1
As designed, the realigned Route 11 will provide a direct connection for Gifford residents (A —
Gifford Health Center) to the Indian River Mall (B). However, the public involvement activities
yielded a need for more service to farmers markets and grocery stores. Thus the Route 11 in the
outbound direction will travel north on U.S. I to 53`d Street to serve the new Publix. Then the bus
will travel down Indian River Boulevard to 45"' Street west to 66`h Avenue and South to Indian
River Mall (Map 7-1 below).
7-2
A-d_=Nhh
qZW_;0F
CTR Stanley Consultants
Figure 7-1 Realignment of Route 11
7.5 New Transit Hub Proposed Circulation Plan
The proposed circulation plan for the new transit hub is provided below. The proposed circulation
plan is conceptual and is intended to assist Indian River County during the operations planning
phase. As designed, all routes would continue to serve most of the stops that are served now but
with slightly different route alignments.
Since the new hub location is south of the existing hub location, routes approaching from the
south will truncate further south and routes from the north will extend southward. Under the
proposed conceptual circulation plan, Routes 4 and 14 approaching from the south truncate at
16th/17t1 Street to serve the new hub. To compensate for the truncation, the Routes 2, 3, and 8
will serve previous segments served by the Routes 4 and 14. Route 1 will approach the new hub
from 21st Street via 10th Avenue. Map 7-2 shows the circulation of the affected routes.
7-3
cunt Stanle` y- Consultants k
;•soh �-t
.A
t�i(1 NF
T.
`rt
J r:
`ff
J 'I
T
�4i1+'>t
i`A""-'rr RIM �
h ltctY A4ctnrly
Park -
E, c
(6 1+!11,:;1 (67)Vero Beach r1h,, (tri
4
1I41i ;t fG45}
Figure 7-1 Realignment of Route 11
7.5 New Transit Hub Proposed Circulation Plan
The proposed circulation plan for the new transit hub is provided below. The proposed circulation
plan is conceptual and is intended to assist Indian River County during the operations planning
phase. As designed, all routes would continue to serve most of the stops that are served now but
with slightly different route alignments.
Since the new hub location is south of the existing hub location, routes approaching from the
south will truncate further south and routes from the north will extend southward. Under the
proposed conceptual circulation plan, Routes 4 and 14 approaching from the south truncate at
16th/17t1 Street to serve the new hub. To compensate for the truncation, the Routes 2, 3, and 8
will serve previous segments served by the Routes 4 and 14. Route 1 will approach the new hub
from 21st Street via 10th Avenue. Map 7-2 shows the circulation of the affected routes.
7-3
cunt Stanle` y- Consultants k
Figure 7-2 Proposed Circulation Plan for New Hub
CAUSEWAY
7.6 Service Needs
The public involvement process yielded the following obseivations regarding service needs:
• extended weekday evening and night service
• extended weekend set vice hours
• additional stops (service) at the Indian River State College Vero Campus
• reduced headways on existing routes
• transit shelters with landscaping and a comfortable passenger waiting experience
7-4
arra Stanley Consultants
33RD
Previous Transit RD
Sit
33RD p
33RD �
��
O
GOLF VIEW R36REREE -
MERRtLLBA
108
PRQ
�DHubRTH
FC77
,4 30TH
29TH
yG
ye. aw
k T a
Vol,
2aTH _ ¢
27TH
Y 5 00¢•
.®,�-..�_.._,.
" DowDDER
_ 27TH.
