10-year Transit Development Plan

Transcription

City of Gainesville
Regional Transit System (RTS)
Transit Development Plan
August 2009
GAINESVILLE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
2010-2019 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Major Update
PREPARED FOR:
P.O. BOX 490, STATION 4
GAINESVILLE, FL 32602
ph (352) 334-2609, fax (352) 334-2607
AUGUST 2009
TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1000 N. ASHLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106
1595 SOUTH SEMORAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 1540
WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32792
ph (407) 657-9210, fax (407) 657-9285
545 NORTH BROADWAY AVENUE
BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830
ph (863) 533-8454, fax (863) 533-8481
“This report was funded in part through a grant from the Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department
of Transportation.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1:
SECTION 2:
SECTION 3:
SECTION 4:
SECTION 5:
SECTION 6:
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................
1-1
Overview of TDP Requirements ........................................................................................
Report Organization...........................................................................................................
1-1
1-5
BASELINE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................
2-1
Physical Description of Study Area ...................................................................................
Population Characteristics .................................................................................................
Demographic and Travel Behavior Characteristics............................................................
Commuting Patterns ..........................................................................................................
Development Activities .....................................................................................................
Future Land Use ...............................................................................................................
Roadway Conditions..........................................................................................................
Regional Trends in Transit.................................................................................................
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-13
2-21
2-23
2-25
2-25
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................
Inventory of Existing Services & Resources ..........................................................
3-1
3-1
Existing Route System.......................................................................................................
Bus Stop Placement ..........................................................................................................
Private Transportation Providers .......................................................................................
3-3
3-17
3-17
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ......................................................................
4-1
Public Involvement Components .......................................................................................
Stakeholder Interviews ......................................................................................................
Public Workshops & Transit Surveys.................................................................................
RTS Operator Surveys ......................................................................................................
Discussion Groups.............................................................................................................
On-Board Survey ..............................................................................................................
4-1
4-2
4-13
4-17
4-20
4-21
EVALUATION OF EXISTING SERVICES ...............................................................
5-1
Fixed-Route Trend Analysis...............................................................................................
Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis....................................................................................
Capacity Analysis ..............................................................................................................
5-1
5-13
5-23
REVIEW OF PLANS, STUDIES, & POLICIES .........................................................
6-1
Local .................................................................................................................................
State ..................................................................................................................................
Federal...............................................................................................................................
Summary ..........................................................................................................................
6-1
6-24
6-26
6-27
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2009
i
Gainesville Regional Transit System
SECTION 7:
SITUATION APPRAISAL ........................................................................................
7-1
Regional Issues .................................................................................................................
Socioeconomic ..................................................................................................................
Travel Behavior..................................................................................................................
Land Use ...........................................................................................................................
Policy Issues .....................................................................................................................
Organizational Issues ........................................................................................................
Technical Issues ................................................................................................................
Environmental Issues ........................................................................................................
Summary ...........................................................................................................................
7-2
7-2
7-4
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-7
7-8
TRANSIT DEMAND & MOBILITY NEEDS ..............................................................
8-1
Ridership Trends ...............................................................................................................
TBEST Ridership Forecasting ...........................................................................................
Transit Market Assessment ...............................................................................................
8-1
8-2
8-3
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & INITIATIVES .................................................................
9-1
RTS Public Transit Vision ..................................................................................................
RTS Public Transit Mission................................................................................................
Goals, Objectives, & Initiatives ..........................................................................................
9-1
9-1
9-1
SECTION 10: TRANSIT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................
10-1
Methods Used to Develop and Evaluate Priorities.............................................................
Transit Priorities.................................................................................................................
10-1
10-2
SECTION 11: TEN-YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN .......................................................
11-1
Ten-Year TDP Service Priorities........................................................................................
Ten-Year Ridership Projections.........................................................................................
Coordination Requirements ...............................................................................................
Key Implementation Strategies..........................................................................................
Monitoring Program to Track Performance Measures .......................................................
Ten-Year TDP Needs ........................................................................................................
Ten-Year Financial Plan ....................................................................................................
11-1
11-11
11-14
11-14
11-15
11-15
11-15
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................
