Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update (FY ) Bay County. Transit Development Plan Major Update FY

Transcription

1 Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update FY Bay County Transportation Planning Organization West Florida Regional Planning Council Bay Town Trolley Bay Area Transportation Adopted: August 24, 2016 Transmittal to FDOT District 3: August 30, 2016 Adopted August 24, 2016

2

3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Overview of the Process and Plan 1.1 Task 1. Establish Review Committee Task 2. Compile Base Data Task 3. Public Involvement Process Task 4. Identify Vision, Mission, Goals, and Objectives Task 5. Existing Services and Performance Evaluation Task 6. Situation Appraisal Task 7. Estimate Baseline Future Demand and Assess Needs Task 8. Development and Analysis of Alternatives Task 9. Evaluation of Potential Funding Sources Task 10. Ten-Year Implementation Program Documentation Base Data and Mapping 2.1 Demographic Conditions Data Sources Population Minority Population Age Distribution Disability Status Households Income Household Vehicle Availability Transit Propensity Transit Stop Walk Accessibility Public Involvement and Participation 3.1 Review Committee Meetings Review Committee Kickoff Meeting On-Board Rider Survey Rider Characteristics Trip Characteristics Rider Satisfaction Improvements to the Bay Town Trolley Service On-Board Rider Survey Conclusions Community Online Survey Respondent Characteristics and Public Transportation Use Community Opinion of Public Transportation Community Online Survey Conclusions Transit Advisory Group Meetings Transit Manager, Operator, and Staff Interviews Genfare Training Session Public Meetings Public Workshop Public Workshop Public Outreach TPO Meetings Regional Planning Council Status Update Meetings Transportation Disadvantaged Board 3.22 Rev. August 30, 2016 i

4 3.8 Feedback from Officials and Community Leaders TPO Meetings Public Outreach Processes Vision, Mission, Goals, and Strategies 4.1 Introduction Public Outreach and Setting System Goals and Strategies Data Collection and Evaluation Setting Public Transit Vision, Mission, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Goals, Objectives, Strategies of the Fixed Route System Goals, Objectives, Strategies of the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) FY 2015/16 Annual Update Existing Services and Performance Evaluation 5.1 Inventory of Existing Service Bay Town Trolley (BTT) Demand Response Service (Paratransit) Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis General Performance Indicators Effectiveness Measures Efficiency Measures Summary Results for the Trend Analysis Bay Town Trolley Peer Review Analysis Peer System Selection Methodology General Performance Measures Effectiveness Measures Efficiency Measures Summary Results for the Peer Review Analysis Demand Response Service (Paratransit) Existing Conditions TD Service Area Population Vehicles Available Service Rates Summary Vehicle Inventory Performance Evaluation Operational Measures Costs and Expenses Contract Agencies and Trips Ridership Annual Rider Survey Situation Appraisal 6.1 Introduction Regional Transportation Taxi and Shuttle Services Other Bus Services Limousine On-Demand Ride-sourcing Services Socioeconomic Trends Employment Trends Travel Behavior Land Use 6.12 Rev. August 30, 2016 ii

5 6.7 Tourism Impacts and Opportunities Organizational Issues Ridership Revenue Trends Transit Technology Electronic Fare Payment Systems (EFP) Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) Google Transit Review of Plans, Studies, and Policies Local Transportation and Economic Development Plans Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (FY ) Bay County Long Range Transportation Plan, 2040 (June 2016) Bay County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (FY ) Bay County TPO Project Priorities (FY 17-21) West Florida Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy ( ) Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Plan Local Comprehensive Plans Bay County Comprehensive Plan (2020), Charting Our Course to Bay-Walton Sector Plan City of Panama City Comprehensive Plan City of Panama City Beach Comprehensive Plan City of Callaway Comprehensive Plan (2025) City of Parker Comprehensive Plan (2025) City of Lynn Haven Comprehensive Plan (2010) City of Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan (2007) City of Springfield Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code State Plans and Policies Florida Transportation Plan FDOT Transit State Growth Management Legislation (House Bill 7207) Federal and National Plans and Policies Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act DOT Livability Initiative and Federal Sustainable Communities Program American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Estimate of Baseline Future Demand and Assessment of Needs 7.1 Existing Ridership Data Analysis of Future Needs The TBEST Model Overview of TBEST TBEST Scenario Analysis and Phasing Ten-Year Implementation Program 8.1 Introduction Management and Monitoring Program Capital and Operating Program The Financial Tool Spreadsheets Summary of Financial Plan Assumptions and Recommendations Capital Costs and Needs Revenue Needs and Sources 8.18 Rev. August 30, 2016 iii

6 8.6 Conclusion 8.20 Appendices Public Participation Plan Rev. August 30, 2016 iv

7 Acknowledgements The project team would like to thank the following groups and individuals that contributed to this project. The Review Committee and other individuals who either attended the kickoff meeting, review committee meetings, TDP workshops, or TPO/TCC/CAC meetings to discuss and review the Technical Memoranda, draft reports, and final drafts for approval. Bay County TPO Board and Committee Members TPO Chairman Mike Nichols TPO Member, Former Chairman, Rodney Friend Bay County TPO Board Members Bay County TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Members Bay County TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Members Review Committee Angela Bradley, Bay County Transit Systems Administrator Lamar Hobbs, Bay County Transit Operations Coordinator Sandra (Sandy) Culbreth, Bay County Transit Financial Manager Nancy Lohr, General Manager, Bay Town Trolley / Bay Area Transportation Gene Keen, Operations Manager, Bay Town Trolley Howard Vanselow, Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Board, or TD representative John Alaghemand, Director, Panama City Beach Front Beach Road CRA Keith Bryant, Bay County Traffic Engineering Michael Fuller, City Manager, City of Callaway Mike Lane, Planning Services Director, City of Panama City Joel Schubert, City Manager, City of Lynn Haven, or designee Amanda Richard, City Planner, City of Lynn Haven Cynthia McCauley, Executive Director, Chautauqua Learn & Serve Charter School Kathy Rudd, FDOT District 3 Transit Specialist Kelly Robertson, Principal, BowStern Marketing Communications Rob Mahan, Senior Planner Public Transportation, West Florida Regional Planning Council Vikki Garrett, MPA, Regional Planner, West Florida Regional Planning Council Kim Bodine, Director, Region 4 Workforce Board Other Participants BTT drivers, operators, and managers that were interviewed for this report BTT transit riders who enthusiastically participated in the various on-board survey interviews, online surveys, and discussions with the team during team on-board route reviews. Rev. August 30, 2016 v

8 1.0 Introduction and Overview of the Process and Plan This Bay County Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update (FY ) was prepared for the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) consistent with the requirements of Rule Chapter 14-73, Florida Administrative Code, Public Transportation, and Public Transit. Under Rule the TDP update sets forth the requirements for the recipients of FDOT public transit grant funds. A major update or an annual report of the TDP must be submitted prior to September 1, 2016, and approved by FDOT by December 31, Rule requires the TDP to address the following actions and issue areas: Prepare and follow a public involvement process Situation appraisal, including: The effects of land use, state and local transportation plans, other governmental actions and policies, socioeconomic trends, organizational issues, and technology on the transit system. An estimation of the community s demand for transit service using the planning tools provided by the Department, or a Department approved transit demand estimation technique with supporting demographic, land use, transportation, and transit data. The result of the transit demand estimation process shall be a ten-year annual projection of transit ridership. An assessment of the extent to which the land use and urban design patterns in the provider s service area support or hinder the efficient provision of transit service, including any efforts being undertaken by the provider or local land use authorities to foster a more transit-friendly operating environment. The provider s vision, mission, and goals Alternative courses of action, including the benefits and costs of each alternative, and options for new or dedicated revenue sources A ten-year implementation program, including a detailed list of projects or services needed to meet the goals and objectives in the TDP Review the relationship to other plans, including the Florida Transportation Plan, the local government comprehensive plan, the MPO long-range transportation plan, and regional transportation goals and objectives. The major update to the Bay County Transit Development Plan (TDP) is a multi-year plan required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) that calls for a description of the transit agency s vision for public transportation, along with an assessment of transit needs in the study area and a staged implementation program to set priorities for improvements. FDOT requires a TDP to maintain eligibility for state Block Grant funding. TDPs are to be updated every five years with a minor update to be completed annually. This major update to the Bay County TDP covers the time period from The update is governed by Sections and , Florida Statutes, as well as Chapter of the Florida Administrative Code. The TDP is also a policy document that links transit goals and objectives with other Rev. August 2,

9 adopted plans, including the local government s comprehensive plan. Importantly, FDOT emphasizes the importance of public participation in the TDP update process. The project scope of services has been prepared with coordination between the transportation planning staff of the West Florida Regional Planning Council, and Bay County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) transit management staff on behalf of the Bay County TPO. The following tasks are required: 1.1 Task 1 Establish Review Committee The project team recommended a group of stakeholders and agency personnel, and interested citizens to sit as a standing Review Committee during the process of developing the TDP. The Review Committee monitored and provided input to the TDP update process. Atkins worked with TPO staff to identify potential members of the Review Committee, which included invitations to sixteen representatives. The Committee that attended reviewed each deliverable (as specified in the following tasks) and provided input on development of the public participation process. Multiple coordination meetings with the TPO staff and the Review Committee were held, although continuous coordination between Atkins, the TPO staff, and the Review Committee continued throughout the process of the TDP study and report preparation. The Review Committee was made up of the following individuals: 1. Angela Bradley, Bay County Transit Systems Administrator 2. Lamar Hobbs, Bay County Transit Operations Coordinator 3. Nancy Lohr, General Manager, Bay Town Trolley / Bay Area Transportation 4. Gene Keen, Operations Manager, Bay Town Trolley 5. Howard Vanselow, Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Board, or TD representative 6. John Alaghemand, Director, Panama City Beach Front Beach Road CRA 7. Keith Bryant, Bay County Traffic Engineering 8. Michael Fuller, City Manager, City of Callaway 9. Mike Lane, Planning Services Director, City of Panama City 10. Joel Schubert, City Manager, City of Lynn Haven, or designee 11. Amanda Richard, City Planner, City of Lynn Haven 12. Cynthia McCauley, Executive Director, Chautauqua Learn & Serve Charter School 13. Kathy Rudd, FDOT District 3 Transit Specialist 14. Kelly Robertson, Principal, BowStern Marketing Communications 15. Rob Mahan, Senior Planner Public Transportation, West Florida Regional Planning Council 16. Kim Bodine, Director, Region 4 Workforce Board These individuals were invited to coordination meetings, however, not all were in attendance and some attended via phone. Rev. August 2,

10 1.2 Task 2.Compile Base Data Demographic data within Bay County, including general growth trends and population density were obtained and compiled to give an accurate current picture of the local market. Primary data sources include the U.S. Census Bureau as well as the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida, supplemented by local data provided by Bay County. Data compiled in tabular and mapped form includes: Population by age and income Population, housing, and employment density Auto ownership Transportation disadvantaged population Summary GIS maps included throughout the report and in the Map Appendix depict this information in map form. 1.3 Task 3. Public Involvement Process The public involvement process for this study included holding stakeholder meetings, conducting an onboard survey of riders, administering a survey of bus operators and staff, conducting a small-sample household telephone survey, and meeting with key local officials and community leaders. The public involvement process is consistent with the Bay County TPO Public Participation Manual, dated December 2012, The Title VI Non-Discrimination Policy and Plan (Including Limited English Proficiency (LEP)) Manual, revised and adopted December 2014, the adopted public participation program policy of the Bay County TPO, and public participation processes required by Rule 14-73, F.A.C. More details on these efforts are presented below: A. Meetings with the Review Committee included stakeholder groups including citizens who use the BTT system for fixed-route, deviated fixed-route, and paratransit services. Other stakeholder group meetings, such as with key local officials and community leaders, were also held. Four Review Committee meetings with stakeholders were held and continuous coordination was provided during the process of developing the TCP. Two formal public meetings were held to obtain public input. B. An onboard face to face survey was conducted to obtain valid results from at least 100 riders, to determine their existing awareness of, opinions of, and needs for public transportation services, including all potential sources of funding. Because the market research sub-consultant, BowStern had previously researched through social media, local interest in BTT services and performance, they were tasked with assisting with the development of the onboard survey and performing the surveys. Rev. August 2,

11 C. The on-board survey was administered to customers riding the BTT fixed route system to assist in identifying transit needs, desires, issues, and concerns. The survey covered all routes, and attempted to get a broad-based minimum of 100 responses across the entire system. The purpose of the survey was to collect detailed information about customer demographic characteristics and travel activity, and to solicit input from customers on their level of satisfaction with various aspects of the BTT service. D. Atkins, BowStern developed and implemented the surveys in coordination with TPO staff and the Review Committee. E. Current First Transit bus managers and operators also were surveyed regarding their perception of needs, issues, and concerns with the system. F. An origin-destination analysis of a sampling of routes was conducted to determine travel patterns and peak travel times. G. In addition, the Public Involvement Process implemented the Four Step Analysis to determine the necessary steps that should be taken to provide access to the transit system by Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals. All issues, comments, and concerns ascertained through the Public Involvement Process have been documented. Technical Memorandum 1 includes the demographic, economic, and transportation data identified in Task 1 in Section 2 of the report, with the information obtained from the public in Task 2 in Section 3 of the report. This information was provided to the Review Committee for review, discussion, and comment. 1.4 Task 4. Identify Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives Atkins, with guidance from TPO staff, First Transit staff, and the Review Committee, identified an overall vision and mission for transit services in Bay County. Based on that vision, goals and objectives were then developed. Atkins reviewed comprehensive plans for the cities of Panama City, Panama City Beach, Lynn Haven, Callaway, Springfield, Parker, and Bay County, previous transit plans, and the transportation disadvantaged service plan to identify community goals and objectives related to transit and mobility. Policies, initiatives, or actions that implement the objectives were also identified. Technical Memorandum 2 includes the draft mission/vision statements, goals, and objectives, and implementing policies, initiatives, or actions. This information was presented to the Review Committee for review, discussion, and comment. 1.5 Task 5. Existing Services and Performance Evaluation With assistance from the TPO staff, First Transit staff, and the Review Committee, Atkins compiled an inventory of all existing public and private transportation services operating in Bay County. In addition, planned services were identified. Using this inventory, an analysis of existing transit services was conducted and included in this report. Rev. August 2,

12 A performance review was conducted, looking at system performance, effectiveness, and efficiency. The measures and indicators identified in the current TDP were updated and evaluated. Data from the National Transit Database (NTD) were employed. Since the NTD provides a consistent reporting format over a period of years, NTD reports are valuable because performance indicators can be measured over time (trend analysis), and between transit systems (peer review). Utilizing BTT s NTD reports, Atkins completed a fixed route trend analysis to track the performance of the BTT over the past several years. Comparisons were also made with other benchmark and peer communities in Florida and the southeast. Because there are some concerns about inconsistent reporting of transit data in the NTD in the last several years, the activities in this Task were tightly coordinated with the TPO staff. 1.6 Task 6. Situation Appraisal Changing demographics and economic conditions can have significant effects on the existing and potential transit market. Atkins analyzed the effect various local, regional, and state plans and policies have on transit services in Bay County. An evaluation of socioeconomic trends in the community was conducted, along with projected future trends. Finally, technological innovations, including electronic fare payment, automatic vehicle locator, electronic traveler information, transit signal priority, automatic passenger counters, and others, were researched and documented. Technical Memorandum 3 summarized the existing services, performance review, and situation appraisal, including the comparisons with benchmark and peer communities. This information was provided to the Review Committee for review, discussion, and comment. 1.7 Task 7. Estimate Baseline Future Demand and Assess Needs The first step in assessing future demand and needs is to develop no-build ridership estimates for the ten-year period of the TDP, assuming existing service levels were maintained. Atkins conducted a GIS analysis to evaluate the provision of transit services in Bay County by geographic area. This analysis identified those areas not served by transit, as well as areas that are under-served, based on demographic data such as population density, income, age, and automobile ownership. Using this information, recommendations on expansions and/or improvements to the transit system were made. The no-build ridership estimates, as well as the GIS data, will serve as a basis for understanding the anticipated traveler response to implementation of a specific service plan. Additionally, these estimates will serve as a measure of the future role of transit in the community and provide a basis for estimating fare revenue expectations and capital operating needs for the transit agency. Specific activities in this task include: A. Information was gathered for the ridership forecasting process. This data included demographic data, existing services performance and feedback from passengers, agency employees and other stakeholders. Rev. August 2,

13 B. Current and historic ridership data was gathered and a trend analysis was performed. C. Potential ridership was forecasted based on a peer group comparison. This comparison compared the current per capita ridership and service levels in Bay County with its peer systems. D. Ridership demand elasticity based on fare and service changes were examined and summarized. E. An examination of ridership demand, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Transportation Disadvantaged program requirements were also conducted. 1.8 Task 8. Development and Analysis of Alternatives Based on the needs assessment and ridership estimates, recommendations for service changes have been developed. Information collected from the Review Committee and public as part of Task 3 were taken into account along with the goals and objectives developed in Task 4. Atkins, with assistance from County TPO staff, and in coordination with First Transit, developed alternatives, including options for maintaining the existing system, expanding the route system, and modifying existing routes. Other alternatives reviewed included restructuring the system to attract choice riders, relocating transit stops or transfer points, providing special event services, running express bus service, expansion of park & ride facilities, and forming local partnerships with public and private entities. General costs for the alternatives were estimated; however, revenue limitations were not considered in this task. Technical Memorandum 4 includes ridership projections, needs assessment information, and recommended service options. These projections, the assessments, and the recommendations were provided to the Review Committee for review and comment. 1.9 Task 9. Evaluation of Potential Funding Sources Once transit needs were identified anticipated funding over the 10-year plan period was identified and evaluated. Using FDOT s Financial Plan Tool, Atkins capital and operating costs for the recommended transit services were identified. The current fare box recovery ratio was also calculated and an assessment of prior year fares and changes was performed. Proposed fare box changes were identified, and strategies to address potential enhancements to productivity and performance that will increase the fare box recovery ratio were also identified. Available and potential revenues were calculated, including identification of local, state, and federal funding sources. Finally, a review of any new transit funding initiatives was performed. The Financial Planning Tool was used to match costs with revenues on a yearly basis over the life of the TDP. Shortfalls between costs and revenues was identified, and possible means to rectify the difference identified. Rev. August 2,

14 1.10 Task 10. Ten-Year Implementation Program Using the information compiled in the previous tasks, Atkins developed a transit implementation program. The program is divided into two 5-year timeframes, with the second part being more visionary and less detailed than the first five years. The implementation program is policy-oriented, and will integrate with other long-range planning efforts such as local comprehensive plans and the Bay County TPO Long Range Transportation Plan. The program is not a service plan with detailed operational analysis and route-specific changes, but will guide future decision on service plan modifications to be reviewed and considered in an update to the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). The following elements are included in the program: A. Operation Plan Elements a. List of recommended actions b. Maps showing service areas and types of new or modified service c. Phasing schedule that ranks the recommended actions B. Management Plan Elements a. Organizational/management chart of the transit agency b. Marketing plan with options for service improvements and changes c. Monitoring program to track performance d. Policies that address coordination with other government plans C. Financial Plan Elements a. Identification of operating and capital expenditures b. Identification of revenue sources for operating and capital projects c. List of unfunded projects 1.11 Documentation Atkins compiled the four technical memorandums and the implementation program into the TDP document. The document provides the results of the study in a format consistent with the requirements of FDOT and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The final compiled document, after approval and adoption, will be provided to the WFRPC for posting on the WFRPC TPO Transportation documents library. Rev. August 2,

15 2.0 Base Data and Mapping 2.1 Demographic Conditions Bay County is located in the Florida Panhandle and is bordered by Washington and Jackson Counties to the North, Calhoun and Gulf Counties to the East, Walton County to the West, and the Gulf of Mexico to the South. Bay County encompasses 481,920 acres, or 753 square miles; it is approximately 46 miles at its widest and 44 miles at its longest point. Bay County has seven incorporated municipalities, Callaway, Lynn Haven, Mexico Beach, Panama City, Panama City Beach, Parker, and Springfield, and six Censusdesignated places (CDP), Cedar Grove, Laguna Beach, Lower Grand Lagoon, Pretty Bayou, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), and Upper Grand Lagoon. Approximately 75% of the population in Bay County resides in these incorporated municipalities or CDPs. 2.2 Data Sources This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of Bay County. The information and data presented reflect selected fields from the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is an ongoing survey that presents current information about demographic conditions, and the 5-year estimates provide data at the block group level. Block groups are geographic entities made up of Census blocks and generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people, with an optimum size of 1,500 people. Throughout this report, data is mapped to the block group level, using data designed for use within the Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process (ETDM). The mapping and analysis of this ACS data allows for an understanding of the demographic characteristics of Bay County and a visual depiction of those areas most attracted to using transit. 2.3 Population According to the U.S. Census, the total population for Bay County was 168,852 in By 2013 this estimate increased by just over 1% to 170,704. The population growth of Florida as a whole slightly outpaced Bay County by 0.5%, and is detailed in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Population Growth Rates in Bay County and Florida, Area 2013 Population 2010 Population % Change Bay County 170, , % Florida 19,091,156 18,801, % Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table B01003 Total Population Source: 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P1 - Total Population As previously stated, there are seven incorporated municipalities and six Census-designated places (CDP) in Bay County. Panama City has the largest population of 36,205, followed by Lynn Haven with a Rev. August 2,

16 population of 18,743, and Callaway and Upper Grand Lagoon with populations over 14,000. Figures illustrate the 2013 total population by Census block group and Table 2.2 details the population totals as well as the percentage change from 2010 for municipalities and CDPs. From 2010 to 2013, Mexico Beach experienced he most significant increase in population of 30% and Lower Grand Lagoon and Tyndall AFB saw the second largest increases of approximately 14%. Populations in the other municipalities and CDPs remained fairly constant, with the exception of Laguna Beach and Pretty Bayou, which experienced a decrease in population of 15% and 11%, respectively. Table 2.2 Population Growth Rates for Incorporated Municipalities and Census Designated Places in Bay County, City or Place 2013 Population 2010 Population Percent Change Callaway city 14,491 14, % Cedar Grove CDP 3,430 3, % Laguna Beach CDP 3,306 3, % Lower Grand Lagoon CDP 4,438 3, % Lynn Haven (city) 18,743 18, % Mexico Beach (city) 1,399 1, % Panama City (city) 36,205 36, % Panama City Beach city 11,750 12, % Parker city 4,381 4, % Pretty Bayou CDP 2,849 3, % Springfield (city) 8,991 8, % Tyndall AFB CDP 3,425 2, % Upper Grand Lagoon CDP 14,272 13, % Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table B01003 Total Population Source: 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P1 - Total Population Rev. August 2,

17 Figure 2.1 Total Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County Figure 2.2 Total Population by Census Block Group, Bay County East Rev. August 2,

18 Figure 2.3 Total Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

19 Additionally, Figures depict the population per acre by Census block group. These maps indicate that the municipalities and CDPs, with the exception of Tyndall AFB and Mexico Beach, have the highest levels of population density The concentration of dark red blocks, indicating high population density, are solely located in these areas, with surrounding areas having a low population density of less than 0.75 people per acre. Figure 2.4 Population per Acre, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

20 Figure 2.5 Population per Acre, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.6 Population per Acre, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

21 2.4 Minority Population Figures depict the distribution of Bay County s minority population. Approximately 21% of Bay County s population is considered a minority and is predominately concentrated in the Census blocks of Tyndall AFB, Lynn Haven, and in the eastern portion of the County. The minority population in Bay County is significantly less than the State-wide minority population of 43%, and is detailed in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Minority and Non-Minority Population in Bay County and Florida, 2013 Area Minority Population % of Total Population Non-Minority Population % of Total Population Bay County 36, % 134, % Florida 8,164, % 10,926, % Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table DP05 ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates Figure 2.7 Minority Population by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

22 Figure 2.8 Minority Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.9 Minority Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

23 2.5 Age Distribution The age distribution of Bay County is similar to the age distribution of Florida as a whole and is detailed in Table 2.4. The median age of residents in Bay County is 39.7, which is slightly below Florida s median age of The majority of the County has a median age between 36 and 43. However notable exceptions are Tyndall AFB, which has a median age of 21.1, and Mexico Beach, Laguna Beach, and Pretty Bayou, which have median ages above 50. Figures depicts the median age by Census block group and illustrate these trends. Table 2.4 Age Distribution in Bay County and Florida, 2013 Age Area Under Bay County 41,443 11,778 44,150 47,701 25,632 % of Total Population 24.3% 6.9% 25.9% 28.0% 15.0% Florida 4,499,459 1,274,194 4,771,440 5,146,138 3,399,925 % of Total Population 23.5% 6.7% 25.0% 26.9% 17.9% Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table DP05 ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates Figure 2.10 Median Age for Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

24 Figure 2.11 Median Age for Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.12 Median Age for Population, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

25 The age of a population is an important factor in planning for public transit. The transit-dependent population cohort, considered to be persons under 18 years of age and persons 65 years and older, represents 36.8% of the population in Bay County. This population is more likely to use public transit because those under the age of 18 either cannot legally operate a motor vehicle or typically do not have access to an automobile. Additionally, the elderly population often does not have adequate access to automobiles and are no longer able to drive due to limitations and impairments from aging. Approximately 22% of the Bay County population is under the age of 18. The highest concentrations of the population age 5 to 17 are found in Panama City, Lynn Haven, Callaway, and Tyndall AFB, and are depicted by the dark purple blocks in Figure Figure 2.13 Population Age 5 17, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

26 Figure 2.14 Population Age 5 17, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.15 Population Age 5 17, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

27 Persons over age 65 are also found in high numbers in Panama City, Lynn Haven, Callaway, and Upper Grand Lagoon. This age cohort makes up 15% of Bay County s population, which is 2.8% lower than the percentage of this cohort in the State of Florida. Additionally, there are a notably low number of persons over the age of 65 in Tyndall AFB. Maps illustrating these trends are depicted in Figures Figure 2.16 Population Age 65 and Older, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

28 Figure 2.17 Population Age 65 and Older, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.18 Population Age 65 and Older, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

29 2.6 Disability Status In Bay County, the population ages with a disability is highest in Panama City, Lynn Haven, Upper Grand Lagoon, and Callaway. This disabled population is also notably low in Tyndall AFB, Pretty Bayou, and Mexico Beach. Figures show the disabled population distribution by Census block. Additionally, Figures detail the density (per acre) of the disabled population ages in Bay County. These maps reflect the trends previously noted, as concentration of dark green blocks, indicating high density are more clearly located in these areas. Figure 2.19 Total Population Ages with a Disability, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

30 Figure 2.20 Total Population Ages with a Disability, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.21 Total Population Ages with a Disability, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

31 Figure 2.22 Density (per acre) of Population Ages with a Disability, by Census Block Group, Bay County Figure 2.23 Density (per acre) of Population Ages with a Disability, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Rev. August 2,

32 Figure 2.24 Density (per acre) of Population Ages with a Disability, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

33 2.7 Households Figures display the 2013 total number of households by Census blocks in Bay County. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence and a housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. The maps show that there are large numbers of households in Panama City, Panama City Beach, Upper Grand Lagoon, Lynn Haven, and the western unincorporated area of the County. Figure 2.25 Total Households, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

34 Figure 2.26 Total Households, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.27 Total Households, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

35 Figures show that similar spatial trends occur in regards to average household size. Bay County has an average household size of 2.48, which is slightly lower than the State-wide average of The majority of municipalities and CDPs have an average household size near the Bay County average, with the exception of Laguna Beach and Lower Grand Lagoon with average household sizes below 2.00 and Tyndall AFB with an average household size of Figure 2.28 Average Household Size, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

36 Figure 2.29 Average Household Size, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.30 Average Household Size, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

37 2.8 Income The median household income for Bay County, of $47,461, is slightly higher than the State median household income of $46,956. Median household income is an important variable to identify geographic areas where incomes are not sufficient to support the cost of personal automobiles and therefore will have a higher reliance on transit. Figures illustrate the median household incomes in Bay County. Most notably, on average, Panama City Beach, Mexico Beach, Upper Grand Lagoon, Pretty Bayou, and Lynn Haven all have a median income above $50,000; while Cedar Grove, Panama City, and Springfield have an average median income below $40,000. Figure 2.31 Median Household Income, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

38 Figure 2.32 Median Household Income, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.33 Median Household Income, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

39 As previously discussed, households with incomes below the poverty line are often heavily reliant on public transportation due to the annual cost of a vehicles and insurance and fuel costs. The highest concentrations of households with incomes below the poverty level are depicted in Figures , and occur in Panama City, Lynn Haven, Callaway, and Upper Grand Lagoon. However Bay County has a slightly lower percentage of households with income below the poverty level relative to the rest of the State of Florida, as depicted in Table 2.5 and Table 2.6. Figure 2.34 Households with Income Below the Poverty Level, by Census Block Group, Bay County Rev. August 2,

40 Figure 2.35 Households with Income Below the Poverty Level, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Figure 2.36 Households with Income Below the Poverty Level, by Census Block Group, Bay County West Rev. August 2,

41 Table 2.5 Household Income Distribution in Bay County and Florida, 2013 Income Area Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 More than $100,000 Bay County 4,540 3,555 8,239 7,811 11,285 14,652 7,420 10,059 % of Total Population 6.70% 5.30% 12.20% 11.60% 16.70% 21.70% 11.00% 14.90% Florida 558, , , ,131 1,090,027 1,305, ,247 1,283,963 % of Total 7.80% 5.70% 12.20% 11.80% 15.20% 18.20% 11.10% 17.90% Population Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Table 2.6 Percentage of Families and People Whose Income in the Past 12 Months is Below the Poverty Level in Bay County and Florida, 2013 Area All Families All People Bay County 11.0% 14.7% Florida 11.9% 16.36% Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics 2.9 Household Vehicle Availability Table 2.7 details the number of vehicles available by household in Bay County and Florida, and shows that Bay County has a higher proportion of vehicle ownership than the State as a whole. Household vehicle availability is an important factor in determining public transit needs. Households with no vehicles available are considered transit dependent, as they rely heavily upon transit to meet their transportation needs. As depicted in Figures the highest concentration of occupied housing units with no vehicles available is found in Panama City, Lynn Haven, and Springfield. Table 2.7 Occupied Housing Units Vehicle Availability in Bay County and Florida, 2013 Number of Vehicles Available Area No Vehicles 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicles 3 or More Vehicles Bay County 3,840 23,732 28,578 11,411 % of Total Households 5.7% 35.1% 42.3% 16.9% Florida 502,000 2,967,753 2,716, ,641 % of Total Households 7.0% 41.5% 37.9% 13.6% Source: American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, Table DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics Rev. August 2,

42 Figure 2.37 Occupied Housing Units with No Vehicles Available, by Census Block Group, Bay County Figure 2.38 Occupied Housing Units with no Vehicles Available, by Census Block Group, Bay County East Rev. August 2,

43 Figure 2.39 Occupied Housing Units with No Vehicles Available, by Census Block Group, Bay County West 2.10 Transit Propensity Transit users are typically classified into two distinct groups: captive riders (also known as transit dependent riders) and choice riders. According to the AASHTO Glossary, captive riders are defined as persons who do not have immediate access to private transportation or who otherwise must use public transportation in order to travel. Choice riders are transit users who have access to a vehicle yet choose to use transit. The overwhelming majority of riders of the Bay Town Trolley system are transit dependent riders. A transit propensity assessment was performed to determine the study area s potential need for transit. Traditionally, research has shown that certain socioeconomic characteristics help to determine potential markets for transit dependent riders. Socioeconomic characteristics that help to identify populations that face transportation and private vehicle access difficulties include low income individuals, individuals under the age of 17 and over age 65, and disabled individuals. For the purposes of this study, spatial analysis was used to identify areas that exhibited the following socioeconomic characteristics: Population density Age (17 or younger and 65 or older) Households below the poverty line Access to a vehicle Disabled individuals Rev. August 2,

44 This socioeconomic data used in this section is derived primarily from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2010 US Census at the block group level. Each characteristic was scored and then an overall composite transit propensity score was assigned to each Census block group. The scores when then classified into high, medium, and low transit propensity categories. Figure 2.40 illustrates the transit propensity assessment performed for Bay County. Figure 2.40 Transit Propensity Assessment 2.11 Transit Stop Walk Accessibility A walkshed analysis was performed to determine what areas within Bay County are sufficiently served by transit. Buffers of 0.25 mile and 0.5 mile were created around all Bay Town Trolley system stops. These buffers are generally considered the walking distances the average person will walk to reach a transit stop. The walksheds are calculated using roadways regardless of whether or not sidewalks are present on the roadway. Figure 2.41 illustrates the transit stop walk accessibility for the current Bay Town Trolley system. Rev. August 2,

45 Figure 2.41 Transit Stop Walk Accessibility Rev. August 2,

46 3.0 Public Involvement and Participation A public involvement process was developed to provide opportunities for the public to have full and open access in the development of the Bay County Transit Development Plan. Feedback from the public is used to influence public transportation decision-making and to promote the enhancement of public transit services. In accordance with the Bay County TPO s overall public involvement mission and processes, a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created, submitted, and approved by the FDOT. The purpose of the PIP is to utilize effective community participation to assist and guide the planning of transportation facilities and services that are integrated and efficient. A copy of the PIP is attached in the Appendix. The public involvement process was multipronged. The process included stakeholder review committee meetings, conducting an on-board survey of riders, conducting an online survey of both users and nonusers, administering a survey of bus operators and staff, holding public workshops, and meeting with key local officials and community leaders. This section summarizes the public involvement efforts that have been undertaken as part of the TDP major update. 3.1 Review Committee Meetings A Stakeholder Review Committee consisting of representatives of jurisdictions and organizations with an interest in transportation services was established. The Stakeholder Review Committee conducted stakeholder meetings in one-on-one and/or group settings. These meetings took place throughout the duration of the TDP update process and began with a project kickoff meeting held at the offices of Atkins on May 28, Members of the Stakeholder Review Committee attended and included members from the following groups/organizations: Bay County Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Bay County Transit Systems Administrator Bay County Transit Operations Coordinator Bay Area Transportation First Transit Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Board Panama City Beach Front Beach Road CRA Bay County Traffic Engineering City of Callaway City of Panama City City of Lynn Haven FDOT District 3 Transit Coordinator West Florida Regional Planning Council Chautauqua Learn and Serve CareerSource Gulf Coast (area regional workforce board) Rev. August 16,

47 3.1.1 Review Committee Kickoff Meeting The agenda and discussion items for the project kickoff meeting held on May 28, 2015, is included here. Discussions included introductions of the newly selected operator, First Transit, an overview of the specific requirements for a Transit Development Plan included in Chapter 14-73, FAC, the project data gathering and public participation methodologies, and other unique aspects of the project scope. Kickoff Meeting Agenda 1. Review Committee Introductions 2. What is a Transit Development Plan? 3. What are the requirements? a. Chapter FAC b. FDOT Review c. TPO Approval 4. Review Committee Members a. Required i. FDOT ii. Regional Workforce Board iii. TPO (staff) iv. Manager/Operator 5. Schedule a. Submittal to FDOT by September 1, 2016 b. Approved by FDOT by December 31, Required Meetings a. 4 Review Committee Meetings i. Each meeting at a Technical Memorandum milestone 1. TM 1: Data and Public Process Review 2. TM 2: Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives 3. TM 3: Existing Operating Conditions and Trend Analysis 4. TM 4: Estimate of Future Demand and Evaluation of Alternatives ii. Review by Committee prior to the meeting b. 2 Public Workshops c. Meeting with FDOT, WFRPC, TPO Staff d. TPO Adoption Meeting 7. Scope of Services a. Based on combination of Chapter 14-73, FAC and FDOT TDP Guidance b. Scope Adjustments 8. Data Needed a. Census Data/Demographics b. National Transit Database (NTD) c. Manager Records d. Operator Records e. Current Operations of the System f. GIS and Mapping 9. Questions 10. Adjourn Rev. August 16,

48 3.2 On-Board Rider Survey An on-board rider survey was administered to a total of 278 riders of the Bay Town Trolley. The purpose of this survey was to identify transit needs, desires, issues and concerns of the riders. The survey collected travel information about the Bay Town Trolley riders in order to assess their level of satisfaction with aspects of the Bay Town Trolley Service as well as recommended improvements to the service. Survey results regarding rider characteristics, trip characteristics, rider satisfaction and potential improvements to the Bay Town Trolley are summarized in this section Rider Characteristics This section summarizes rider characteristics such as demographic information and other general information as derived from questions from the on-board rider survey. Demographic information covered include rider age, gender, and ethnic heritage. General information covered in this section includes rider employment status, frequency of bus use, and the reasons why the riders choose the bus for travel. Rider Age Question 18 polled the age of the riders. The most frequent age group of the respondents was between the ages of 35 and 49 (32%). The second most frequent age group was (29%). The two least common age groups where 65 or older (5%) and (3%). The results are shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 Rider Age or more 3% 5% 13% 18% 29% 32% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Rider Gender Question 19 on the survey asked the respondents to identify their gender. The responses are displayed in Figure 3.2. The majority of the respondents identified as Female (64%), while 36% of the respondents identified as Male. Rev. August 16,