SPYL3
UA 74
I-
�- 0 � a
N
r I � ROYALPAIM
LSF%'
LAMP�o HTEft
r`'";,r'"
26TH
�R(@O
:--
_ G(�
{
7
1F0 DROADYlAY
C yR'
11125TH
C k(
24TH O��11S4AHORSC
�t1P1.1'
�N
00�PtaP pt-�
RY F- 24TH
2471-
O A�
x S1ARPiSN
PSIP' 21ND
A r m 23R
RygTONC
21ST
�EY
T , 22ND
0 MIRACLE MILE ALLEY ' PARKFI3N
. _ 21ST
41 CP G Oe1 215TH '
kt' 757
O
�y
O
- - -
'- Ti OLPHM
'O
20TH y
t=
19TH
v
O£ o
0 19TH 19TH Z O Y
19TH 19TH A O1 a a
dCF
F� P
18TH r' 4 7 2
18TH
C
1 TH 1R
17TH 55
N
-
r
18TH O <
17TH
Z
17T;
�
47TH 17TH
F x 17TH
1�
_
- v. x
F
��
17TH
18TH 19TH F v
_
•- �]
15TH
O
s 78TH 18TH a 18TH ` HARBOR
157H 15TH
15TH
157:
'-TH
157f1 k rc
>' x Y 75TH o w CORAL
SILVERY
O
14TH o k 1265TH �, m 14TH HARBOR
14TH ?li o 74TH
16TH
14TH 14TH
13TH �
3TH
i
C
137H ?. 13TH + t3YN
13TH F,'
12TH
TH
'-, x�,
13TH 12TH
H
_�
�,
12TH
z x 12TH
k
g at
ST
11TH NTH' 11TH
1171
11TH
17TH
11TH x 11TH
k H
i
O
WTH
117
2
10TH
N
y
b
10TH
10TH
70TH
10TH }
10TH
10TH Y _ 10TH
9TH
F- 91 k
10TH
R
T. 9TH
rr
9TH. 9TH
9THROPIC
N 9TH
STH k 9TH
DE RC .A
A ®OREENLEAF
.1
BICH �j.' f-
-
STH z
�i 8TH
O
_
r
7TH 7TH
8TH
\ 77H j
TTH 7TH
i7+
h"
'
\ r m
Figure 7-2 Proposed Circulation Plan for New Hub
CAUSEWAY
7.6 Service Needs
The public involvement process yielded the following obseivations regarding service needs:
• extended weekday evening and night service
• extended weekend set vice hours
• additional stops (service) at the Indian River State College Vero Campus
• reduced headways on existing routes
• transit shelters with landscaping and a comfortable passenger waiting experience
7-4
arra Stanley Consultants
7.6.1 Weekday Span (Hours) of Service
Weekday service span is currently 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ultimately, Indian River County
will strive to attain weekday service hours from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, this level of
service improvement will be pursued incrementally due to cost constraints.
7.6.2 Weekday Frequency of Service
All routes operate on weekdays at a frequency of one bus every hour. Some routes, based on
performance, should be considered for frequency improvements. However, increasing
frequency is generally the most expensive of all service improvements because it entails
doubling service hours. Routes to consider for frequency improvements are the Routes 1, 2,
3, 4, and 8.
7.6.3 Saturday Span (Hours) of Service
Current span of service on Saturdays is from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Ultimately, Saturday
service hours should be standardized to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. As with all improvements,
progress toward this standard will be pursued incrementally and in the later years of the ten
year program of improvements.
7.6.4 Sunday Service
Currently, there is no Sunday service. However, this plan considers adding Sunday service as
a good candidate for MOT Service Development grants. Recommended Sunday service
span is between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
7.7 T -BEST Scenarios
The Transit Boardings Estimation Simulation Tool (T -BEST) is a model that forecasts future year
ridership (demand) for transit services. T -BEST analysis is required by the MOT unless an
alternate is proposed to estimate future ridership demand. T -BEST is designed for transit
agencies to utilize as a tool in the TDP development process and can test different scenarios for
service improvements. Although not completed for this update, T -BEST can test for new routes
that currently do not exist.
T -BEST is fueled by data sets that provide a consistent standard by which forecasts are made, as
follows:
• Network — the TBEST network was developed and validated as part of FDOT's
maintenance contract
• Socio -Demographic —Census 2010 geography with supporting SF1 demographics from
the Census ACS (2006-2010) 5 -Year Estimates
• Employment — Local 2012 zonal employment dataset obtained from the Indian River
MPO
• Growth Rates — a compounded annual growth rate of 1.2% was applied to population and
employment data
7-5
arta Stanl�sultants.r
• 2012 Observed Ridership for Model Validation obtained from GoLine
In consultation with County staff, the project team ran the following improvement scenarios
through T -BEST:
• Grow system to 2022 with no service improvements
• Grow system to 2022, make frequency improvements to 5 routes on weekdays
• Increase the span of service on Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
• Implement Sunday service from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
• Increase the span of service on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The summary of results is as follows:
• Growing the system to 2022 with no service improvements forecasts a 31 percent
increase in ridership
• Frequency improvements on weekdays forecasts a 133% increase in ridership
• Adding Saturday span improvements forecasts a 278% increase over current Saturday
ridership
• Implementing Sunday service forecasts a total of 191,000 riders
• Weekday span improvements forecasts an 81% increase in ridership
Table 7-1 below displays the changes in ridership based on the evaluated improvement scenarios.