A-1
APPENDIX B: ON-BOARD SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .....................................................................
B-1
APPENDIX C: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................
C-1
APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF PLANS, STUDIES, & POLICIES ...................................
D-1
SECTION 8:
SECTION 9:
August 2009
ii
APPENDIX E: TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER QUESTIONAIRRE................................................
E-1
APPENDIX F: FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO REPORT .................................................................
F-1
APPENDIX G: ADDITIONAL MAPPING ANALYSIS ........................................................................
G-1
APPENDIX H: RTS TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACRONYM LIST ........................................
H-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1:
Table 2-1:
Table 2-2:
Table 2-3:
Table 2-4:
Table 2-5:
Table 2-6:
Table 2-7:
Table 2-8:
Table 2-9:
Table 2-10:
Table 2-11:
Table 2-12:
Table 2-13:
Table 3-1:
Table 3-2:
Table 3-3:
Table 3-4:
Table 3-5:
Table 3-6:
Table 3-7:
Table 3-8:
Table 3-9:
Table 3-10:
Table 3-11:
Table 3-12:
Table 3-13:
Table 3-14:
Table 4-1:
Table 4-2:
Table 4-3:
TDP Checklist ...........................................................................................................................
Population Characteristics, Alachua County .............................................................................
Population Characteristics, City of Gainesville..........................................................................
Labor Force Statistics ...............................................................................................................
Where Alachua County Residents Work, by City......................................................................
Where Alachua County Residents Work, by County.................................................................
Where Workers in Alachua County Live, by City ......................................................................
Where Workers in Alachua County Live, County ......................................................................
Where City of Gainesville Residents Work, by City ..................................................................
Where City of Gainesville Residents Work, by County .............................................................
Where Workers in City of Gainesville Live, by City ...................................................................
Where Workers in City of Gainesville Live, County...................................................................
Major Employers ......................................................................................................................
Major Developments ...............................................................................................................
Fixed Route Vehicles ..............................................................................................................
Paratransit Vehicles .................................................................................................................
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes) ......................................
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (Campus Routes) ...............................
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (Later Gator).......................................
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (Weekend Routes) .............................
Summary of Performance Statistics (City Routes)....................................................................
Summary of Performance Statistics (Campus Routes).............................................................
Summary of Performance Statistics (Later Gator Routes)........................................................
Summary of Performance Statistics (Weekend Routes)...........................................................
Route Lengths and Bus Stops by Location ..............................................................................
FY 2008 TD Trips by Purpose, Alachua County ......................................................................
Alachua County Transportation Providers ...............................................................................
Alachua County Transportation Providers (No Response) .......................................................
Stakeholder Participants ...........................................................................................................
Passenger Complaints Identified by Drivers .............................................................................
Possible Improvements Identified by Drivers ............................................................................
August 2009
iii
1-4
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-22
3-2
3-2
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-18
3-19
4-2
4-17
4-18
Table 4-4:
Table 4-5:
Table 4-6:
Table 4-7:
Table 4-7a:
Table 5-1:
Table 5-2:
Table 5-3:
Table 5-4:
Table 5-5:
Table 5-6:
Table 5-7:
Table 5-8:
Table 5-9:
Table 5-10:
Table 5-11
Table 5-12:
Table 6-1
Table 6-2:
Table 10-1:
Table 10-1B:
Table 10-2:
Table 11-1:
Table 11-2:
Table 11-3
Table 11-4:
Table 11-5:
Table 11-6:
Table 11-7:
Table 11-8:
Routes with Schedule Problems Identified by Drivers ..............................................................
Routes in Need of Modification Identified by Drivers ................................................................
Number of Completed Surveys by Route..................................................................................
Average RTS Bus Rider Profile ...............................................................................................
Average RTS Bus Rider Profile (Student Responses Excluded) ..............................................
Performance Review Measures, RTS Trend Analysis (2003-2008) .........................................
General Performance Indicators, RTS Trend Analysis (2003-2008).........................................
Effectiveness Measures, RTS Trend Analysis (2003-2008) .....................................................
Efficiency Measures, RTS Trend Analysis (2003-2008) ...........................................................
Summary of Trend Analysis (2003-2008) .................................................................................