49 Figure 3.1. Rider Gender Ethnic Heritage Question 20 asked the respondents to identify their ethnic heritage. The most frequently selected ethnic heritage of the respondents was White (63%); the second most frequent was Black/African American (26%), while 3% of the riders identified as Hispanic and the remaining respondents selected Asian, Native American, or Other as their ethnic heritage. The results are shown in Figure 3.3. Figure 2.3. Ethnic Heritage Employment Status Question 22 asked the respondents about their employment status. The most frequent employment status selected was Full-Time Employment (43%), while the remaining employment statuses were Part- Rev. August 16,

50 Time (15%) and Other (15%). Approximately 5% of the respondents identified as Retired, and 2% selected Retired Military. The results are displayed in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4. Rider Employment Status Frequency of Bus Use Question 11 asked the respondents how often they ride the bus. The most frequent response was Every Weekday (40%). The second most frequent response was 4 Days a Week (19%). The least frequent response was About 1 Day a Week (5%). Figure 3.5 illustrates the results. Figure 3.3. Frequency of Bus Use About 1 Day/Week Less Than Once/Month Other About Once or Twice/Month 2 or 3 Days/Week 4 days/week Every Weekday 5% 6% 6% 8% 17% 19% 40% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Rev. August 16,

51 Reason to Ride Bus Question 27 asked the riders to identify the most important reason they ride the bus. The highest response selected was Car is Not Available (37%). The second highest response selected was I Don t Drive (30%). The responses are displayed below in Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6. Frequency of Bus Use Traffic is too bad Bus is more convenient Bus is cheaper I have a disability Other I don't drive Car is not available 1% 3% 6% 8% 15% 30% 37% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Trip Characteristics This section describes trip characteristics such as trip origination and destination, transit stop access, and bus transfers as identified by the riders in the on-board survey. Trip Origination Question 1 asked the respondents to identify the type of place they were coming from to start their trip. The results are shown below in Figure 3.6. The majority of the respondents (73%) identified that their trips originated from their home. The second highest trip origin indicated by the respondents was work. Figure 3.4. Trip Origination Social/Religious/Personal Medical School/College Shopping Other Rode Bicycle Walked 1% 2% 2% 4% 8% 11% 73% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% Rev. August 16,

52 Trip Destination Question 6 requested for the respondents to identify their trip destination. Figure 3.7 below displays the results. The most frequent trip destination was to Work/Work Related (27%). The second most frequent trip destination was to Home (22%). Figure 3.5. Trip Destination School/College 5% Social/Religious/Personal 7% Medical 10% Other 13% Shopping 16% Home 22% Work/Work Related 27% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Transit Stop Access Question 3 asked the respondents to identify how they traveled to the bus stop. The most frequent response (77%) was Walked. The second most frequent response was Dropped Off By Someone (6%) or Other (6%). The results are shown below in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.6. Transit Stop Access Drove Car Rode Bicycle House at Bus Stop Other Dropped Off by Someone Walked 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 77% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% Bus Transfers Question 5 asked the riders, Will you transfer to another bus on this trip? As displayed below in Figure 3.9, slightly less than half of the riders would require a transfer for their trip (46%), and slightly more than half of the riders would not (54%). Rev. August 16,

53 Figure 3.7. Bus Transfers Rider Satisfaction The purpose of Question 30 of the survey was to gauge rider satisfaction of the Bay Town Trolley. As demonstrated by the rider satisfaction survey, the majority of the riders indicated that they are generally satisfied with the existing Bay Town Trolley services. This section summarizes the overall satisfaction results with the Bay Town Trolley, the satisfaction with the value of the bus fare, and rider satisfaction with the designated number of bus stops along the route. Overall Satisfaction with Bay Town Trolley As depicted in Figure 3.10, approximately 78% of the respondents selected that they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their overall experience with the Bay Town Trolley. Conversely, approximately 6% of the respondents indicated that they were somewhat unsatisfied or unsatisfied with their overall experience. Approximately 16% of the respondents remained neutral on this question. Figure 3.8. Overall Satisfaction with Bay Town Trolley Unsatisfied Somewhat Unsatisfied 1% 5% Neutral 16% Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied 38% 40% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Rev. August 16,

54 Value of Bus Fare The purpose of the value of bus fare question was to evaluate the level of satisfaction riders have with the service received for the cost paid. As depicted in Figure 3.11 below, approximately 69% of the respondents are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the current value of the bus fare. Approximately 12% of the respondents were either unsatisfied or somewhat unsatisfied with the value of bus fare, and approximately 16% of the respondents remained neutral. Figure 3.9. Satisfaction with the Value of Bus Fare Unsatisfied Somewhat Unsatisfied 4% 8% Neutral 19% Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied 34% 35% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Number of Designated Stops along the Route The riders were also surveyed on their satisfaction with the number of designated stops along the bus route. As shown in Figure 3.12, approximately 55% of the respondents indicated that they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the number of designated stops along the route. Approximately 17% of the respondents indicated that they were either unsatisfied or somewhat unsatisfied, and 29% of the respondents responded neutral to this question. Figure Rider Satisfaction with the Number of Designated Stops along the Route Unsatisfied 6% Somewhat Unsatisfied 11% Neutral Somewhat Satisfied 29% 29% Very Satisfied 26% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Rev. August 16,

55 3.2.4 Improvements to the Bay Town Trolley Service Questions 29, 14, and 13 of the on-board rider survey requested suggestions from the riders to improve the Bay Town Trolley Service. Question 29 requested specific rider suggestions to improve the trolley service, Question 13 polled the most needed (or highest priority) improvements for the trolley, and Question 14 detailed specific areas of town riders would like to see service expanded. Overall, this section summarizes rider responses regarding potential improvements based on identification of improvements, priority of improvements, and locations of improvements to the Bay Town Trolley service. The most popular suggestions for improvements to the trolley service were the extension of weekend services and the extension of evening service hours. Question 29: Rider Suggestions to Improve Bay Town Trolley Service This section provides a summary of the rider suggestions.. As depicted below in Table 3.1, the most frequent suggestion was to extend Saturday services and the addition of Sunday Services (21%). Furthermore, approximately 38% of the respondents either suggested more stops or routes for the bus (13%, particularly to Lynn Haven or more stops along the beach), extended hours for the bus service (14%), or more frequency of service (11%, many specifically requesting half hour frequency instead of the current one hour frequency). Some other popular suggestions included more benches, shelters, and/or lights at bus stops (6%), a wider range of service (6%), for the buses to run more on time (6%), and to improve communication between the drivers and riders (5%). Some less frequent suggestions included reduced bus fare (4%), increased information availability (4%), and larger buses (3%). Table 3.1. Suggestions to Improve the Bay Town Trolley Service Suggestion Frequency % Extended Saturday Service/Add Sunday Service 33 21% Extended Hours 22 14% More Stops/Routes (Lynn Haven, Beach etc.) 21 13% More Frequency (1 hour to 1/2 hour) 18 11% Benches/Shelters/Lights at More Stops 10 6% Wider Range of Service 10 6% Run on Time 10 6% Improved Communication between Drivers and Riders/Driver Attitude 8 5% Reduced Fare 7 4% Increased Information Availability 7 4% Larger Buses 4 3% Other 10 7% Total % Question 13: Which Improvements to the Bay Town Trolley Service are most needed? Question 13 asked the riders to select the improvements to the Bay Town Trolley Service which they think are most needed. The riders were instructed to select their top three improvements. The responses are summarized in Figure 3.13 below. The two improvements with the most frequent responses are for Later Rev. August 16,

56 Evening Service (58%) and for Extended Weekend Service (57%). The other popular improvements were for More Frequent Service (44%), and for More Shelters (34%). Earlier Morning Service (12%) was not ranked as high of a priority as Later Evening Service. More Comfortable Buses (6%) and an Express Service (11%) were ranked as the two lowest priority improvements. Figure Which Improvements to the Bay Town Trolley Service are Most Needed? Question 14: Service Expansion Locations Question 14 of the rider survey asked the riders to identify areas of town they would like to see expansion of service prioritized. The top eleven most frequent responses are summarized in Table 3.2 below. The three most frequently mentioned service expansion locations were for the Beach (14%), Callaway (12%) Rev. August 16,

57 and Lynn Haven (9%). There were also several requests to expand service west bound on Thomas Drive (8%), and to expand services to 23 rd Street in order to provide access to the medical offices. Table 3.2. Service Expansion Locations Location Responses % Beach 20 14% Callaway 16 12% Lynn Haven 12 9% Thomas Drive 11 8% 23rd Street (Medical Offices) 11 8% Back Beach Road 8 6% Southport 7 5% Springfield 6 4% 390 Corridor 6 4% 11th Street 6 4% Highway % Other 31 22% Total % On-Board Rider Survey Conclusions Results of the on-board rider survey are used as insight on various aspects of the Bay Town Trolley s operations and services directly from the users of the service. This information will help determine how the service can improve and/or ensure quality of service. The following conclusions can be observed from the on-board survey results: Trolley riders are overall satisfied with the Bay Town Trolley service. Approximately 78% of the respondents indicated that they were either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the overall service of the trolley. Only 6% of the riders identified as unsatisfied or somewhat unsatisfied with the service. The top suggestions for improvement of services were to extend Saturday hours, for the trolley to operate on Sundays, to extend evening hours of the trolley, and to increase the frequency from one hour to one-half hour. The riders identified that extended weekend service and extended nighttime hours were the two most needed improvements. The largest share of Bay Town Trolley s trips are home-to-work/work-to-home trips. Approximately 84% of the riders identified their trip origin was home or work, and approximately 49% responded that their destination was either home or work. Trolley riders are generally regular users of the service. Approximately 59% of the respondents ride the trolley at least four days per week. The majority of the riders (61%) are between the ages of 35 and 64. Only 5% of the respondents surveyed were 65 and older. The majority of the riders (67%) choose to ride transit because either a car is not available to them or they do not drive. Rev. August 16,

58 3.3 Community Online Survey An online survey was developed to target both users and non-users of the transit service in the community. The survey was designed to give the community residents a direct opportunity to contribute input into various components of the TDP. In total, 271 responses were received from the online survey. This section provides a summary of the online survey responses Respondent Characteristics and Public Transportation Use This section provides a summary of the characteristics of the respondents and their public transportation use of the community online survey. The respondent characteristics and public transportation use topics covered are the respondent s county of residence, their use of public transportation, which public transportation services they use and how frequently they use them, and reasons for no longer riding public transportation. County of Residence Question 1 of the survey asked if the respondent was a full-time resident of Bay County. The majority (91%) of the respondents indicated that they were full-time residents, while 9% of the respondents indicated that they were not full-time residents. Figure 3.14 depicts the results. Figure Are you a full-time resident of Bay County? Use of Public Transportation Question 6 of the community online survey asked the respondents if they had ever used public transportation in Bay County. As indicated in Figure 3.15, approximately 25% of the survey participants responded that they have used public transportation in Bay County, and 75% of the participants identified as non-users. Rev. August 16,

59 Figure Have you ever used public transportation in Bay County? Bay County Transportation Services Used Question 7 of the survey asked the respondents to identify which transportation services they have used in Bay County. The majority of the respondents (75%) indicated that they used the Bay Town Trolley, while 14% of the respondents indicated that they used door-to-door/paratransit/demand response (Bay Area Transportation), and 11% of the respondents selected Other. Figure 3.16 displays the results of Question 7. Figure Bay County Transportation Services Used Public Transportation Use Frequency Question 8 of the survey asked how often the users of public transportation in Bay County use the service. The most frequent response was that they do not ride anymore (49%). The second most frequent response was once a year or less (19%), while 2% of the respondents replied that they use public transportation daily, and 9% replied that they used it one to four days per week. Figure 3.17 shows the results of Question 8. Rev. August 16,

60 Figure Frequency of Public Transportation Use Daily Several times/month 2% 7% 1 to 4 days/week 9% Once every few months 14% Once/year or less 19% Do not ride anymore 49% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% Reasons for no Longer Riding Public Transportation Question 9 asked the respondents their main reason for no longer riding public transportation. The most frequent response was that the respondent has bought or gained access to a car (39%). The second most frequent response was that public transportation was unreliable (17%). Table X below summarizes the responses. Table 3.3. Reasons for no Longer Riding Public Transportation Reason % Bought or gained access to a car 39% Public Transportation was unreliable 17% Began Carpooling 4% Moved and Public Transportation no longer convenient or available 8% Had to start taking kids to daycare 5% Public Transportation wasn't safe 4% Other 23% Total 100% Community Opinion of Public Transportation This section summarizes the results of the community opinion portion of the online survey. Subjects specifically covered are the overall opinion of the Bay Town Trolley, the community opinion of the importance of public transit services, and the community opinion of the importance of different transportation strategies. Community Opinion of the Bay Town Trolley Question 11 of the survey asked the respondents to provide an overall rating of the Bay Town Trolley. As indicated below in Figure 3.18, approximately 71% of the respondents exhibited a favorable view of the trolley, as defined by the categories of Adequate (35%), Good (26%), or Very Good (10%). Approximately 28% of the respondents demonstrated an unfavorable view of the trolley, as identified by the Poor (22%) and Very Poor (6%) categories. Rev. August 16,

61 Figure Overall Opinion of the Bay Town Trolley Very Poor 6% Poor 22% Adequate 35% Good 26% Very Good 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Community Opinion on the Importance of Transit Services Question 13 of the community online survey asked the respondents to rank the importance of Bay County providing public transportation services to their residence on a scale of one to five. As depicted below in Figure 3.19, a majority of the respondents ranked providing public transportation services with high importance, with 83% of the respondents indicating that it was ranked a 4 or 5. Few of the residents assigned a low ranking to public transportation services, with 8% of the respondents selecting a 1 or 2 level of importance. Finally, 8% of the respondents ranked the importance of providing transit service a 3, indicating that it is of medium importance to them. Figure Community Opinion on the Importance of Public Transit Services from % 2% 8% 4 15% 5 68% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Community Opinion on the Importance of Transportation Strategies Question 15 of the community online survey requested the respondents to rate four Bay County transportation strategies by level of importance from one to five. The four transportation strategies were 1) Build new roads or bridges; 2) Improve pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, bicycle paths, and safety features; 3) Expand public transportation services; and 4) Improve existing roadways. As shown below in Figure 3.20 and Table 3.4, the respondents placed similar importance on all four transportation strategies. Improving existing roadways had a slightly higher ranking of importance over expanding public Rev. August 16,

62 transportation services and improving pedestrian facilities. Building new roads or bridges had the lowest level of importance of the surveyors. Figure Community Ranking of Transportation Strategies Table 3.4. Community Ranking of Transportation Strategies Transportation Strategies Weighted Average Build New Roads or Bridges 10.0% 13.4% 30.9% 16.4% 29.4% 3.4% Improve Pedestrian Facilities such as sidewalks, bicycle paths, 4.0% 10.0% 16.0% 22.0% 48.0% 4.0% and safety features Expand Public Transportation Services 4.5% 10.5% 17.4% 15.4% 52.2% 4.0% Improve Existing Roadways 3.5% 4.5% 16.9% 27.9% 47.3% 4.1% Community Online Survey Conclusions Results of the community online survey are used to identify how the community uses public transportation and the community outlook about public transportation services. This information will help determine how public transportation services can be improved and/or ensure that the needs and desires of the community are being met. The following conclusions were drawn from the online community survey results and are summarized in this section: Rev. August 16,

63 The community has an overall positive opinion of the Bay Town Trolley as a whole. Approximately 71% of the respondents exhibited a favorable view of the trolley, as defined by the categories of Adequate (35%), Good (26%), or Very Good (10%). The community generally values the importance of providing a public transportation system, indicated by a large majority, 83% of the respondents, who responded that providing a public transportation system was ranked a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. The Bay Town Trolley is the most popular form of Bay County public transportation services used by the community: 75% of the respondents who were users of public transportation identified the Bay Town Trolley as their service. Of the respondents that previously rode public transit but no longer utilize the service, 39% identified that their main reason for no longer riding public transit is due to car ownership or access. However, the second most stated reason (17%) for stopping ridership was due to the unreliability of public transit. The community places comparable value on the improvement of pedestrian facilities, the expansion of public transportation services, and the improvement of existing roadways as transportation strategies. 3.4 Transit Advisory Group (TAG) Meetings Prior to and during the project, Atkins attended the annual Transit Advisory Group Meetings to participate in discussions regarding issues and needs related to the Bay Town Trolley operations. The TAG agendas and minutes for the most recent TAG meetings follow: Transit Advisory Group Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 17, :00AM 1. Introductions 2. Project AQC 57 - Urban Corridor 3. Project AQG 39 - Block Grant 4. Service to Airport 5. Beach Multimodal Center 6. JARC/New Freedom 7. New Facility 8. FTA Section FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects [Notes from agenda.] As of July 2014, First Transit is the new operator of the Fixed Route System. Also as of May 2014, First Transit is the new operator of the Paratransit System. Based on the trends and operator changes, it was decided to leave the goals for FY 14/15 the same as FY 2013/2014. However, we will review the service within the designated Urban Corridor and have the new operator to make recommendations regarding the routes and service. It was also discussed that the TPO needs to evaluate the possibility of a system wide assessment/study (COA). Various areas were discussed for the possibility of a multi-modal center and coordination needed to occur between the City of Panama City Beach and TPO. The Bay Town Trolley new facility project is in the process and should be substantially complete by October Program of Projects was discussed. The Urban Corridor Goals were to remain the same. The August 12, 2015, TAG meeting agenda and notes are included here for reference. The TAG meeting included many of the Review Committee members in the discussions and was identified as one of the Review Committee meetings required by the project scope. Rev. August 16,

64 Bay Town Trolley Transit Advisory Group Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 12, :00AM Location: Bay Area Transportation Building 1021 Massalina Drive, Panama City You are invited to attend a Transit Advisory Group meeting at the time and location shown above. Front Beach Road is identified in the TPO s Congestion Management Process Plan (CMPP) as one of Bay County s most congested road segments and the CMPP identifies transit as one method of alleviating congestion management. Bay County and the Bay County TPO receive Corridor Grant funds from FDOT to assist with service on the Front Beach Road Corridor. The Corridor Grant agreement requires the TPO conduct a Transit Advisory Group (TAG) meeting annually to review and set performance goals. In addition, Staff will review performance of the system as a whole, discuss new or discontinue service, review the Transit Development plan initiatives and provide a forum for input from TAG members. Your participation is requested and appreciated. Please see attached minutes from the 2014 meeting. Performance measures are shown in the table below. Entire System Corridor FY '14 FY '15 Q3 YTD FY '14 FY '15 Q3 YTD Goal Rides/Mile Rides/Hour $ Cost/Ride $2.96 $2.96 $2.76 $2.65 $2.50 Farebox Return 27.3% 28.41% 29.2% 36.88% 40% 3.5 Transit Manager, Operator, and Staff Interviews Bay Town Trolley and Bay Area Transportation staff and operators were interviewed regarding their perception of needs, issues, and concerns with the Bay Town Trolley and Bay Area Transportation System. These interviews were held on March 2, General comments by the several drivers and operator/manager interviews are included below. Driver comments: No busses in Callaway Remove western loop on Route 3 Remove the southern loop on Route 1 Allow for breathing room on routes 3, 4, and 5 Need transfer location on beach Routes 4, 4x [express], and 4m [modified] are confusing and don t make sense First Transit Operator/Manager comments: Difficult to obtain sufficient funding to operate a full service system Difficult to keep several routes on time (Route 1 and Route 7 East) Difficulties with missed Bay Area Transportation ride appointments Dispatchers fielding complaints that are difficult or not possible to resolve Need to fully implement the Genfare system for passenger data collection Need to install and use passenger automatic counters and on-board GPS systems Rev. August 16,

65 3.6 Genfare Training Session A Genfare training session was held by the system provider on February 4, 2016, and was attended by the system operator and system manager, the TDP project manager, and others, to see a live demonstration of the Genfare system functions and capabilities. During the session discussions regarding the extensive capabilities of the system included the various special codes that were available to capture data on ridership, boarding and alighting numbers, and special use codes for handicap operations and bicycle loading. The system became fully functional in April/May 2016 and data reports became available afterward. Rev. August 16,

66 3.7 Public Meetings Two publicly advertised workshops were held during the course of the study. The workshops were held in an open house format with comments received during the course of the meeting and afterward from comment sheets taken home by the attendees Public Workshop 1 The first public workshop was held at the Bay County Government Center, in Room 1030, on November 3, 2015, with open discussion beginning at 4:30 pm and a PowerPoint presentation beginning at 5:00 pm. The meeting was properly noticed and numerous flyers (in English and Spanish) were distributed on the transit vehicles and in locations where riders and potential riders might gather. Flyers were also provided to each member of the Bay County TPO, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) at the TPO meetings the day prior to the workshop. The entire project team was in attendance and were able to hear the discussion items that formed the basis for later presentation in the second workshop and informed the team regarding recommendations for the TDP. The speakers that wished to address the team were recorded on the record. The comments received included the general difficulties by several riders in getting to locations where employment was available General Dynamics in Lynn Haven in particular and with hours of operation and needed weekend service. The attendee sign in list was used to contact potential attendees for the second public workshop Public Workshop 2 The second public workshop was held at the Bay County Public Library meeting room on June 23, 2016, with open discussion beginning at 3:30 pm and a PowerPoint presentation beginning at 4:30 pm. The meeting was properly noticed and numerous flyers (in English and Spanish) were distributed on the transit vehicles and in locations where riders and potential riders might gather. In an attempt to get interested persons and particularly transit riders interested in attending the meeting, flyers were placed on every seat of every transit vehicle, and posted on the vehicles, at the start of a service day the week prior to the meeting, and the team project manager personally visited each transit transfer center and passed out flyers to all riders at the stops at the Panama City Mall, Panama City Marina Center (City Hall), Gulf Coast Community College, and Callaway Walmart. Approximately 50 flyers were distributed. Flyers were provided again to the TPO and committees at the TPO meeting the day prior to the workshop. A PowerPoint presentation was set to loop during the workshop to present the purposes and requirements of a TDP, comments and suggestions made in the operator/manager/driver interviews, and potential concepts for route adjustments. Although the workshop was advertised and intended to be a drop-in open house format, because many of the questions asked informally by the attendees could be answered by slides presented in the PowerPoint presentation, the presentation was provided manually in order to enable and encourage conversation with attendees and to solicit their observations. Because the number of attendees allowed conversation, the input from attendees was helpful and more detailed Rev. August 16,

67 than is afforded by the many conversations that occur in an open house format. Comments from the attendees are incorporated into the final TDP report Public Outreach The consultant team were also developing the local Bay County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) concurrently during the time of research and preparation of the Bay County TDP. During the many outreach meetings held to present the LRTP Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan, the TDP project manager also made presentations regarding options for citizen participation and input during the ongoing preparation of the TDP. The project team made presentations and/or make invitations to the meeting attendees to participate in the process of developing the current TDP. Presentation were made to all of the local Rotary clubs and the local Kiwanis Club, and a major presentation was made to the Bay County First Friday assembly where the topic was the LRTP, but prominent mention was made regarding needed public involvement in the development of the TDP TPO Meetings The consultant team attended every TPO meeting during the period within which the TDP was under development. An update on transit needs and issues was made at each TPO meeting either specifically as reports were needed, or upon request by TPO members or the chairmen. The project manager and TPO Transit Coordinator met often with the TPO chairmen for specific discussions regarding transit needs or questions they had Regional Planning Council Status Update Meetings The West Florida Regional Planning Council (WFRPC, or RPC) is the sponsoring agency for development of the TDP, while the Bay County TPO transit staff are the project client agency. The consultant team holds a monthly telephone or in person status meeting with the RPC staff to discuss all current projects in detail, specific issues related to coordination or schedule, and to give a progress report. Representatives of the client agency, the FDOT, and the transit operations staff often attend for purposes of coordination. The project consultant team presented at each of the status coordination meetings current TDP work in progress, the status of scheduled events, and potential options or concepts for addressing transit issues in the report. These meetings proved invaluable to maintain open communication and coordination between the agencies involved in the process Transportation Disadvantaged Board For the purpose of coordinating with the various programs sponsored and monitored by the local board, the project manager attended the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Coordinating Board meeting held on June 1, 2016, at the Bay County Government Center. The TDP project manager, David Haight, is a resident of Bay County and volunteered to fill the vacant citizen member position on the board and was elected by the Board. The meeting discussions included a report on the annual satisfaction survey regarding TD services provided by the Community Transportation Coordinator (Bay County CTC) based on performance indicators, measures of effectiveness and efficiency, and level of Rev. August 16,

68 coordination. Handouts included the open ended responses to the 2016 rider survey (p. 58), and Bay County Rider Survey Results & Comparisons (pps ). The comments listed were overwhelmingly positive and complimentary, most commenting on the professional care given by the drivers. The survey results tabulation pages indicated response results for the previous three years ( ) and for both the previous operator (Pensacola Bay Transportation) and the current operator (First Transit). 3.8 Feedback from Officials and Community Leaders One-on-one meetings were conducted individually from time to time with local officials and community leaders. The purpose of these meetings was to obtain information in order to understand leadership views, opinions, and the community vision for the public transportation in Bay County. Many of these discussions were with TPO Board, or CAC and TCC committee members, community transit advocates and activists, and citizens and riders. These discussion helped the project team verify comments and input received from respondents to the public outreach survey. 3.9 TPO Meetings The project team and TDP project manager attend all Bay TPO and TPO committee meetings (CAC and TCC) throughout the year and make presentations on current services provided by the Bay Town Trolley, issues and recommendations, and progress reports on currently underway facility improvements being accomplished on behalf of the TPO transit staff. Reports were made or agenda packages were prepared and forwarded to the TPO and committees for the following meetings: Table 3.5. Bay County TPO Meetings TPO and Committee Meetings February 25, 2015 April 22, 2015 TDP status update and facilities report June 24, 2015 TDP status update and facilities report July 22, 2015 TDP status update and facilities report October 28, 2015 Attended to announce Public Workshop 1; facilities report TPO and Committee Meetings February 24, 2016 TDP status update and facilities report April 27, 2016 TDP status update and facilities report June 22, 2016 Attended to announce Public Workshop 2; facilities report July 22, 2016 TDP Review by TPO and Committees August 24, 2016 Adoption of the TDP by TPO for transmittal to FDOT September 28, 2016 FDOT Review Report December 7, 2016 FDOT Review Report Rev. August 16,

69 3.10 Public Outreach Processes A requirement of Chapter is to establish public participation processes that are well defined for those participating and responding, to identify the means to reply, and to set limits on the duration of the reply period for comments from the public. The TDP did address this issue both directly with set response deadlines, and indirectly by noting the various meetings and public outreach activities performed. In each case when comments were to be received there was a request for timely response. Examples of this are: 1. The project scope required a minimum of 100 face-to-face surveys of riders. When finished, 278 surveys were completed. There was no timeline for comments since they were completed by the riders during their transit (response was immediate). 2. A second and third round of transit rider surveys were distributed the week prior to the second public workshop and either completed at the time they were received (response immediate onboard or waiting at a stop), or the rider was asked to return them promptly to the driver to have them given to First Transit to return to the study team (response within several days time). 3. When the public outreach online survey was active, the note to responders was that the online survey must be completed by December 15 th when it would close. The total number of responses was 271. (The online survey remained on line for a period of time for public information on the survey, but was not active for responses.) 4. After each public workshop when comment sheets were distributed a request was made to return them promptly in order for the comments to be effectively used to craft the TDP. 5. An additional effort was made during the development of the study to attend specific meetings presenting the Bay County LRTP to local clubs (Rotary and Kiwanis clubs) and agencies (Port Panama City port authority; Bay County Chamber of Commerce First Friday event). At these meetings in addition to presenting the Bay LRTP there was specific mention of the TDP process and the need for public comment during the process. Rev. August 16,

70 4.0 Vision, Mission, Goals, and Strategies 4.1 Introduction This Section summarizes the vision and mission of the Bay County Bay Town Trolley system, and the programs goals, and active strategies for pursuing these goals. Also included are the goals, objectives, and strategies of the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) FY 2015/16 Annual Update. The goals and strategies from the 2011 Bay County Transit Development Plan were presented at the two public workshops for review and comment by staff, citizens, and interested parties. No comments were received. This Section was presented to the Bay TPO transit staff and FDOT for review and comment. 4.2 Public Outreach and Setting System Goals and Strategies Comments consistently received from citizens, riders, and reviewers during the public participation process included issues related to system performance and were essentially similar to those themes that were included in the previous TDP: Table 4.1 Goal Setting Goal Themes Bay County TDP Community accessibility ensure transit options are available for individuals to access health care, employment, education, and other community resources. Energy and environment provide public transportation options that promote environmental initiatives and address the rising costs of energy. Economic development improve public transportation services to support business activity, promote economic investment and access to jobs. Service improvement meet rising customer demand in conjunction with ridership increases and focus on key markets and activity centers. Sources: Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update FY public outreach surveys and riders interviews Goal Comparison and Comments Bay County Transit Development Plan TDP Comments received in the public outreach survey included requests for service to important job opportunities, specifically in the Lynn Haven Industrial Park, and in the visitor service sector in Panama City Beach. Service to health care continued to be important to riders. Although during the time period of the public involvement process to complete the TDP update, fuel prices were considerably lower than in the previous five years, riders typically were still fuel cost-conscious and considered the transit costs to be a good value compared to owning and operating a personal vehicle. Business leaders in the community and riders consistently recognized the importance of transit access for riders to get to employment in the visitor service sector in Panama City Beach and, in fact there was considerable interest in extending service hours to a longer service day, weekdays, to increase service headways on Saturdays, and to provide Sunday service for access to employment. One important issue related to service in Panama City Beach mentioned was a need to increase the numbers of vehicles or to shorten headways to avoid crowded conditions that sometimes bypassed waiting riders on the beach routes. 4.3 Data Collection and Evaluation Section 2, Base Data and Mapping, illustrates current demographic and physical conditions within Bay County that have and will affect transit ridership and support of transit. Section 3, Public Involvement Rev. August 2,

71 and Participation, provides a summary of an extensive amount of data collected during both face-to-face rider survey, and online surveys. Both sets of data were used to determine appropriate goals to remain in the plan update from the previous TDP, and to set new goals to pursue conditions and issues arising from public and staff comment. Efficiency and effectiveness measures for both the Bay Town Trolley fixed route and Bay Area Transportation demand response systems were reviewed and trend analyses were conducted to determine appropriate goal and strategy changes. These data and analyses are reviewed in Section 5 of this report. In addition, peer review of similar systems and trends are also provided in Section Setting Public Transit Vision, Mission, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies For this Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) the language included in the 2012 plan update is retained here and re-adopted in-whole, as follows: For strategic planning purposes, it is important to articulate an organization s vision (a broad and inspiring statement about what the agency wants to achieve) and mission (a broad perspective of the overall purpose of the organization, the activities it conducts to serve that purpose, and the values that guide its work). Building upon the vision and mission an organization develops goals (somewhat broad statements of general intent), objectives, (something more specific that may or may not be measurable) and strategies (a plan of action for attaining a goal.) Goals, objectives and strategies are based upon an evaluation of the current situation and desired outcomes. The starting point for the development of Bay County s public transit vision, mission, goals, objectives and strategies was based on the goals and objectives contained in existing plans including: the Comprehensive Plans of the county and cities, These were then supplemented with information collected during the outreach activities undertaken during the development of this plan. The following is intended to serve as a roadmap or guide for internal and external actions and initiatives that must be undertaken in order to arrive at an ideal future. Public Transit Vision The Bay County TPO and Bay Town Trolley strive to be recognized as the best small transit system in Florida by delivering a well-balanced multi-modal transportation system that promotes community [ed. note: and embrace] economic development, community accessibility, environmental sensitivity, and customer demand. Public Transit Mission Bay County will operate and coordinate a public transportation system that effectively and efficiently meets the existing and future mobility needs as identified through on-going outreach to Bay County s residents, visitors and businesses. Rev. August 2,

72 4.5 Goals, Objectives, Strategies of the Fixed Route System The recommended goals, objectives, and strategies for the Bay County Bay Town Trolley fixed route system, as amended in recognition of public comments and input, provider and staff review and comment, and comparison with peer systems are as follows: Goal 1: Expand service delivery for existing and potential customers to meet existing and future demand for transit services in Bay County while improving route efficiency and expanding the existing transit service area. Objective 1.1: Actively pursue grant-funding sources to improve existing service and to implement expanded service. Strategy 1.1.1: Coordinate with FDOT and FTA to identify projects eligible for FDOT Service Development and Corridor funds. Strategy 1.1.2: Apply for new grant programs and funding sources as authorized by the Federal Transportation Bill language as amended. Objective 1.2: Pursue improvements to service and operations that are the most efficient in terms of garnering ridership and most cost-effective to implement. Strategy 1.2.1: Make route modifications to improve revenue hour efficiency. Strategy 1.2.2: Monitor ridership data to determine whether unproductive segments of routes could be modified. New Strategy 1.2.3: Implement accurate tracking of ridership through use of automatic passenger counters and full use of the features of the Genfare system. Objective 1.3: Enhance connectivity and transfer opportunities to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the route structure. Strategy 1.3.1: Monitor timed-transfers at Gulf Coast State College, Panama City Mall and Downtown Panama City to ensure maximum connectivity. Strategy 1.3.2: Evaluate and consider route timing offsets to ensure route-to-route connections can be met by riders. Objective 1.4: Enhance service reliability and on-time performance to secure and assure customer loyalty. Strategy 1.4.1: Monitor customer complaints regarding individual route on-time performance issues and actively address each complaint with the customer. Strategy 1.4.2: Conduct field checks to determine on-time performance issues and modify running times accordingly. Objective 1.5: Establish guidelines for increasing frequency on high-demand routes to improve service capacity. Strategy 1.5.1: Maintain a frequency standard for weekday and Saturday. Strategy 1.5.2: Focus frequency improvements on high-demand routes and/or peak seasonal demand. New Strategy 1.5.3: Reassess on-time performance and route capacity continually to make route improvements annually, or more often as ridership increases, or declines, on each route. Objective 1.6: Design all fixed-routes to optimize direct routing and minimize customer travel time. Rev. August 2,

73 Strategy 1.6.1: Consider new routes coded into T-BEST for implementation when financial resources are available. New Strategy 1.6.2: Develop a system of future routes and phasing priorities for implementing these routes when additional funding becomes available. New Strategy 1.6.3: After consideration of T-BEST results, and at least annually, consider adding additional routes or adjusting route segments. Objective 1.7: Establish guidelines and a prioritization process for extending hours of service based on customer demand and community support. Strategy 1.7.1: Identify the incremental cost of one or more additional round trip(s) for evening service. Strategy 1.7.2: Prioritize adding additional evening hours on existing Bay Town Trolley routes. Objective 1.8: Establish guidelines and a prioritization process for expanding service on Saturday and Sunday. Strategy 1.8.1: Establish ratio of weekend service hours to weekday service hours. Strategy 1.8.2: As financial resources warrant, bring Saturday service to weekday service levels. New Strategy 1.8.3: Evaluate limited service hours on Sunday. New Strategy 1.8.4: Consider specific late evening service hours on specific routes that serve service workers in sectors of the community where retail, dining, and entertainment are important sectors of the local economy. Objective 1.9: Ensure that new or revised routes serve areas in the community where service does not exist. Strategy 1.9.1: Code routes into T-BEST to evaluate equity in all sectors of the service area. Strategy 1.9.2: Maintain a candidate list new route phases to implement new routes as financial resources become available. Objective 1.10: Focus all new services on connecting critical activity centers and employment centers within Bay County. Strategy : Ensure that all new routes developed serve critical activity and/or employment centers. Strategy : Add the Northwest Florida International Airport, and associated sector plans, as a new critical activity center to be considered. New Strategy : Review the potential effectiveness of developing a route link that would serve the employment centers in the Lynn Haven industrial park. Objective 1.11: Establish performance benchmarks for all service improvements and monitor performance to ensure minimum performance levels are met. Strategy : Utilize peer report to establish benchmarks for passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, farebox recovery and cost per passenger trip. Strategy : Prepare annual report at the route and system level to monitor system performance. Goal 2: Maintain and expand adequate capital infrastructure to ensure vehicles, facilities, customer amenities and transit stops achieve the highest standard of accessibility and comfort. Objective 2.1: Develop and maintain and update annually a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Rev. August 2,