Table 7-1 Changes in Ridership Based on Improvement Scenarios
Additional
% Additional
1,373,150 132.8%
2012 2022
Scenario Ridership
Increase
Service
Increase
Ridership Ridership
Forecast
in
Hours
Service
87,301 328,852
Ridership
Hours
Maintain system to 2022, no 1,121,657 1,468,026 346,369
30.9% 0
0.0%
service improvements
Maintain system to 2022,
weekday frequency
1,034,356 2,407,506
1,373,150 132.8%
15,038 38.7%
improvements on 5 routes
Saturday Span Improvements
87,301 328,852
241,551 276.7%
5,557 38.7%
Implement Sunday Service
190,654
190,654 100.0%
9,350 100.0%
Weekday Span
1,034,356 1,871,880
837,524 81.0%
15,664 40.3%
Improvements
7-6
cum Stanle`Cosultants
7.7.1 Cost Comparison of Scenarios — Cost per Passenger Trip
The project team conducted an exercise to determine whether improvement scenarios with
associated model output projections of ridership could impact the overall cost per passenger
trip in future year scenarios. For 2013, the current cost of $56.48 per hour was used to
determine annual costs and costs per passenger trip based on 2013 validated ridership. A two
percent annual inflation rate was applied to the 2013 costs to generate an out year cost of
$67.47 per hour. The analysis includes cost and ridership projections for 2022 as a result of
the five improvement scenarios.
Table 7-2 summarizes the results of the cost comparison exercise for the five improvement
scenarios.
• Maintaining the system with no service improvements yields a 9 percent decrease in
cost per passenger trip (from $2.11 in 2013 to $1.92 in 2022).
• Weekday frequency improvements yield a 27 percent decrease in cost per passenger
trip with projected ridership increases (from $2.29 in 2013 to $1.67 in 2022).
• Saturday span improvements yield a 21 percent decrease in cost per passenger trip
(from $2.42 in 2013 to $1.92 in 2022).
• The projected cost for Sunday service is $3.31 per passenger trip.
• Weekday service span improvements yield a 9 percent decrease in cost per passenger
trip (from $2.11 in 2013 to $1.91 in 2022).
7-7
4M,
kUTR Stanley Consultants
Table 7-2 Cost Comparison Exercise — Cost Per Passenger Trip — T -BEST Scenarios
Annual Cost per Annual Cost per
Scenario
2013 Revenue Annual Passenger 2022 Revenue Annual Passenger
No.
Description
Ridership
Hours 2013
Cost 2013
Trip 2013
Riderhsip
Hours 202
Cost 2022
Trip 2022
Maintain system to 2022
1
with no service
1,121,657
41,932
$2,368,331
$2.11
1,476,189
41,932
$2,829,166
$1.92
improvements
Maintain system to 2022,
2
make frequency
imrpovements to 5 routes on
1,034,356
41,932
$2,368,331
$2.29
2,407,506
59,572
$4,019,336
$1.67
weekdays
Increase the span of service
3
on Saturday from 7:00 a.m.
87,301
3,744
$211,461
$2.42
328,852
9,360
$631,519
$1.92
to 7:00 p.m.
4
Implement Sunday Service
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
190,654
9,360
$631,519
$3.31
from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Increase the span of service
5 on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. 1,121,657
to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays
41,932 $2,368,331 $2.11 1,871,880 52,920 $3,570,512 $1.91
7.8 Ten -Year Program of Service Improvements
In consultation with County staff and SRA staff, the project team developed a Ten -Year Program
of Service Improvements. At the July 10, 2013 MPO Board meeting, the board members
discussed the impacts of potential service improvements over the next ten years. The MPO board
members identified weekday span of service improvements as the highest priority with Saturday
improvements a lesser priority. The MPO board felt that transit's greatest role should be to
provide service for jobs on weekdays. Subsequent to that meeting, staff distributed a survey to
the MPO board members and asked them to rate their priorities for service improvement
scenarios on a scale of 1 to 5, where I equals lowest priority and 5 equals highest priority.