Selected RTS Peer Systems ....................................................................................................
Performance Indicators, RTS Peer Analysis (2007) .................................................................
Effectiveness Measures, RTS Peer Analysis (2007) ...............................................................
Efficiency Measures, RTS Peer Analysis (2007) .....................................................................
Summary of Peer Analysis (2007) ...........................................................................................
2008 Fixed-Route Transit Supply/Capacity Analysis ..............................................................
2008 Demand Response Transit Supply/Capacity Analysis .....................................................
2025 LRTP Cost Summary of RTS Projects ...........................................................................
2025 LRTP RTS Bus Needs .....................................................................................................
TDP Service Priorities (FY 2010-2019) ....................................................................................
TDP Capital Priorities (FY 2010-2019)......................................................................................
Transit Priority Evaluation Survey ............................................................................................
RTS Current Fare Structure......................................................................................................
TBEST Ridership Projections ..................................................................................................
Implementation Schedule for TDP Transit Improvements ........................................................
Operating Costs for TDP Transit Improvements .......................................................................
Summary of Capital Needs ......................................................................................................
Summary of Projected Capital Costs for TDP Transit Improvements .......................................
Summary of Operating and Capital Costs for Fixed-Route and ADA........................................
Summary of Operating and Capital Revenues for Fixed-Route and ADA.................................
4-19
4-20
4-23
4-38
4-38
5-1
5-3
5-6
5-9
5-12
5-15
5-15
5-17
5-19
5-22
5-25
5-26
6-13
6-13
10-3
10-5
10-6
11-5
11-12
11-20
11-21
11-22
11-23
11-24
11-25
LIST OF MAPS
Map 2-1:
Map 2-2:
Map 2-3:
Map 2-4:
Map 2-5:
Map 2-6:
Map 2-7:
Map 2-8:
Map 2-9:
Map 2-10:
Study Area and Existing Bus Routes ........................................................................................
Existing Population Density (2009) ...........................................................................................
Future Population Density (2019) .............................................................................................
Existing Employment Density (2009) ........................................................................................
Future Employment Density (2019) ..........................................................................................
Existing Dwelling Unit Density (2009) .......................................................................................
Future Dwelling Unit Density (2019) .........................................................................................
Future Land Use ......................................................................................................................
City of Gainesville TCEA Zones................................................................................................
BRT Study Corridors.................................................................................................................
August 2009
iv
2-2
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-24
2-28
2-30
Map 4-1:
Map 4-2:
Map 4-3:
Map 8-1:
Map 8-2:
Map 8-3:
Map 11-1:
Map 11-2:
Map 11-3:
Map 11-4:
Map 11-5:
Trip Origin .................................................................................................................................
Trip Destination.........................................................................................................................
Home Locations by Zip Code ...................................................................................................
Transit Orientation Index...........................................................................................................
2009 Density Threshold Assessment .......................................................................................
2019 Density Threshold Assessment .......................................................................................
All Transit Priorities ...................................................................................................................
Fixed-Route Priorities ...............................................................................................................
Park-and-Ride Priorities ...........................................................................................................
Express Route Priorities ...........................................................................................................
Transit Hubs..............................................................................................................................
4-27
4-28
4-41
8-5
8-7
8-8
11-6
11-7
11-8
11-9
11-10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-2:
Figure 4-1:
Figure 4-2:
Figure 4-3:
Figure 4-4:
Figure 4-5:
Figure 4-6:
Figure 4-7:
Figure 4-8:
Figure 4-9:
Figure 4-10:
Figure 4-11:
Figure 4-12:
Figure 4-13:
Figure 4-14:
Figure 4-15:
Figure 4-16:
Figure 4-16a:
Figure 4-17:
Figure 4-17a:
Figure 4-18:
Figure 4-18a:
Figure 4-19:
Figure 4-19a:
Demographic Characteristics, Alachua County.........................................................................
Journey-to-Work Characteristics...............................................................................................
Trip Origin ................................................................................................................................
Trip Destination ........................................................................................................................
Transit Station Access ..............................................................................................................
Transit Station Egress...............................................................................................................
Transfer Summary ....................................................................................................................