74 Strategy 2.1.1: Utilize the capital and operating plan in this TDP update as a foundation for a comprehensive program. Objective 2.2: Seek additional funds to improve and/or expand the existing administration, operations and maintenance facilities. Strategy 2.2.1: Program new improvements to the existing administration, operations and maintenance facilities. Objective 2.3: Remove the trolley-type vehicles and replace with traditional transit service vehicles as the fleet ages to continue to bring down the average age of the fleet and to modernize the vehicle fleet. Strategy 2.3.1: Maintain a vehicle replacement program. Strategy 2.3.2: Program 5307 funds for vehicle acquisition. Objective 2.4: Expand trolley fleet as future route and service improvements are expanded. Strategy 2.4.1: Purchase new vehicles as financial resources become available for new service. Objective 2.5: Continue improvements to the passenger amenities program to place shelters and amenities throughout the service area that was begun with the initiation of the Bay Town Trolley ADA Bus Stop Access (transition) Plan Strategy 2.5.1: Program Section 5307 funds for passenger amenity improvements. Strategy 2.5.2: Implement passenger amenities when public right-of-way is available when completing bus stop improvement program in Objective 2.6 below. Objective 2.6: Continue the transit stop improvement program to bring all bus stops into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Strategy 2.6.1: Continue to contract with a firm capable of design, engineering, construction and permitting to bring additional transit stops into ADA compliance. Strategy 2.6.2: Program Section 5307 funds to complete the program of transit stop improvements. Objective 2.7: Pursue technology improvements to enhance operational efficiency, effectiveness and customer satisfaction, including possibilities to coordinate with the Bay County Traffic Management Center to monitor vehicle operations. Strategy 2.7.1: Obtain and install automatic vehicle location (AVL) hardware and software to allow real-time tracking of transit vehicles. Strategy 2.7.2: Pursue connection of the AVL technology with the Bay County traffic management center operations for real time service adjustments and detours. New Strategy 2.7.3: Obtain and install automatic passenger counters (APC) on each transit vehicle to track daily, weekly, monthly, and annual ridership. New Strategy 2.7.4: Obtain and install GPS technology on each vehicle in order to track and obtain vehicle data and route progress for onboard annunciators, and for Google Transit, and smart phone applications. Objective 2.8: Coordinate with municipalities, business interests, community associations, and interested agencies to leverage resources for capital improvements. Strategy 2.8.1: Coordinate with private property owners as part of their own ADA requirements for accessible pathways to make ADA transit stop accessibility improvements when right-of-way is insufficient. Rev. August 2,

75 Strategy 2.8.2: Coordinate with local governments to each fund transit facilities within each community consistent with a common set of system facility standards. Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive marketing, communications and media relations program to effectively promote transit s image, awareness, public embrace and information materials. Objective 3.1: Develop a comprehensive, continuous marketing program to market services to existing and potential customer bases, including employees, employers, traditional transit markets, persons with disabilities, military personnel and their dependents, tourists, primary school students and college students. Strategy 3.1.1: Procure a marketing/communications/public relations consultant to develop and implement a continuous marketing program. Strategy 3.1.2: In addition to just awareness campaigns, focus one portion of the marketing and ridership outreach on developing choice riders. Objective 3.2: Develop printed transit information and web-based transit information that is customerfriendly and attractive. Strategy 3.2.1: Continue to improve website and printed information materials and seek to make more available to the public. Strategy 3.2.2: Revise the Ride Guide to be more user friendly including the addition of a timetable based on route/stop times. Place card holders at each transit stop and shelter that contain current route maps and schedules. Objective 3.3 Enhance communications between Bay Town Trolley and its riders using social media. Strategy 3.3.1: Utilize Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media to establish communications with customers and the community. Objective 3.4: Develop a comprehensive media-relations program to communicate successes and appropriately deal with incidents. Strategy 3.4.1: Proactively seek positive press coverage for BTT s initiatives and improvements. Strategy 3.4.2: Develop policies and procedures for handling complaints, incident reporting, and public awareness to prevent mixed- or crossed messaging. Objective 3.5: Develop a community relations program for all jurisdictions participating in the funding of public transportation services. Strategy 3.5.1: Implement quarterly e-newsletter for community partners in transit. Strategy 3.5.2: Coordinate with each community public information officer or public relations consultant for the community to convey consistent messaging regarding transit programs and operations. Objective 3.6: Enhance the image of the Bay Town Trolley system to encourage the community to embrace the system as a required and valued community service. Strategy 3.6.1: Conduct speaking engagements with a variety of civic and government groups around the County, annually. Strategy 3.6.2: Conduct and/or participate in transportation days at critical activity centers. Strategy 3.6.3: Perform an annual rider survey to obtain opinions from riders and recommendations for needed improvements to the system. Rev. August 2,

76 Goal 4: Evaluate and participate in community values and quality of life initiatives as they relate to future plans Objective 4.1: Support collaborative land use and transportation planning efforts that ensure communities can develop in an efficient and sustainable way. Strategy 4.1.1: Coordinate with FDOT, County and municipal engineers to incorporate transit amenities and ADA stop improvements on any road construction projects. Strategy 4.1.2: Assure that route and stop changes are not made inefficiently or ineffectively by adhering to commonly accepted transit stop placement, separation, and ridership criteria. Objective 4.2: Coordinate with bicycle and pedestrian plans to ensure that transit routes are a consideration in the prioritization process for projects. Strategy 4.2.1: Coordinate with the Bay TPO in bicycle and pedestrian planning activities to ensure that transit has an equal place in the overall priority mix for improvements. Strategy 4.2.2: Assure that all transit vehicles have installed the most innovative, highest capacity bicycle racks on all vehicles. Objective 4.3: Coordinate with local development comprehensive planning and zoning code efforts to encourage transit-oriented development policies. Strategy 4.3.1: Coordinate with City and County planners to require transit improvements within new development along current or future routes. Objective 4.4: Support the initiatives that fulfill the multi-modal transportation enhancements called for in the Panama City Beach Community Redevelopment Agency zone. Strategy 4.4.1: Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) agency to develop transit services along the dedicated tram/bike designed for the Front Beach Road corridor. Strategy 4.4.2: Develop relationships to ensure future funding of transit along the Front Beach Road corridor. Strategy 4.4.3: Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach, and the Front Beach Road CRA to develop routes and stops and linkages to other transportation systems at the two multi-modal facilities planned by the City and CRA. Objective 4.5: Support efforts of Bay County, the City of Panama City, and other local communities as appropriate, to develop indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita, and automobile occupancy rates. Strategy 4.5.1: Coordinate with the communities and TPO to report progress toward meeting mobility goals, as appropriate to each community. Objective 4.6: Support efficient land use planning practices to coordinate transportation and transit services when high-density housing is placed near commercial centers, transit lines, employment centers, major public facilities and services, schools, and parks. Strategy 4.6.1: Coordinate with all County and City sector plans, DRIs and high density and intensity communities and planning areas to place transit amenities in developing areas. Objective 4.7: Proactively partner with the business community and the regional workforce development board to continuously develop and refine services to meet their needs. Rev. August 2,

77 Strategy 4.7.1: Pursue partnerships with local Bay County business interests to expand service and amenities. Strategy 4.7.2: Specifically coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach and the Tourist Development Council to assure a strong commitment to transit that serves multiple purposes within the beach communities, providing transit or shuttle transportation to provide employee access to work in the beach service industries; and, for transit access for beach visitors. Objective 4.8: Promote linkages between transit services and education and training facilities. Strategy 4.8.1: Pursue student transportation fees with Gulf Coast State College, Florida State University, and other training and employment centers. Goal 5: Maximize safety and security for all transit services and facilities. Objective 5.1: Maintain a comprehensive System Safety Program Plan. Strategy 5.1.1: Update SSPP in accordance with FDOT requirements, and FTA standards as they apply. Strategy 5.1.2: At least annually, engage all active employees in training programs intended to ensure awareness and compliance with FDOT, FTA, FHWA, and other transportation agency codes and standards. Strategy 5.1.3: At least quarterly, ensure that all active employees are engaged in safety, security, and compliance training. Objective 5.2: Maintain and implement safety and security systems throughout facilities, fleet and public stops and stations. Strategy 5.2.1: Identify safety and security issues at Massalina, Gulf Coast State College, Panama City Mall and the Downtown Transfer stations and remedy discovered deficiencies in cooperation with the agencies involved Strategy 5.2.2: Ensure clear visibility at and near all transit stops and shelters to assure the safety of riders waiting to board and riders alighting at each stop. Strategy 5.2.3: Keep advertising and flyers removed from shelters to assure a clear range of vision. Objective 5.3: Establish design guidelines, standards, and priorites for system improvements. Strategy 5.3.1: Prioritize improvements for routes, transit stops, transfer centers, and on-street transfer locations. Strategy 5.3.2: Establish clear guidance for making route and stop changes utilizing existing system standards and policies, and national transit guidelines. Goal 6: Ensure prudent public stewardship of financial resources and secure additional funding for system maintenance and improvements. Objective 6.1: Maintain an equitable fare policy and establish a farebox recovery standard. Strategy 6.1.1: Periodically monitor fare structure and fare media to ensure that passenger fares are appropriately offsetting the cost of service. Strategy 6.1.2: Utilize peer system analysis to establish farebox recovery standard. Objective 6.2: Develop a long-range financial plan that maximizes grant-funding sources for strategic improvements and long-range transportation improvements recommended in the TDP. Strategy 6.2.1: Examine revenue impact of dedicated funding. Rev. August 2,

78 Strategy 6.2.2: Develop a contingency plan and priorities for maintaining service under conditions where funding sources do not remain constant. Objective 6.3: Ensure that TDP improvements are included in the Long Range Transportation Plan efforts. Strategy 6.3.1: Assure that transit funding is identified and prioritized in the local Long Range Transportation Plan, as updated. Objective 6.4: Seek additional local funds when such funds can match and leverage federal and state grant funding opportunities. Strategy 6.4.1: Seek funds from jurisdictions to remain competitive for FDOT Service Development funds at a 50% FDOT/50% local match. Objective 6.5: Establish a legislative funding priority program to seek state and federal funding partnerships. Strategy 6.5.1: Coordinate with Bay County legislative delegation and the Florida Public Transportation Association to ensure major initiatives are considered when transportation legislation is under consideration. Goal 7: Pursue regional transportation needs with surrounding counties and the overall Panama City Urbanized Area. Objective 7.1: Proactively seek partnerships with Walton County and Beaches of South Walton business interests to develop transit services linking Walton and Bay Counties. Strategy 7.1.1: Identify revenue sources to implement regional service connectivity. Strategy 7.1.2: Coordinate with FDOT and the RideOn service to locate and develop park and ride lots, ride share programs, car pools, and shuttle services Rev. August 2,

79 4.6 Goals, Objectives, Strategies of the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) FY 2015/16 Annual Update The recommended goals, objectives, and strategies of the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) FY 2015/16 Annual Update, adopted June 17, 2015, as amended in recognition of public comments and input, provider and staff review and comment, and comparison with peer systems are as follows: Goal 1: Ensure availability of transportation services to the Transportation Disadvantaged Objective 1: Stabilize trip numbers at maintainable levels, based on available funding sources. Strategy a. Maintain an adequate availability of operators and drivers and with backup capability. (Continuous) Objective 2: Increase passenger and general public awareness of transportation services available to those with transportation disadvantages. (Continuous) Strategy a: Improve the marketing plan for educating the public on available transportation services. (Continuous) Strategy b: Submit press releases bi-annually to initiate awareness of transportation disadvantaged services in Bay County by educating potential users and the public of funding constraints. (Immediate and Future) Strategy c: Enhance informational materials (brochures) for riders of the system and upgrade when necessary; including policies of client agencies specific to their riders. (Immediate) Objective 3: Increase transit service, whenever possible. Strategy a: Increase transit service in downtown Panama City to provide more job access to lowincome workers to replace the Bay Medical JARC service. (Immediate) New Strategy b: Seek funding to develop and continue transit routes to major employment centers. (New) Goal 2: Ensure cost-effective and efficient transportation services. Objective 1: Improve cost efficiency in service delivery. (Continuous) Strategy a: Establish and maintain desirable load factor by improving trip coordination and offering additional stretcher service. (Continuous) Strategy b: Maximize use of fixed route service of Bay Town Trolley (BTT) and continually offer rider incentives for transitioning to fixed route independence. (Continuous) Strategy c: Provide travel training for transportation disadvantaged for elderly and disabled riders. (Immediate) Objective 2: Transfer appropriate paratransit riders to fixed route transit with a goal of 60 per year. (Continuous) Strategy a: Work with the Bay Town Trolley, Agency for Persons with Disabilities Support Coordinators, and the St. Andrews Bay Center to identify 60 riders to refer to Easy Access for travel training. (Continuous) Strategy b: Provide employee customer service training three times per year. Hold quarterly dinners for drivers as a forum to express their opinions and concerns to the administration. Rev. August 2,

80 Goal 3: Ensure quality of service provided to the Transportation Disadvantaged Objective 1: Excel in courteous and respectful customer relations. (Continuous) Strategy a: Ensure that customer service standards are met and monitored monthly and reported quarterly to the Local Coordinating Board. (Immediate and Future) Strategy b: Provide employee customer service training three times per year. Hold quarterly dinners for drivers as a forum to express their opinions and concerns to the administration. (Quarterly) Strategy c: Use rider surveys to review feedback from riders and agencies as a tool to encourage the system to consistently provide excellent service. (Continuous) Strategy d: Monitor AOR complaints and make corrections, when necessary. (Immediate) Objective 2: Increase customer awareness of transportation policies and procedures. (Continuous) Strategy a: Collaborate with TPO staff to develop brochure for Bay County Transportation Providers. Brochure provides customers with pertinent information such as general contact information. (Immediate and Future) Objective 3: Minimize customer travel and wait time. (Continuous) Strategy a: Maintain communication with health care facilities to pursue coordination.(quarterly) Strategy b: Contract with operators to provide demand response service (Continuous) Objective 4: Maintain customer relations with agency customers that we provide with transportation services. (Continuous) Strategy a: Contact customers monthly to maintain open communication to proactively deal with any issues. (Continuous) Strategy b: Initiate workshops, health fairs, expos, providing brochures and staff representation, and seek out new outreach efforts. (Continuous) Goal 4: Ensure necessary funding to support the program Objective 1: Seek funds to adequately satisfy operational needs. (Continuous) Strategy a: Seek additional funding sources to provide local match. (Immediate and Future) Strategy b: Maintain competitive wages for drivers by pursuing additional funding. (Immediate) Strategy c: Encourage all human service providers with transportation need to attend Local Coordinating Board meetings. (Continuous) Objective 2: Seek to increase funds to provide more trips. (Continuous) Strategy a: Pursue local funds by seeking out networking opportunities. (Continuous) Strategy b: Encourage stakeholders (representatives of public, private and non-profit human service providers) to participate in the planning and budgeting process. (Continuous) Strategy c: Attend various community agency roundtable discussions to learn about grants and funding opportunities. Moved from 4.1.c (2007 Goals) (Immediate and Future) Objective 1: Maintain standards per Rule (See Service Standards) Strategy a: Comply with contract standards and prepare an accurate Annual Operating Report (AOR) to include all Purchase of Service and Coordination Contracts data. Goal 5: Ensure program accountability Objective 1: Maintain standards per Rule (See Service Standards) (Continuous) Rev. August 2,

81 Strategy a: Comply with contract standards and prepare an accurate Annual Operating Report (AOR) to include all Purchase of Service and Coordination Contracts data. (Continuous) Objective 2: Seek to retain favorable findings in TD Commission Quality Assurance Review. (Continuous) Strategy a: Comply with the Community Transportation Disadvantaged contract requirements. (Immediate and Future) Objective 3: Compile and report required program evaluation data. (Continuous) Strategy a: Prepare a quarterly report to the LCB outlining activities over the quarter. (Quarterly) Rev. August 2,

82 5.0 Existing Services and Performance Evaluation This section provides an existing service review and performance evaluation of the current transit services in Bay County. The existing services review details the general inventory and characteristics of transit services provided, which also provides a reference point for the performance evaluation. The performance evaluation consists of two components: a trend analysis over a five year period and a peer review analysis of systems that have similar characteristics. The peer review is presented for the fixed-route system and provides an opportunity to determine how well Bay County Transit performs compared to similar peer transit agencies. The performance evaluation and inventory of existing public transportation services is a key element to the TDP. The documentation and analysis of such a wide variety of operating and financial measures identifies areas where the agency is performing well and provides a focus for areas that may need improvements. This guides the formulation of goals, objectives, and strategies designed to enhance service performance. 5.1 Inventory of Existing Service Bay County offers a traditional fixed-route transit service via the Bay Town Trolley to meet the majority of the public transportation needs of the population. In addition to providing for the general population s transportation needs, paratransit services are offered to those who meet the mobility needs and eligibility requirements comprising the Transportation Dependent (TD) population the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-eligible population. The Bay Town Trolley and paratransit services are described below in further detail Bay Town Trolley (BTT) The Bay Town Trolley (BTT) is the traditional fixed route service in Bay County which serves the needs of the general population. This section provides details the Bay Town Trolley Service routes and schedules, ridership figures, fare structures, and vehicle inventory. Routes and Schedules The BTT operates ten routes within and between Panama City, Panama City Beach, Lynn Haven, Callaway, Parker, and Springfield, and is operated by First Transit, incorporated. Figure 5.1 shows the current fixed route system map. The BTT offers service Monday through Saturday from 6:00 AM until 8:00 PM. The BTT does not currently operate on Sundays, or on the following holidays: Day before Thanksgiving, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. s Birthday, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day. Table 5.1 presents additional information on the span and frequency of service for the Bay Town Trolley. Rev. August 2,

83 Figure 5.1. Bay Town Trolley Routes Rev. August 2,

84 Table 5.1. Route Information Route # Description Direction Monday-Friday Saturday Headways 1 Lynn Haven/Panama City Mall North/South 6:00AM-7:00PM 2 3 4* 4M Government St./Marina Civic Center to Walmart Panama City Mall/Callaway Walmart Government St./Marina Civic Center to Gulf Coast State College Government St./Marina Civic Center to US 98 & Baltimore Ave. East/West East/West East/West 6:00AM-7:00PM 6:00AM-7:00PM 6:00AM-7:00PM 7:00AM- 7:00PM 7:00AM- 7:00PM 7:00AM- 7:00PM 6:00AM- 6:00PM 60 Min (M-F) 120 Min (Sat.) 60 Min (M-F) 120 Min (Sat.) 60 Min (M-F) 120 Min (Sat.) 6AM, 11AM, 4PM, 5PM, 6PM, 7PM (M-F)/ 120 Min (Sat.) East/West 7:00AM-3:00PM N/A Min 4X Government St./Marina Civic Center to Gulf Coast State College East/West 7:00AM-3:00PM N/A Min Panama City Mall/Gulf Coast State College Panama City Mall/Gulf Coast State College Gulf Coast State College/Winn Dixie (West End) East/West East/West East/West 6:00AM-7:00PM 6:00AM-7:00PM 5:50AM-6:50PM 6:00AM- 6:00PM 6:00AM- 6:00PM 5:50AM- 7:15PM 60 Min (M-F) 120 Min (Sat.) 60 Min (M-F) 120 Min (Sat.) 60 Min (M-F) 120 Min (Sat.) 9 Career Connector/Bay Medical Center Sacred Heart/First Baptist East/West 5:30AM-7:53PM N/A 15 Min Church Note: 1. Route headways vary and some routes are modified on Saturday. 2. The Monday-Friday and Saturday times refer to departure times. Service ends at 8:00 pm. 3. The full current Bay Town Trolley Ride Guide is located at: Ridership Table 5.2 displays the yearly ridership of the Bay Town Trolley from 2010 and Overall ridership was highest in 2011 (783,758) and 2012 (777,225). The trolley has seen a steady decrease in ridership from 2013 to 2015, with an average decrease of 3.65% over the three year period. Figure 5.2 provides monthly ridership figures for 2015 and Ridership has decreased by 4.6% percent, from a total of 676,734 passenger trips in 2014 to 641,449 trips in The months of highest ridership are the summer months of June, July, and August. The trolley experiences the lowest ridership in the winter months of November, January, and February. Rev. August 2,

85 Table 5.2. Yearly Ridership Comparison Year Ridership % Change , % , % , % , % , % , % Figure 5.2. Monthly Ridership Comparison ,000 Bay Town Trolley Monthly Ridership Comparison Number of Passengers 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - Dec Nov Oct Sept August July June May April March Feb Jan ,350 42,266 52,056 53,487 60,113 64,922 61,131 52,655 57,489 57,931 46,798 48, ,432 42,881 59,415 52,736 59,510 63,395 60,086 65,903 62,986 61,911 51,844 44,635 Fare Structure Fares have gradually increased throughout the years to provide revenue for Trolley operations. The current base case fare is $1.50 or $0.75 for students, senior citizens, or persons with disabilities. A day pass is $4.00 and a monthly unlimited ride pass is $ Children under the age of five ride the trolley for free. Table 5.3 below displays the fare structure for the Bay Town Trolley. Rev. August 2,

86 Table 5.3. Fare Structure Fare Type Cost Regular Fare $1.50 Student Fare (with local ID),Senior Citizen (with Medicare card) Persons with Disabilities $0.75 Day Pass $4.00 Monthly Pass $35.00 Children Under 5 Free Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory The current fixed route vehicle inventory is shown in Table 5.4, below, with vehicle type, characteristics, capacity, and actual service life and replacement data. Table 5.4. Fixed Route Vehicle Inventory Rev. August 2,

87 Contingency Fleet Inventory The current fixed route contingency vehicle inventory is shown in Table 5.5, below, with vehicle type, characteristics, capacity, and actual service life and replacement data, if any. All of the vehicles in this inventory are out of service. Table 5.5. Contingency Fleet Inventory Rev. August 2,

88 5.1.2 Demand Response Service (Paratransit) A demand response service is provided for eligible customers throughout the entire 764 square miles of Bay County by the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Bay County, First Transit. In 2015, the demand response service operated 131,951 passenger trips, which is an increase of 31% from the previous year. Table 5.6 below shows the total demand response trips operated for the years 2010 to In 2013 the system experienced the most ridership with a total of 203,101 total trips. However, this number decreased by approximately 50% by Table 5.6. Paratransit Trips Year Total Trips % Change ,951 31% ,578-50% ,101 5% ,433 5% ,971-1% ,634 - Vehicle Inventory The current demand response vehicle inventory is shown in Table 5.7, on the following page, with vehicle type, characteristics, capacity, and actual service life and replacement data. Rev. August 2,

89 Table 5.7. Demand Response Vehicle Inventory Rev. August 2,

90 5.2 Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis A trend analysis was conducted for the Bay Town Trolley fixed-route system from the five-year period between 2010 and A trend analysis is a system-wide performance evaluation providing an overview of general performance measures, service effectiveness, and cost efficiencies of the transit system over time. Generally, trend analyses are tools used for monitoring and improving transit system performance. A series of tables and graphs in this section display selected performance indicators accompanied by a brief description of the data highlighting trends and anomalies. A summarized table of the comprehensive results by performance measure and percent change over the five-year period is in Section 5.2.1, below. Table 5.8 below details the selected general performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures for the trend analysis. The analysis was conducted using data from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS) reports, and data directly from the NTD. Table 5.8. Performance Review Measures, Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis ( ) General Performance Effectiveness Efficiency Service Area Population Vehicle Miles per Capita Operating Expense per Capita Passenger Trips Passenger Trips per Capita Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Vehicle Miles Passenger Trips per Revenue Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Revenue Miles Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Total Operating Expense Number of System Failures Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Passenger Fare Revenue Revenue Miles Between Failures Average Fare Weekday Span of Service General Performance Indicators General Performance Indicators present data related to overall system performance. The selected general performance indicators were service area population, passenger trips, vehicle miles, revenue miles, total operating expense, and passenger fare revenue. The results from the general performance measures for the Bay Town Trolley are presented in Table 5.9 and Figures 5.3 through 5.7. The purpose and fundamentals of the selected effectiveness measures are defined below, as described by FTIS: Service Area Population: The population in the service area. Passenger Trips: Annual number of passenger boardings on the transit vehicles. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle. Therefore, if a passenger transfers between buses to reach a destination, that passenger is counted as making two passenger trips. Vehicle Miles: Total distance traveled annually by revenue service vehicles. This includes both revenue miles and deadhead miles, which are the miles driven from where the vehicle s parked location to the beginning of the route, or other miscellaneous miles not considered to be in direct revenue service. Revenue Miles: Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number excludes deadhead miles. Rev. August 2,

91 Total Operating Expense: Reported total spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, and operation of service vehicles. Passenger Fare Revenue: Revenue generated annually from carrying passengers in regularly scheduled service. Table 5.9. General Performance Measures, Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis ( ) Performance Measures FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Service Area Population 85, , , , ,192 Passenger Trips 724, , , , ,635 Vehicle Miles 652, , , , ,968 Revenue Miles 625, , , , ,576 Total Operating Expense $2,198,463 $2,850,940 $3,063,969 $2,862,428 $2,176,644 Passenger Fare Revenue $451,349 $511,778 $538,419 $562,733 $568, ,000 Figure 5.3. Annual Passenger Trips Passenger Trips Number of Trips 750, , ,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) 700,000 Figure 5.4. Annual Vehicle Miles Vehicle Miles Vehicle Miles 650, , , ,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Rev. August 2,

92 650,000 Figure 5.5. Annual Revenue Miles Revenue Miles Revenue Miles 600, , , ,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Figure 5.6. Total Annual Operating Expense Annual Operating Expense Operating Expense $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Figure 5.7. Annual Passenger Fare Revenue Passenger Fare Revenue Passenger Fare Revenue $600,000 $550,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Rev. August 2,

93 The following is a summary of the trends from the general performance measures provided in Table 5.9 and Figures 5.3 through 5.7: According to the information reported to the NTD, the service area population for the Bay Town Trolley has remained steady from The number of passenger trips has steadily declined since 2011, with a peak of 776,038 trips in The passenger trips in 2014 were 680,635, which is an overall decrease of 12% since Annual vehicle miles were lowest in 2014, with 543,968 total miles. This was approximately 16% less than the previous year. The annual revenue miles have experienced a steady decrease from The revenue miles in FY 2014 were 513,576, whereas the revenue miles in 2010 were 625,828. Overall, revenue miles have decreased approximately 18% since The total operating expenses were at their lowest in 2014 at $2,176,644, with expenses comparable to the 2010 figures ($2,198,463). The operating expenses peaked in FY 2012 with total costs at $3,063,969. The passenger fare revenue has steadily increased since 2010, by approximately 26%. To conclude, even though the number of trips, vehicle miles, and annual revenue miles have decreased from , the BTT has managed to increase fare revenue as well as decrease the overall operating expenses Effectiveness Measures Effectiveness Measures indicate how well service-related goals are being met. For example, passenger trips per capita are a measure of the effectiveness of a system in meeting the transportation needs of the community. The effectiveness measures chosen for analysis were vehicle miles per capita, and passenger trips per capita, revenue, mile, and revenue hour. Selected effectiveness measures are presented in Table 5.10 and Figures 5.8 through The purpose and fundamentals of the selected effectiveness measures are defined below, as described by FTIS: Vehicle Miles per Service Area Capita: Characterized as the number of miles of service provided for each person in the service area and the range of service provided within the service area. Passenger Trips per Capita: The average number of transit boardings per person per year. This measures how frequently the public uses transit in a given service area. Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile: The ratio of passenger trips to revenue miles of service. This ratio is influenced by the levels supply and demand of service provided. Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour: The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation. A measure of the levels of supply and demand during hours of operation. Rev. August 2,

94 Table Effectiveness Measures, Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis ( ) Effectiveness Measure FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Vehicle Miles per Capita Passenger Trips per Capita Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Figure 5.8. Annual Vehicle Miles per Capita Vehicle Miles per Capita Miles Per Capita FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Trips per Capita Figure 5.9. Annual Passenger Trips Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Capita FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Rev. August 2,

95 Figure Annual Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Trips per Revenue Mile Trips per Revenue Mile FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Trips per Revenue Hour Figure Annual Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour Revenue Hour Passenger Trips FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) The following is a summary of the trends from the effectiveness measures presented in Table 5.10 and Figures 5.8 through 5.11: The vehicle miles per capita have declined by 32% from 2010 to Passenger trips per capita have steadily declined from 8.48 in 2010 to 6.47 in Passenger trips per revenue mile have increased overall since The peak passenger trips per revenue mile were in 2012, with a reported 1.35 trips per revenue mile up from 1.16 in Passenger trips per revenue hour also experienced a peak in 2012, with trips per revenue hour. However, this figure has overall declined since 2010, with the lowest trips per hour in 2014 with Rev. August 2,

96 5.2.3 Efficiency Measures Efficiency Measures measure the level of resources used for production and operation of service. The efficiency measures evaluated were: the operating expenses per capita, passenger trip, and revenue mile, the farebox recovery percentage, revenue miles per vehicle mile, and the average fare. Efficiency measures are presented in Table 5.11 and Figures 5.12 through Generally, the operating expenses experienced a slight increase over the five year period, and the revenue miles per vehicle remained relatively constant. However, the operating expense per capita decreased while the average fare and farebox recovery percentage increased. The purpose and fundamentals of the selected efficiency measures are defined below, as described by FTIS: Operating Expense per Service Area Capita: A measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. This is determined by dividing the annual operating budget by the service area population. Operating Expense per Passenger Trip: The impact of trip length on performance. This is determined by the operating expense divided by the number of passenger miles. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile: Efficiency with which service is delivered. This is determined by dividing the operating expense by the number of revenue miles of service. Farebox Recovery Percentage: The share of total operating costs that is covered by passenger s fares. This is the ratio of passenger fare revenue to total operating expenses. Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile: Reflects how much of the total vehicle operation is in passenger service. Higher ratios are favorable, but garage location, training needs, and other considerations may influence the ratio. Average Fare: The passenger fare revenues divided by the total number of passenger trips. Table Efficiency Measures, Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis ( ) Efficiency Measure FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Operating Expense per Capita $25.73 $27.10 $29.13 $27.21 $20.69 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $3.03 $3.67 $3.96 $3.97 $3.20 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $3.51 $4.57 $5.34 $4.99 $4.24 Farebox Recovery % 20.53% 17.95% 17.57% 19.66% 26.10% Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile Average Fare $0.62 $0.66 $0.70 $0.78 $0.83 Rev. August 2,

97 Figure Annual Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Capita Expense Per Capita $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) $4.50 Figure Annual Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Expense $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Expense/Revenue Mile $5.50 $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 Figure Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Rev. August 2,

98 Figure Annual Farebox Recovery Percent Farebox Recovery Farebox Recovery % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Revenue Miles/Vehicle Mile Figure Annual Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Figure Annual Average Fare Average Fare Average Fare $0.85 $0.80 $0.75 $0.70 $0.65 $0.60 $0.55 $0.50 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) Rev. August 2,

99 The following is a summary of the trends among the efficiency measures presented in Table 5.11 and Figures 5.12 through 5.17: The operating expense per capita overall decreased by almost 20% since 2010, from $25.73 to $ The operating expense per passenger trip slightly increased since 2010, from $3.03 to $3.20 in and 2013 had the highest operating expenses per passenger trip with a cost of $3.96 in 2012 and $3.97 in The operating expense per revenue mile increased by 52% between 2010 and 2012, but has since been declining in 2013 and However, there is still an overall increase in operating expense per revenue by 21% over the five year period. The farebox recovery percentage, which is the ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses, increased by 27% between 2014 and 2010, with an overall farebox recovery of 26% in The revenue miles per vehicle miles experienced a decline from 2012 to 2013, from 0.95 to However, the revenue miles per vehicle miles have remained relatively constant from 2010 to The average fare has steadily increased from 2010 to 2014 by an average of $0.05 each year. The average fare in 2010 was $0.62, and the average fare in 2014 was $0.83, which is an overall increase of 34% over the five year period Summary Results for the Trend Analysis The trend analysis is a data-based performance evaluation providing a perspective of the transit system performance over a five year period. When paired with the peer review analysis, the results provide an initial, data-driven viewpoint for understanding the BTT performance over time and how it compares to other transit systems with similar characteristics. Table 5.12 provides a summary of the trend analyses showing the identified positive and negative trends. Rev. August 2,

100 Table 5.12: Bay Town Trolley Trend Analysis Summary ( ) Measure/Indicator Change ( ) General Performance Service Area Population 23.1% Passenger Trips -6.1% Vehicle Miles -16.6% Revenue Miles -17.9% Total Operating Expense -1.0% Passenger Fare Revenue 25.9% Service Supply Vehicle Miles per Capita -32.2% Service Consumption Passenger Trips per Capita -23.7% Passenger Trips per Revenue 14.7% Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour -8.9% Cost Efficiency Operating Expense per Capita -19.6% Operating Expense per Passenger Trip 5.6% Operating Expense per Revenue Mile 20.8% Operating Ratio Farebox Recovery 27.1% Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile -2.1% Fare Average Fare 33.9% 5.3 Bay Town Trolley Peer Review Analysis A peer review analysis was conducted in order to compare the performance of the Bay Town Trolley with other systems that have similar characteristics. A peer review allows transit agencies to identify and prioritize problem areas. Selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are provided throughout this section in table and graphic form to demonstrate the performance of the BTT compared to peer agencies. This analysis was performed using 2014 data from the NTD as the 2015 NTD data was not yet available. Rev. August 2,

101 The chosen performance measures are displayed in Table For each selected measure, supplementary tables provide the BTT value, the minimum value among the peer group, the maximum value among the peer group, the mean of the peer group, and the percent that the BBT values are away from the mean. Table Performance Review Measures, Bay Town Trolley Peer Review Analysis ( ) General Performance Effectiveness Efficiency Service Area Population Vehicle Miles Per Capita Operating Expense Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Service Area Population Density Passenger Trips Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Total Operating Expense Passenger Fare Revenues Revenue Mile Weekday Span of Service Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Expense per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Miles per Vehicle Average Fare Peer System Selection Methodology The peer selection was conducted using the 2016 Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) database. At the time of the peer selection process, the most current data available on the FTIS database was for the 2014 NTD. The peers were identified through the use of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) methodology. The TCRP uses five service characteristics and nine urban area characteristics as grouping factors in determining peer agencies, as described below: Service Characteristics Total Vehicle Miles Operated: Total distance traveled annually by revenue service vehicles of a transit system, including both revenue miles and deadhead miles. Total Operating Budget: Reported total spending on operation, including administration, maintenance, and operation of service vehicles. Percent Demand Response: Percentage of demand response service for an agency, measured based on the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. Percent Service Purchased: Percentage of transit service purchased from outside service providers. Measured based on the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. Service Area Type: An identifier, defined as follows, for determining the service and extent of coverage of an agency: 1 = Service only to non-urbanized areas (not presently used) 2 = Service to multiple urban areas (may also include non-urban areas), and is the primary service provider within at least one urban area central city. 3 = Only agency operating with an urban area; no non-urban service Rev. August 2,

102 4 = Agency serves the urban area s central city, where other agencies also provide service to portions of the urban area. 5 = Agency provides service into an urban area s central city, but its primary service area does not include a central city. 6 = Agency provides service within an urban area, but does not provide service to a central city. 7 = Only agency operating within an urban area; provides non-urban service. 8 = Other (special transportation service only, ferry, monorail, Puerto Rico, agency, provides funds to another NTD reporter that operates the service. Urban Area Characteristics: Urban Area Population Population Growth Rate Population Density State Capital Percent Population with a College Degree Percent Poverty Annual Delay (Hours) Per Traveler Freeway Lane-Miles Per Capita Distance The data for all population-related variables were extracted from the American Community Survey (ACS). Likeness scores were first determined for each individual screening and peer-group factor. Next, total likeness scores were calculated from the individual scores. The lower the score of a potential peer system, the more similar it is to the target system. Based on the results of the FTIS peer selection process, eight transit systems were selected for the peer review analysis. The eight transit systems include five from Florida and three others. The Florida systems were selected based on likeness score, population, and operating budget. The three other systems were chosen based on their total likeness score with the BTT. The selected peer systems are displayed in Table Table Selected Peer Systems, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Type System Location Total Likeness Score Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners Fort Walton Beach, FL 0.49 Polk County Transit (PCBOCC) Bartow, FL 0.57 Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) Pensacola, FL 0.58 Martin County Stuart, FL 0.58 City of Ocala (SunTran) Ocala, FL 0.63 Florida Peers Other Peers Michiana Area Council of Governments (MCOG) South Bend, IN 0.2 Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KART) Hanford, CA 0.26 Beaumont Municipal Transit System (BMT) Beaumont, TX 0.28 Rev. August 2,