Table 7-3 displays the average ratings from survey of the MPO board members. Increasing
service span on weekdays in the early morning and evening were identified as the highest
priorities, followed by frequency improvements on weekdays and increasing Saturday service
hours. The remaining service improvement scenarios had an average rating less than 2.0. As a
result, the original service plan has been revised.
7-8
kUTR Stanley Consultants
Table 7-3 Average Ratings for Service Improvement Scenarios Indian River MPO Survey
Improvement Average
Rating
Increase weekday evening homy (extend service to 8 pm)
4.14
Increase weekday morning hours (begin service at 6 am)
4.00
Weekday Frequency Improvements (5 Routes)
3.33
Increase Saturday service hours by 3 hours (8 am - 5 pm)
2.86
New shuttle service on the island to operate as a park-and-ride for
1.86
employees to access work sites from remote parking lot
New route from Sebastian/Fellsmere to the beach via the 510 causeway
1.71
Add Sunday Service (9 am - 5 pm)
1.43
New route on Al from Village Beach Market to the 510 causeway 1.43
Over the ten-year period, the program calls for:
• Extending weekday services from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in 2014
• Extending weekday service hours from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in 2015
Gradually expanding Saturday service hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Indian River County staff and the SRA decided, and the project team concurred, to include
frequency improvements in the strategic initiatives. In addition to the significant costs involved
in implementing frequency improvements, substantial planning is required to ensure reasonable
transfer between the routes. The current system operates on one-hour frequency on all routes with
timed transfers. Increasing the frequency of service for five routes on weekdays would create a
situation where one set of trips would have a timed transfer but the other set would entail a 30
minute wait for transfers to routes operating on a one hour frequency. Therefore, it was decided
that frequency improvements will be put on hold until the new hub is fully operational. The
frequency improvements included within the strategic initiative can be moved into the ten-year
improvement scheme at any time.
Table 7-4 below displays the Ten -Year Program of Improvements. The program calls for a total
of 57,152 annual service hours, which is a 40.1 percent increase over the 41,932 service hours
operated in 2013. This increase is an average of 4.0 percent per year for the ten year period.
7-9
kUTR Stanley Consultants
Table 7-4 Ten -Year Program of Service Improvements
7-10
CTR Stanley Consultants
Total
Percent
Daily
Net New
Annual
Increase in
Annual Cost of
Base Year Revenue
Total
Revenue
Annual
Net
Cost per
Improvement
Revenue Hour
Service
Hours by
Revenue
New
Service
with 2% Annual
Year
Affected Routes
Improvements
Hours Increase
Hours
Year
Hours
Buses
Hour
Inflation
Base Year
FY 2013
Revenue Hours
40,336 0
0
0
0
0
$2,278,177
Increase weekday span of
service to operate from 6:00
FY 2014
All Routes
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
39
9,828
50,164
24.4%
0
$56.46
$554,889
Increase weekday span of
service to operate from 6:00
FY 2015
All Routes
a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
13
3,276
53,440
6.5%
0
$57.59
$188,662
Maintain existing weekday
FY 2016
All Routes
and Saturday Service
0
0
53,440
0.0%
0
$58.74
$0
Increase Saturdayspan of
service to operate from 9:00
FY 2017
All Routes
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
26
1,352
54,792
2.5%
0
$59.92
$81,006
Maintain existing weekday
FY 2018
All Routes
and Saturday Service
0
0
54,792
0.0%
0
$61.11
$0
Increase Saturdayspan of
service to operate from 8:00
FY 2019
All Routes
a.m. to 6:00 P.M.