103 5.3.2 General Performance Measures The selected general performance indicators for the peer review are presented in this section. Categories of performance indicators include population, population density, ridership, revenue miles, and vehicles. Table 5.15 and Figures 5.18 through 5.23 present the performance indicators for the Bay Town Trolley peer review analysis. Table General Performance Measures, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) General Performance Measure Bay Town Trolley (BTT) Peer Group Minimum Peer Group Maximum Peer Group Mean BTT % from Mean Service Area Population 105,192 64, , , % Service Area Population Density 1, ,405 2, % Passenger Trips 680,635 36,146 1,516, , % Revenue Miles 513, ,785 1,493, , % Revenue Hours 40,334 12, ,304 40, % Vehicles Operated in Max Service % Total Operating Expense 2,176, ,155 8,984,762 2,817, % Passenger Fare Revenues $568,059 $38,598 $1,832,518 $528, % Figure Service Area Population, BTT Peer Review (2014) Service Area Population, 2014 BTT MCOG Transit System KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT MEAN Martin SunTran 0 50, , , , , , ,000 Population Rev. August 2,

104 Figure Service Area Population Density, BTT Peer Review (2014) Population Density, 2014 Transit System BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Population/Square Mile Figure Passenger Trips, BTT Peer Review (2014) Passenger Trips, 2014 Transit System BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN 0 200, , , ,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 Pasessenger Trips Rev. August 2,

105 Figure Revenue Miles, BTT Peer Review (2014) Revenue Miles Transit System BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN 0 200, , , ,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 Revenue Miles Figure Revenue Hours, BTT Peer Review (2014) Revenue Hours, 2014 BTT MCOG KART Transit System BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT MEAN Martin SunTran 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80, , ,000 Revenue Hours Rev. August 2,

106 Figure 5.23 Number of Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service, BTT Peer Review (2014) Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service, 2014 BTT MCOG KART Transit System BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT MEAN Martin SunTran Number of Vehicles General Performance Summary The following is a summary of the peer review general performance indicators, based on the information presented in Table 5.15 and Figures 5.18 through 5.23: The service area population for the BTT is approximately 30% smaller than the peer group average of 149,612. The service area density is also smaller than the average, by about 16%. The BTT completed more passenger trips than the average of the peer group by nearly 27%. The revenue miles are about 14% less than the mean, whereas the revenue hours were almost equal to the average, with a difference of 0.2%. The BTT had about 7.5% less vehicles in operation than the peer average. The total operating expenses were lower than the peer group average by nearly 23%. The BTT experienced 7.5% higher passenger fare revenues than the peer group average Effectiveness Measures The categories selected to measure effectiveness were vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per revenue mile, and weekday span of service. These categories are presented through Table 5.16 and Figures 5.24 through Rev. August 2,

107 Table Effectiveness Measures, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Effectiveness Measures Bay Town Trolley (BTT) Peer Group Minimum Peer Group Maximum Peer Group Mean BTT % from Mean Vehicle Miles Per Capita % Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile % Weekday Span of Service % Figure Vehicle Miles Per Capita, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Vehicle Miles Per Capita Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN Vehicle Miles Figure Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile BTT MCOG Transit Agency KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN Trips Per Revenue Mile Rev. August 2,

108 Figure Weekday Span of Service, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Weekday Span of Service (in hours) Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN Hours Effectiveness Measures Summary The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures, based on the information presented in Table 5.16 and Figures 5.24 through The BTT totaled about the average vehicle miles per capita in comparison to the peer group, with a 3.3% increase from the peer group average. Significantly more passenger trips per revenue mile were recorded by the BTT in 2014, with a 65% increase than the peer group average. Weekday span of service was less than the peer group average by nearly 6%. Rev. August 2,

109 5.3.4 Efficiency Measures The selected efficiency measures can be categorized by cost efficiency measures and operating ratios. Table 5.17 and Figures 5.27 through 5.33 present the efficiency measures for the BTT peer review analysis. Table Efficiency Measures, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Efficiency Measures Bay Town Trolley (BTT) Peer Group Minimum Peer Group Maximum Peer Group Mean BTT % from Mean Operating Expense Per Capita $20.69 $5.01 $49.72 $ % Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $3.20 $3.20 $22.05 $ % Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $0.82 $0.57 $4.61 $ % Operating Expense per Revenue Hour $53.97 $41.61 $88.69 $ % Farebox Recovery Ratio 26.1% 4.8% 26.1% 16.6% 56.8% Revenue Miles per Vehicle 32,09p 22,242 54,144 34, % Average Fare $0.83 $0.64 $1.34 $ % Figure 5.27 Operating Expense Per Capita, BTT Peer Analysis (2014) Operating Expense Per Capita Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 $45.00 $50.00 Expense Rev. August 2,

110 Figure Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip, BTT Peer Analysis (2014) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 Operating Expense Figure Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile, BTT Peer Analysis (2014) Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 Operating Expense Rev. August 2,

111 Figure Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour, BTT Peer Analysis (2014) Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 Operating Expense Figure Farebox Recovery Ratio, BTT Peer Analysis (2014) Farebox Recovery Ratio Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Farebox Recovery % Rev. August 2,

112 Figure Revenue Miles Per Vehicle, BTT Peer Analysis (2014) Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Revenue Miles Figure Average Fare, BTT Peer Review Analysis (2014) Average Fare Transit Agency BTT MCOG KART BMT Okaloosa PCBOCC ECAT Martin SunTran MEAN $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 Fare Efficiency Measures Summary The following summarizes the results of the efficiency portion of the peer review analysis, based on information depicted in Table 5.17 and Figures 5.27 through The BTT had overall less operating expenses in all categories than the peer group average. The BTT had significantly less expenses per passenger trips (55% less than the average) and expenses per revenue mile (45% less than the average). The expenses per revenue hour were approximately 16% less than the group average, and the operating expense per capita was about 8% less than the group average. Rev. August 2,

113 The farebox recovery ratio was nearly 57% higher than the group average. The BTT had nearly 8% fewer revenue miles per vehicle than the group average. The average fare for the BTT was approximately 11% less than peer group average Summary Results for the Peer Review Analysis Overall, it can be interpreted that the BTT is a cost efficient service. Despite having a smaller population and population density, less revenue hours, and less revenue miles, the BTT has managed to keep operating costs much lower than the peer group, while keeping relatively lower fares. Table 5.18 provides a summary of the peer review analysis for the BTT fixed-route system. The summary includes the percent the BTT is away from the peer group average for each performance measure. Table Peer Review Analysis Summary Results Performance Indicators/Measures % from Mean General Performance Indicators Service Area Population -29.9% Service Area Population Density -24.7% Passenger Trips 13.5% Revenue Miles -21.0% Revenue Hours -7.7% Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service -13.7% Total Operating Expense -29.1% Passenger Fare Revenues 5.1% Service Supply Vehicle Miles Per Capita -5.5% Service Consumption Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 51.4% Quality of Service Weekday Span of Service -8.3% Cost Efficiency Operating Expense Per Capita -8.3% Operating Expense per Passenger Trip -55.2% Operating Expense per Revenue Mile -45.4% Operating Expense per Revenue Hour -15.9% Operating Ratio Farebox Recovery Ratio 56.8% Vehicle Utilization Revenue Miles per Vehicle -7.7% Fare Average Fare -11.0% Rev. August 2,

114 5.4 Demand Response Service (Paratransit) This section evaluates the performance of the demand response service, or paratransit service, for Bay County which serves the transportation disadvantaged (TD) population of the County. The performance evaluation is divided into two sections: Existing Conditions and Performance Evaluation Existing Conditions Paratransit services provide local non-emergency transportation for medical, nutritional, shopping, education, employment, and training needs to eligible citizens within the service area. The existing conditions subsection describes the service area population, service rates, available vehicles, and the general organization of the demand response service TD Service Area Population The TD Service Area Population is divided into two categories, Category I and Category II. The division of the two categories is specifically related to funding. Category I population includes disabled, elderly, lowincome persons, and children who are high-risk or at-risk. Category II population includes those persons who are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation. Figure 5.34 displays the forecasts of the TD population from 2011 through 2015 for the two categories. Figure 5.35 and Tables 5.19 and 5.20 display the category segments and 2011 population estimates for the potential TD population of those segments. Figure 5.34 TD Populations 80,000 TD Population Forecasts TD Ppoulation 60,000 40,000 20, Category I 65,187 66,591 68,035 69,518 71,045 Category II 18,643 19,039 19,446 19,865 20,295 Category I Category II Source: Transportation Disadvantaged Population Estimates, Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida (USF) Rev. August 2,

115 Table Bay County Potential TD Population (Category I) 2011 Population Category I Segments Estimates % of Total Potential TD Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income 1, % Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income 8, % Disabled, Elderly, Low Income 1, % Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income 11, % Non-Disabled, Elderly, Low Income 3, % Non-Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income 19, % Non-Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income 18, % Total Potential TD Population 65, % Source: Transportation Disadvantaged Population Estimates, Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida (USF) Figure Population Estimates, Category II 2011 Population Estimates, Category II TD, Non-Elderly, Low Income TD, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income TD, Elderly, Low Income TD, Elderly, Non-Low Income Non-TD, Low Income, No Auto, No Fixed-Route Transit Source: Transportation Disadvantaged Population Estimates, Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida (USF) Rev. August 2,

116 Table 1.20 Bay County Potential TD Population (Category 2) Category Segments 2011 Population Estimates % of Total Potential TD TD, Non-Elderly, Low Income % TD, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income 3, % TD, Elderly, Low Income 1, % TD, Elderly, Non-Low Income 8, % Non-TD, Low Income, No Auto, No Fixed-Route Transit 5, % Total TD Population 18, % Source: Transportation Disadvantaged Population Estimates, Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida (USF) Vehicles Available According to the most recent TDSP adopted on June 1, 2016, the paratransit vehicle fleet consisted of 36 vehicles in FY Table 5.21 displays the details the fleet vehicles from FY Table Demand Response Fleet Vehicles, FY 2011 Model Year Model/ Manufacturer Vehicle Type # of Vehicles 2003 Ford Bus Champion Bus Champion Bus Chevrolet Van Ford Bus Chevrolet Van Chevrolet Van Chevrolet Bus Chevrolet Bus Champion Bus Champion Bus Champion Bus Champion Bus 4 Total Rev. August 2,

117 5.4.4 Service Rates Summary Table 5.22 displays the service rates summary for the different types of service provided by the Bay County demand response service for FY 2014/2015, FY 2015/2016, and FY 2016/2017. The types of services are described as ambulatory, wheelchair, stretcher, wheelchair pick-up, and stretcher pick-up. The rates reported for FY 2014/2015 were combination rates for multiple services, whereas the rates for FY 2015/2016 and FY 2016/2017 are only for contracted services. The rates per passenger mile for ambulatory, wheelchair, and stretcher services increased by 5% from FY 2015/2016 to FY 2016/2017, from $2.55 to $2.69. Table Service Rates Summary Provided Service FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 % Unit Type Combo Rates Rates Rates Change Ambulatory Passenger Mile $1.40 $2.55 $2.69 5% Wheelchair Passenger Mile $1.34 $2.55 $2.69 5% Stretcher Passenger Mile $1.95 $2.55 $2.69 5% Wheelchair Pick-Up Trip $5.50 N/A N/A N/A Stretcher Pick-Up Trip $40.00 N/A N/A N/A Vehicle Inventory Table 5.23 on the following page provides the full vehicle inventory available for service as of June 2, 2015, and critical data on capacity, age, funding source, and condition. Rev. August 2,

118 Table Full Vehicle Inventory Rev. August 2,

119 5.4.6 Performance Evaluation The performance evaluation subsection provides information regarding operational measures, costs and expenses, ridership, and results from the annual rider survey Operational Measures Certain operational measures were evaluated for the 2016 TDSP annual update, as displayed in Table The five operational measures presented are on-time performance, passenger no-shows, accidents, roadcalls, and complaints. On-time performance and passenger performance were based on standards set in the TDSP. Accidents, roadcalls, and complaints were evaluated by performance standards established by the CTC. Of the five operational measures evaluated, two of them met the established standard or goal (roadcalls, complaints), two them were considered unmet (on-time performance and accidents), and the passenger no-shows results were not applicable. Table Operational Measures (Source: 2016 TDSP) Measurable Standards/Goals Reported Standard/Goal Actual Met/Unmet On-Time Performance (per TDSP) - 95% 93.03% Unmet Passenger No-Shows 2,695/131,954 trips In TDSP In TDSP N/A Accidents 16/516,493 miles 1/100,000 miles CTC 3.10/100,000 Unmet Roadcalls 24/516,493 miles 1/10,000 CTC 0.46/10,000 Met Complaints 24/131,954 trips < 0.5% CTC <0.018% Met Costs and Expenses Table 5.25 displays the costs by expense category for the demand response service for FY , FY , and FY It should be noted that the data from FY is only six months of data due to the change in the CTCs. The overall system expenses have decreased by 1% from 2012 to 2015, while the cost per trip has increased by 47%. Miscellaneous expenses have decreased by approximately 95% overall and for cost per trip since Labor, services, fringe benefits, and materials and supplies consumed have also decreased since The expense of utilities have increased by 37% overall and 106% per trip. Rev. August 2,

120 Table Costs by Expense Category FY FY * FY % Change Expense Trips: 203,101 Trips: 100,578 Trips: 131, Category Expense Cost/Trip Expense Cost/Trip Expense Cost/Trip Expense Cost/Trip Labor $784,333 $3.86 $523,879 $5.21 $280,628 $ % -45% Fringe Benefits $177,322 $0.87 $79,205 $0.79 $77,103 $ % -33% Services $7,428 $0.04 $5,265 $0.05 $1,444 $ % -75% Materials/Supplies Consumed $527,706 $2.60 $365,111 $3.63 $50,788 $ % -85% Utilities $31,586 $0.16 $19,905 $0.2 $43,349 $ % 106% Casualty/Liability Costs $104,443 $0.51 $31,278 $0.31 $53,936 $ % -20% Taxes $ % N/A Purchased Transportation Service $105,236 $0.52 $63,768 $0.63 $1,043,055 $ % 1419% Miscellaneous Expenses $31,529 $0.16 $11,521 $0.11 $1,536 $ % -94% Interest Expense N/A N/A Leases & Rentals $2,700 $0.02 N/A N/A Annual Depreciation & Amortization $106,496 $0.81 N/A N/A Contributed Service - Allowable Expenses $21 0 $2,642 $ N/A N/A Allocated Indirect Expenses (if applicable) $30,735 $0.23 N/A N/A System Total $1,717,11 6 $8.72 $1,102,574 $10.96 $1,691,770 $ % 47% * Six Months of Data due to change in CTCs Contract Agencies and Trips The CTC holds contracts with the following groups: Chautauqua Learn and Serve Council on Aging Pensacola Care Headstart Program Table 5.26 displays the organizations and agencies that purchase service from the CTC and the percentage of trips from each agency. The agency with the highest percentage of trips was the Agency for Rev. August 2,

121 Persons with Disabilities (APD) with approximately 39%. The Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) commissioned 22% of the trips, and 26% of the trips were classified as Other. Table Percentage of Trips from Purchasing Agencies (Source: 2016 TDSP) Agency Name % of Trips Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) 22.12% Medicaid (AHCA) 6.70% Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) 38.64% Department of Elder Affairs (DOEA) 6.36% Department of Education (DOE) 0.00% Other 26.18% Total % Ridership Table 27 and Figure 36 display ridership data for FY There were a total of 93,443 trips for FY , with an average of 7,787 trips per month. The months with the most trips were October 2015 with 8,514 total trips and March 2016 with 8,724 total trips. The months with the least trips were November 2015 with 7,117 trips and January 2016 with 7,289 trips. The total unduplicated riders was 5,087, with an average of 424 unduplicated riders per month. Table 27. Bay Area Transportation Service FY July 1, June 30, 2016 Category Monthly Average FY Total Days of Service Service Hours 2,453 29,434 Service Miles 31, ,085 Trips 7,787 93,443 Unduplicated Riders 424 5,087 Ambulatory Trips 5,702 68,427 Wheelchair Trips 1,838 22,051 Reschedules On-Time 97% N/A Client No Shows 297 3,569 Client Cancels 1,049 12,582 Rev. August 2,

122 Figure FY Monthly Trips 9,000 Trips Per Month 8,500 8,000 Trips 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Trips 8,004 7,369 7,566 7,749 7,584 7,722 8,514 7,117 7,758 7,289 8,047 8, Annual Rider Survey An annual rider survey was conducted as part of the TDSP update in an effort to monitor the services provided to the TD. The data is used to identify areas where the CTC is achieving its goals and objectives and areas where they are not. Below is a brief summary of the most recent survey results: Of those surveyed, 57% indicated the trip was for school/work while 26% indicated the trip was for medical/dental purposes. 82% of the surveyors indicated that they use community transportation 11 or more times a month. If community transportation was not provided, 43% indicated that they would not be able to make the trip and 32% indicated that they would carpool. A comparison of survey results from the 2015 Bay County rider survey and previous surveys is included in Figure 5.37 on the following two pages. The table compares results from 2013, 2014, and 2015, through three operators. Rev. August 2,

123 Figure 5.37 Bay County 2015 Rider Survey Results and Comparisons Rev. August 2,

124 Rev. August 2,

125 6.0 Situation Appraisal 6.1 Introduction A requirement of a TDP major update is to include a situation appraisal of the environment in which the transit agency operates in order to understand key trends and implications that impact Bay County and the future of the transit program in the community. Situation appraisals provide the context needed to understand the relationship of the challenges and opportunities of the transit provider. According to FDOT, the situation appraisal needs to address the following three factors: 1. Analyze and identify the effects of land use, state and local transportation plans, other governmental actions and policies, socioeconomic trends, organizational issues, and technology on the transit system. 2. Assess land use and urban design patterns in the transit system s service area that support or hinder the efficient provision of transit service. 3. Discuss how the aforementioned issues impact the current provision of transit service and how the future of the transit system may be affected by the organizational issues that exist. Identify any gaps found in support for transit in the community related to land use planning, jurisdictional issues, and boards/committees that comprise the service area. 6.2 Regional Transportation There are transportation providers other than the BTT and paratransit services offered by the Bay County TPO operating in the study area. These other types of services include taxi services, shuttles, limousine services, other bus services, and on-demand ride-sourcing services. These services are summarized in this section Taxi and Shuttle Services A summary of the taxi services within the area was derived the same way that a potential customer would search for the service, by general Yellow Pages search ( accessed in July The Yellow Pages search resulted in 29 total taxi services operating in the area (duplicates were omitted). The taxi services are displayed in Table 6.1. Table 6.1. Panama City Area Taxi and Shuttle Services Panama City Area Taxi and Shuttle Services # Provider Service Address ICab Beach Taxi and Airport 6009 Hunt Club Circle, 1 Taxis, Driving Service Shuttle Panama City Beach 2 Affordable Taxi Service Taxis, Limousine Service Panama City Beach Rev. August 17,

126 3 City Taxi, Inc. Taxis, Shuttle Service 811 Mabry Street, Tallahassee, 4 Affordable Limousine Service Airport Transportation, Limousine Service Panama City Beach 5 we evolve toward love Taxis, Airport 211 Corto Place, Panama Transportation City Beach 6 Liberty Shuttle Taxis 2603 Allison Avenue #2, Panama City Beach 7 My Florida Cabs, Inc. Taxis 915 Harrison Avenue, Panama City 8 Asbell's Airport Shuttle Taxis 119 Sims Avenue, Panama City 9 A & N Gulfline Taxi Taxis 3810 Long John Drive, Panama City 10 Adam's Taxi Taxis 156 Rusty Gans Drive, Panama City 11 Beach Boys Shuttle Taxi & Limo Taxis 2004 Anne Avenue, Panama City 12 Your Taxi Taxis 2529 Joan Avenue, Panama City 13 icab Taxis 9860 S Thomas Drive, #117, Panama City 14 Yellow Checker Cab Company Taxis Panama City 15 Cedar Cab Taxis Panama City 16 Gulfline Taxi Taxis 8233 Grand Bay Boulevard, Panama City 17 A & N Gulfline Taxi Taxis 6233 Pinetree Avenue, Panama City 18 American Beach Taxi Taxis Panama City 19 Executive Transportation Taxis 1104 Magnolia Avenue, Panama City 20 Fast Cab of Bay County Taxis 1104 Magnolia Avenue, Panama City 21 Fox Cab Taxi & Airport Shuttle Taxis 9860 S Thomas Drive #304, Panama City 22 Freedom Taxi Limousine Service, Taxis, 5301 Thomas Drive, Shuttle Service Panama City 23 H20 Shuttle Taxi & Limo Airport Transportation, 8743 Thomas Drive, Shuttle Service Panama City 24 Red Cabs of Panama City Limousine Service, Taxis, 911 Harrison Avenue, Shuttle Service Panama City 25 Yellow Cab Airport Transportation, 911 Harrison Avenue, Shuttle Service Panama City 26 Affordable Limousine Service Limousine Service, Airport 7920 Laird Street, Panama Transportation City Rev. August 17,

127 27 Panama City Taxi 28 Ride On Limos & Shuttles 29 PCB Express Taxi Taxis Source: yellowpages.com, Taxi Search, July 2016 Airport Transportation, Taxis Airport Transportation, Resorts 8795 Thomas Drive, Panama City Panama City 613 Camelia Street, Panama City Other Bus Services A summary of the bus services within the area was also derived by general Yellow Pages search. The search resulted in 12 total other bus services operating in the area (duplicates were omitted). The other bus services are displayed in Table 6.2. Table 6.2. Panama City Area Other Bus Services Panama City Area Other Bus Services # Provider Service Address 1 Greyhound Bus Lines Bus Lines, Bus Ticket Agency 917 Harrison Avenue, Panama City 2 Southern Coaches Buses-Charter & Rental, Truck Rental 1751 Reeves Lane Dothan, Panama City 3 Greyhound Package Xpress Delivery Service, Bus Lines, Trucking 917 Harrison Avenue, Panama City 4 Superior Transportation Group Charter and Rental Buses, Limousine Service Panama City Area 5 Price 4 Limo & Party Bus, Charter Bus Bus Lines, Charter and Rental Buses Panama City Area 6 Empire Charters Charter and Rental Buses Panama City Area 7 Metropolitan Shuttle Charter and Rental Buses Panama City Area 8 US Coachways Bus Lines, Bus Tours- Promoters Various 9 Bus Quote USA Bus Lines, Charter and Rental Buses Panama City Area 10 Kincaid Coach Lines Bus Lines, Charter and Rental Buses 9123 PCB Parkway, Coastal Coach Charter and Rental Buses 7157 W Highway 98, Panama City Beach 12 Sunshine Coach Charter and Rental Buses 7151 Front Beach Road Source: yellowpages.com, Bus Search, July 2016 Rev. August 17,

128 6.2.3 Limousine Services A summary of the limousine services within the area was also derived by general Yellow Pages search. The search resulted in 12 total limousine services operating in the area (duplicates were omitted). The other bus services are displayed in Table 6.3. Table 6.3. Panama City Area Limousine Services Panama City Area Limousine Services # Provider Service Address 1 Crown Shuttle & Resort Transport Limousine Service, Resorts 2004 Ann Avenue, Panama City 2 Ride On Commuter Services Limousine Service 651 W 14th Street Suite E, Panama City 7622 McElvey Road, 3 Mel's Limousine Service Limousine Service Limousine Service, Airport 4 Panama Limousine and Town Car Transportation Limousine Service, 5 Delcon's Limousine Chauffeur Service After Six Formal Limousine Limousine Service, 6 Service Chauffeur Service Limousine Service, 7 Marquee Limousine Service Chauffeur Service Limousine Service, 8 Safe Rides Sightseeing Tours Limousine Service, 9 A Allstar Transportation Sightseeing Tours Source: yellowpages.com, Limousine search, 2016 Panama City 9851 S Thomas Drive, Panama City Panama City 2626 Redwood Steet, Panama City 5325 N Lagoon Drive, Panama City 8711 Thomas Drive, Panama City Beach Panama City Beach On-Demand Ride-sourcing Services App-based, on-demand ride-sourcing services such as Uber and Lyft are becoming transportation options around the world. On-demand ride-sourcing works by the user signing up for a trip using the company s smartphone application, and then being matched with a driver who will pick them up and drop them off at their destination. According to a working paper from the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC), these types of services have directly challenged existing regulations and practices that have other the years shaped the taxi industry, raising questions about appropriate regulatory and public policy responses. (Rayle et al, 2016, What is the state of on-demand ride-sourcing services within the TDP study area? According to an article from the Panama City News Herald and restated by the Florida Taxicab Association, ride-sourcing services Rev. August 17,

129 such as Uber were suspended in Panama City Beach in March ( A more recent article published in February 2016 by Nextstar Broadcasting, Incorporated on stats that Uber, a popular car service company, is making its way to communities across the world, but not Bay County [Uber drivers] must comply with the same rules as taxi services. (Uber, The article also stated that for now, Uber is not operating in Bay County, however [Florida State Representative Matt Gaetz] hopes new legislation may change that in the future. Overall, the status of ride-sourcing services is uncertain at this time, the issues are likely to get resolved in the future. 6.3 Socioeconomic Trends An analysis of recent socioeconomic trends provides the foundation for the Bay County TPO environment. The socioeconomic elements presented in this section are population and employment trends. Population Demographic trends and factors are useful tools to evaluate current and future transit needs. Information presented in this section includes: the current population, the population growth rate, and the population projections. Population information provides context and insight to the service area environment. Current Population and Recent Population Growth Trends The 2010 and 2015 population estimates for Bay County and the State of Florida are displayed in Table 6.4. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the estimated population of Bay County grew at a rate of approximately eight percent between 2010 and 2015 (from 168,852 to 181,635). The overall rate of growth in Florida s population as a whole between 2010 and 2015 was also approximately 8%. Table 6.4. Population Estimates, U.S. Census Location % Change Bay County 168, ,635 8% Florida 18,801,310 20,271,272 8% Population Projections The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) has been making population projections for Florida and its counties since the 1970s. BEBR publishes a high, medium, and low projection to account for uncertainty regarding future population growth. It is BEBR s opinion that the medium series is the most likely to provide accurate forecasts in most circumstances. However, the low and high series demonstrate levels of uncertainty surrounding the medium series. Furthermore, the projections only refer to the permanent residents of Florida, and do not account for tourists or seasonal residents. Table Rev. August 17,

130 6.5 and Figures 6.1 and 6.2 display the BEBR population projections for Bay County and for Florida to For Bay County, BEBR projects a population growth ranging from a low estimate of -2% growth to a high estimate of 56%. The medium projection is for a 27% growth rate. Comparatively, for Florida as a whole, BEBR estimates a low estimate population growth rate of 22%, with a high estimate of 52%. The medium estimate for Florida as a whole is a population growth of 37%. Table 6.5. Populations Projections, BEBR Location % Change Bay County 173, Low - 172, , ,400-2% Medium - 191, , ,400 27% High - 208, , ,000 56% Florida 19,815, Low - 21,588,200 23,027,000 24,097,600 22% Medium - 22,799,500 25,212,400 27,217,600 37% High - 23,908,700 27,204,800 30,113,600 52% Figure 6.1. Bay County Population Projects (Source: BEBR) Bay County Population Projections 300, , , , , , , , Low Medium High Rev. August 17,

131 Figure 6.2. Florida Population Projections (Source: BEBR) Florida Population Projections 32,000,000 30,000,000 28,000,000 26,000,000 24,000,000 30,113,600 27,217,600 24,097,600 22,000,000 20,000, Low Medium High Implications The Bay County TPO will need to review transportation solutions for the rate of growth in the County. As discussed in the review of local plans section, several of the Bay County municipalities include language to support the expansion and utilization of public transportation. 6.4 Employment Trends Employment information indicate which types of goods, services, and industries exist in the service area. The examination of employment trends provides insights to the transportation needs of the community based on employment sectors and employment locations. Unemployment rates, labor force, and top employers and industries are presented in this section. Unemployment As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), Bay County has followed closely with the Florida unemployment trend over the past six years. The unemployment rate for Bay County in 2015 was 5.4%, which was the same unemployment rate for Florida. The unemployment rate has decreased approximately 47% in Bay County since 2010, which is slightly more than Florida as a whole with a decrease of 46%. The unemployment rates are displayed in Table 6.6 and Figure 6.3. Table 6.6. Unemployment Rates, (BLS, DEO) Location % Change Bay County 5.4% 6.3% 7.3% 8.7% 10.2% 10.2% -47.1% Florida 5.4% 6.3% 7.3% 8.5% 10.0% 11.1% -46.0% Rev. August 17,

132 Figure 6.3. Unemployment Rates, (Source: BLS, DEO) Unemployment Rates 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Bay County Florida Labor Force Status, 2016 The 2016 data from Applied Geographic Solutions reports that 92% (84,448) of the labor force is employed, and 5% (4,514) of the labor force are unemployed. Of those employed, 3% (2,527) are in the armed forces. Figure 6.7 and Table 6.4 display the labor force data. Figure 6.4. Labor Force Status, 2016 (Source: Applied Geographic Solutions (APS), Florida's Great Northwest (FGNW) LABOR FORCE STATUS Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in Labor Force Table 6.7. Labor Force Status, 2016 (Source: APS, FGNW) Status Population % Employed 84,448 92% In Armed Forces 2,527 5% Rev. August 17,

133 Unemployed 4,514 3% Not in Labor Force 57,971 63% Total 91, % Top Industries The top industries in Bay County, as reported by APS and FGNW are Services (39%), and Retail (27%), followed by Public Administration (10%) and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (7%). Figure 6.5 and Table 6.8 display the top industry data. The Industries are classified by their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) number from the BLS. Figure 6.5. Bay County Employment Industries (Source: APS, GFNW) Services Top Employment Industries Retail Trade Public Administration Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Construction Manufacturing Transportation and Communications Wholesale Trade Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing Unclassfied Mining Table 6.8. Bay County Employment Industries (Source: APS, GFNW) Industry Name SIC Total % Services , % Retail Trade , % Public Administration , % Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate , % Construction , % Manufacturing , % Transportation and Communications , % Wholesale Trade , % Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing % Unclassified % Rev. August 17,

134 Mining % Total - 95, % Major Employers In developing a transit plan, it is important to know who the top employers are in the service area as transit may be utilized to support those employers by getting employees to and from work, or bringing shoppers or clients to and from the industry location. The top ten major employers for Bay County as identified by Bay County Online are displayed in Table 6.9. Table 6.9. Top Ten Major Employers Name of Firm Industry Tyndall Air Force Base Military Naval Support Activity - Panama City Military Bay District Schools Government Bay Medical Center Medical Facility Wal-Mart and Sam's Club Department/Retail Bay County BCC Government Eastern Shipbuilding Manufacturing Gulf Coast Medical Center Medical Facility Gulf Coast State College Education City of Panama City Government Implications The Bay County TPO should evaluate the amount of service provided to facilitate access to the top employers and industries within the service area. 6.5 Travel Behavior Another situational element that has impacts on transit is travel behavior. Travel behavior and public transportation ridership are affected by the cost of fuel. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) price increases in gasoline create related increases in public transportation ridership. As a result, it is important for local transit agencies to address any immediate capacity issues as well as monitor the trend of gas prices in order to prepare for potential increases in demand. Fuel Prices A report published by APTA in 2012, titled the Potential Impact of Gasoline Price Increases on U.S. Public Transportation Ridership, states that if regular gas prices reach four dollars a gallon across the nation, it is forecasted that an additional 670 million passenger trips could be expected. See the APTA report at: Rev. August 17,

135 Figures 6.6 through 6.8 show the trend in average gas prices for six months, 2 years, and five years in Florida and for the country as a whole. Overall, the price of gas has been on the decline since 2011, with some peaks in Gas prices were at their lowest in early 2014 and early Taking a closer look at the current year, gas prices have been on the rise in 2016 since February. The average low price in February for the US and for Florida was between $1.70 and $1.79 per gallon. The highest price reported for 2016 was in July, ranging from approximately $2.30 per gallon for Florida and $2.39 per gallon for the US. Figure 6.6. Average Gas Prices, 6 Months (Source: gasbuddy.com) Figure 6.7. Average Gas Prices, 2 Years (source: gasbuddy.com) Rev. August 17,

136 Figure 6.8. Average Gas Prices, 5 Years (Source: gasbuddy.com) Implications As fuel prices have a direct impact on public transit ridership, the Bay County TPO monitor the trend of gas prices in order to prepare for potential increases or decreases in demand. Expanding service to increase demand at the time of high gas prices should be carefully planned to ensure that the agency is not adversely impacted if gas prices decrease, resulting in lower ridership and excess capacity. Rev. August 17,

137 6.6 Land Use The primary future land use designations in Bay County are Agriculture (AG), Agriculture Timberland (AGT), and various Conservation/Recreation land uses scattered throughout the County. The higher density and intensity future land uses are concentrated within the southern portions of the County along the coast and along US 231. Public/Institutional future land use primarily applies to Tyndall Air Force Base in the southeastern sector of the county. The Bay County future land use map includes several sector plans located along State Road 79 in West Bay. Sector plans included in this area are: the Village Center Sector Plan, the West Bay Center Sector Plan, the Regional Employment Sector Plan and Business Sector Plan, and a Preservation Sector Plan. Specifically, the West Bay Sector Plan is a 75,000 acre multi-use, master planned development anchored by the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport. The first phase of the West Bay Sector Plan is for Venture Crossings Enterprise Center, which provides for industrial, commercial, and retail space. Figure 6.9 displays the current Bay County future land use map. Implications The Bay County TPO should take into account the potential growth sectors in the service area when planning and making adjustments to the transit system. Rev. August 17,

138 Figure 6.9 Bay County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM), 2016 Source: Chris Mathers, GISP, GIS Programmer/Analyst, Bay County Geographic Information System. Rev. August 17,

139 6.7 Tourism Impacts and Opportunities The tourism industry is integral to the economy of Bay County. As stated by Dr. Rick Harper from the University of West Florida, Tourism is the lifeblood of the Bay County economy, especially Panama City Beach There is no County more dependent on tourism in Florida than Bay County. (Source: Panama City News Herald, November 28, 2015, 5.cloudinary.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/panamacitybeach/BOCCDan_b422a6e5-dc a3a117116ec.pdf). Panama City Beach has also been recognized in the following awards and accolades, as detailed in the Bay County Tourist Development Council (TDC) 2016 Summer Campaign: 50 States, 50 Dates: Romantic Activities Around the USA USAToday.com, 2016 The 10 Best Beaches in Florida CondeNastTraveler.com, 2016 The South s Best Beaches SouthernLiving.com, 2016 Ten Beaches to Visit Now National Geographic Traveler, 2016 Top 10 U.S. Beaches TripAdvisor, 2016 Therefore, it is important to examine the Bay County tourism industry and the potential implications and opportunities to public transportation. The TDC contracts marketing and promotional activities with the Panama City Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB). The TDC and CVB activities are funded by the Tourist Development Tax (TDT). Figure 6.10 displays the percent of TDT revenues per month, demonstrating that the peak tourism months are March, June, and July. Special attention should be paid to the transit needs of the service area during these months. Figure TDT Revenues by Month, Source: Bay County Tourism Update, 2016 Rev. August 17,

140 Furthermore, according to the 2016 TDC Bay County Tourism update, the TDC have recognized the following strategies for the future of tourism within the county: Strategies to Build Demand Diversification within Tourism Focus on increasing visitors every month of the year by developing and supporting special events outside of summer travel season Develop new marketing channels to reach targeted visitors in non-traditional ways Develop new and redevelop existing venues to drive incremental visitor demand Conduct a feasibility study for a Special Event Center to drive incremental visitor demand Evaluate Panama City as a Tourist Destination Conduct a study of tourism in Panama City to identify market segments besides the beach we can be developed and marketed Develop Potential Catalyst Venues Create new public venues that can benefit visitors and residents alike, such as: Waterfront Hotel and Conference Center Excursion and US Olympic Training Center Entrepreneurial and Innovation Center Music and Entertainment District Indoor/Outdoor Performing Arts Venue Continued Collaboration through public-private partnerships and other local entities Implications The Bay County TPO should monitor tourism trends and activities as well as collaborate with the TDC on their potential transit needs. 6.8 Organizational Issues For the Bay County service area, the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is the designated recipient of federal and state grants for transit. Specifically, the TPO has oversight responsibility for the Bay Town Trolley (BTT), which is operated by First Transit, Inc., under contract with the TPO. Membership of the Bay County TPO consists of elected officials from Bay County and the cities of Panama City, Callaway, Lynn Haven, Panama City Beach, Parker, Springfield, and Mexico Beach. Demand response services (paratransit) provide local non-emergency transportation for medical, nutritional, shopping, education, employment, and training needs to eligible citizens within the service area. The paratransit service is coordinated by the Bay County Board of County Commissioners, which was appointed as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) in Bay County when the previous CTC, the Tri-County Community Council, chose not to be the CTC in The Bay County CTC conducts business as Bay Area Transportation. The Bay County CTC selected Pensacola Bay Transportation as the Rev. August 17,

141 contract operator to provide coordinated transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged. However, Pensacola Bay Transportation discontinued its service in May 2014, and Bay County contracted with First Transit under an emergency basis to begin June The Bay County Board of County Commissioners requested to remain the CTC and was approved to do so for a five year period from July 2014 to June The Bay County BCC will need to select a contract operator through an appropriate procurement in the near future. Figure 6.11 displays the organizational chart for the Bay County transit system. Figure Organizational Chart, Source: 2015 Bay County TDSP Rev. August 17,

142 6.9 Ridership Ridership Trends Ridership trends were analyzed in Section 5.3 in the trend analysis and peer analysis portions of the existing conditions section. The ridership trends are summarized as follows: The overall passenger trips have steadily declined since 2011, with an overall decrease in ridership of 12% since 2010, while the service area population has remained constant. The vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and passenger trips per revenue hour have all declined since Ridership Forecasting As part of this TDP, the FDOT TBEST model was used to forecast ridership for existing services based on changes in demographics and potential new service options. The model was validated using December FY 2015 ridership totals by route. The results for the TBEST are presented in various sections of this TDP. Implications The TBEST ridership forecasts can assist the Bay County TPO in determining the implementation of new service and whether service modifications may be needed to existing routes in future years to maintain ridership Revenue Trends Trends in revenue were detailed in Section 5 in the existing conditions trend analysis and peer analysis. Specifically, the trends in revenue miles, passenger fare revenue, average fares, and operating expenses were covered in the trend analysis. A summary of the results is as follows: The number of passenger trips, vehicle trips, and annual revenue miles have decreased from 2010 to However, the BTT has managed to increase fare revenue as well as decrease the overall operating expenses. The passenger trips per revenue mile have overall increased by nearly 15% since 2010, whereas the passenger trips per capita and per revenue hour have decreased. The farebox recovery percentage, which is the ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses, increased by 27% between 2014 and 2010, with an overall farebox recovery of 26% in The average fare has steadily increased from 2010 to 2014 by an average of $0.05 each year. The average fare in 2010 was $0.62, and the average fare in 2014 was $0.83, which is an overall increase of 34% over the five year period. The BTT average fare is approximately 11% less than the peer group, with a 57% higher farebox recovery than the selected peers. Despite having a smaller population and population density, less revenue hours, and less revenue miles, the BTT has managed to keep operating costs much lower than the peer group, while keeping relatively lower fares. Rev. August 17,

143 6.11 Transit Technology The continual development of transit technology systems is a fundamental component of a successful transit system. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the future technological potential of a transit service during a TDP update. The integration of new technologies offers the added value of more efficient service, better customer service, and provide for better data collection for further planning and research. The technologies described in this section provide opportunities for future technology development for the Bay Town Trolley System Electronic Fare Payment Systems (EFP) Electronic Fare Payment Systems (EFPs) use electronic communication, data processing, and data storage techniques to automate manual fare collection with the purpose of making fare collection more convenient for the riders and less costly for the transit providers. EFP systems offer the following benefits: Reduces cash handling costs Reduces theft risk Improves farebox reliability and maintenance Provides trackable data for future planning and research Allows for sophisticated and flexible fare pricing Automates accounting and financing Helps with operations and organization multimodal/multi-provider networks Exact change not required (Source: FDOT Guidance for Producing a TDP, 2009) Genfare Genfare is a bus fare collection systems manufacturing company which provides fare collection boxes, mobile payment options, digital fare management platforms, Point of Sale (POS) equipment, and other EFP services to provide intelligent fare management for tomorrow s smart cities ( 2016). Genfare states their goal is to help riders plan, pay, and board quickly and easily while providing transit authorities with better tracking, better reporting, more insightful data, and more precise accounting. (Introducing the New Genfare video ). In early 2016 a Genfare training session was held to provide initial training regarding the operation and data management made possible by the system. A commitment has been made with Genfare and the Bay County TPO to fully utilize the wide variety of data capture, management, and reporting features of the Genfare system Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) provides operational data that can be used for planning, scheduling, dispatching, and maintenance which will ultimately provide better customer service to the transit riders. Rev. August 17,

144 Typically, transit agencies utilizing AVL have two monitors and a radio to allow them to monitor the location of buses and observe bus scheduling accuracy. (Source: USDOT ITS, Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) count the number of passengers as they board and alight transit vehicles at individual stops (Source: FDOT Guidance for Producing a TDP, 2009). The data gleaned from APCs is generally utilized for service and operations planning, and potentially used for National Transit Database (NTD) reporting. The benefits of APCs are for data collection improvements such as making data collection cost less, more accurate, and have the ability to track on-time transit vehicle performance. Bay County transit does not currently utilize an APC system. There is a current need to install onboard automatic passenger counters that is being pursued. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology ITS office has provided sample unit cost entries for APCs, which are displayed in Table Types of APC Systems: APC Interface to AVL Integration of an APC system with a GPS-based AVL system APC On-Board Unit Automatically counts passengers as they board and alight transit vehicles using an infrared beam. An electronic record is created at teach bus stop that typically includes stop location, stop date/time, time of doors opening/closing, and total number of passengers boarding and alighting. APC System Software Software that supports APC system transit management functions (Source: USDOT, ITS, Sample Unit Cost Entries for APC Systems, itcostelement=automatic+passenger+counting+system&subsystem=transit+vehicle+on-board+(tv)) In 2009, the capital cost of an APC Interface to AVL system ranged from a cost of $15,000 to $25,000 per system, with operation and maintenance costs between $1,500 and $2,500. APC On-Board Units ranged from $2,500 to $6,000 per vehicle, with operation and maintenance costs between $100 and $250. APC system software ranged between $50,000 and $80,000 per system, with operation and maintenance costs between $5,000 and $8,000. Table Sample Unit Cost Entries for APC Systems, 2009 Unit Cost Component Cost Type Data Date Reported Units Unit Type Year (Dollars) Capital Cost Per Unit O&M Cost Per Unit APC Interface to AVL Estimated System 2009 $15, $1, APC Interface to AVL Estimated System 2009 $25, $2, APC On-Board Unit Estimated 2009 Per Vehicle 2009 $2, $ Rev. August 17,

145 APC On-Board Unit Estimated 2009 Per Vehicle 2009 $6, $ APC System Software Estimated System 2009 $50, $5, APC System Software Estimated System 2009 $80, $8, (Source: USDOT, ITS, Sample Unit Cost Entries for APC Systems, itcostelement=automatic+passenger+counting+system&subsystem=transit+vehicle+on-board+(tv)) Google Transit Google Transit is a tool through Google Maps which allows the public to access transit information. According to Google Maps Content Providers, by integrating the Bay County TPO schedule and route data with Google Maps, the public transit information becomes easily accessible to millions of Google users in forty languages, using a common and familiar interface for planning trips lead[ing] to increased ridership by attracting new riders who have never considered transit before, and by helping new routes that they are unfamiliar with (Source: Google Maps Content Providers, There is no cost for a local agency to participate in Google Transit. However, the transit agency does need to provide the data to Google. Rev. August 17,

146 6.12 Review of Plans, Studies, and Policies A fundamental process during a TDP major update is the review of current federal, state, and local plans and their relationship to transit and community transportation. A review of these plans provides for the identification of the broader needs and interests of the community. This chapter reviews public transportation guidelines at the state, local, and federal levels of government to provide a situational analysis of surrounding goals, objectives, and policies regarding public transportation policy that should be taken into account during the development and implementation of the Bay County TDP recommendations. To summarize, many of the plans were in support of the overall expansion and further development of public transportation services. Depending on the plan, the expansion of public transit service was identified to either address one or more of the following: a need of the transportation disadvantaged, support for a competitive economy development, provide more transportation options to the public, decrease the reliance on the automobile, to provide various public health and environmental benefits. Furthermore, many of the plans identified several potential improvements of current state of public transportation, such as the securing of stable and consistent funding, more coordination among agencies, more research and innovation, and improved multi-modal infrastructure. The following plans were reviewed: Local Transportation and Economic Plans: Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan ( ) Bay County Long Range Transportation Plan (2035) WFRPC 2010 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Plan and FY 2015 Annual Report Local Comprehensive Plans: Bay County Comprehensive Plan (2020) City of Panama City Comprehensive Plan City of Panama City Beach Comprehensive Plan City of Callaway Comprehensive Plan (2025) City of Parker Comprehensive Plan (2025) City of Lynn Haven Comprehensive Plan 2010 Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan City of Springfield Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulation Code State and Federal Plans: Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) FDOT Transit 2020 State Growth Management Legislation (House Bill 7207) Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act American Public Transportation Association (APTA) TransitVision 2050 Rev. August 17,

147 DOT Livability Initiative and Federal Sustainable Communities Program 6.13 Local Transportation and Economic Development Plans Local transportation and economic development plans provide insight on the goals, perspectives and financial practicalities of the current and future state of transit planning. Reviewing these types of plans provides the opportunity to explore different perspectives of local transit planning and how they may apply to the development of the Bay County TDP. The plans reviewed in this section are the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Plan (TDSP), the Bay County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the WFRPC 2010 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), and the Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Plan Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (FY ) The Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) is the coordinated public transithuman services transportation plan for fiscal years The fiscal year annual update was adopted on June 17, The TDSP was developed collaboratively with the Bay County TPO, the WFRPC, local government officials, FDOT, the Bay County Coordinating Board, Bay Area Transportation, and representatives of the community. As stated in the TDSP, their primary goal is to provide people with access to places for work, medical care, and shopping so the transportation disadvantaged can live vital, productive, and rewarding lives. The purpose of the TDSP is to address the needs of elderly, disabled, or economically disadvantaged people in Bay County through a defined five-year implementation plan, which is updated annually. The Needs Assessment portion of the TDSP identifies the needs and demands for individuals with disabilities, elderly, low income, and high risk and at-risk children. Specifically, the Needs Assessment recognized an outstanding need in the community to determine whether a new or innovative technique or measure can be used to improve or expand public transit service. Service Development Projects specifically include projects involving the use of new technologies; services, routes or vehicle frequencies; the purchase of special transportation services; and other such techniques for increasing service to the riding public. The Needs Assessment also identified the following barriers to adequate coordination: Lack of commitment with scarce tax dollars Perception that coordinated transportation is for the poor Not enough funding to cover demand Securing local funding Specific issues directly related to funding sources Reluctance of some medical providers to cooperate with the transportation coordinator The TDSP also developed goals, objectives, and policies for the local coordinated transportation program. The goals include ensuring the following: Availability of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged Cost-effective and efficient transportation services Rev. August 17,

148 Quality of service provided to the transportation disadvantaged Necessary funding to support the program Program accountability As part of the annual update to the TDSP, a survey of the transportation disadvantaged was administered in an effort to monitor the services provided. The survey results indicated that 44% of the trips were for medical/dental purposes, while 41% were for school/work. The results summary also stated that if community transportation was not provided, 55% of the respondents indicated that they would not be able to make the trip Bay County Long Range Transportation Plan, 2040 (June 2016) Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) establish a regional transportation vision accompanied by goals and strategies to use as tools to achieve that vision. As required by federal and state metropolitan planning regulations, the Bay County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was developed in collaboration with federal, state, and local transportation officials along with interested members of the public. The fundamental components of the plan development process include public involvement, the development of a needs plan, and the development of a financial and cost feasible plan. As stated in the LRTP, the mission of the Bay County LRTP is to enhance the existing transportation system in a manner that is safe, integrated, and socially responsible, while supporting economic development of the region (Bay County LRTP 2040, 2016). The vision statement of the LRTP is to provide a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation system that supports the economic vitality of the area, protects the environment, promotes efficient system management and operation, and emphasizes the preservation of the existing transportation system (Bay County LRTP 2040, 2016). The LRTP provides a list of goals, objectives, and policies to achieve their mission. Goals of the LRTP are listed as follows: Goal 1: A multi-modal network of integrated transportation systems for the movement of people and goods. Goal 2: A multi-modal transportation system that is safe. Goal 3: A multi-modal transportation system that is operated and maintained efficiently. Goal 4: A multi-modal transportation system that protects, preserves and enhances a high quality of life. Goal 5: A multi-modal transportation system that includes consistent, continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning processes. Goal 6: A multi-modal transportation system that supports economic vitality. Goal 7: A multi-modal transportation system that provides for the security of residents, visitors and commerce. Goal 8: A multi-modal transportation system that maintains acceptable roadway level of service on all major facilities. Rev. August 17,

149 A Needs Plan was created by comparing projected population and land use in the year 2040 to the existing transportation network, reviewing other local studies in consideration for their transportation projects, and conducting a 2040 deficiency analysis in order to identify future projects. As stated in the LRTP, the LRTP strived to create a multi-modal plan in that there would not be an emphasis on one mode or another, but a marrying of all modes (Bay County LRTP 2040, 2016). Therefore, along with transit and roadway projects, the Needs Plan incorporated projects from the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, the Regional ITS Plan, and the Freight Network Plan Highways of Commerce. The Needs Plan included thirty-three (33) total roadway projects, $150,000 allocated per year for transit projects, and $450,000 per year for operations and maintenance of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure. The total cost of all potential projects was estimated to be approximately $2.1 billion, and was presented and adopted by the TPO in December However, as stated in the LRTP, the cost to implement all of the mobility projects needed by 2040 far exceeds the anticipated revenues for the TPO (Bay County LRTP 2040, 2016). As the final step of developing the LRTP, a Cost Feasible Plan (CFP) was established in order to evaluate differing approaches on how to spend the revenue through prioritization of projects based on performance. The adopted 2040 CFP includes a total $58.6 million of funding for transit projects, which is approximately $2.93 million annually. Specifically, $7 million is appropriated for public transportation capital improvements projects Bay County TPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (FY ) The currently adopted Bay County TPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was adopted June 22, 2016, by Resolution 16-11, A Resolution of the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization Adopting the Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program. The Executive Summary details the TIP purpose, process, and constraints (p. ES-1): Executive Summary The purpose of the Transportation Improvement Program is to provide a project listing that reflects the needs and desires of the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Study Area. The TIP is also developed to reflect the financial restraints within the various funding sources and programs. The TIP is a five-year plan for transportation improvements within the TPO Study Area; it contains information about the type of work to be completed, project phasing, estimated costs, and funding sources. The Code of Federal Regulations defines the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years that is developed and formally adopted by a TPO (transportation planning organization) as part of the metropolitan planning process, consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 [23 C.F.R ]. Florida Statute requires the addition of a fifth year to the TIP [ (8)(c)(1)]. The TIP is also required to include all regionally significant projects, regardless of funding [23 C.F.R (d)]. Rev. August 17,

150 The TIP is developed by the Bay County TPO in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the local governments in the TPO region. These cooperating agencies provide the Bay County TPO with estimates of available federal and state funds for use in development of the financial plan. In the development of the Department s 5 Year Work Program, an inflation factor is applied to all appropriate phases of years one through five of the program. The inflation factors and application to appropriate phases are discussed in the Department s Work Program Instructions. Financial Plan: The TIP is financially constrained for each year. Federally funded projects identified in the TIP can be implemented using current and proposed revenue sources based on the FDOT s Tentative Work Program and locally designated transportation revenues. As required by federal and state law, a summary of available funds by funding category and project type for the state and federally funded projects contained within the TIP has been included in Appendix F [23C.F.R (a) and Subsection (8), F. S.] The detailed project listing and financial summary contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S. C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53) [23 CFR (h)]. To further ensure the financial soundness of the TIP, all projects funded by the Florida Department of Transportation with federal or non-federal dollars are considered committed projects if included in the first three years of the FDOT Five-Year Work Program. Section (4)(b)(5) Florida Statutes mandates that the FDOT Work Program include a balanced 36-month forecast of cash and expenditures and a fiveyear finance plan supporting the Work Program. All local government projects (non-federally funded) that are included in the TIP are a part of a member local government s capital improvement program. Nonfederally funded projects with funding in the first year of local government capital improvement element or capital improvement programs are considered to be committed projects. Project Categories: [project categories include:] Capacity improvements Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Bicycle/Pedestrian Aviation Seaport Resurfacing Bridge Miscellaneous Public Transportation Transit projects are drawn from the TPO Five Year Transit Development Plan and the local transit operator provides priorities to the TPO. Projects support the Bay Town Trolley and the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC). The CTC receives funding directly for the Commission for Rev. August 17,

151 the Transportation Disadvantaged. Other funding sources include the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FDOT. The Public Transportation portion of the TIP includes (from 5-Year Summary of Project by Funding Category): Certification: The last Joint FDOT/TPO Certification was held in December The Joint FDOT/TPO Certification is an annual process conducted by FDOT District 3 and the Bay County TPO Bay County TPO Project Priorities (FY 17-21) The Bay County TPO Project Priorities (FY 17-21), adopted by the Bay County TPO on July 22, 2015, and amended on October 28, 2015, details project priorities adopted by the TPO after review of the LRTP Cost Feasible Plan and with public comments. Table 13, a listing of Bay County Public Transportation Project Priorities by Grant (FY 17-21) follows: Rev. August 17,

152 West Florida Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy ( ) The West Florida Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) was originally adopted in December 2012 and updated in September 2015 for the WFRPC. The CEDS is designed to guide economic growth, provide a mechanism for coordination in regional economic development efforts, and provide a framework for improving regional development partnerships. The CEDS is structured around the Six Pillars of Florida s Future Economy. The pillar which pertains to the development of the TDP is emphasis on Infrastructure and Growth Leadership as an important aspect of economic development. The CEDS specifies one goal with two objectives in the West Florida Area- Specific Strategy in relationship to Infrastructure. They are summarized as follows: Goal 3.1: Develop transportation systems to support a prosperous, globally competitive economy while minimizing the impacts to the natural environment. Overall, infrastructure improvements, including transit improvements, should consider its effects to the natural environment. Objective 3.1.1: Develop a plan for the design and funding of a multimodal, interconnected transportation system that sustains local livability and serves regional hubs for global, national, and state distribution of goods and movement of people. Objective 3.1.2: Ensure that future infrastructure is planned with minimal impact to natural resources. Rev. August 17,

153 Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Plan The Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Plan was created in August 2001 for the Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) located in the City of Panama City Beach. As described in the City of Panama City Beach Comprehensive Plan, the Front Beach Road Redevelopment Plan is a $400 million multimodal transportation plan to be implemented through Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Plan includes the following three main objectives: 1. Pedestrian, Parking, and Transportation Improvements 2. Enhance Beach Access and Related Parking 3. Plan Funding and Financing As detailed in the 2015 CRA Annual Report and Financial Statement, the City Staff also has developed short and long term goals to achieve the main objectives. Some of these goals are to: Provide for safe and convenient multimodal mobility along the beachfront roadways; Provide for improved parking, particularly for beach access; Provide for dedicated transit and bicycle lanes anchored by gateway multimodal centers Manage program planning, design, and construction effort for projects; Lead effort to qualify for Federal and other funding to supplement tax increment revenues. The 2015 CRA Annual Report also stated that the total TIF revenue received by the CRA since its inception is $81,149,014, with the actual revenue in fiscal year 2015 totaling $8,123, Local Comprehensive Plans Comprehensive Plans present goals, objectives, and policies to reflect growth management strategies and directives of local municipalities. Generally, comprehensive plans are not intended to be regulatory documents, but are meant to serve as guidance for land use, development, and growth management. Reviewing comprehensive plans as part of the TDP process supports coordinating land use development activities with transportation planning efforts to optimize existing public transportation infrastructure and promote and encourage smart growth Bay County Comprehensive Plan (2020), Charting Our Course to 2020 The Bay County Comprehensive Plan includes language in several sections pertaining to public transportation and transit. The sections which reference public transportation are the Transportation Element, the Public Schools Element, the Airport Sub-Element, and the Bay-Walton Sector Plan Element. The Transportation Element (TE) of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the public transportation goals of the Board of County Commissioners. These goals are summarized as follows: Providing a safe, convenient, and efficient transportation system Coordinating between transportation and land use planning Promoting access management on major thoroughfares Preserving integrity of current major road systems Rev. August 17,

154 Establishing and maintain level of service (LOS) standards Additionally, there is a specific Public Transportation section of the Transportation Element. The objective of the Public Transportation section is to participate in the provision of public transportation in the County (Objective 4.16). This objective will be implemented through participation with the TPO in the Bay Town Trolley System and Bay Coordinated Transportation programs (Policy ) such as Park and Ride options, the Share a Ride Program, Bay Town Trolley, and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (Policy , Policy ). Furthermore, the Public Schools Element and Airport Sub-Element both contain language in support of public transportation and transit services. Policy of the Public Schools Element promotes collaborative opportunities between the County, the School Board, and the Bay County TPO in the development of transit and bus routes to better serve citizens and students. The Airport Section is a subelement of the Infrastructure Element. The objective of the Airport Sub-Element is to provide improved aviation infrastructure and eliminate physical constraints to commercial air service and aviation related industrial development in the County (Objective 12A.1). An aspect of implementing this objective is maintaining a multi-modal link between surface and air transportation through provisions for future ground transit connections (Policy 12A.1.21) Bay-Walton Sector Plan A Bay-Walton Sector Plan Element which contains public transportation goals, objectives, and policies was included in the Bay County Comprehensive Plan for areas within the sector plan boundaries. The intent of the Bay-Walton Sector Plan is to direct growth, development, and resource protection within the Plan boundaries; to provide for various transportation modes which are integrated into a larger regional system; and promote viable transportation choices other than the privately owned automobile (Objective 12.1, 12.4, 12.5). The following policies support Objectives 12.1, 12.4, and 12.5: Provide enhanced transportation network which supports multi-modal transportation options to minimize the use of the automobile (Policy D.4) include provisions for transit stops to ensure convenient access for shoppers, visitors, and employees for new commercial, office, and industrial developments within Detailed Specific Area Plans (DSAPs) (Policy C) Provide convenient locations for transit facilities where appropriate and where transit is available (Policy ) Scope, plan, design, fund, construct, operate and maintain an integrated network of facilities for people of all ages traveling by foot, bicycle, automobile, golf cart, public transportation, and commercial vehicle (Policy A.1) Coordinate public transportation efforts with existing providers to determine the feasibility of a regional system. Discussions with the Bay Town Trolley Walton County, and Okaloosa County Transit shall occur to identify routes that can be extended to provide service to the Bay-Walton Sector Plan area, the location of existing and future stops, and potential service overlaps to provide for regional transit opportunities (Policy A.4) Rev. August 17,

155 In addition to the above GOPs, the land use portion of the Bay-Walton Sector Plan identified Regional Employment Centers, Business Centers, and Mixed Use Centers as locations to be considered for transit stops City of Panama City Comprehensive Plan The City of Panama City has several goals, objectives, and policies in support of the further development, education, and improvement of a public transportation system throughout the comprehensive plan. These GOPs are found in the Transportation, Conservation, and Public Schools Elements of the Plan. The goal of the Transportation Element of the plan is to establish and maintain a safe, convenient, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to move people and goods throughout the city. To achieve this goal, the City will implement multi-modal mobility through concurrency, a designated mobility district, and through an urban infill/redevelopment district (Objective 2.1). The City also recognizes that transportation alternatives such as biking, walking, and the use of transit are important to promoting urban infill, redevelopment, and new growth (Policy 2.1.3). Through Policy 2.1.5, the City offers transportation impact concurrency alternatives to developers in the Infill/Redevelopment Overlay district including: Participation in a transit pass program for employees Pedestrian/Bicycle/Lighting improvements Bus Shelter/Transit Stop Improvements Any other measures which increase mobility options Furthermore, the City also intends to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (Objective 2.2) through support of the transit system by encouraging ridership, coordinating with the transit officers for an efficient system, and increasing the number of transit shelters (Policy 2.2.6). Additionally, the goal of the Conservation Element of the Plan is to provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation and protection of natural resources. One of the ways this goal will be addressed by the City supporting educational opportunities about mass transit and other transportation modes in order to reduce automobile emission pollution (Policy 6.1.3). Finally, the Public Schools Element of the plan, the City and the School Board, in conjunction with the Bay County TPO, will work to find opportunities to collaborate on transit and bus routes to better serve citizens and students in an effort to provide for appropriate school facility locations (Goal 10.2, Policy ) City of Panama City Beach Comprehensive Plan The goal of the Transportation Element of the City of Panama City Beach s Comprehensive Plan is to provide a safe and efficient transportation system which will accommodate current and future demands while maintaining level of service standards. The Transportation Element details information regarding projects, other plans, goals, and policies in relation to transit and multimodal transportation. The City intends to increase mobility along the beach through the Front Beach Road Transportation Concurrency Rev. August 17,

156 Exception Area (TCEA), in which the progress towards the goal of increased mobility is evaluated annually to assess its progress (Policy 1.6). The mobility goals of the TCEA are listed in the Front Beach Road Community Development Plan section. The City of Panama City is also committed to continuing to participate in the development and update of TDPs, specifically in the establishment of mobility goal numerical measurements such as modal split, annual trips per capita, and automobile occupancy rates (Policy 3.5) City of Callaway Comprehensive Plan (2025) The City of Callaway desires to provide a safe and efficient transportation system to accommodate current and future land use patterns while maintaining adopted traffic circulation level of service standards. Objectives 5 and 6 of the Transportation Element state that the City intends to provide convenient and efficient movement of motorized and non-motorized traffic while using innovative planning techniques to improve its transportation system. Policies 5.6 and 6.1 state that the method for implementing these objectives is through coordination with the Bay Town Trolley to increase bus routes, services, and times within the City. The City has also incorporated the future development of transit systems in their Public School Facilities Element as a part of their goal of providing adequate educational public facilities. They City intends to achieve this goal by working collaboratively with the School Board and the Bay County TPO to find opportunities to collaborate on transit and bus routes to better serve citizens and students (Public School Element Policy 1.2.6). Additionally, the City of Callaway encourages Transit Friendly Development and multimodal facilities by offering a density bonus of an additional two dwelling units per acre in the mixed use future land use designation. The comprehensive plan defines a Transit Friendly Development as a development which includes a transit stop coupled with a core commercial area with residential and/or employment uses within walking distance. In order to support a feeder bus line, a Transit Friendly Development should have a minimum residential density of 8 dwelling units per acre or a jobs density of 25 jobs per acre City of Parker Comprehensive Plan (2025) The overall goal for the City of Parker s Comprehensive Plan is to provide the fiscal and regulatory conditions necessary to protect the health, welfare, safety and quality of life of city citizens consistent with continued economic development and private property rights and establish a defined pattern of land use intended to guide the provision of public facilities and provide predictability in managing development. The plan includes Objective 1.6 to achieve this goal by discouraging urban sprawl through the provision of public facilities and density controls. To achieve Objective 1.6, the City encourages development near existing transit routes (Policy 1.6.3) and encourages developments to incorporate intra-modal design principles by connecting bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities (Policy 1.6.4). Furthermore, the City of Parker includes goals, objectives, and policies in the Transportation Element of their comprehensive plan to encourage a multi-modal transportation system and overall decrease of Rev. August 17,

157 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The goal of the Transportation Element is to provide, or encourage the provision of, a safe and efficient transportation system which includes consideration of both motorized and non-motorized traffic circulation and potential problems caused by future traffic flow. One method of achieving this goal is coordinating with the Bay County TPO and the School Board to increase bus and trolley routes, services, and associated facilities such as bus and trolley stops, shelters, and hubs to meet the needs of the City s residents (Policy 2.4.4, Policy ). The City also plans on decreasing auto dependency by encouraging appropriate high and medium density areas to promote the maximization of travel opportunities between land use types (Policy 2.6.8). Additionally, it is an objective of the City to reduce VMT-related emissions by encouraging public transit, improvements to the transit system and infrastructure, increasing the safety and accessibility of public infrastructure, and providing other incentives (Objective 2.7). In order to reduce VMT-related emissions, the City will evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of funding projects that support alternative modes of transportation that reduce VMT such as transit before funding transportation improvements that increase roadway capacity and VMT (Policy 2.7.1). Finally, the City will provide safe access to public transportation and other non-motorized uses through the construction of dedicated paths (Policy 2.7.2) City of Lynn Haven Comprehensive Plan (2010) The City of Lynn Haven desires to retain the small town, family-oriented atmosphere that has been its tradition. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides goals, objectives, and policies to ensure an efficient transportation network. Lynn Haven s transportation goal within the TE is to provide a safe and efficient transportation system for all residents and visitors of the City. To achieve this goal, the City will support and make available a public transportation system for Lynn Haven residents (TE Objective 8). The City will continue to work with the Bay County TPO to increase ridership of the Bay Town Trolley and to expand trolley routes (TE Policy 8-1). Furthermore, the City will encourage the use of transit and other modes of transportation to its residents, and will also encourage large developments to develop streets which provide safe access to all users allowing pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and bus riders to safely move along and across streets (TE Policy 10-2, TE Policy 10-4) City of Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan (2007) The City of Mexico Beach is a small, coastal community located in the southeastern part of Bay County. The City jurisdictional area is approximately 906 acres or 1.6 square miles. The City s economic base and quality of life is directly linked to water-oriented or marine resources. The City of Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan contains one goal in regards to transportation, which is to provide and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system throughout the city. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states in concept 2(e) that in regards to traffic circulation, emphasis should be placed on modifications to the existing road system rather than new construction. However, the Plan did not include specific provisions to specifically promote, support, or encourage the use or enhancement of public transportation or transit. Rev. August 17,

158 City of Springfield Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code The City of Springfield Comprehensive Plan did not discuss public transportation or transit. However, the Plan did include policies regarding concurrency management and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. It is the intent of the City Commission to maintain public facilities and services needed to support development to be synchronized with the impacts of such development through concurrency standards (Section 3.9.1). Furthermore, the comprehensive plan includes provision for new developments to install bicycle paths and/or sidewalks when the need has been established as part of the City s non-automotive traffic circulation system (Section ) State Plans and Policies State plans and policies provide general guidance and goals for the current and future transportation system of the State of Florida. The following plans and legislation were reviewed to determine leadership from the State about public transportation policies and goals Florida Transportation Plan The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) is the statewide long-range transportation plan. The FTP defines Florida s future transportation vision and identifies goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish that vision. The Vision and Policy Elements of the TDP were updated in 2015, and the Implementation Element is currently being updated. Relevant long range goals and objectives are provided below. Goal: Safety and security for residents, visitors and businesses. Objective: Prevent transportation-related fatalities and injuries. Objective: Reduce the number of crashes on the transportation system. Objective: Provide transportation infrastructure and services to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. Goal: Provide agile, resilient, and quality infrastructure. Objective: Meet or exceed industry, state, national, or international standards for infrastructure quality, condition, and performance for all modes of transportation. Objective: Optimize the functionality and efficiency of existing infrastructure and right-of-way. Goal: Efficient and reliable mobility for people and freight. Objective: Increase the reliability of all modes of Florida s transportation system. Objective: Increase customer satisfaction with Florida s transportation system and regulatory processes. Goal: Provide more transportation choices for people and freight. Objective: Increase the share of person trips using public transportation and other alternatives to single occupancy motor vehicles. Objective: Increase the number of quality options for visitor travel to, from, and within Florida. Objective: Increase the efficiency and convenience of connecting between multiple modes of transportation. Goal: Provide transportation solutions that support Florida s global economic competitiveness. Objective: Provide transportation infrastructure and services to support job growth in transportationdependent industries and clusters. Objective: Increase transportation connectivity between Florida s economic centers and regions. Rev. August 17,

159 Goal: Provide transportation solutions that support quality places to live, learn, work, and play. Objective: Increase customer satisfaction with Florida s transportation system. Objective: Provide convenient, efficient accessibility to the transportation system for Florida s residents and visitors. Goal: Provide transportation solutions that enhance Florida s environment and conserve energy. Objective: Decrease transportation-related air quality pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Objective: Increase the energy efficiency of transportation. In summary, the FTP places significant emphasis on providing more transportation choices. The growth in Florida requires new and innovative approaches by all modes of transportation to meet current and future needs FDOT Transit 2020 Transit 2020 is the specific transit element of the Florida Transportation Plan that was created to help guide the development of transit in Florida to support the development of an effective, efficient, and customer-friendly transit service in a transit-friendly environment. In order to guide the development of transit in Florida, Transit 2020 identified the three issues of transit service, funding, and planning/policy to be addressed through specific goals, objectives, and strategies identified throughout the plan. The following section summarizes the goals and objectives formulated to addresses the three issues. The first identified issue with transit service is the inadequate level of transit service currently provided. Transit service was also predicted to worsen based on current trends throughout the State. Therefore, Goal 1 of Transit 2020 is to expand travel choices for Floridians and visitors by implementing an improved transit system. To achieve this goal, the objectives are to improve core and regional service, expand the market, and include a mix of transit modes (Objectives ). The second identified issue with transit service is funding. The current funding levels are either lacking in stability and/or flexibility, are inadequate to fund existing or expanded capital, and are inadequate to fund the maintenance or operating of programs. To address this issue, Goal 2 of Transit 2020 is to sustain and expand investment in public transportation from all existing and potential public and private funding sources. This goal will be achieved by securing adequate and stable funding, utilizing flexible funding opportunities, and applying creative and innovative strategies (Objectives ). The final issue identified by Transit 2020 is a deficiency in transit planning and policy. The problem is that existing policies and institutional arrangements and practices sometimes hinder or fail to promote the achievement of transit objectives. Therefore, Goal 3 of Transit 2020 is to develop, promote, and encourage transit supportive policies, institutional arrangements, and practices. Ultimately, the success of transit in Florida requires the coordinated effort of all levels of government working with the public to promote transit as a public good. To achieve this goal, FDOT encourages the promotion of transitoriented development, improved institutional performance, better multi-modal planning, and improved transit image (Objectives ). Rev. August 17,

160 State Growth Management Legislation (House Bill 7207) The signing into law of House Bill (HB) 7207 on June 2, 2011, was a significant change to growth management laws. This legislation, named the Community Planning Act, repealed most of the Statemandated growth management planning laws that have governed development activities within Florida since the original Growth Management Act of Specifically in relation to transportation, Statemandated concurrency requirements were repealed, consequently shifting a large share of growth management responsibility from the cities to the counties. Furthermore, HB 7207 strengthened legislative language supporting multi-modal approaches to transportation by stating that comprehensive plan transportation elements shall provide for a safe, convenient multi-modal transportation system (F.S. Section [6B]) Federal and National Plans and Policies The review of federal plans and policies provides a national perspective on public transportation in regards to funding, visioning, and programs. Federal funding for transit was increased for Fiscal Year 2016, a transportation vision for the future of America was provided by the American Public Transportation Association, and the national government supports livability initiatives and sustainable communities programs. This section summarizes the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST Act), TransitVision 2050, and the DOT Livability Initiative and Federal Sustainable Communities programs Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law reauthorizing surface transportation programs through Fiscal Year In regards to transit, the FAST Act proposes the following: Increased the funding for FY 2016 of $268 million over FY 2015 levels, for a total of $696 million for FY 2016 for Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) Bus and Bus Facilities program Bus and Bus Facilities program helps transit agencies fund new buses, replace aging fleets and facilities, and adds a new eligibility to deploy low- or no-emission vehicles. Re-established a Bus Discretionary Program which allows for states to apply for project specific funding through a competitive process Established a new pilot program for Cost-Effective Capital Investment, which encourages States to share bus funding resources Launched a pilot program for Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility DOT Livability Initiative and Federal Sustainable Communities Program The DOT has established a Livability Initiative to give people access to affordable and environmentally sustainable transportation. The Livability Initiative is a response to poorly coordinated transportation spending with other infrastructure investments which has resulted in auto-dependent residential communities where access to job opportunities and key amenities is adequate and expensive. The livable Rev. August 17,

161 communities initiative addresses how to pursue coordinated, place-based policies and investments to improve transportation choices and access to public transportation services. The initiative presents the following six principles of livability: Provide more transportation choices Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices Improve economic competitiveness of neighborhoods Target federal funding toward existing communities Align federal policies and funding Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities In response to the Livability Initiative, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DOT, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined together to create the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (PSC) program. The PSC works to coordinate infrastructure investments to implement the Livability Initiative. In regards to public transportation, the PSC advances economic and mobility by supporting transportation connections by helping Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) measure the success of their transportation system of providing access to jobs and essential services American Public Transportation Association (APTA) TransitVision 2050 TransitVision 2050 was established by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in October 2008 to build a vision of an efficient, multi-modal transportation system for the future of America s transportation system. The Vision was written from the perspective of someone in 2050 reflecting on policy changes which made the transportation system more successful by 2050.The following summarizes recommended strategies for achieving TransitVision 2050: Secure stable and reliable investments in the transportation system from federal, state and local governments, transit-generated revenues, and public-private partnerships. Reliable funding will enable multi-year funding and leverage in private markets. Create one system by coordinating and integrating roads, air services, public transportation routes, and intermodal connections. Plan and implement multi-state infrastructure projects by designated regional entities designed to manage projects on a mega-region scale. Strengthen public-private partnerships. Utilize Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) innovations Address land use and transportation planning in a comprehensive, regional manner Rev. August 17,