26
1,352
56,144
2.5%
0
$62.34
$84,279
Maintain existing weekday
FY 2020
All Routes
and Saturday Service
0
0
56,144
0.0%
0
$63.58
$0
Maintain existing weekday
FY 2021
All Routes
and Saturday Service
0
0
56,144
0.0%
0
$64.85
$0
Maintain existing weekday
FY 2022
All Routes
and Saturday Service
0
0
56,144
0.0%
0
$66.15
$0
Maintain existing weekday
FY 2023
All Routes
and Saturday Service
0
0
56,144
0.0%
0
$67.47
$0
TOTALS
15,808
56,144
39.2%
0
$908,836
7-10
CTR Stanley Consultants
7.9 Strategic Initiatives
In coordination with staff, the project team developed the following strategic initiatives that are
not programmed in the ten-year program. At any time, any of these initiatives can be moved into
the ten-year program by reflecting the change in an annual update of the TDP. The strategic
initiatives consist of the following service improvements:
• New services
• Gradually bring Saturday service to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
• Sunday Service
• Frequency improvements for Routes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8
7-11
kLrM Stanley Consultants
Table 7-5 below displays the strategic initiatives.
Table 7-5 Strategic Initiatives
Net
New
Net
Total
Cost
Total
Year
Service Initiative
Total
New
Annual
per
Annual
Service
Buses
Service
Service
Cost
Hours
Hours
Hour
New Service operating fiom Oslo Plaza south on 27ffi Avenue
FY 2014
to the Fort Pierce campus of Indian River State College
14
0
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
FY 2015
New Shuttle Service on the island to operate as park-and-ride
14
0
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
for employees to access employment from remote parking lot
FY 2016
I New service connecting Fellsmere and Sebastian to the island
14
0
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
via Highway 1 and the 510 Causeway
FY 2017
New service on north AIA from Village Beach Market to the
14
0
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
510 Causeway
FY 2018
I Saturday service from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
14
0
728
$56.48
$41,117
FY 2019
I Saturday service from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
14
0
728
$56.48
$41,117
FY 2019
Implement Sunday Service from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
104
0
5,408
$56.48
$305,444
FY 2020
I Increase frequency on Route 1 to one bus every 30 minutes
14
1
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
FY 2021
I Increase frequency on Route 2 to one bus every 30 minutes
14
1
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
FY 2022
I Increase frequency on Route 3 to one bus every 30 minutes
14
1
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
FY 2022
I Increase frequency on Route 4 to one bus every 30 minutes
14
1
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
FY 2023
I Increase frequency on Route 8 to one bus every 30 minutes
14
1
3,528
$56.48
$199,261
TOTALS
258
5
38,616
$2,181,032
7-11
kLrM Stanley Consultants
7.10 Vehicle Replacement Plan
Over the next ten years, Indian River County will need to replace paratransit and fixed -route
buses and cutaways based on their useful lifespan. The three buses in the system have a lifespan
of 12 years or 500,000 miles. The majority of vehicles in the fleet, both paratransit and fixed -
route, are cutaways that have a 7 year lifespan. Tables 7-6 and 7-7 outline the paratransit and
fixed -route replacement plans respectively. Table 7-8 shows a summary of vehicle acquisitions
by year. This will be used to develop the capital and operating plan.