162 7.0 Estimate of Baseline Future Demand and Assessment of Needs 7.1 Existing Ridership Data Table 5.2, in Section 5, displayed the yearly ridership from 2010 to 2015 and the percent change and the table is repeated here. Figure 5.2, also from Section 5, displays monthly ridership comparisons of 2015 with 2014, with a year over year decline in each year from 2011 through Table 5.2. Yearly Ridership Comparison (repeated here) Year Ridership % Change , % , % , % , % , % , % Figure 5.2. Monthly Ridership Comparison (repeated here) Number of Passengers Bay Town Trolley Monthy Ridership Comparison Dec Nov Oct Sept August July June May April March Feb Jan Analysis of Future Needs During the public outreach and operator interview process a series of comments were received and they formed the basis of the analysis of future needs, priorities, and funding reviews. A full list of general and specific comments are listed in Table 7.1. Rev. August 4,

163 Table 7.1 Possible Service Alternatives and Recommendations Comment or Issue Proposed Action Mentioned in Driver/Operator Interviews No bus service in much of Callaway Addressed partially by Scenario 7, route to Tyndall AFB. Remove western loop on Route 3 Addressed by Scenario 10. Remove the southern loop on Route 1 Recommend consideration of route modification during COA. Allow for breathing room on routes 3, 4, and 5 Recommend consideration of route modifications during COA. Need transfer location on beach (proposed Recommend coordination with City of Panama City Beach multimodal transfer center on Front Beach Road) and consideration during COA. Routes 4, 4x, 4m are confusing and don t make Recommend consideration of consolidating all routes into sense one route with two busses during COA. From public outreach survey and previous TDP recommendations Add a route along State Road 390, including a Addressed by Scenario 5. Addition of route modifications service along 14th Street to the Lynn Haven to industrial park can be considered during COA. Industrial Park (Merrick Industries, General Dynamics) Add morning service starting at 5 am and evening Addressed by Scenario 2. service to 10 pm Add one hour headways on Saturday Addressed by Scenario 12. Add Sunday service Addressed by Scenario 3. Increase route frequency to 30 minute headways Not addressed. Purchase larger vehicles for Beach Route 7 Can be addressed in COA. Install benches, trash receptacles, and bike racks at Currently underway and will be continued during the all stops where space allows entirety of the TDP plan horizon. Review locations where shelters are warranted Currently underway and will be continued during the based on ridership and fund these improvements entirety of the TDP plan horizon. Make all necessary ADA accessibility improvements Currently underway and will be continued during the at all stops entirety of the TDP plan horizon. Modify Route 7 East to return to linear route Addressed by Scenario 8. (eliminates stops 47, 48, 49, and 50) Delete portions of Route 7 West in favor of adding Addressed partially by Scenario 8; address additionally additional service/vehicles to Route 7 East during COA. Develop a new route to Lynn Haven from Panama Addressed by Scenario 6. City Mall north along SR77 then via Highway 390 East, East Avenue, and US 231 (Route 1 relief via additional vehicles) Develop a new route from downtown along Jenks to Addressed by Scenario 4. Baldwin to Panama City Mall Develop a new route from Callaway/Tyndall Addressed by Scenario 7. Parkway transfer center to Tyndall AFB Main Gate Develop route diversions to local VA centers on Tram Road, Magnolia Beach Drive, Richard Jackson Blvd. Currently being addressed by operations managers. Address further during COA. Based on the full list of comments (shown above in Table 7.1) provided during the public outreach and public workshops, discussions with the operators, managers, and drivers, and demographic geographic information systems analysis, a list of needs and potential operational changes were considered. Table 7.2 below describes these considerations and general objectives that are pursued by each Scenario. Rev. August 4,

164 Table 7.2 Analysis of Future Needs Objective Serve a broader geographic service area coverage with new routes to extend service to unserved portions of the community. Provide more efficient route service area. Operational improvements to improve network configuration, Potential Recommendation for Implementation 1. Analyzed as Scenario 4, a new route is proposed from Panama City Mall, south along US 231 to US 98, then north on Jenks Avenue to Baldwin Road, then to East Avenue near US 231, and south along East Avenue to US 98, then return to Panama City Mall. This route provides additional service to north Panama City with potential connections to other routes and would provide service along US 98 between East Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. in a section recommended to be eliminated from Route 3. (This route was included in the existing TDP.) 2. Analyzed as Scenario 5, a new route is proposed on SR 390 from Lynn Haven City Hall (connects to Route 1) to Gulf Coast State College (connects to GCSC transfer station) to serve broader areas of Panama City and Lynn Haven presently unserved. SR 390 is currently a two-lane highway that will be under construction to be six-laned within the first three years of the ten year implementation period of this TDP, and, therefore, is not recommended for route implementation until after the construction period. After the route is formally established, transit vehicles can successfully use the outside lane as a de-facto transit lane providing excellent service to transit stops along the route. (This route was also included in the existing TDP.) 3. Analyzed as Scenario 6, a new route is proposed from Panama City Mall along route 1 to Lynn Haven, then along CR 390 to East Avenue, then to US 231 to Panama City Mall. This route can serve a much broader area of east Lynn Haven and north Panama City serving both residential areas and commercial areas presently unserved. The route would also add one additional transit vehicle in one direction to the portion of Route 1 from Panama City Mall to Lynn Haven providing additional service on the heavily used Route 1, and potentially improving headway. (This route was also included in the existing TDP, adopted 2011.) Note that CR 390 will be SR 390 in the near future and is presently under study in a PD&E for possible widening from Lynn Havel to US Analyzed as Scenario 7, a new route was studied for service from the Callaway Walmart transfer station to the Main Gate at Tyndall Air Force Base. This route would be best implemented in coordination with the base operations and management services and tested for ridership prior to implementation. 1. Analyzed as Scenario 8, a modification of Route 7 East to eliminate the portion along Front Beach Road from Thomas Drive to Joan Avenue would revert Route 7 East back to its former linear arrangement, making service for riders on the beach more effective in terms of the need to ride the full route for service to and from their boarding location. This would require a route modification public outreach meeting. 2. Analyzed as Scenario 9, a modification of Route 3 would eliminate the portion of the route along Sherman Avenue and US 98 and would then include a missing portion along 11 th Street. This also would eliminate the loop on the west end of Route 3, mentioned by drivers and operators as a possible improvement. 1. Analyzed as Scenario 2, extension of weekday service hours with one hour in the morning (begin at 5 am) and two hours in the evening (ending at 10 pm) would provide service that was mentioned by riders as essential Rev. August 4,

165 service frequency, and span of service. Regional connectivity via transit. Accessibility. transportation to and from work. (Extensions of operating hours was included in the existing TDP.) 2. Analyzed as Scenario 12, increasing Saturday headways from two hours to one hour was included in the analysis due to high preference for this alternative noted in the public outreach surveys. (No increase in morning and evening hours was included in this scenario.) 3. Analyzed as Scenario 3, addition of Sunday service at the two hour headways and service hours of the current Saturday system was also included due to high preference in the public outreach. 1. A route from Panama City to Mexico Beach was reviewed in the current TDP but was not analyzed in this TDP update. Ridership effectiveness and route efficiency would be expected to be very low if this route was implemented. Other transportation systems seem better suited to serving the Mexico Beach area (shuttles; park and ride; van and car pools), however, if a route to the Tyndall AFB main gate was implemented, an extension to Mexico Beach could be analyzed, or shuttle service could be tested. 2. Connection of Route 7 West at Carillon, or extension of the route west to Walton County Road 30-A has been discussed but was not analyzed. If Walton County implements a transit system serving the Inlet Beach area, a western connection of the Bay Town Trolley system may be warranted to provide regional connectivity to and from the major destination shopping and dining opportunities in Panama City Beach (Pier Park) and in Walton (Silver Sands/Sandestin). 3. Analyzed as Scenario 11, a new route from Panama City Beach City Hall, a proposed location of a future multi-modal transit facility, to the NW Florida Beaches International Airport was studied and found to potentially not be efficient (low ridership due to limited air service, and not effective (served by many transportation alternatives). (This route was indicated in the existing TDP but included the entirety of Thomas Drive.) 1. As was prominently noted in the existing 2011 TDP, ADA improvements have been continuously made to both the transit vehicles and transit stops and amenities during the previous five years, and would continue during the time horizon of this major TDP update. 2. A recommendation of this TDP update is that during a future Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) the policies governing transit stop locations, separation, types of amenities, and programming of each would be updated to be consistent with current recommended practices with walking distance and ADA accessibility being the primary considerations for location and separation. Sources: 2015/2016 TDP Public Outreach Surveys; Public Workshop 1 comments; Public Workshop 2 comments; driver and operator interview comments; discussions with TPO members and staff. 7.3 The TBEST Model Ridership forecasts for the Bay Town Trolley were determined through the FDOT-approved transit demand forecasting tool Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST). According to the TBEST User Guide, TBEST was developed specifically as the recommended method by FDOT for developing ridership estimates for major TDP updates. Rev. August 4,

166 TBEST allows for scenario assessment for the transit system to test alternatives for the ten-year plan and system improvements and/or maintenance. The following factors can be explored through TBEST: Service Area Geographic Coverage Network Configuration Service Frequency Span of Service (hours and days of service) Fare Modifications TBEST was used in the development of the TDP to demonstrate a no-build scenario (maintain the existing service through the ten year time frame), five potential new routes, modifications to several routes, and operational changes to days and times of service provided. This section provides an overview of the TBEST model and summarizes the results for the ridership forecasts of the BTT for twelve different scenarios run through the TBEST model Overview of TBEST TBEST is a transit planning software tool which provides transit analysis and ridership forecasting models by simulating ridership estimates at individual stops and routes. According to FDOT, TBEST represents an effort to develop a multifaceted GIS-based modeling, planning, and analysis tool which integrates socio-economic, land use, and transit network data into a unique platform for scenario-based transit ridership estimation and analysis ( Figure 7.1 displays the TBEST analysis scenarios. TBEST utilizes a scenario-based model structure where transit system alternatives such as route and stop location can be demonstrated. Routes can also be evaluated for FTA Title VI compliance through the model. Figure 7.1. TBEST Scenarios Furthermore, the TBEST User Guide lists the following eight specific features of TBEST as noteworthy in aspects of the model: 1) Forecasting Stop-Level Boardings providing forecasts of the number of boardings at each transit stop, including direct and transfer boardings. 2) Time of Day-Based Analysis including ridership estimates for specific times of day and days of the week, such as weekday mornings versus weekday afternoons, week nights, and weekends. Rev. August 4,

167 3) Socioeconomic Characteristics TBEST includes buffers around individual stops to identify the market likely to access the transit system. These buffers include socioeconomic characteristics such as age, race, income, employment status, and car ownership. 4) Time-Space Network Connectivity Activities measured in terms of population, employment, or trips generated from parcels that can be reached within a certain timeframe, including the number of transfers. Time of day is also considered with network connectivity. 5) Competing and Complementary System Effects Considers proximity of transit stops which may lead to competition of ridership between stops, and stops determined to be complementary, such as those located at a transfer station when evaluating stop-level ridership. 6) GIS-Based Software TBEST provides full GIS functionality with the models to allow socioeconomic scenarios, supply attributes, and route and stop configurations to be easily modified. 7) Automatic Validation to Local System Total Ridership TBEST automatically scales total system ridership to match counted ridership for the base validation year. This allows for conditions such as roadway congestion, parking availability, cost, and other local conditions to be portrayed in the model. 8) Performance Measures Measures such as route miles, service miles, service hours, boardings per service mile and hour, and average boardings are provided by route and for the system as a whole TBEST Scenario Analysis and Phasing Twelve scenario alternatives were analyzed using TBEST as shown in Table 7.2. Not all are recommended for implementation during the ten year time horizon of the TDP. The year noted for implementation is based on the funding analysis described in Section 8. Table 7.2 Scenarios Analyzed Using TBEST Scenario Description Implementation Fiscal Year Scenarios Analyzed Using TBEST Scenario 1 Grow System to 2026 ( No-build alternative) 2017 through 2026 Scenario 2 Extend Weekday Service Span 2017 Scenario 3 Add Sunday Service 2018 Scenario 4 New Route: Baldwin Jenks 2019 Scenario 5 New Route: SR Scenario 6 New Route: SR 77 US Scenario 7 New Route: Tyndall AFB 2024 Scenario 8 Modify Route Scenario 9 Reduce Weekday Headways 2023 Scenario 10 Modify Route 3 Year not specific; no change in cost Scenario 11 New Route: Airport Not recommended Scenario 12 Reduce Headways on Saturday to 60 minutes 2021 Other Future Improvements or Recommendations Not Analyzed Using TBEST Route 2 Eliminate Margaret K. Lewis Diversion on Route 2 No cost; immediate Route 7 Eliminate Panama City Beach City Hall Diversion on Route 7 No cost; immediate New Route New nighttime route Downtown Panama City to St. Andrews Not analyzed; review in future COA New Route Consider extending Route 7 West to connect to potential Walton County transit system Not analyzed; beyond 10-Year Plan or based on funded proposals Route 1 Extend Route 1 to Southport to New Park and Ride Facility Not analyzed; beyond 10-Year Plan New Route Add North 231 Route to SR 20 New Park and Ride Facility Not analyzed; beyond 10-Year Plan New Facility Add Park and Ride at SR 79 and CR 388 Not analyzed; beyond 10-Year Plan Rev. August 4,

168 Figure 7.2 is a map of new routes and route modifications for the various scenarios analyzed. It is included on the following page. Figure 7.3, also on a following page, is the TBEST analysis output table for the various scenarios analyzed. Goal areas addressed by the model are, population access; employment access; service characteristics; productivity; and efficiency. Rev. August 4,

169 Bay County TPO Transit Development Plan Update New and Modified Routes Legend o Figure Date: 8/1/2016 MILES New Route - Baldwin Road - Jenks Road New Route - SR 390 New Route - SR 77 - US 231 New Route - Tyndall AFB Modify Route 7 Modify Route 3 New Route - Airport

170 Bay County TPO Annual TDP Summary Goal Area Performance Measure Scenario 1: Grow System to 2026 Scenario 2: Extend Weekday Service Span Scenario 3: Add Sunday Service Scenario 4: New Route: Baldwin-Jenks Scenario 5: New Route: SR390 Scenario 6: New Route: SR77- US231 Scenario 7: New Route: Tyndall Pkwy Scenario 8: Modify Route 7 Scenario 9: Reduce Weekday Headways Scenario 10: Modify Route 3 Scenario 11: New Route Airport Scenario 12: Reduce Headways on Saturday to 60 min Total Population 174, , , , , , , , , , , ,995 Population Access Service Area Population 105, , , , , , , , , , , ,242 Percent Population Served of Total Population 60% 60% 60% 63% 63% 65% 61% 59% 60% 60% 60% 60% Passenger Trips Per Population Served Total Employment 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 82,883 Employment Access Total Employment Served 68,012 68,012 68,012 69,561 68,922 69,998 69,891 67,494 68,012 68,012 68,198 68,012 Percent Employment Served of Total Employment 82% 82% 82% 84% 83% 84% 84% 81% 82% 82% 82% 82% Estimated Annual Service Miles 522, , , , , , , ,378 1,034, , , ,696 Service Characteristics Average System Speed Average System Headway Estimated Annual Ridership 589, , , , , , , , , , , ,405 Productivity Boardings Per Service Mile Boardings Per Service Hour Estimated Scenario Operating Cost $1,686,531 $1,906,650 $1,805,746 $1,791,471 $1,846,081 $1,778,918 $1,839,655 $1,763,731 $3,201,892 $1,686,677 $1,913,279 $1,790,391 Efficiency Operating Cost Per Service Mile $3.40 $3.40 $3.40 $6.20 $6.40 $5.90 $6.30 $3.50 $3.40 $3.40 $6.00 $3.40 Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip $4.80 $5.10 $4.80 $7.60 $10.80 $6.70 $16.00 $4.90 $5.20 $4.80 $ $5.00

171 Bay County TPO Transit Development Plan Update Transit Propensity Assessment J:\TransportationPlanning(TF)\WFRPC GPC\2015 Task 27 Bay Town Trolley TDP Update\GIS\MXDs\Transit_propensity.mxd o Figure Date: 7/27/2016 MILES Legend Transit Propensity Low Medium High

172 Bay County TPO Transit Development Plan Update Transit Stop Walk Accessibility J:\TransportationPlanning(TF)\WFRPC GPC\2015 Task 27 Bay Town Trolley TDP Update\GIS\MXDs\Transit_Walk_Access.mxd o0 1 2 Figure Date: 7/27/2016 MILES Legend.25 Mile Walk Access.5 Mile Walk Access

173 8.0 Ten-Year Implementation Program 8.1 Introduction This Section summarizes the vision and mission of the Bay County Bay Town Trolley system, and the programs goals, and active strategies and monitoring for pursuing these goals. The Section also provides the ten-year financial plan based on the goals of the program and analysis of future needs. 8.2 Management and Monitoring Program Table 8.1 provides a listing of the revised goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish program elements. The table is a thorough listing of the program goals, with specific implementation performance measures, and a table column to be used for periodic monitoring of activities. This monitoring and tracking comment section of the table can be an effective tool for completing the performance evaluation for the annual TDP report update. Table 8.1 Management and Monitoring Program Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 4.5 Goals, Objectives, Strategies of the Fixed Route System Performance Measures Actual Performance for Annual Updates The recommended goals, objectives, and strategies for the Bay County Bay Town Trolley fixed route system, as amended in recognition of public comments and input, provider and staff review and comment, and comparison with peer systems are as follows: Goal 1: Expand service delivery for existing and potential customers to meet existing and future demand for transit services in Bay Coun ty while improving route efficiency and expanding the existing transit service area. Objective 1.1: Actively pursue grant funding sources to improve existing service Identify and pursue all FTA and to implement expanded service. and FDOT grants available to BTT. Strategy 1.1.1: Coordinate with FDOT and FTA to identify projects eligible for FDOT Service Development and Corridor funds. Strategy 1.1.2: Apply for new grant programs and funding sources as authorized by the Federal Transportation Bill language as amended. Objective 1.2: Pursue improvements to service and operations that are the most efficient in terms of garnering ridership and most cost effective to implement. Identify and pursue all FDOT Service Development and Corridor grants available to BTT. Identify yearly and pursue all Federal FTA grants available to BTT. Perform efficiency and effectiveness review in each annual TDP update. Strategy 1.2.1: Make route modifications to improve revenue hour efficiency. Consider annually route modifications to improve efficiency. Strategy 1.2.2: Monitor ridership data to determine whether unproductive Monitor ridership monthly. segments of routes could be modified. New Strategy 1.2.3: Implement accurate tracking of ridership through use of automatic passenger counters and full use of the features of the Genfare system. Obtain APC system hardware and software and implement use. Rev. August 4,

174 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective 1.3: Enhance connectivity and transfer opportunities to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the route structure. Strategy 1.3.1: Monitor timed transfers at Gulf Coast State College, Panama City Mall and Downtown Panama City to ensure maximum connectivity. Strategy 1.3.2: Evaluate and consider route timing offsets to ensure route toroute connections can be met by riders. Performance Measures Review route structure annually. Review transfer operations monthly and report annually. Review and reconsider route timing annually in TDP minor update. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Objective 1.4: Enhance service reliability and on time performance to secure and assure customer loyalty. Strategy 1.4.1: Monitor customer complaints regarding individual route on time performance issues and actively address each complaint with the customer. Strategy 1.4.2: Conduct field checks to determine on time performance issues and modify running times accordingly. Perform on time performance in each annual TDP update. Maintain continuous recordkeeping of customer complaints and address common complaints in annual TDP minor update. Conduct random field check continuously. Objective 1.5: Establish guidelines for increasing frequency on high demand Review and maintain routes to improve service capacity. operational policies. Strategy 1.5.1: Maintain a frequency standard for weekday and Saturday. Maintain current adopted frequency policies. Strategy 1.5.2: Focus frequency improvements on high demand routes and/or Review high demand routes peak seasonal demand. and give priority to service. New Strategy 1.5.3: Reassess on time performance and route capacity continually to make route improvements annually, or more often as ridership increases, or declines, on each route. Objective 1.6: Design all fixed routes to optimize direct routing and minimize customer travel time. Strategy 1.6.1: Consider new routes coded into T BEST for implementation when financial resources are available. New Strategy 1.6.2: Develop a system of future routes and phasing priorities for implementing these routes when additional funding becomes available. New Strategy 1.6.3: After consideration of T BEST results, and at least annually, consider adding additional routes or adjusting route segments. Objective 1.7: Establish guidelines and a prioritization process for extending hours of service based on customer demand and community support. Strategy 1.7.1: Identify the incremental cost of one or more additional round trip(s) for evening service. Strategy 1.7.2: Prioritize adding additional evening hours on existing Bay Town Trolley routes. Review on time performance and route capacity monthly. Review customer travel time monthly and annually. Implement new routes when funding becomes available. Continue to analyze and prioritize new routes as funding becomes available. Annually reassess all routes and route structure. Set and maintain guidelines for service hours based on customer demand. Analyze current cost of adding one additional daily service round trip. Add evening hours as funding becomes available. Rev. August 4,

175 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Performance Measures Actual Performance for Annual Updates Objective 1.8: Establish guidelines and a prioritization process for expanding service on Saturday and Sunday. Establish, revise, and maintain guidelines for prioritizing Saturday and Sunday. Strategy 1.8.1: Establish ratio of weekend service hours to weekday service hours. Review the ratio of weekend service hours to weekday hours. Strategy 1.8.2: As financial resources warrant, bring Saturday service to weekday service levels. Implement this recommendation by adding service hours to Scenario 12. New Strategy 1.8.3: Evaluate limited service hours on Sunday. As funding becomes available, implement Scenario 3. New Strategy 1.8.4: Consider specific late evening service hours on specific routes that serve service workers in sectors of the community where retail, dining, and entertainment are important sectors of the local economy. As funding becomes available assure added route structure and service hours are given priority for economic development and job access. Objective 1.9: Ensure that new or revised routes serve areas in the community where service does not exist. Strategy 1.9.1: Code routes into TBEST to evaluate equity in all sectors of the service area. Strategy 1.9.2: Maintain a candidate list new route phases to implement new routes as financial resources become available. Objective 1.10: Focus all new services on connecting critical activity centers and employment centers within Bay County. Strategy : Ensure that all new routes developed serve critical activity and/or employment centers. Strategy : Add the Northwest Florida International Airport, and associated sector plans, as a new critical activity center to be considered. New Strategy : Review the potential effectiveness of developing a route link that would serve the employment centers in the Lynn Haven industrial park. Prioritize service expansion in unserved areas of the community. Perform TBEST analysis in each major TDP update. Review and maintain route requests and update annually and in each TDP major update. As funding becomes available assure added route structure and service hours are given priority for economic development and job access. Review annually new employment creation and employment centers. Continuously review the effectiveness and efficiency of adding airport service based on flight arrivals and departures. Review opportunities for providing job access service as funding becomes available. Implement as a modification of Scenario 5. Base access on shift structures. Objective 1.11: Establish performance benchmarks for all service improvements and monitor performance to ensure minimum performance Establish benchmarks and monitor. Rev. August 4,

176 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Performance Measures Actual Performance for Annual Updates Strategy : Utilize peer report to establish benchmarks for passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, farebox recovery and cost per passenger trip. Strategy : Prepare annual report at the route and system level to monitor system performance. Establish benchmarks based on peer review. Review and maintain data for annually minor report update. Goal 2: Maintain and expand adequate capital infrastructure to ensure vehicles, facilities, customer amenities and transit stops achieve the highest standard of accessibility and comfort. Objective 2.1: Develop and maintain and update annually a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Strategy 2.1.1: Utilize the capital and operating plan in this TDP update as a foundation for a comprehensive program. Objective 2.2: Seek additional funds to improve and/or expand the existing administration, operations and maintenance facilities. Strategy 2.2.1: Program new improvements to the existing administration, operations and maintenance facilities. Objective 2.3: Remove the trolley type vehicles and replace with traditional transit service vehicles as the fleet ages to continue to bring down the average age of the fleet and to modernize the vehicle fleet. Continuously maintain a CIP. Continuously maintain a CIP. Continuously seek additional local and state grant funding. Seek funding for additional transfer stations. Remove surplus trolley vehicles except for special services such as Jolly Trolley. Strategy 2.3.1: Maintain a vehicle replacement program. Maintain the replacement program annually. Strategy 2.3.2: Program 5307 funds for vehicle acquisition. Maintain the replacement program annually. Objective 2.4: Expand trolley fleet as future route and service improvements are expanded. Strategy 2.4.1: Purchase new vehicles as financial resources become available for new service. Continuously maintain a CIP and maintain the replacement program annually. Replace fleet vehicles at or prior to replacement period to maintain an updated fleet. Objective 2.5: Continue improvements to the passenger amenities program to place shelters and amenities throughout the service area that was begun with the initiation of the Bay Town Trolley ADA Bus Stop Access (transition) Plan Continue to provide ADA bus stop accessibility. Strategy 2.5.1: Program Section 5307 funds for passenger amenity improvements. Seek additional 5307 funding annually. Coordinate with adjacent Strategy 2.5.2: Implement passenger amenities when public right of way is property owners and/or FDOT available when completing bus stop improvement program in Objective 2.6 and municipalities to obtain below. sufficient right of way for improvements. Objective 2.6: Continue the transit stop improvement program to bring all bus stops into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Continue to provide ADA bus stop accessibility. Rev. August 4,

177 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Strategy 2.6.1: Continue to contract with a firm capable of design, engineering, construction and permitting to bring additional transit stops into ADA compliance. Strategy 2.6.2: Program Section 5307 funds to complete the program of transit stop improvements. Objective 2.7: Pursue technology improvements to enhance operational efficiency, effectiveness and customer satisfaction, including possibilities to coordinate with the Bay County Traffic Management Center to monitor vehicle operations. Strategy 2.7.1: Obtain and install automatic vehicle location (AVL) hardware and software to allow real time tracking of transit vehicles. Strategy 2.7.2: Pursue connection of the AVL technology with the Bay County traffic management center operations for real time service adjustments and detours. New Strategy 2.7.3: Obtain and install automatic passenger counters (APC) on each transit vehicle to track daily, weekly, monthly, and annual ridership. New Strategy 2.7.4: Obtain and install GPS technology on each vehicle in order to track and obtain vehicle data and route progress for onboard annunciators, and for Google Transit, and smart phone applications. Objective 2.8: Coordinate with municipalities, business interests, community associations, and interested agencies to leverage resources for capital improvements. Performance Measures Continue present program of improvements annually. Seek additional 5307 funding annually. Review and implement stateof the art technology as funding becomes available. Assure installation of AVL on all transit vehicles. Assure installation of AVL on all transit vehicles. Assure installation of APC on all transit vehicles. Assure installation of GIS on all transit vehicles. Annually seek new municipal and county funding for system improvements. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Strategy 2.8.1: Coordinate with private property owners as part of their own ADA requirements for accessible pathways to make ADA transit stop accessibility improvements when right of way is insufficient. Strategy 2.8.2: Coordinate with local governments to each fund transit facilities within each community consistent with a common set of system facility standards. Coordinate with adjacent property owners and/or FDOT and municipalities to obtain sufficient right of way for improvements and assist property owners with access to transit. Annually seek new funding from local communities and the County. Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive marketing, communications and media relations program to effectively promote transit s image, awarenes s, public embrace and information materials. Objective 3.1: Develop a comprehensive, continuous marketing program to market services to existing and potential customer bases, including employees, employers, traditional transit markets, persons with disabilities, military personnel and their dependents, tourists, primary school students and college students. Strategy 3.1.1: Procure a marketing/communications/public relations consultant to develop and implement a continuous marketing program. Develop a marketing and advertising program to assure the highest quality and saturation of advertising. Seek and contract with a qualified marketing and advertising consultant to assure the highest quality and saturation of advertising. Rev. August 4,

178 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Strategy 3.1.2: In addition to just awareness campaigns, focus one portion of the marketing and ridership outreach on developing choice riders. Performance Measures Assure that the marketing consultant prioritizes some portion of funding to developing choice ridership. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Objective 3.2: Develop printed transit information and web based transit information that is customer friendly and attractive. Continue improvements to the quality and convenience of the web page and Ride Guide information. Strategy 3.2.1: Continue to improve website and printed information materials and seek to make more available to the public. Strategy 3.2.2: Revise the Ride Guide to be more user friendly including the addition of a timetable based on route/stop times. Review and improve the Ride Guide and web based route information to assure rider satisfaction. Review and improve the Ride Guide and web based route information to include time points and better information on route service and connections. Place card holders at each transit stop and shelter that contain current route maps and schedules. Objective 3.3 Enhance communications between Bay Town Trolley and its riders using social media. Strategy 3.3.1: Utilize Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media to establish communications with customers and the community. Objective 3.4: Develop a comprehensive media relations program to communicate successes and appropriately deal with incidents. Strategy 3.4.1: Proactively seek positive press coverage for BTT s initiatives and improvements. Strategy 3.4.2: Develop policies and procedures for handling complaints, incident reporting, and public awareness to prevent mixed or crossed messaging. Objective 3.5: Develop a community relations program for all jurisdictions participating in the funding of public transportation services. Provide card holders at each shelter and a map holder at each stop. Utilize state of the art social media and update annually to assure good community connection and information availability. Continue to use these platforms and add new platforms and apps as they become more common in use. Identify a public information officer position or person. Assure good press and media coverage through continuous communication with the providers. Assign a public information officer to provide quick response. Create a multi modal manager position. Rev. August 4,

179 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Performance Measures Actual Performance for Annual Updates Strategy 3.5.1: Implement quarterly e newsletter for community partners in transit. Multi modal manager to be responsible for media and marketing coverage Strategy 3.5.2: Coordinate with each community public information officer or public relations consultant for the community to convey consistent messaging regarding transit programs and operations. Multi modal manager to be responsible for media and marketing coverage Objective 3.6: Enhance the image of the Bay Town Trolley system to encourage the community to embrace the system as a required and valued Strategy 3.6.1: Conduct speaking engagements with a variety of civic and government groups around the County, annually. Strategy 3.6.2: Conduct and/or participate in transportation days at critical activity centers. Strategy 3.6.3: Perform an annual rider survey to obtain opinions from riders and recommendations for needed improvements to the system. Focus public relations and press coverage on the "essential service" aspect of transit. Multi modal manager to be responsible for media and marketing coverage Multi modal manager to be responsible for media and marketing coverage Continue to develop and implement a rider survey to obtain accurate rider sentiments and suggestions. Goal 4: Evaluate and participate in community values and quality of life initiatives as they relate to future plans Coordinate with the local Objective 4.1: Support collaborative land use and transportation planning planning departments to efforts that ensure communities can develop in an efficient and sustainable way. assure transit accessibility is a development approval objective. Strategy 4.1.1: Coordinate with FDOT, County and municipal engineers to incorporate transit amenities and ADA stop improvements on any road construction projects. Annually coordinate with FDOT, County, and municipal public works directors to obtain timely information on new roadway and street improvements. Strategy 4.1.2: Assure that route and stop changes are not made inefficiently or ineffectively by adhering to commonly accepted transit stop placement, separation, and ridership criteria. Use the existing BTT stop placement guidelines and policies and review and update as needed annually. Objective 4.2: Coordinate with bicycle and pedestrian plans to ensure that transit routes are a consideration in the prioritization process for projects. Strategy 4.2.1: Coordinate with the Bay TPO in bicycle and pedestrian planning activities to ensure that transit has an equal place in the overall priority mix for improvements. Review bicycle and pedestrian plans annually. Review bicycle and pedestrian plans annually to assure adequate interconnection between transit and bike/ped facilities. Rev. August 4,

180 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Strategy 4.2.2: Assure that all transit vehicles have installed the most innovative, highest capacity bicycle racks on all vehicles. Objective 4.3: Coordinate with local development comprehensive planning and zoning code efforts to encourage transit oriented development policies. Strategy 4.3.1: Coordinate with City and County planners to require transit improvements within new development along current or future Objective 4.4: Support the initiatives that fulfill the multi modal transportation enhancements called for in the Panama City Beach Community Redevelopment Agency zone. Performance Measures Complete a review of existing bike racks and improve as needed with larger capacity or user convenience attributes. Coordinate with the local planning departments to assure transit accessibility is a development approval objective. Annually review local codes for transit friendly policies. Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach CRA and assist them to assure adequate consideration is given to implementing transit on Front Beach Road. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Strategy 4.4.1: Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach Front Beach Road Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) agency to develop transit services along the dedicated tram/bike designed for the Front Beach Road corridor. Strategy 4.4.2: Develop relationships to ensure future funding of transit along the Front Beach Road corridor. Strategy 4.4.3: Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach, and the Front Beach Road CRA to develop routes and stops and linkages to other transportation systems at the two multi modal facilities planned by the City and CRA. Objective 4.5: Support efforts of Bay County, the City of Panama City, and other local communities as appropriate, to develop indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita, and automobile occupancy rates. Strategy 4.5.1: Coordinate with the communities and TPO to report progress toward meeting mobility goals, as appropriate to each community. Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach CRA and assist them to assure adequate consideration is given to implementing transit on the proposed tram/bike lanes. Coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach CRA and assist them to assure adequate consideration is given to implementing transit on the proposed tram/bike lanes. Continue to coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach and the CRA to develop appropriate stop locations and facilities. Create a multi modal manager position with the assignment to assure mobility goals are met. Multi modal manager to be responsible for reviewing and assuring community mobility goals are met. Rev. August 4,

181 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective 4.6: Support efficient land use planning practices to coordinate transportation and transit services when high density housing is placed near commercial centers, transit lines, employment centers, major public facilities and services, schools, and parks. Strategy 4.6.1: Coordinate with all County and City sector plans, DRIs and high density and intensity communities and planning areas to place transit amenities in developing areas. Objective 4.7: Proactively partner with the business community and the regional workforce development board to continuously develop and refine services to meet their needs. Strategy 4.7.1: Pursue partnerships with local Bay County business interests to expand service and amenities. Strategy 4.7.2: Specifically coordinate with the City of Panama City Beach and the Tourist Development Council to assure a strong commitment to transit that serves multiple purposes within the beach communities, providing transit or shuttle transportation to provide employee access to work in the beach service industries; and, for transit access for beach visitors. Objective 4.8: Promote linkages between transit services and education and training facilities. Strategy 4.8.1: Pursue student transportation fees with Gulf Coast State College, Florida State University, and other training and employment centers. Performance Measures Coordinate with the local planning departments to assure transit accessibility is a development approval objective. Annually review local codes for transit friendly policies. Coordinate transit systems routes, stops, and service to meet the needs of employers and employees. Coordinate with businesses to assure adequate funding for transit and for transit accessibility facilities. Continuously coordinate with the Panama City Beach TDC and Council to assure that transit is given appropriate levels of funding and priorities. Coordinate with the Bay County School District; FSU Panama City; and Gulf Coast State College to seek ways to serve them with transit systems access for students. Pursue student transportation fees for all students at FSU PC and GCSC. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Goal 5: Maximize safety and security for all transit services and facilities. Objective 5.1: Maintain a comprehensive System Safety Program Plan. Strategy 5.1.1: Update SSPP in accordance with FDOT requirements, and FTA standards as they apply. Strategy 5.1.2: At least annually, engage all active employees in training programs intended to ensure awareness and compliance with FDOT, FTA, FHWA, and other transportation agency codes and standards. Strategy 5.1.3: At least quarterly, ensure that all active employees are engaged in safety, security, and compliance training. Assure safety in operations and maintenance by developing and maintaining policies to assure safety and security. Review and update the SSPP annually to assure compliance. Maintain required safety and security training annually or at otherwise required intervals. Provide quarterly safety training review sessions. Rev. August 4,