Year Make Model
2002
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2021
2021
2021
2022
2022
2023
Table 7-6 Paratransit Vehicle Replacement Plan
Replacement Vehicle Years
2013 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
Vehicles 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Dodge
14' Caravan
1
R
Ford
16'3500 Conv. Van
1
R
Ford
16'3500 Conv. Van
3
R
Ford
Freestar Mini Van
2
2
R
Ford
16' Van Terra
6
6
R
Ford
16' Van Tena
6
6
R
Chevy
16' Turtle Top
3
3
3
R
Chevy
16' 16' Van Terra
5
5
5
5
R
Dodge
14' Caravan
5
5
5
5
5
R
Replacement Van
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
R
Replacement Cutaway
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R
Replacement Cutaway
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
R
Replacement Minivan
2
2
2
2
R
Replacement Cutaway
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
R
Replacement Cutaway
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
R
Replacement Cutaway
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
R
Replacement Cutaway
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Replacement Cutaway
5
5
5
5
5
5
Replacement Minivan
2
2
2
2
2
Replacement Cutaway
1
1
1
Replacement Cutaway
I
1
1
Replacement Cutaway
3
3
3
Replacement Cutaway
6
6
Replacement Cutaway
6
6 1�
Replacement Cutaway
3
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
7-12
J,
Stanley Consultants -4
Table 7-7 Fixed -Route Vehicle Replacement Plan
Replacement Vehicle Years
Year Make Model
2004
Ford
16' Van Terra
2006
Chevy
5550 (Dis) 31' - Bus
2006
Chevy
5550 (Dis) 31' - Bus
2007
Chevy
16' Turtle Top
2007
Chevy
Glaval 31' -Bus
2009
GMC
Glaval 3 P - Bus
2013
CHBU
27' International Bus
2013
Gillig
29' Gillig
2013
Gillig
35' Gillig
2014
R
Replacement Cutaways
2014
Replacement Cutaways
2014
Replacement Cutaways
2014
R
Replacement Cutaways
2014
Replacement Cutaways
2016
Replacement Cutaways
2020
R
Replacement Cutaways
2021
Replacement Cutaways
2021
Replacement Cutaways
2021
R
Replacement Cutaways
2021
Replacement Cutaways
2021
Replacement Cutaways
2023
8
Replacement Cutaways
2013
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY FY FY
Vehicles
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021 2022 2023
3
R
3
2
R
2
1
R
1
3
R
3
2
R
2
8
8
8
R
26
26
26
26
26
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
R
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 11
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
R
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
R
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
R
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
R
7-13
cuStanley Co
rs nsultants
8 R
4 4�
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 3�
2 2�
81
26 26
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
3
2
1
3
2
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
7-13
cuStanley Co
rs nsultants
8 R
4 4�
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 3�
2 2�
81
26 26
Table 7-8 Summary of Vehicle Acquisitions by Year
Replacement Vehicle
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Total
Acquisition
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Sedan/Minivan
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
Cutaways
16
14
11
5
5
0
4
16
12
11
94
Buses
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7-14
Y
vm Stanley Consultants
Chapter 8
This chapter outlines a Ten -Year Capital and Operating Program for the Indian River County
Transit System. The program is developed based on FDOT requirements for a TDP Update and
outlines capital and operating revenues, expenses and unfunded improvements over a ten-year
period.
F -A
Tables 8-1 and 8-2 outline the operating program for FY 2014 through FY 2018 and FY 2019
through FY 2023 respectively. For FY 2014, the operating revenues account for the current
revenue sources including -federal, state and local government grants for both fixed -route and
paratransit, totaling $3.55 million. The 2014 operating expenses for the paratransit and fixed
route services are projected to be a total of $3.55 million, resulting in a balanced budget for FY
2014 with no service enhancements or unfunded operating improvements.
FDOT Service Development funds and Urban Corridor funds have been programmed for the first
three years — FY 2014 through FY 2016 — of the operating program. While it is anticipated that
these grants will be available after FY 2016, such funds cannot be programmed until they are
granted. The remaining revenues and expenses for each year starting in FY 2017 have been
derived by applying an inflation rate of two percent over the previous years.
Unfunded operating improvements for any given year are calculated using the following formula:
(Current Year Expenses + Current Year TDP Enhancements + Prior Year TDP Enhancements) —
(Total Revenue).
8-1
irUTR Stan( _eyConsultants
8.2 Capital Program
Tables 8-3 and 8-4 outline the capital program for FY 2014 through FY 2018 and FY 2019
through FY 2023 respectively. The capital plan includes the replacement of 94 cutaway buses and
four sedans/minivans over the ten year period. The plan also includes several projects as
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) enhancements including ADA bus stop improvements,
improvements to transit hubs, an on -board stop announcement system, and a new transit hub.
Other enhancements include bicycle racks, shelters, bus stop signs, and automatic vehicle
location system (AVL) to improve service delivery and operations. Finally, the capital program
includes projects for the SRA to include shop equipment, preventative maintenance, and
computers.
Unfunded capital projects are calculated by subtracting the revenues from the sum total of all
desired projects. The capital program projects a surplus of capital funds in certain years;
however, carry-over funds can be used to fund projects in future years.
8-2
CM Stanley Consultants PK
Table 8-1 Indian River Transit Operation Program FY 2014 through FY 2018
PROJECT' PROJECT
FIVE YEAR
ITEM DESCRIPTION FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
FY 18 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCE
I Operating Assistance $64,110
$65,392
$66,700
$68,034
$69,395 $333,631 FTA 5311
$800,000
$837,477
$872,644
$913,422
$953,193 $4,376,736 FTA 5307
$817,855
$834,212
$850,896
$867,914
$885,273 $4,256,150 Other Federal
$368,870
$376,247
$383,772
$391,448
$399,277 $1,919,614 FOOT Block Grant
$335,772
$335,772
$335,772
$1,007,317 FOOT Service Dev.
$112,955
$112,955
$112,955
$338,865 FOOT Corridor
FOOT Service Dev.
$335,000
$335,000 $670,000 Candidate
FOOT Corridor
$115,000
$115,000 $230,000 Candidate
$380,125
$387,727
$395,482
$403,391
$411,459 $1,978,184 Other State
$625,124
$625,124
$625,124
$625,124
$625,124 $3,125,620 Local Gov't
$146,177
$149,101
$152,083
$155,124
$158,227 $760,711 Other Local
$52,400
$53,448
$54,517
$55,607
$56,719 $272,692 Client Co -Pay
$3,703,388
$3,777,456
$3,849,945
$3,930,065
$4,008,666 $19,269,520
2 Total Operating Expense-
xpense-Fixed
FixedRoute $2,428,129
2,476,692
$2,626,226
$2,676,760
$2,628,285 $12,636,081
Total Operating Expense -
Paratransit $1,275,269
$1,300,764
$1,326,779
$1,353,316
$1,380,381 $6,636,499
3
Total Operating Expense -
Fixed -Route + Paratransit $3,703,388
$3,777,456
$3,853,005
$3,930,066
$4,008,666 $19,272,580
4
(Deficit) or Surplus $0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0
Weekday
Weekday
Saturday
service from
service from
service from
TOP Service 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 6:00 a.m. to 8:00
9:00 a.m. to 5,00
Improvements P.M.
p.m.
p.m.
FOOT Service
Development, FTA
Section 5307, and
$554,889
$188,662
$0
$81,006
$0 $824,657 Block Grant
6 Unfunded Operating
Improvements $0
$188,662
$191,722
$269,668
$269,668
*At a budget hearing on September 11, 2013, the Board of
County Commissioners voted to appropriate $150,000
to make the TOP improvement to increase weekday
service from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p,m. This appropriation will be used as local match to existing grants
and service Improvements will be made as soon as funding is available
(on October 1, 2013). It is anticipated that in FY 2015, the
BCC will appropriate
local matching
funds to make the
improvement of bringing weekday service to 8:00 p.m.
8-3
CTR Stanley Consultants -
Table 8-2 Indian River Transit Operating Program FY 2019 through FY 2023
PROJECT
ITEM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FY19
FY20
FY 21
FY22
FY23
FIVEYEARTOTAL Ft1NDINGSOURCE
1
Operating Assistance
$70,783
$72,198
$73,642
$75,115
$76,617
$368,356 FTA5311
' $993,759
$1,053,579 °
$1,096,153
$1,139,579
$1,183,873
$5,466,943 FTA5307
$902,978
$921,038
$939,458
$958,247
$977,412
$4,699,134 Other Federal
$407,262
$415,408
$423,716
$432,190
$440,834
$2,119,409 MOT Block Grant
FDOT Service Dev.
$335,000
$335,000
$335,000
$335,000
$335,000
$1,675,000 Candidate
MOT Corridor
$115,000
$115,000
$115,000
$115,000
$115,000
$575,000 Candidate
$419,688
$428,082
$436,644
$445,377
$454,284
$2,184,075 Other State
$625,124
$625,124
$625,124
$625,124
$625,124
$3,125,620 Local GoVt
$161,391
$146,177
$149,101
$152,083
$155,124
$763,876 Other Local
$57,854
$59,010.91
r
$60,191
$61,395
r
$62,623
$301,074 Client Co -Pay
$4,088,839
$4,170,616
$4,254,029
$4,339,110
$4,425,892
$21,278,486
2
TotalOperatingExpense-
Fixed Route
$2,680,861
$2,734,468
$2,789,157
$2,844,940
$2,901,839
$13,951,254
Total Operating Expense -
Paratransit
$1,407,989
$1,436,149
$1,464,872
$1,494,169
$1,524,063
$7,327,231
3
Total Operating Expense -
Fixed-Route+Paratransit
$4,088,840
$4,170,616
$4,254,029
$4,339,109
$4,425,891
$21,278,485
4
(Deficit) or Surplus
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5
Saturday service
Saturday service
TDP Service
from 8:00 a.m. to
from 8:00 a.m. to
Improvements
6:00 p.m.