182 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective 5.2: Maintain and implement safety and security systems throughout facilities, fleet and public stops and stations. Strategy 5.2.1: Identify safety and security issues at Massalina, Gulf Coast State College, Panama City Mall and the Downtown Transfer stations and remedy discovered deficiencies in cooperation with the agencies involved Strategy 5.2.2: Ensure clear visibility at and near all transit stops and shelters to assure the safety of riders waiting to board and riders alighting at each stop. Strategy 5.2.3: Keep advertising and flyers removed from shelters to assure a clear range of vision. Objective 5.3: Establish design guidelines, standards, and priorities for system improvements. Strategy 5.3.1: Prioritize improvements for routes, transit stops, transfer centers, and on street transfer locations. Strategy 5.3.2: Establish clear guidance for making route and stop changes utilizing existing system standards and policies, and national transit guidelines. Performance Measures Review and maintain safety and security features and functions continuously. Review and maintain safety and security features and functions continuously. Update the ADA transit stop accessibility study annually or as needed. Complete this weekly. Review and update existing policies, standards, and guidelines. Provide an annual update of improvements priorities. Review, develop, and maintain route location and facilities standards. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Goal 6: Ensure prudent public stewardship of financial resources and secure additional funding for system maintenance and improvements. Objective 6.1: Maintain an equitable fare policy and establish a farebox recovery standard. Strategy 6.1.1: Periodically monitor fare structure and fare media to ensure that passenger fares are appropriately offsetting the cost of service. Strategy 6.1.2: Utilize peer system analysis to establish farebox recovery standard. Review annually the fare structure and compare with peer systems fare structures. Annually, review the fare structure and compare with peer systems. Review peer systems and adjust fares to be comparable to similar peers. Objective 6.2: Develop a long range financial plan that maximizes grant funding sources for strategic improvements and long range transportation improvements recommended in the TDP. Strategy 6.2.1: Examine revenue impact of dedicated funding. Strategy 6.2.2: Develop a contingency plan and priorities for maintaining service under conditions where funding sources do not remain constant. Objective 6.3: Ensure that TDP improvements are included in the Long Range Transportation Plan efforts. Review the TDP major update financial plan and update the CIP as needed to assure adequate funding is available for future needs. Seek to balance revenue needs with existing and available funding sources with an annual review. Develop a contingency plan with dedicated priorities for important services when funding is reduced. Continuously update the LRTP with transit needs and goals. Rev. August 4,

183 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Strategy 6.3.1: Assure that transit funding is identified and prioritized in the local Long Range Transportation Plan, as updated. Objective 6.4: Seek additional local funds when such funds can match and leverage federal and state grant funding opportunities. Strategy 6.4.1: Seek funds from jurisdictions to remain competitive for FDOT Service Development funds at a 50% FDOT/50% local match. Objective 6.5: Establish a legislative funding priority program to seek state and federal funding partnerships. Strategy 6.5.1: Coordinate with Bay County legislative delegation and the Florida Public Transportation Association to ensure major initiatives are considered when transportation legislation is under consideration. Performance Measures Assure that the LRTP is a multi modal long range plan that includes mobility in all aspects of the plan and prioritizes transit as an essential service. Continuously coordinate with local governments to seek funding for the purposes of grant matches. Coordinate with local governments to seek funding for the purposes of grant matches. Coordinate with the local legislative delegation to seek local transit funding. Coordinate with the local legislative delegation to seek special transit funding for essential or pilot projects or special programs. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Goal 7: Pursue regional transportation needs with surrounding counties and the overall Panama City Urbanized Area. Objective 7.1: Proactively seek partnerships with Walton County and Beaches of South Walton business interests to develop transit services linking Walton and Strategy 7.1.1: Identify revenue sources to implement regional service connectivity. Strategy 7.1.2: Coordinate with FDOT and the RideOn service to locate and develop park and ride lots, ride share programs, car pools, and shuttle services Expand regional transit services as funding sources are identified. Coordinate with Walton County and other adjacent counties to seek FDOT and FTA transit funding for regional services. Coordinate with RideOn annually. 4.6 Goals, Objectives, Strategies of the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) FY 2015/16 Annual Update The recommended goals, objectives, and strategies of the Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) FY 2015/16 Annual Update, adopted June 17, 2015, as amended in recognition of public comments and input, provider and staff review and comment, and comparison with peer systems are as follows: Goal 1: Ensure availability of transportation services to the Transportation Disadvantaged Objective 1: Stabilize trip numbers at maintainable levels, based on available funding sources. Review trip numbers continuously to assure compliance with guidelines and consistent with available funding. Rev. August 4,

184 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Performance Measures Actual Performance for Annual Updates Strategy a. Maintain an adequate availability of operators and drivers and with backup capability. (Continuous) Maintain a file of available driver resumes, qualifications, and applications. Objective 2: Increase passenger and general public awareness of transportation services available to those with transportation disadvantages. (Continuous) Strategy a: Improve the marketing plan for educating the public on available transportation services. (Continuous) Strategy b: Submit press releases bi annually to initiate awareness of transportation disadvantaged services in Bay County by educating potential users and the public of funding constraints. (Immediate and Future) Strategy c: Enhance informational materials (brochures) for riders of the system and upgrade when necessary; including policies of client agencies specific to their riders. (Immediate) Objective 3: Increase transit service, whenever possible. Strategy a: Increase transit service in downtown Panama City to provide more job access to low income workers to replace the Bay Medical JARC service. (Immediate) New Strategy b: Seek funding to develop and continue transit routes to major employment centers. (New) Include information on websites, and with public outreach flyers in appropriate locations. Add services available to TD users to the marketing plan. Coordinate with the multimodal manager to assure adequate awareness campaign is implemented. Review and improve printed materials annually. Increase services when funding is available. Seek funding from municipalities for job access transit. Continue to coordinate with major employers and employment centers to provide funding for transit or shuttles to existing transit routes. Goal 2: Ensure cost effective and efficient transportation services. Objective 1: Improve cost efficiency in service delivery. (Continuous) Maintain continuous review of cost versus efficiency and effectiveness of the services. Strategy a: Establish and maintain desirable load factor by improving trip coordination and offering additional stretcher service. (Continuous) Strategy b: Maximize use of fixed route service of Bay Town Trolley (BTT) and continually offer rider incentives for transitioning to fixed route independence. (Continuous) Strategy c: Provide travel training for transportation disadvantaged for elderly and disabled riders. (Immediate) Continue existing policies and review monthly/annually. Divert users to the BTT by continuous coordination of their daily and weekly needs. Provide workshops or personal contact to provide information on transit mobility. Rev. August 4,

185 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective 2: Transfer appropriate paratransit riders to fixed route transit with a goal of 60 per year. (Continuous) Strategy a: Work with the Bay Town Trolley, Agency for Persons with Disabilities Support Coordinators, and the St. Andrews Bay Center to identify 60 riders to refer to Easy Access for travel training. (Continuous) Performance Measures Review the existing policies regarding transfer of riders to assure consistency with state and Federal ADA policies. Review whether the objective and strategy level of transfers of 60 riders is effective or needs to be revised. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Strategy b: Provide employee customer service training three times per year. Hold quarterly dinners for drivers as a forum to express their opinions and concerns to the administration. Consider coordinating one of the training workshops with fixed transit drivers and operators. Goal 3: Ensure quality of service provided to the Transportation Disadvantaged Objective 1: Excel in courteous and respectful customer relations. (Continuous) Strategy a: Ensure that customer service standards are met and monitored monthly and reported quarterly to the Local Coordinating Board. (Immediate and Future) Strategy b: Provide employee customer service training three times per year. Hold quarterly dinners for drivers as a forum to express their opinions and concerns to the administration. (Quarterly) Strategy c: Use rider surveys to review feedback from riders and agencies as a tool to encourage the system to consistently provide excellent service. (Continuous) Strategy d: Monitor AOR complaints and make corrections, when necessary. (Immediate) Prepare a manual and policy on driver courtesy and customer service. Monitor customer comments, track, and maintain records. Combine the customer service training with training listed under Goal 2, Objective 2, Strategy b. Monitor customer comments obtain in rider surveys, track, and maintain records. Monitor customer complaints, track, and maintain records. Objective 2: Increase customer awareness of transportation policies and procedures. (Continuous) Strategy a: Collaborate with TPO staff to develop brochure for Bay County Transportation Providers. Brochure provides customers with pertinent information such as general contact information. (Immediate and Future) Objective 3: Minimize customer travel and wait time. (Continuous) Strategy a: Maintain communication with health care facilities to pursue coordination.(quarterly) Post policies and procedures prominently in locations where customers can review and comment. Combine this strategy with marketing and information management activities mentioned in other objectives and strategies. Focus on optimizing route and stop structure with walking distance analysis being prioritized. Maintain an annual listing of agencies for coordination. Rev. August 4,

186 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Strategy b: Contract with operators to provide demand response service (Continuous) Performance Measures Continue contracting when necessary and appropriate to meet demand. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Objective 4: Maintain customer relations with agency customers that we provide with transportation services. (Continuous) Strategy a: Contact customers monthly to maintain open communication to proactively deal with any issues. (Continuous) Strategy b: Initiate workshops, health fairs, expos, providing brochures and staff representation, and seek out new outreach efforts. (Continuous) Assign customer relations to contract marketing firm, or to mobility manager. Add monthly contact with regular customers to track needs in advance or to modify service as needed. Assign customer relations to contract marketing firm, or to mobility manager. Goal 4: Ensure necessary funding to support the program Objective 1: Seek funds to adequately satisfy operational needs. (Continuous) Strategy a: Seek additional funding sources to provide local match. (Immediate and Future) Strategy b: Maintain competitive wages for drivers by pursuing additional funding. (Immediate) Strategy c: Encourage all human service providers with transportation need to attend Local Coordinating Board meetings. (Continuous) Objective 2: Seek to increase funds to provide more trips. (Continuous) Strategy a: Pursue local funds by seeking out networking opportunities. (Continuous) Strategy b: Encourage stakeholders (representatives of public, private and nonprofit human service providers) to participate in the planning and budgeting process. (Continuous) Strategy c: Attend various community agency roundtable discussions to learn about grants and funding opportunities. Moved from 4.1.c (2007 Goals) (Immediate and Future) Research current funding and additional funding sources to assure that no source is unused. Coordinate with local municipalities and the County to seek matching funds annually. Maintain wages as appropriate under the agreed upon contract, and research peer system wages. Advertise and provide appropriate advance notice to agencies. Research current funding and additional funding sources to assure that no source is unused. Coordinate with local municipalities and the County to seek matching funds annually. Advertise and provide appropriate advance notice to agencies, and providers to attend TD and TAG meetings. Advertise and provide appropriate advance notice to agencies, and providers to attend TD and TAG meetings and assure attendance by transit service providers. Rev. August 4,

187 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective 1: Maintain standards per Rule (See Service Standards) Strategy a: Comply with contract standards and prepare an accurate Annual Operating Report (AOR) to include all Purchase of Service and Coordination Contracts data. Performance Measures Review continuously. Review and maintain records continuously to assure appropriate compliance with records and data maintenance standards. Actual Performance for Annual Updates Goal 5: Ensure program accountability Objective 1: Maintain standards per Rule (See Service Standards) (Continuous) Review continuously. Strategy a: Comply with contract standards and prepare an accurate Annual Operating Report (AOR) to include all Purchase of Service and Coordination Contracts data. (Continuous) Review, track, and maintain records weekly, monthly, and annually to assure proper reporting in the AOR. Objective 2: Seek to retain favorable findings in TD Commission Quality Assurance Review. (Continuous) Strategy a: Comply with the Community Transportation Disadvantaged contract requirements. (Immediate and Future) Review and amend standards and policies to assure compliance. Review and amend standards annually as required by contract terms. Objective 3: Compile and report required program evaluation data. (Continuous) Strategy a: Prepare a quarterly report to the LCB outlining activities over the quarter. (Quarterly) Evaluate program effectiveness annually. Provide continuous monitoring, tracking, and reporting of activities and service to assure proper reporting quarterly. 8.3 Capital and Operating Program The following section provides a summary of the ten-year capital and operating program. The program was developed using the FDOT costing tool template and was revised from the last Bay County TDP annual minor update. The recommendations are based on satisfying the existing and revised goals, objectives, and strategies provided in Section 4, and program analysis of needs identified in Section 7. Potential recommendations for implementation are identified in Section 7, Table 7.2 Analysis of Future Needs. These recommended alternative scenarios, as well as programmatic and operational needs and recommendations were analyzed using TBEST and are displayed in Figure7.2 Map of Recommended New Routes and Route Modifications, and Figure 7.3 TBEST Analysis of Recommended New Routes and Route Modifications. The Financial Tool spreadsheets, Tables 8.3 through 8.9 continue at the end of this section. Rev. August 4,

188 8.4 The Financial Tool Spreadsheets Many of the transit enhancements identified in the assessment of needs are termed as needs while potential costs and revenues have, in theory, not yet been considered. In reality, many of the proposed enhancements discussed previously were adjusted as the financial plan was developed. A TDP Financial Plan provides the opportunity to align transit needs with expected financial resources. The financial plan includes capital costs, operating costs, and financial resources for the ten-year planning period. Development of the financial plan first entailed collecting data on recent financial expenditures for both the fixed-route and demand response transit systems. The Bay County Transit Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) provides information every year to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Data from the TDSP, along with data provided by the TPO transit manager, the National Transit Database, and the most recent 2015 minor update were used to project financial resources. Once this information was collected, the TDP Financial Plan Tool developed for FDOT was used to project costs and revenues through the planning period of 2017 to As shown in Table 8.2, all estimates were calculated in 2016 dollars and are adjusted to the proper year using a 1% annual inflation rate for operating costs and a 1.5% annual inflation rate for capital costs. Unless otherwise noted, all costs have been inflated from 2017 to 2026, from the base year of the TDP. Table 8.2 Capital and Operating Assumptions Assumption Cost For Notes/Source 2016 Fixed-Route Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $69.70 Indicate Source/s: BTT Financial Report Fixed-Route Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $4.24 Indicate Source/s: National Transit Database ADA Paratransit Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $39.01 Indicate Source/s: BTT Financial Report ADA Paratransit Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $1.90 Indicate Source/s: National Transit Database Van Pool Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $0 Van Pool Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $0 Other Mode Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $0 Other Mode Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $0 Operating Costs Inflation Rate 1.0% Capital Cost Inflation Rate 1.5% Enter Current Year 2016 Enter TDP Base Year 2017 Table 8.3 depicts service characteristics, including headways, revenue hours, and revenue miles for both the fixed-route and demand response systems. This table also includes adjustments for the service enhancements discussed in the various scenarios analyzed, but does not include any information on staging of the enhancements. Finally, this table also develops annual operating costs for existing and proposed services using the inputs provided in Table 8.2. Table 8.4, depicting the implementation plan for the identified service enhancements, is used as an input for the cost estimating tables that follow. The implementation plan proposed in the needs assessment scenarios is shown here, with all new routes in place in 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2024, and Rev. August 4,

189 service/headway modifications occurring in 2017, and beyond. Annual operating costs for 2017 are shown on this table and then carried forward. Table 8.5 calculates operating costs over the ten year period for the existing system and proposed enhancements. As described above, the costs are inflated to year of expenditure dollars by 1% and 1.5% annually, based on calculations from Tables 8.3 and 8.4. Total operating costs from 2017 to 2026 for maintaining the existing system are estimated to be approximately $47.6 million for the existing system and $23.5 million for additional new service, for a total of $71.1 million. Table 8.6 depicts cost estimates for the capital enhancements identified in the needs analysis. Unlike the other tables, this one uses unit costs in current year (2016) dollars. Estimated costs were developed in concert with the County s transit managers. The costs are then inflated to year of expenditure dollars at a rate of 1% annually consistent with the implementation staging plan. Table 8.7-A brings the operating and capital costs together with potential revenue sources. Information is broken out annually as well as between existing fixed-route service, and existing demand response service. Revenues identified are from Federal, state, local, and private sources. Estimates for 2016 are consistent with information provided by the County transit manager. Table 8.7-B presents the same information in a summary format for both maintenance of the existing system and expansion consistent with the implementation plan shown in Table 8.4. As Table 8.7-A and 8.7B are fairly complex and a bit difficult to read, Tables 8.8 and 8.9 provide summaries for TDP costs (Table 8.8), and revenues (Table 8.9) annually through As depicted, it will cost approximately $81,234,385 million over the ten year period to provide the proposed transit services. Revenues are anticipated to be $81,267,625 million over the same period, leaving approximately $33,240 unfunded. Finally, it should be noted that some years show a surplus while other years show a deficit, so annual tracking of the budget and the plan are key to the success of the system. 8.5 Summary of Financial Plan Assumptions and Recommendations The financial plan incorporates the recommendations for implementation identified in Section 7, Table 7.2 Analysis of Future Needs, requirements set by policies contained in the goals, objectives, and strategies, and performance measures listed in Table 8.1, and the assumptions of Table 8.2 above. Important recommendations of the capital and operating ten year plan are noted below Capital Needs and Costs The plan recommends the following phased capital needs and costs throughout the ten year plan horizon: Service Vehicles (See Table 8.6) Replacement of 10 fixed route vehicles during the time horizon of the plan to maintain current service levels Rev. August 4,

190 Addition of 12 fixed route vehicles to expand services described in the alternative scenarios; Maintaining 3 spare buses throughout the plan horizon Replacement of 15 demand response buses and 4 vans to maintain current service levels Replacement of 5 service vehicles to maintain current service levels Other Transit Infrastructure (See Table 8.6) Implement a support position described as a Mobility Manager, funded through dedicated sources for the years FYs 19, 20, and 21 of the plan Shop equipment annual costs of approximately $20,000 Office and computer equipment annual costs of approximately $15,000 ADA accessibility program improvements and passenger amenities estimated at $100,000 annually Mobility security for buses estimated at $10,000 annually Miscellaneous capital needs: $15,000 annually Note that each cost item is estimated to be inflated at 1% annually throughout the plan horizon Revenue Needs and Sources The plan recommends the following formula of revenue sources throughout the ten year plan horizon (See Table 8.7-A): Portion of Table 8.7-A Source % To Maintain Existing Service FTA % FTA % Demand Response Reimburse 6.8% FHWA STP 2.8% FDOT Block Grant 9.1% FDOT Urban Corridor 3.5% FDOT Section % FDOT Section % Directly-Generated (non-fare) 0.9% FTA % Other Local - Property Tax 11.8% Other Purchase of Service Contributions 4.3% Local Contribution - Jurisdictions 2.4% Farebox Revenue 13.7% Total Revenues 100% The plan recommends the following formula of revenue sources throughout the ten year plan horizon for the proposed recommendations and enhancements (See Table 8.7-B), next page. Rev. August 4,

191 Portion of Table 8.7-B Funded Revenue Source % Federal FTA % FHWA STP 1.9% State FDOT Block Grant 6.2% FDOT Urban Corridor 2.4% FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 5.2% FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 6.3% FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 3.0% FDOT Section % FDOT Section % FTA % Local Farebox Revenue 16.2% Directly-Generated (non-fare) 0.6% Local Contribution - Jurisdictions 1.6% Other Local - Property Tax 10.6% Demand Response Reimburse 4.6% Other Purchase of Service Contributions 2.9% Total Revenues 100% Important recommendations of the financial plan include: To maintain existing services at the present level throughout the plan horizon, the plan is based on continuing to seek local jurisdiction support of approximately one percent of revenue needs To provide sufficient revenue to maintain existing services at the present level throughout the plan horizon, a special purpose transit fee of $1.00 per household throughout the county ($12.00 annually) is recommended to be adopted to assure a consistent and steady stream of support revenue. This is based on approximately 75,000 total households in Bay County, all contributing, and would begin in 2019 with an escalation of the revenue projected to occur based on the growth of households due to approximately a 2% growth in population. To provide sufficient revenue to expand existing services beyond the present level throughout the plan horizon, the special purpose transit fee would potentially be increased to $15.00 per household annually The transit fee revenue could also be substituted by adopting a local option gas tax to support transit, adjusted to develop a similar stream of revenue Increase revenue by increasing all methods of marketing and advertising Additionally, the plan assumes marginal farebox increases incrementally as follows: Table 8.8 Proposed Fare Increases through the Plan Horizon Fare Type Current Regular Fare $1.50 $1.50 $2.00 $2.25 Student Fare (with local $0.75 $0.75 $1.00 $1.00 ID),Senior Citizen (with Medicare card) Persons with Disabilities Day Pass $4.00 $5.00 $5.00 $6.00 Monthly Pass $35.00 $40.00 $40.00 $45.00 Children Under 5 Free Consider charge Consider charge Consider charge Note: All fare increases require a public hearing. Rev. August 4,

192 8.6 Conclusion The data collected, developed, and analyzed for this report should provide value to Bay County as they continue to grow the transit services offered in the community over the next ten years. Discussions with staff and the community led to the development of many of the concepts outlined in the needs analysis, scenarios analyzed, and the recommendations proposed, and, as shown in this final section, these recommendations are financially feasible. The financial plan reviewed revenue needs to maintain the current level of service throughout the plan horizon and determined a need to increase revenue simply to maintain the service based on expectations of new and escalating costs. In addition, based on the expectations of riders mentioned in surveys and workshops, new route service to additional areas of the county are proposed, time of day extensions of three hours weekdays, reduced headways on Saturdays, and addition of Sunday service are proposed. To maintain service will require additional funding levels or new sources of funding; to increase services a new commitment of funding transit must be made and new funding must be sought. Bay County s transit services have been through many managers, operators, and cycles of success, always moving forward. Fixed-route service operations has transitioned to a nationally recognized transit operator, and is managed by a TPO transit staff that is now well versed in the needs of the system and the pursuit of transit improvements. Dedication to implementation of the recommendations of this Plan will move the system forward to better serve the community. Rev. August 4,

193 Service Type/Mode Description Table 8.3 Fixed-Route/ADA/Other Service Characteristics Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Headway (minutes) Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Annual Days of Service Annual Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday Hours Annual Miles Annual Operating Cost 2016 Maintain Existing Fixed Route/Fixed Guideway Route #1 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 58,484 $273,985 Route #2 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 51,404 $273,985 Route #3 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 48,372 $273,985 Route #4 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 52,264 $273,985 Route #4M Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,016 41,580 $141,920 Route #4X Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,016 26,964 $141,920 Route #5 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 42,812 $273,985 Route #6 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 48,372 $273,985 Route #7E Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 58,684 $273,985 Route #7W Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,892 62,636 $273,985 Route 9 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service ,528 38,052 $248,361 Maintain Other Existing Services 529,624 ###### Paratransit Service Maintain Existing Paratransit Service ,632 0 $1,009,903 Preventive Preventive Maintenance N/A N/A N/A $300,000 Miscellaneous Insurance, Utilities, Fixed Fee, BOCC Personnel N/A N/A N/A $754,000 Fixed Route/Fixed Guideway Improvements Route #1 Increase Hours of Service ,592 $53,220 Route #2 Increase Hours of Service ,080 $53,220 Route #3 Increase Hours of Service ,324 $53,220 Route #4 Increase Hours of Service ,080 $53,220 Route #5 Increase Hours of Service ,316 $53,220 Route #6 Increase Hours of Service ,324 $53,220 Route #7E Increase Hours of Service ,340 $53,220 Route #7W Increase Hours of Service ,656 $53,220 Route #1 Increase Saturday Frequency ,564 $25,625 Route #2 Increase Saturday Frequency ,784 $25,625 Route #3 Increase Saturday Frequency ,524 $25,625 Route #4 Increase Saturday Frequency ,888 $25,625 Route #5 Increase Saturday Frequency ,004 $25,625 Route #6 Increase Saturday Frequency ,524 $25,625 Route #7E Increase Saturday Frequency ,512 $25,625 Route #7W Increase Saturday Frequency ,188 $25,625 Route #1 Add New Service - Sunday ,564 $25,625 Route #2 Add New Service - Sunday ,784 $25,625 Route #3 Add New Service - Sunday ,524 $25,625 Route #4 Add New Service - Sunday ,888 $25,625 Route #5 Add New Service - Sunday ,004 $25,625 Route #6 Add New Service - Sunday ,524 $25,625 Route #7E Add New Service - Sunday ,512 $25,625 Route #7W Add New Service - Sunday ,188 $25,625 Route #1 Increase Frequency ,528 52,920 $248,361 Route #2 Increase Frequency ,528 46,620 $248,361 Route #3 Increase Frequency ,528 43,848 $248,361 Route #4 Increase Frequency ,528 47,376 $248,361 Route #5 Increase Frequency ,528 38,808 $248,361 Route #6 Increase Frequency ,528 43,848 $248,361 Route #7E Increase Frequency ,528 53,172 $248,361 Route #7W Increase Frequency ,528 56,448 $248,361 Route 390 Add New Service ,892 57,468 $273,985 Route Jenks-Baldwin Add New Service ,892 37,000 $273,985 Route Add New Service ,892 36,392 $273,985 Route 98 Tyndall Add New Service ,892 55,348 $273,985 Route #7E Route Realignment ,784 $33, $ $0 Other Service Improvements ADA Paratransit $0 Van Pool Service $0 Miscellaneous $0

194 Table 8.4 Fixed-Route/ADA/Other Service Implementation Plan Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Service Type/Mode Description Annual Implementation Operating Year Cost Maintain Existing Fixed Route/Fixed Guideway Route #1 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #2 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #3 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #4 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #4M Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $141,920 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #4X Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $141,920 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #5 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #6 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7E Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7W Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2017 $273,985 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route 9 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service 2027 $248,361 No No No No No No No No No No Maintain Other Existing Services Paratransit Service Maintain Existing Paratransit Service 2017 $1,009,903 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Preventive Maintenance Preventive Maintenance 2017 $300,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Miscellaneous Insurance, Utilities, Fixed Fee, BOCC Personnel 2017 $754,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $4,787,986 Fixed Route/Fixed Guideway Improvements Route #1 Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #2 Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #3 Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #4 Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #5 Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #6 Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7E Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7W Increase Hours of Service 2017 $53,220 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #1 Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #2 Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #3 Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #4 Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #5 Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #6 Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7E Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7W Increase Saturday Frequency 2021 $25,625 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #1 Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #2 Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #3 Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #4 Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #5 Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #6 Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7E Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7W Add New Service - Sunday 2018 $25,625 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #1 Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #2 Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #3 Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 1

195 Table 8.4 Fixed-Route/ADA/Other Service Implementation Plan Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Service Type/Mode Description Annual Implementation Operating Year Cost Route #4 Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #5 Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #6 Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7E Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route #7W Increase Frequency 2023 $248,361 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Route 390 Add New Service 2020 $273,985 No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route Jenks-Baldwin Add New Service 2019 $273,985 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route Add New Service 2022 $273,985 No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Route 98 Tyndall Add New Service 2024 $273,985 No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Route #7E Route Realignment 2017 $33,334 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Other Existing Service Improvements ADA Paratransit Service $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Van Pool Service $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Miscellaneous $0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2

196 Service Type/Mode Description Table 8.5 Annual Operating Costs for Transit Improvements Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Annual Operating Cost Total Maintain Existing Fixed Route/Fixed Guideway $2,724,082 $2,475,722 $2,508,781 $2,533,868 $2,559,207 $2,584,799 $2,610,647 $2,636,754 $2,663,121 $2,689,752 $2,716,650 $25,979,302 Route #1 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $276,725 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $2,866,491 Route #2 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $276,725 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $2,866,491 Route #3 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $276,725 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $2,866,491 Route #4 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $276,725 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $2,866,491 Route #4M Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $141,920 $141,920 $143,340 $144,773 $146,221 $147,683 $149,160 $150,651 $152,158 $153,679 $155,216 $1,484,801 Route #4X Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $141,920 $141,920 $143,340 $144,773 $146,221 $147,683 $149,160 $150,651 $152,158 $153,679 $155,216 $1,484,801 Route #5 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $276,725 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $2,866,491 Route #6 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $2,892,416 Route #7E Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $2,892,416 Route #7W Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $273,985 $273,985 $279,492 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $2,892,416 Route 9 Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintain Other Existing Services $2,063,903 $2,063,903 $2,084,542 $2,105,388 $2,126,442 $2,147,706 $2,169,183 $2,190,875 $2,212,784 $2,234,912 $2,257,261 $21,592,996 Paratransit Service Maintain Existing Paratransit Service $1,009,903 $1,009,903 $1,020,002 $1,030,202 $1,040,504 $1,050,909 $1,061,419 $1,072,033 $1,082,753 $1,093,581 $1,104,516 $10,565,824 Preventive MaintenancPreventive Maintenance $300,000 $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $318,456 $321,641 $324,857 $328,106 $3,138,664 Miscellaneous Insurance, Utilities, Fixed Fee, BOCC Personnel $754,000 $754,000 $761,540 $769,155 $776,847 $784,615 $792,462 $800,386 $808,390 $816,474 $824,639 $7,888,508 Fixed Route/Fixed Guideway Improvements $3,951,913 $459,429 $673,139 $962,158 $1,256,890 $1,482,778 $1,788,447 $3,936,541 $4,272,593 $4,315,319 $4,358,472 $23,505,764 Route #1 Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #2 Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #3 Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #4 Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #5 Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #6 Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #7E Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #7W Increase Hours of Service $53,220 $53,220 $53,752 $54,290 $54,833 $55,381 $55,935 $56,494 $57,059 $57,630 $58,206 $556,800 Route #1 Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #2 Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #3 Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #4 Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #5 Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #6 Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #7E Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #7W Increase Saturday Frequency $25,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $164,043 Route #1 Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #2 Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #3 Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #4 Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #5 Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #6 Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #7E Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #7W Add New Service - Sunday $25,625 $0 $26,140 $26,401 $26,665 $26,932 $27,201 $27,473 $27,748 $28,025 $28,305 $244,889 Route #1 Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #2 Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #3 Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #4 Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #5 Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #6 Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #7E Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route #7W Increase Frequency $248,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,276 $268,939 $271,628 $274,345 $1,081,188 Route 390 Add New Service $273,985 $0 $0 $0 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $2,056,651 Route Jenks-Baldwin Add New Service $273,985 $0 $0 $282,287 $285,110 $287,961 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $2,338,938 Route Add New Service $273,985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,841 $293,749 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $1,483,580 Route 98 Tyndall Add New Service $273,985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $296,687 $299,653 $302,650 $898,990 Route #7E Route Realignment $33,334 $33,668 $34,004 $34,344 $34,688 $35,035 $35,385 $35,739 $36,096 $36,457 $36,822 $352,237 Other Existing Service Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2

197 Table 8.5 Annual Operating Costs for Transit Improvements Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Annual Description Service Operating Cost Total ADA Paratransit Servic0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Van Pool Service 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Projected Annual Operating Costs - Existing Service Projected Annual Operating Costs - Additional New Service Projected Annual Operating Costs $4,787,986 $4,539,625 $4,593,323 $4,639,256 $4,685,649 $4,732,505 $4,779,830 $4,827,629 $4,875,905 $4,924,664 $4,973,911 $47,572,297 $3,951,913 $459,429 $673,139 $962,158 $1,256,890 $1,482,778 $1,788,447 $3,936,541 $4,272,593 $4,315,319 $4,358,472 $23,505,764 $8,739,898 $4,999,054 $5,266,462 $5,601,414 $5,942,538 $6,215,283 $6,568,277 $8,764,169 $9,148,498 $9,239,983 $9,332,383 $71,078,061 3

198 Capital Needs Unit Cost 10-Year Need Table 8.6 Capital Needs & Costs for Fixed-Route/ADA Paratransit Services Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Vehicle Requirements Fixed-Route/Fixed Guideway Replacement MB Buses - Maintain Existing Service $200, $0 1 $206,045 2 $418,271 1 $212,273 1 $215,457 1 $218,689 1 $221,969 1 $225,299 1 $228,678 1 $232,108 Replacement DR Buses - Maintain Existing Service $100, $0 1 $103,023 2 $209,136 2 $212,273 1 $107,728 2 $218,689 1 $110,984 2 $225,299 2 $4 2 $232,108 Expansion MB Buses $200, $0 0 $0 1 $209,136 1 $212,273 0 $0 1 $218,689 8 $1,775,752 1 $225,299 0 $0 0 $0 Spare Buses $200, $0 1 $206,045 0 $0 0 $0 1 $215,457 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $228,678 0 $0 Total 40 0 $0 3 $515,113 5 $836,543 4 $636,818 3 $538,642 4 $656, $2,108,705 4 $675,896 4 $457,360 3 $464,216 Other Revenue Vehicles Replacement DR Vans - Maintain Existing Service $50, $50,750 0 $0 0 $0 1 $53,068 0 $0 0 $0 1 $55,492 0 $0 0 $0 1 $58, $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total 4 1 $50,750 0 $0 0 $0 1 $53,068 0 $0 0 $0 1 $55,492 0 $0 0 $0 1 $58,027 Support Vehicles Replacement Cars - Maintain Existing Service $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Replacement Vans/Trucks - Maintain Existing Service $50, $0 1 $51,511 0 $0 1 $53,068 0 $0 1 $54,672 0 $0 1 $56,325 0 $0 1 $58,027 Total 5 0 $0 1 $51,511 0 $0 1 $53,068 0 $0 1 $54,672 0 $0 1 $56,325 0 $0 1 $58,027 Other Transit Infrastructure Shop Equipment $20, $20,300 1 $20,605 1 $20,914 1 $21,227 1 $21,546 1 $21,869 1 $22,197 1 $22,530 1 $22,868 1 $23,211 Office/Computer Equipment/Software $15, $15,225 1 $15,453 1 $15,685 1 $15,920 1 $16,159 1 $16,402 1 $16,648 1 $16,897 1 $17,151 1 $17,408 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Miscellaneous Capital $15, $15,225 1 $15,453 1 $15,685 1 $15,920 1 $16,159 1 $16,402 1 $16,648 1 $16,897 1 $17,151 1 $17,408 ADA Accessibility & Passenger Amenities $100, $101,500 1 $103,023 1 $104,568 1 $106,136 1 $107,728 1 $109,344 1 $110,984 1 $112,649 1 $114,339 1 $116,054 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Mobile Security - Buses $10, $10,150 1 $10,302 1 $10,457 1 $10,614 1 $10,773 1 $10,934 1 $11,098 1 $11,265 1 $11,434 1 $11,605 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Mobility Management $70, $0 0 $0 1 $73,197 1 $74,295 1 $75,410 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total Total Vehicle Cost - Maintain Existing $50,750 $566,624 $627,407 $530,682 $538,642 $492,049 $388,446 $506,922 $457,360 $580,270 Total Other Transit Infrastructure Cost $162,400 $164,836 $240,506 $244,114 $247,775 $174,951 $177,575 $180,239 $182,942 $185,687 Total Cost - Maintain Existing Veh/Other Infra. $213,150 $731,460 $867,913 $774,795 $786,417 $667,000 $566,021 $687,160 $640,302 $765,957 Total Vehicle Cost - New Service $0 $0 $209,136 $212,273 $0 $218,689 $1,775,752 $225,299 $0 $0 Total Capital Cost $213,150 $731,460 $1,077,049 $987,068 $786,417 $885,689 $2,341,773 $912,459 $640,302 $765,957 3

199 Page 1 of B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU Table 8.7-A TDP Costs & Revenues by Source Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total Source % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Maintain Existing Service $4,539,625 $25,000 $213,150 $4,777,775 $4,593,323 $200,000 $731,460 $5,524,783 $4,639,256 $25,000 $867,913 $5,532,169 $4,685,649 $25,000 $774,795 $5,485,444 $4,732,505 $200,000 $786,417 $5,718,923 $4,779,830 $35,000 $667,000 $5,481,831 $4,827,629 $35,000 $566,021 $5,428,650 $4,875,905 $35,000 $687,160 $5,598,065 $4,924,664 $35,000 $640,302 $5,599,966 $4,973,911 $200,000 $765,957 $5,939,868 $47,572,297 $815,000 $6,700,177 $55,087,474 FTA % $2,025,000 $0 $0 $2,025,000 $1,950,000 $175,000 $40,000 $2,165,000 $1,305,000 $605,000 $1,910,000 $1,275,000 $475,000 $1,750,000 $1,223,000 $50,000 $597,000 $1,870,000 $1,220,000 $330,000 $1,550,000 $1,198,000 $217,000 $1,415,000 $1,186,000 $314,000 $1,500,000 $1,160,000 $401,000 $1,561,000 $1,149,000 $50,000 $496,000 $1,695,000 $13,691,000 $275,000 $3,475,000 $17,441,000 FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Demand Response Reimburse 7% $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000 $340,000 $0 $340,000 $350,000 $0 $350,000 $360,000 $0 $360,000 $370,000 $0 $370,000 $380,000 $0 $380,000 $390,000 $0 $390,000 $400,000 $0 $400,000 $410,000 $0 $410,000 $420,000 $0 $420,000 $3,750,000 $0 $0 $3,750,000 FHWA STP 3% $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $540,000 $1,000,000 $1,540,000 FDOT Block Grant 9% $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 FDOT Urban Corridor 4% $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $1,950,000 $0 $0 $1,950,000 FDOT Section % $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $325,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $325,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $3,200,000 $0 $0 $3,200,000 FDOT Section % $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $570,000 $570,000 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $215,000 $215,000 $0 $0 $225,000 $225,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $115,000 $115,000 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 $0 $0 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 Directly-Generated (non-fare) 1% $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $55,000 $0 $55,000 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $65,000 $0 $65,000 $75,000 $0 $75,000 $490,000 $0 $0 $490,000 FTA % $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $1,750,000 $0 $0 $1,750,000 Other Local - Transit Fee 12% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $0 $750,000 $766,000 $0 $766,000 $785,000 $0 $785,000 $800,000 $0 $800,000 $820,000 $0 $820,000 $840,000 $0 $840,000 $860,000 $0 $860,000 $880,000 $0 $880,000 $6,501,000 $0 $0 $6,501,000 Other Purchase of Service Contrib 4% $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 $0 $220,000 $230,000 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $0 $230,000 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $2,370,000 $0 $0 $2,370,000 Local Contribution - Jurisdictions 2% $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $1,300,000 Farebox Revenue 14% $600,000 $0 $0 $600,000 $685,000 $0 $685,000 $705,000 $0 $705,000 $725,000 $0 $725,000 $775,000 $0 $775,000 $790,000 $0 $790,000 $800,000 $0 $800,000 $815,000 $0 $815,000 $830,000 $0 $830,000 $850,000 $0 $850,000 $7,575,000 $0 $0 $7,575,000 Total Revenues 100% $4,540,000 $25,000 $215,000 $4,780,000 $4,595,000 $200,000 $735,000 $5,530,000 $4,640,000 $25,000 $870,000 $5,535,000 $4,686,000 $25,000 $775,000 $5,486,000 $4,733,000 $200,000 $787,000 $5,720,000 $4,780,000 $35,000 $670,000 $5,485,000 $4,828,000 $35,000 $567,000 $5,430,000 $4,876,000 $35,000 $689,000 $5,600,000 $4,925,000 $35,000 $641,000 $5,601,000 $4,974,000 $200,000 $766,000 $5,940,000 $47,577,000 $815,000 $6,715,000 $55,107,000 Surplus/Shortfall $375 $0 $1,850 $2,225 $1,677 $0 $3,540 $5,217 $744 $0 $2,087 $2,831 $351 $0 $205 $556 $495 $0 $583 $1,077 $170 $0 $3,000 $3,169 $371 $0 $979 $1,350 $95 $0 $1,840 $1,935 $336 $0 $698 $1,034 $89 $0 $43 $132 $4,703 $0 $14,823 $19,526