6:00 P.M.
MOT Service Dev.
$84,279
$0
$0
$0
$0
$84,279 Candidate
6
Unfunded Operating
Improvements
$363,947
$353,947
$363,947
$353,947
$353,947
8-4
kVTR Stanl-eConsultants
Table 8-3 Indian River Transit Capital Program FY 2014 through FY 2018
FY 14
FY 15
(PROJECT
ITEM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7
New Transit Hub
8
Cutaway Buses and
Related Equipment
Replacement
9
Sedans and Minivans
16
Replacement
10
Miscellaneous Shop
5
Equipment
11
Preventative Maintenance
12
Computers
13
Radios
14
Transit Center
Improvements (Oslo
Plaza, South Vero Plaza,
Indian River Mall, Gifford
Local Funds
Health Center)
15
Bus Stop Signs
16
Bus Shelters
17
Bike Racks
18
Automatic Passenger
$0
Counters
19
Automatic Vehicle
FTASection 5307
Location
20
ADA Bus Stop
Improvements
21
On -board bus Stop
$50,000
Announcement System
22
Grand Total Capital
$50,000
Expenses
23
Capital Revenue
24
Unfunded Capital
(Expressed in (Deficit) or
Surplus)
Table 8-3 Indian River Transit Capital Program FY 2014 through FY 2018
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
FY 18
FIVEYEAR TOTAL
FUNDING SOURCE
$1,150,000
FTASection 5309
16
14
11
5
5
51
$1,120,000
$980,000
$770,000
$350,000
$350,000
$3,570,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
0
2
0
0
0
2
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$250,000
FDOT Service Dev.
Candidate
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$1,125,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$35,000
$35,000
$70,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$40,000
$40,000
$80,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$400,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$30,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$125,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$30,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$65,000
$65,000
$130,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$100,000
$100,000
$200,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$250,000
FTA Section 5307
Local Funds
$50,000
$50,000
$100,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
$2,855,000
$1,720,000
$1,270,000
$880,000
$845,000
$7,570,000
$2,550,000
$1,365,223
$1,330,356
$1,295,759
$1,259,172
$7,800,510
($305,000)
($354,777)
$60,356
$415,759
$414,172
$230,510
8-5
corn Stanle`Consultants r
Table 8-4 Indian River Transit Capital Program FY 2019 through FY 2023
8-6
cern Stanl- sultants -
(PROJECT
ITEM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23 FIVEYEARTOTAL
t-UNDINGSOURCE
5
Cutaway Buses and
Related Equipment
0
4
16
12
11
43
Replacement
$0
$280,000
$1,120,000
$840,000
$770,000
$3,010,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
6
Sedans and Minivans
2
0
0
0
0
2
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
7
Miscellaneous Shop
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$250,000
FDOT Service Dev.
Equipment
Candidate
8
Preventative Maintenance
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$1,125,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
9
Computers
$35,000
$35,000
$70,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
10
Radios
$40,000
$40,000
$80,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
11
Bus Stop Signs
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$30,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
12
Bus Shelters
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$125,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
13
Bike Racks
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$30,000
FTASection 5307
Local Funds
14
ADA Bus Stop
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$250,000
FTASection 5307
Improvements
Local Funds
15
Grand Total Capital
$430,000
$645,000
$1,520,000
$1,270,000
$1,165,000
$5,030,000
Expenses
16
Capital Revenue
$1,221,853
$1,174,848
$1,126,150
$1,086,170
$1,045,391
$5,654,412
17
Unfunded Capital
$791,853
$529,848
($393,850)
($183,830)
($119,609)
$624,412
(Expressed in (Deficit) or
Surplus)
8-6
cern Stanl- sultants -