200 Page 1 of Federal State Local B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU Table 8.7-A TDP Costs & Revenues by Source Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total Planning Planning Capital Capital Capital Capital Planning Capital Source % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Capital TOTAL Operating Capital TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating TOTAL Table 8.7-B 10-Year Revenues Summary Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total Funded Revenues % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL FTA % $2,035,325 $0 $0 $2,035,325 $2,000,625 $175,000 $40,000 $2,215,625 $1,380,900 $0 $605,000 $1,985,900 $1,376,225 $0 $475,000 $1,851,225 $1,404,500 $50,000 $597,000 $2,051,500 $1,426,800 $0 $330,000 $1,756,800 $1,805,100 $0 $617,000 $2,422,100 $1,819,000 $0 $314,000 $2,133,000 $1,792,900 $0 $401,000 $2,193,900 $1,782,000 $50,000 $496,000 $2,328,000 $16,823,375 $275,000 $3,875,000 $20,973,375 FHWA STP 1.9% $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $540,000 $1,000,000 $1,540,000 FDOT Block Grant 6.2% $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 FDOT Urban Corridor 2.4% $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,950,000 $0 $0 $1,950,000 FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 5.2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $4,240,000 $0 $0 $4,240,000 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 6.3% $384,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $514,000 $0 $0 $514,000 $517,600 $0 $0 $517,600 $521,600 $0 $0 $521,600 $525,000 $0 $0 $525,000 $528,800 $0 $0 $528,800 $532,200 $0 $0 $532,200 $534,800 $0 $0 $534,800 $538,400 $0 $0 $538,400 $542,000 $0 $0 $542,000 $5,138,400 $0 $0 $5,138,400 FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 3.0% $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $116,000 $0 $0 $116,000 $212,000 $0 $0 $212,000 $212,000 $0 $0 $212,000 $308,000 $0 $0 $308,000 $308,000 $0 $0 $308,000 $404,000 $0 $0 $404,000 $404,000 $0 $0 $404,000 $404,000 $0 $0 $404,000 $2,408,000 $0 $0 $2,408,000 FDOT Section % $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $366,000 $266,000 $0 $0 $266,000 $316,000 $0 $0 $316,000 $332,000 $0 $0 $332,000 $332,000 $0 $0 $332,000 $517,000 $0 $0 $517,000 $517,000 $0 $0 $517,000 $542,000 $0 $0 $542,000 $542,000 $0 $0 $542,000 $4,080,000 $0 $0 $4,080,000 FDOT Section % $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $570,000 $570,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $390,000 $390,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $435,000 $435,000 $0 $0 $1,601,000 $1,601,000 $0 $0 $475,000 $475,000 $0 $0 $115,000 $115,000 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 $0 $0 $4,486,000 $4,486,000 FTA % $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $1,750,000 $0 $0 $1,750,000 Farebox Revenue 16.2% $645,350 $0 $0 $645,350 $757,600 $0 $0 $757,600 $866,950 $0 $0 $866,950 $980,900 $0 $0 $980,900 $1,075,350 $0 $0 $1,075,350 $1,186,800 $0 $0 $1,186,800 $1,776,750 $0 $0 $1,776,750 $1,913,700 $0 $0 $1,913,700 $1,961,450 $0 $0 $1,961,450 $2,014,800 $0 $0 $2,014,800 $13,179,650 $0 $0 $13,179,650 Directly-Generated (non-fare) 0.6% $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $35,000 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $0 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $55,000 $0 $0 $55,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $60,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $65,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $75,000 $490,000 $0 $0 $490,000 Local Contribution - Jurisdictions 1.6% $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $1,300,000 Other Local - Transit Fee 10.6% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $825,000 $0 $0 $825,000 $917,500 $0 $0 $917,500 $979,500 $0 $0 $979,500 $1,077,300 $0 $0 $1,077,300 $1,102,100 $0 $0 $1,102,100 $1,210,100 $0 $0 $1,210,100 $1,236,500 $0 $0 $1,236,500 $1,264,200 $0 $0 $1,264,200 $8,612,200 $0 $0 $8,612,200 Demand Response Reimburse 4.6% $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000 $340,000 $0 $0 $340,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $360,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $370,000 $0 $0 $370,000 $380,000 $0 $0 $380,000 $390,000 $0 $0 $390,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $400,000 $410,000 $0 $0 $410,000 $420,000 $0 $0 $420,000 $3,750,000 $0 $0 $3,750,000 Other Purchase of Service Contrib 2.9% $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $230,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $2,370,000 $0 $0 $2,370,000 Total Revenues 100.0% $4,999,675 $25,000 $215,000 $5,239,675 $5,268,225 $200,000 $735,000 $6,203,225 $5,602,450 $25,000 $1,080,000 $6,707,450 $5,944,225 $25,000 $990,000 $6,959,225 $6,218,350 $200,000 $787,000 $7,205,350 $6,569,700 $35,000 $890,000 $7,494,700 $8,766,150 $35,000 $2,343,000 ####### $9,148,600 $35,000 $914,000 ####### $9,240,250 $35,000 $641,000 $9,916,250 $9,334,000 $200,000 $766,000 $10,300,000 $71,091,625 $815,000 $9,361,000 $81,267,625

201 Page 1 of B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU Table 8.7-A TDP Costs & Revenues by Source Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total Source % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Maintain Existing Service $4,539,625 $25,000 $213,150 $4,777,775 $4,593,323 $200,000 $731,460 $5,524,783 $4,639,256 $25,000 $867,913 $5,532,169 $4,685,649 $25,000 $774,795 $5,485,444 $4,732,505 $200,000 $786,417 $5,718,923 $4,779,830 $35,000 $667,000 $5,481,831 $4,827,629 $35,000 $566,021 $5,428,650 $4,875,905 $35,000 $687,160 $5,598,065 $4,924,664 $35,000 $640,302 $5,599,966 $4,973,911 $200,000 $765,957 $5,939,868 $47,572,297 $815,000 $6,700,177 $55,087,474 FTA % $2,025,000 $0 $0 $2,025,000 $1,950,000 $175,000 $40,000 $2,165,000 $1,305,000 $605,000 $1,910,000 $1,275,000 $475,000 $1,750,000 $1,223,000 $50,000 $597,000 $1,870,000 $1,220,000 $330,000 $1,550,000 $1,198,000 $217,000 $1,415,000 $1,186,000 $314,000 $1,500,000 $1,160,000 $401,000 $1,561,000 $1,149,000 $50,000 $496,000 $1,695,000 $13,691,000 $275,000 $3,475,000 $17,441,000 FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Demand Response Reimburse 7% $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000 $340,000 $0 $340,000 $350,000 $0 $350,000 $360,000 $0 $360,000 $370,000 $0 $370,000 $380,000 $0 $380,000 $390,000 $0 $390,000 $400,000 $0 $400,000 $410,000 $0 $410,000 $420,000 $0 $420,000 $3,750,000 $0 $0 $3,750,000 FHWA STP 3% $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $540,000 $1,000,000 $1,540,000 FDOT Block Grant 9% $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 FDOT Urban Corridor 4% $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $190,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $1,950,000 $0 $0 $1,950,000 FDOT Section % $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $325,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $325,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $3,200,000 $0 $0 $3,200,000 FDOT Section % $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $570,000 $570,000 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $215,000 $215,000 $0 $0 $225,000 $225,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $115,000 $115,000 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 $0 $0 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 Directly-Generated (non-fare) 1% $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $55,000 $0 $55,000 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $65,000 $0 $65,000 $75,000 $0 $75,000 $490,000 $0 $0 $490,000 FTA % $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $175,000 $1,750,000 $0 $0 $1,750,000 Other Local - Transit Fee 12% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $0 $750,000 $766,000 $0 $766,000 $785,000 $0 $785,000 $800,000 $0 $800,000 $820,000 $0 $820,000 $840,000 $0 $840,000 $860,000 $0 $860,000 $880,000 $0 $880,000 $6,501,000 $0 $0 $6,501,000 Other Purchase of Service Contrib 4% $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 $0 $220,000 $230,000 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $0 $230,000 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $2,370,000 $0 $0 $2,370,000 Local Contribution - Jurisdictions 2% $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $1,300,000 Farebox Revenue 14% $600,000 $0 $0 $600,000 $685,000 $0 $685,000 $705,000 $0 $705,000 $725,000 $0 $725,000 $775,000 $0 $775,000 $790,000 $0 $790,000 $800,000 $0 $800,000 $815,000 $0 $815,000 $830,000 $0 $830,000 $850,000 $0 $850,000 $7,575,000 $0 $0 $7,575,000 Total Revenues 100% $4,540,000 $25,000 $215,000 $4,780,000 $4,595,000 $200,000 $735,000 $5,530,000 $4,640,000 $25,000 $870,000 $5,535,000 $4,686,000 $25,000 $775,000 $5,486,000 $4,733,000 $200,000 $787,000 $5,720,000 $4,780,000 $35,000 $670,000 $5,485,000 $4,828,000 $35,000 $567,000 $5,430,000 $4,876,000 $35,000 $689,000 $5,600,000 $4,925,000 $35,000 $641,000 $5,601,000 $4,974,000 $200,000 $766,000 $5,940,000 $47,577,000 $815,000 $6,715,000 $55,107,000 Surplus/Shortfall $375 $0 $1,850 $2,225 $1,677 $0 $3,540 $5,217 $744 $0 $2,087 $2,831 $351 $0 $205 $556 $495 $0 $583 $1,077 $170 $0 $3,000 $3,169 $371 $0 $979 $1,350 $95 $0 $1,840 $1,935 $336 $0 $698 $1,034 $89 $0 $43 $132 $4,703 $0 $14,823 $19,526 Route #1 $53,220 $ - $53,220 $53,752 $ - $53,752 $54,290 $ - $54,290 $54,833 $ - $54,833 $55,381 $ - $55,381 $55,935 $ - $55,935 $56,494 $ - $56,494 $57,059 $ - $57,059 $57,630 $ - $57,630 $58,206 $ - $58,206 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492,875 Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63,925 Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Route #2 $53,220 $ - $53,220 $53,752 0 $53,752 $54,290 0 $54,290 $54,833 0 $54,833 $55,381 0 $55,381 $55,935 0 $55,935 $56,494 0 $56,494 $57,059 $0 $57,059 $57,630 0 $57,630 $58,206 0 $58,206 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492,875 Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63,925 Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Route #3 $ 53,220 $ - $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ - $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ - $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ - $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ - $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ - $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ - $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ - $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ - $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ - $ 58,206 $ 556,800 $ - $ - $ 556,800 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492,875 Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63,925 Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Route #4 $ 53,220 $ - $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ - $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ - $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ - $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ - $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ - $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ - $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ - $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ - $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ - $ 58,206 $ 556,800 $ - $ - $ 556,800 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492,875 Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63,925 Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Route #5 $ 53,220 $ - $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ - $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ - $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ - $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ - $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ - $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ - $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ - $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ - $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ - $ 58,206 $ 556,800 $ - $ - $ 556,800 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492,875 Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63,925 Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556,800 Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Route #6 $ 53,220 $ - $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ - $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ - $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ - $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ - $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ - $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ - $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ - $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ - $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ - $ 58,206 $ 556,800 $ - $ - $ 556,800 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492,875 Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63, Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556, Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 102 Route #7E $ 53,220 $ - $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ - $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ - $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ - $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ - $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ - $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ - $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ - $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ - $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ - $ 58,206 $ 556,800 $ - $ - $ 556, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492, Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63, Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556, Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 110 Route #7W $ 53,220 $ - $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ - $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ - $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ - $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ - $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ - $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ - $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ - $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ - $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ - $ 58,206 $ 556,800 $ - $ - $ 556, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 89% $48,000 $0 $48,000 $48,250 $0 $48,250 $48,500 $0 $48,500 $48,800 $0 $48,800 $49,125 $0 $49,125 $49,500 $0 $49,500 $49,800 $0 $49,800 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,300 $0 $0 $50,300 $50,600 $0 $50,600 $492,875 $0 $0 $492, Farebox Revenue 11% $5,250 $0 $5,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $5,775 $0 $5,775 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,500 $0 $6,500 $6,750 $0 $6,750 $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,300 $0 $0 $7,300 $7,600 $0 $7,600 $63,925 $0 $0 $63, Total Revenues 100% $53,250 $0 $53,250 $53,750 $0 $0 $53,750 $54,275 $0 $0 $54,275 $54,800 $0 $0 $54,800 $55,375 $0 $0 $55,375 $56,000 $0 $0 $56,000 $56,550 $0 $0 $56,550 $57,000 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,600 $0 $0 $57,600 $58,200 $0 $0 $58,200 $556,800 $0 $0 $556, Surplus/Shortfall $30 $0 $30 -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$15 $0 $0 -$15 -$33 $0 $0 -$33 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $65 $0 $0 $65 $56 $0 $0 $56 -$59 $0 $0 -$59 -$30 $0 $0 -$30 -$6 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 118 Route #1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $21,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 -$4,765 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #6 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60,075

202 Page 2 of 4 B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU 31 Table 8.7-A 32 TDP Costs & Revenues by Source 33 Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total 35 Source % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL 161 FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $22,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 -$4,932 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #7E $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Total Revenues 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #7W $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 164,043 $ - $ - $ 164, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 18% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $30, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,075 $0 $0 $10,075 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $60,075 $0 $0 $60, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $12, Other Local - Transit Fee 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,350 $0 $0 $5,350 $5,500 $0 $0 $5,500 $31,150 $0 $0 $31, Farebox Revenue 19% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,900 $0 $4,900 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,100 $0 $5,100 $5,200 $0 $0 $5,200 $5,400 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,500 $0 $0 $5,500 $31,100 $0 $0 $31, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,900 $0 $0 $26,900 $27,000 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $164,325 $0 $0 $164, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $235 $68 $0 $0 $68 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 -$25 $0 $0 -$25 $282 $0 $0 $ Route #1 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #2 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #3 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #4 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #5 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #6 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #7E $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #7W $ - $ - $ - $ 26,140 $ - $26,140 $ 26,401 $ - $26,401 $ 26,665 $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ - $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ - $27,201 $ 27,473 $ - $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ - $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ - $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ - $ 28,305 $ 244,889 $ - $ - $ 244, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 61% $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,200 $0 $16,200 $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,500 $0 $16,500 $16,600 $0 $16,600 $16,725 $0 $16,725 $16,850 $0 $0 $16,850 $17,000 $0 $0 $17,000 $17,150 $0 $0 $17,150 $149,425 $0 $0 $149, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,025 $0 $0 $5,025 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $45,025 $0 $0 $45, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18, Farebox Revenue 13% $0 $0 $0 $3,150 $0 $3,150 $3,250 $0 $3,250 $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $3,900 $0 $0 $3,900 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,150 $0 $0 $4,150 $32,600 $0 $0 $32, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $26,150 $0 $0 $26,150 $26,450 $0 $0 $26,450 $26,750 $0 $0 $26,750 $26,950 $0 $0 $26,950 $27,200 $0 $0 $27,200 $27,475 $0 $0 $27,475 $27,750 $0 $0 $27,750 $28,025 $0 $0 $28,025 $28,300 $0 $0 $28,300 $245,050 $0 $0 $245, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $10 $49 $0 $0 $49 $85 $0 $0 $85 $18 $0 $0 $18 -$1 $0 $0 -$1 $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5 $0 $0 -$5 $161 $0 $0 $ Route #1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route #2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route #3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $443

203 Page 3 of 4 B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU 31 Table 8.7-A 32 TDP Costs & Revenues by Source 33 Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total 35 Source % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL 270 Route #4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route #5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route #6 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route #7E $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route #7W $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0 $ 266,276 $ 221,969 $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ - $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ - $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ - $ 274,345 $ 1,081,188 $ - $ 221,969 $ 1,303, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 38% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $50,000 $250, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $172, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $80, Farebox Revenue 23% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,500 $0 $71,500 $74,000 $0 $0 $74,000 $76,600 $0 $0 $76,600 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 $301,600 $0 $0 $301, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,500 $0 $222,000 $488,500 $269,000 $0 $0 $269,000 $271,600 $0 $0 $271,600 $274,500 $0 $0 $274,500 $1,081,600 $0 $222,000 $1,303, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $0 $31 $255 $61 $0 $0 $61 -$28 $0 $0 -$28 $155 $0 $0 $155 $412 $0 $31 $ Route 390 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 285,110 $ 212,273 $ 497,383 $ 287,961 $ - $ 287,961 $ 290,841 $ - $ 290,841 $ 293,749 $ - $ 293,749 $ 296,687 $ - $ 296,687 $ 299,653 $ - $ 299,653 $ 302,650 $ - $ 302,650 $ 2,056,651 $ - $ 212,273 $ 2,268, FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 30% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $672,000 $0 $0 $672, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215,000 $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215,000 $215, Other Local - Transit Fee 24% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 $76,500 $0 $76,500 $78,000 $0 $78,000 $79,500 $0 $79,500 $81,000 $0 $0 $81,000 $82,500 $0 $0 $82,500 $84,000 $0 $0 $84,000 $556,500 $0 $0 $556, Farebox Revenue 29% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $90,000 $91,000 $0 $91,000 $92,000 $0 $92,000 $93,000 $0 $93,000 $95,000 $0 $0 $95,000 $96,500 $0 $0 $96,500 $98,000 $0 $0 $98,000 $655,500 $0 $0 $655, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $286,000 $0 $215,000 $501,000 $288,500 $0 $0 $288,500 $291,000 $0 $0 $291,000 $293,500 $0 $0 $293,500 $297,000 $0 $0 $297,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $303,000 $0 $0 $303,000 $2,059,000 $0 $215,000 $2,274, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $890 $0 $2,727 $3,617 $539 $0 $0 $539 $159 $0 $0 $159 -$249 $0 $0 -$249 $313 $0 $0 $313 $347 $0 $0 $347 $350 $0 $0 $350 $2,349 $0 $2,727 $5, Route Jenks-Baldwin $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 282,287 $ 209,136 $ 491,423 $ 285,110 $ - $ 285,110 $ 287,961 $ - $ 287,961 $ 290,841 $ - $ 290,841 $ 293,749 $ - $ 293,749 $ 296,687 $ - $ 296,687 $ 299,653 $ - $ 299,653 $ 302,650 $ - $ 302,650 $ 2,338,938 $ - $ 209,136 $ 2,548, FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 30% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $768,000 $0 $0 $768, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,025 $0 $25,025 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $200,025 $0 $0 $200, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,000 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,000 $210, Other Local - Transit Fee 25% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 $76,500 $0 $76,500 $78,000 $0 $78,000 $79,500 $0 $79,500 $81,000 $0 $81,000 $82,500 $0 $0 $82,500 $84,000 $0 $0 $84,000 $85,500 $0 $0 $85,500 $642,000 $0 $0 $642, Farebox Revenue 29% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,300 $0 $86,300 $87,600 $0 $87,600 $89,000 $0 $89,000 $90,400 $0 $90,400 $91,800 $0 $91,800 $93,200 $0 $0 $93,200 $94,600 $0 $0 $94,600 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $728,900 $0 $0 $728, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $282,300 $0 $210,000 $492,300 $285,125 $0 $0 $285,125 $288,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $290,900 $0 $0 $290,900 $293,800 $0 $0 $293,800 $296,700 $0 $0 $296,700 $299,600 $0 $0 $299,600 $302,500 $0 $0 $302,500 $2,338,925 $0 $210,000 $2,548, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13 $0 $864 $877 $15 $0 $0 $15 $39 $0 $0 $39 $59 $0 $0 $59 $51 $0 $0 $51 $13 $0 $0 $13 -$53 $0 $0 -$53 -$150 $0 $0 -$150 -$13 $0 $864 $ Route $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 290,841 $ 218,689 $ 509,529 $ 293,749 $ - $ 293,749 $ 296,687 $ - $ 296,687 $ 299,653 $ - $ 299,653 $ 302,650 $ - $ 302,650 $ 1,483,580 $ - $ 218,689 $ 1,702, FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 28% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $480,000 $0 $0 $480, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $220, Other Local - Transit Fee 24% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,800 $0 $79,800 $80,800 $0 $80,800 $82,500 $0 $0 $82,500 $83,200 $0 $0 $83,200 $84,700 $0 $0 $84,700 $411,000 $0 $0 $411, Farebox Revenue 27% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $90,000 $91,500 $0 $91,500 $93,000 $0 $0 $93,000 $95,500 $0 $0 $95,500 $97,000 $0 $0 $97,000 $467,000 $0 $0 $467, Project Subtotal 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,800 $0 $220,000 $510,800 $293,300 $0 $0 $293,300 $296,500 $0 $0 $296,500 $299,700 $0 $0 $299,700 $302,700 $0 $0 $302,700 $1,483,000 $0 $220,000 $1,703, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$41 $0 $1,311 $1,271 -$449 $0 $0 -$449 -$187 $0 $0 -$187 $47 $0 $0 $47 $50 $0 $0 $50 -$580 $0 $1,311 $ Route 98 Tyndall $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 296,687 $ 225,299 $ 521,985 $ 299,653 $ - $ 299,653 $ 302,650 $ - $ 302,650 $ 898,990 $ - $ 225,299 $ 1,124, FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 11% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $288,000 $0 $0 $288, FTA % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $75, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $225, Other Local - Transit Fee 22% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,500 $0 $0 $82,500 $84,000 $0 $0 $84,000 $86,000 $0 $0 $86,000 $252,500 $0 $0 $252, Farebox Revenue 25% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $93,000 $0 $0 $93,000 $94,700 $0 $0 $94,700 $96,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $283,700 $0 $0 $283, Project Subtotal 86% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $296,500 $0 $225,000 $521,500 $299,700 $0 $0 $299,700 $303,000 $0 $0 $303,000 $899,200 $0 $225,000 $1,124, Surplus/Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$187 $0 -$299 -$485 $47 $0 $0 $47 $350 $0 $0 $350 $210 $0 -$299 -$ Route #7E $ 33,668 $ - $ 33,668 $ 34,004 $ - $ 34,004 $ 34,344 $ - $ 34,344 $ 34,688 $ - $ 34,688 $ 35,035 $ - $ 35,035 $ 35,385 $ - $ 35,385 $ 35,739 $ - $ 35,739 $ 36,096 $ - $ 36,096 $ 36,457 $ - $ 36,457 $ 36,822 $ - $ 36,822 $ 352,237 $ - $ - $ 352, FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 57% $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200, FTA % $10,325 $0 $10,325 $10,625 $0 $10,625 $10,900 $0 $10,900 $11,200 $0 $11,200 $11,500 $0 $11,500 $11,800 $0 $11,800 $12,100 $0 $12,100 $12,400 $0 $0 $12,400 $12,700 $0 $0 $12,700 $13,000 $0 $0 $13,000 $116,550 $0 $0 $116, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 346 Other Local - Transit Fee 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 347 Farebox Revenue 10% $3,350 $0 $3,350 $3,400 $0 $3,400 $3,450 $0 $3,450 $3,500 $0 $3,500 $3,550 $0 $3,550 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,650 $0 $3,650 $3,700 $0 $0 $3,700 $3,750 $0 $0 $3,750 $3,800 $0 $0 $3,800 $35,750 $0 $0 $35, Project Subtotal 100% $33,675 $0 $33,675 $34,025 $0 $0 $34,025 $34,350 $0 $0 $34,350 $34,700 $0 $0 $34,700 $35,050 $0 $0 $35,050 $35,400 $0 $0 $35,400 $35,750 $0 $0 $35,750 $36,100 $0 $0 $36,100 $36,450 $0 $0 $36,450 $36,800 $0 $0 $36,800 $352,300 $0 $0 $352, Surplus/Shortfall $7 $0 $7 $21 $0 $0 $21 $6 $0 $0 $6 $12 $0 $0 $12 $15 $0 $0 $15 $15 $0 $0 $15 $11 $0 $0 $11 $4 $0 $0 $4 -$7 $0 $0 -$7 -$22 $0 $0 -$22 $63 $0 $0 $ Total Costs $4,999,054 $25,000 $213,150 $5,237,204 $5,266,462 $200,000 $731,460 $6,197,922 $5,601,414 $25,000 $1,077,049 $6,703,463 $5,942,538 $25,000 $987,068 $6,954,606 $6,215,283 $200,000 $786,417 $7,201,701 $6,568,277 $35,000 $885,689 $7,488,966 $8,764,169 $35,000 $2,341,773 ####### $9,148,498 $35,000 $912,459 ####### $9,239,983 $35,000 $640,302 $9,915,285 $9,332,383 $200,000 $765,957 $10,298,339 $71,078,061 $815,000 $9,341,324 $81,234, Total Revenues $4,999,675 $25,000 $215,000 $5,239,675 $5,268,225 $200,000 $735,000 $6,203,225 $5,602,450 $25,000 $1,080,000 $6,707,450 $5,944,225 $25,000 $990,000 $6,959,225 $6,218,350 $200,000 $787,000 $7,205,350 $6,569,700 $35,000 $890,000 $7,494,700 $8,766,150 $35,000 $2,343,000 ####### $9,148,600 $35,000 $914,000 ####### $9,240,250 $35,000 $641,000 $9,916,250 $9,334,000 $200,000 $766,000 $10,300,000 $71,091,625 $815,000 $9,361,000 $81,267, Surplus/Shortfall $621 $0 $1,850 $2,471 $1,763 $0 $3,540 $5,303 $1,036 $0 $2,951 $3,987 $1,687 $0 $2,932 $4,619 $3,067 $0 $583 $3,649 $1,423 $0 $4,311 $5,734 $1,981 $0 $1,227 $3,208 $102 $0 $1,541 $1,643 $267 $0 $698 $965 $1,617 $0 $43 $1,661 $13,564 $0 $19,676 $33, Table 8.7-B Year Revenues Summary 460 Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total 462 Funded Revenues % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL 463 Federal 464 FTA % $2,035,325 $0 $0 $2,035,325 $2,000,625 $175,000 $40,000 $2,215,625 $1,380,900 $0 $605,000 $1,985,900 $1,376,225 $0 $475,000 $1,851,225 $1,404,500 $50,000 $597,000 $2,051,500 $1,426,800 $0 $330,000 $1,756,800 $1,805,100 $0 $617,000 $2,422,100 $1,819,000 $0 $314,000 $2,133,000 $1,792,900 $0 $401,000 $2,193,900 $1,782,000 $50,000 $496,000 $2,328,000 $16,823,375 $275,000 $3,875,000 $20,973, FHWA STP 1.9% $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $25,000 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $35,000 $125,000 $160,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $540,000 $1,000,000 $1,540, State 475 FDOT Block Grant 6.2% $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000, FDOT Urban Corridor 2.4% $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,950,000 $0 $0 $1,950, FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. 5.2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 $4,240,000 $0 $0 $4,240, FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. 6.3% $384,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $514,000 $0 $0 $514,000 $517,600 $0 $0 $517,600 $521,600 $0 $0 $521,600 $525,000 $0 $0 $525,000 $528,800 $0 $0 $528,800 $532,200 $0 $0 $532,200 $534,800 $0 $0 $534,800 $538,400 $0 $0 $538,400 $542,000 $0 $0 $542,000 $5,138,400 $0 $0 $5,138, FDOT Serv Dev - New Route 3.0% $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $116,000 $0 $0 $116,000 $212,000 $0 $0 $212,000 $212,000 $0 $0 $212,000 $308,000 $0 $0 $308,000 $308,000 $0 $0 $308,000 $404,000 $0 $0 $404,000 $404,000 $0 $0 $404,000 $404,000 $0 $0 $404,000 $2,408,000 $0 $0 $2,408, FDOT Section % $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $366,000 $266,000 $0 $0 $266,000 $316,000 $0 $0 $316,000 $332,000 $0 $0 $332,000 $332,000 $0 $0 $332,000 $517,000 $0 $0 $517,000 $517,000 $0 $0 $517,000 $542,000 $0 $0 $542,000 $542,000 $0 $0 $542,000 $4,080,000 $0 $0 $4,080, FDOT Section % $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $570,000 $570,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $390,000 $390,000 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $435,000 $435,000 $0 $0 $1,601,000 $1,601,000 $0 $0 $475,000 $475,000 $0 $0 $115,000 $115,000 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 $0 $0 $4,486,000 $4,486, FTA % $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 $1,750,000 $0 $0 $1,750,000

204 Page 4 of Local B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU Table 8.7-A TDP Costs & Revenues by Source Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Year Total Planning Planning Capital Capital Capital Capital Planning Capital Source % Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Capital TOTAL Operating Capital TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning Capital TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating Planning TOTAL Operating TOTAL Farebox Revenue 16.2% $645,350 $0 $0 $645,350 $757,600 $0 $0 $757,600 $866,950 $0 $0 $866,950 $980,900 $0 $0 $980,900 $1,075,350 $0 $0 $1,075,350 $1,186,800 $0 $0 $1,186,800 $1,776,750 $0 $0 $1,776,750 $1,913,700 $0 $0 $1,913,700 $1,961,450 $0 $0 $1,961,450 $2,014,800 $0 $0 $2,014,800 $13,179,650 $0 $0 $13,179,650 Directly-Generated (non-fare) 0.6% $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $35,000 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $0 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $55,000 $0 $0 $55,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $60,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $65,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $75,000 $490,000 $0 $0 $490,000 Local Contribution - Jurisdictions 1.6% $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $1,300,000 Other Local - Transit Fee 10.6% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $825,000 $0 $0 $825,000 $917,500 $0 $0 $917,500 $979,500 $0 $0 $979,500 $1,077,300 $0 $0 $1,077,300 $1,102,100 $0 $0 $1,102,100 $1,210,100 $0 $0 $1,210,100 $1,236,500 $0 $0 $1,236,500 $1,264,200 $0 $0 $1,264,200 $8,612,200 $0 $0 $8,612,200 Demand Response Reimburse 4.6% $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000 $340,000 $0 $0 $340,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $360,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $370,000 $0 $0 $370,000 $380,000 $0 $0 $380,000 $390,000 $0 $0 $390,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $400,000 $410,000 $0 $0 $410,000 $420,000 $0 $0 $420,000 $3,750,000 $0 $0 $3,750,000 Other Purchase of Service Contrib 2.9% $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $230,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $2,370,000 $0 $0 $2,370,000 Total Revenues 100.0% $4,999,675 $25,000 $215,000 $5,239,675 $5,268,225 $200,000 $735,000 $6,203,225 $5,602,450 $25,000 $1,080,000 $6,707,450 $5,944,225 $25,000 $990,000 $6,959,225 $6,218,350 $200,000 $787,000 $7,205,350 $6,569,700 $35,000 $890,000 $7,494,700 $8,766,150 $35,000 $2,343,000 ####### $9,148,600 $35,000 $914,000 ####### $9,240,250 $35,000 $641,000 $9,916,250 $9,334,000 $200,000 $766,000 $10,300,000 $71,091,625 $815,000 $9,361,000 $81,267,625

205 Table Year TDP Cost Summary Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Alternatives Total Maintain Existing Service $ 4,777,775 $ 5,524,783 $ 5,532,169 $ 5,485,444 $ 5,718,923 $ 5,481,831 $ 5,428,650 $ 5,598,065 $ 5,599,966 $ 5,939,868 $ 55,087,474 Route #1 $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #2 $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #3 $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #4 $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #5 $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #6 $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #7E $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #7W $ 53,220 $ 53,752 $ 54,290 $ 54,833 $ 55,381 $ 55,935 $ 56,494 $ 57,059 $ 57,630 $ 58,206 $ 556,800 Route #1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #6 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #7E $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #7W $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 164,043 Route #1 $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #2 $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #3 $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #4 $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #5 $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #6 $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #7E $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #7W $ - $ 26,140 $ 26,401 $ 26,665 $ 26,932 $ 27,201 $ 27,473 $ 27,748 $ 28,025 $ 28,305 $ 244,889 Route #1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #6 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #7E $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 Route #7W $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 488,245 $ 268,939 $ 271,628 $ 274,345 $ 1,303,157 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 5,237,204 $6,197,922 $6,703,463 $6,954,606 $7,201,701 $7,488,966 $11,140,942 $10,095,957 $9,915,285 $10,298,339 $81,234,385

206 Table Year TDP Revenue Summary Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update ( ) Revenue Sources Total FTA 5307 $ 2,035,325 $ 2,215,625 $ 1,985,900 $ 1,851,225 $ 2,051,500 $ 1,756,800 $ 2,422,100 $ 2,133,000 $ 2,193,900 $ 2,328,000 $ 20,973,375 FHWA STP $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,540,000 FDOT Block Grant $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 FDOT Urban Corridor $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,950,000 FDOT Serv Dev - Incr. Freq. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 4,240,000 FDOT Serv Dev - Ext. Hrs. $ 384,000 $ 514,000 $ 517,600 $ 521,600 $ 525,000 $ 528,800 $ 532,200 $ 534,800 $ 538,400 $ 542,000 $ 5,138,400 FDOT Serv Dev - New Route $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 116,000 $ 212,000 $ 212,000 $ 308,000 $ 308,000 $ 404,000 $ 404,000 $ 404,000 $ 2,408,000 FDOT Section 5310 $ 350,000 $ 366,000 $ 266,000 $ 316,000 $ 332,000 $ 332,000 $ 517,000 $ 517,000 $ 542,000 $ 542,000 $ 4,080,000 FDOT Section 5339 $ 90,000 $ 570,000 $ 350,000 $ 390,000 $ 190,000 $ 435,000 $ 1,601,000 $ 475,000 $ 115,000 $ 270,000 $ 4,486,000 FTA 5311 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 1,750,000 Farebox Revenue $ 645,350 $ 757,600 $ 866,950 $ 980,900 $ 1,075,350 $ 1,186,800 $ 1,776,750 $ 1,913,700 $ 1,961,450 $ 2,014,800 $ 13,179,650 Local Contribution - Jurisdictions $ 125,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 1,300,000 Directly-Generated (non-fare) $ 25,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 55,000 $ 60,000 $ 65,000 $ 75,000 $ 490,000 Other Local - Transit Fee $ - $ - $ 825,000 $ 917,500 $ 979,500 $ 1,077,300 $ 1,102,100 $ 1,210,100 $ 1,236,500 $ 1,264,200 $ 8,612,200 Demand Response Reimburse $ 330,000 $ 340,000 $ 350,000 $ 360,000 $ 370,000 $ 380,000 $ 390,000 $ 400,000 $ 410,000 $ 420,000 $ 3,750,000 Other Purchase of Service Contri $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 2,370,000 TOTAL REVENUE $5,239,675 $6,203,225 $6,707,450 $6,959,225 $7,205,350 $7,494,700 $11,144,150 $10,097,600 $9,916,250 $10,300,000 $81,267,625 TOTAL COST $5,237,204 $6,197,922 $6,703,463 $6,954,606 $7,201,701 $7,488,966 $11,140,942 $10,095,957 $9,915,285 $10,298,339 $81,234,385 TOTAL UNFUNDED NEEDS $2,471 $5,303 $3,987 $4,619 $3,649 $5,734 $3,208 $1,643 $965 $1,661 $33,240

207 Public Involvement Plan Bay County Transit Development Plan Major Update for FY September 2015