Top Three Transfer Routes.......................................................................................................
Trip Frequency..........................................................................................................................
Mode Choice.............................................................................................................................
Fare Payment Method ..............................................................................................................
Fare Type Paid by Respondent Age.........................................................................................
Fare Type Paid by Respondent Income....................................................................................
Frequency of Use......................................................................................................................
Reason for Using RTS .............................................................................................................
History of Use ...........................................................................................................................
Working Vehicles ......................................................................................................................
RTS Rider Demographics .........................................................................................................
RTS Rider Demographics (Students Excluded)........................................................................
Service Improvements ..............................................................................................................
Service Improvements (Students Excluded) .............................................................................
BRT Service..............................................................................................................................
BRT Service (Students Excluded) ............................................................................................
RTS Information Dissemination ...............................................................................................
RTS Information Dissemination (Students Excluded) ...............................................................
August 2009
v
2-5
2-6
4-25
4-25
4-29
4-29
4-30
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-32
4-33
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-37
4-37
4-39
4-40
4-42
4-43
4-44
4-44
4-45
4-46
Figure 4-20:
Figure 4-20a:
Figure 4-21:
Figure 4-21a:
Figure 4-22:
Figure 4-22a:
Figure 4-23:
Figure 4-23a:
Figure 4-24:
Figure 4-24a:
Figure 5-1:
Figure 5-2:
Figure 5-3:
Figure 5-4:
Figure 5-5:
Figure 5-6:
Figure 5-7:
Figure 5-8:
Figure 5-9:
Figure 5-10:
Figure 5-11:
Figure 5-12:
Figure 5-13:
Figure 5-14:
Figure 5-15:
Figure 5-16:
Figure 5-17:
Figure 5-18:
Figure 5-19:
Figure 5-20:
Figure 5-21:
Figure 5-22:
Figure 5-23:
Figure 5-24:
Figure 5-25:
Figure 5-26:
Figure 5-27:
Figure 5-28:
Figure 5-29:
Service Rating...........................................................................................................................
Service Rating (Students Excluded) .........................................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Age .......................................................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Age (Students Excluded) ......................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Gender..................................................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Gender (Students Excluded).................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Ethnic Heritage .....................................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Ethnic Heritage .....................................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Household Income ................................................................................
Rider Satisfaction and Household Income ................................................................................
Service Area Population ..........................................................................................................
Passenger Trips .......................................................................................................................
Vehicle Miles.............................................................................................................................
Revenue Miles .........................................................................................................................
Passenger Fare Revenue .........................................................................................................
Operating Expense ...................................................................................................................
Vehicle Miles per Capita ...........................................................................................................
Passenger Trips per Capita ......................................................................................................
Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile...........................................................................................
Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour .........................................................................................
Number of Vehicle System Failures..........................................................................................
Revenue Miles Between Failures .............................................................................................
Weekday Span of Service ........................................................................................................
Average Age of Fleet ................................................................................................................
Operating Expense per Capita..................................................................................................
Operating Expense per Passenger Trip....................................................................................
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ......................................................................................
Farebox Recovery Ratio ...........................................................................................................
Revenue Mile per Vehicle Mile .................................................................................................
Average Fare ...........................................................................................................................
RTS ADA Ridership Trend........................................................................................................
Service Area Population ...........................................................................................................
Service Area Population Density ..............................................................................................
Passenger Trips........................................................................................................................
Revenue Miles .........................................................................................................................
Revenue Hours.........................................................................................................................
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service ...................................................................................
Operating Expense ...................................................................................................................
Passenger Fare Revenue ........................................................................................................
August 2009
vi
4-47
4-47
4-49
4-49
4-50
4-50
4-51
4-51
4-52
4-52
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-8
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-13
5-15
5-15
5-16
5-16
5-16
5-16
5-16
5-16
Figure 5-30:
Figure 5-31:
Figure 5-32:
Figure 5-33:
Figure 5-34:
Figure 5-35:
Figure 5-36:
Figure 5-37:
Figure 5-38:
Figure 5-39:
Figure 5-40:
Figure 5-41:
Figure 6-1:
Figure 6-2:
Figure 6-3:
Figure 6-4:
Figure 6-5:
Figure 6-6:
Figure 8-1:
Vehicle Miles per Capita ...........................................................................................................
Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile...........................................................................................
Weekday Span of Service.........................................................................................................
Passengers per Revenue Hour.................................................................................................
Passenger Trips per Capita .....................................................................................................
Operating Expense per Capita..................................................................................................
Operating Expense per Passenger Trip....................................................................................
Operating Expense per Revenue Mile .....................................................................................
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour .....................................................................................
Farebox Recovery.....................................................................................................................
Revenue Mile per Vehicle Mile ................................................................................................
Average Fare ...........................................................................................................................
2025 LRTP Telephone Survey Responses...............................................................................
2025 LRTP Telephone Survey Allocation of Funding ..............................................................
2025 LRTP MTPO SAFETEA-LU Priority Projects ..................................................................
Plan East Gainesville Recommended Transportation Plan ......................................................
Plan View of Smart Bus Bay Concept with Median Transition .................................................
Rendering of Smart Bus Bay Concept ......................................................................................
Monthly Ridership for RTS (2005 to 2009) ...............................................................................
August 2009
vii
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-19
5-19
5-20
5-20
5-20
5-20
5-20
6-11
6-12
6-12
6-17
6-19
6-20
8-2
Section 1: Introduction
The State of Florida Public Transit Block Grant Program was enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a
stable source of State funding for public transportation. The Block Grant Program requires public transit
service providers to develop and adopt a 10-year Transit Development Plan (TDP). Major updates must be
submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) by September 1st of the year they are due.
This FY 2010/2019 TDP is a major update, which is required every five years. The TDP is the source for
determining the types of projects and their priority in the public transportation component of the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The plan must also be consistent with the approved local
government comprehensive plans and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization for the
Gainesville Urbanized Area’s (MTPO) Long Range Transportation Plan. The Gainesville Regional Transit
System (RTS) is responsible for ensuring the completion of the TDP.
This plan meets the requirements for a major TDP update in accordance with Rule Chapter 14-73, Florida
Administrative Code (FAC).
OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this study is to undertake a major update of the RTS TDP, as required by State law. This
update will result in a 10-year plan addressing transit and mobility needs, cost and revenue projections, and
community transit goals, objectives, and policies.
Florida Statutes (F.S.) mandate the preparation of a TDP for all transit systems that receive Block Grants
from the State of Florida. Relevant sections in the F.S. are provided below.
(1)
There is created a public transit block grant program which shall be administered by the
department. Eligible providers must establish public transportation development plans consistent,
August 2009
1-1
to the maximum extent feasible, with approved local government comprehensive plans of the units
of local government in which the provider is located.
Section 341.052
(2)
Where there is an approved local government comprehensive plan in the political subdivision or
political subdivisions in which the public transportation system is located, each public transit
provider shall establish public transportation development plans consistent with approved local
government comprehensive plans.
Section 341.071
On February 20, 2007, FDOT promulgated Rule 14-73.001, which substantially changed the TDP
requirements. The changes are documented below:





Extended the planning horizon from 5 years to 10 years
Required updates every 5 years instead of 3 years
Made the annual report, public involvement, and demand estimation requirements more explicit
Required plan approval
Established a deadline for said approval in order to qualify for funding
Key requirements in the TDP Rule, as outlined in the draft report “Guidance for Producing a Transit
Development Plan,” prepared by the University of South Florida (USF) Center for Urban Transportation
Research (CUTR) with Tindale-Oliver & Associates and Dan Boyle & Associates in 2008 for FDOT are
summarized below.
Key TDP Requirements
Who: TDPs are required from all entities who apply for State Transit Grant Funds
(Section 341.052, F.S.)
When: TDPs must be developed, adopted, and submitted on or before September 1st of the fiscal year for
which funding is being sought. A major update is required every 5 years and an annual update/progress
report is required all other years.
Where: Plans must be submitted to and on file with the appropriate District Office.
Time Period: Plans must cover the fiscal year for which funds are being sought and the subsequent nine
years. Plan submittal is a prerequisite to fund receipt.
TDP Contents: Compliance will be evaluated by FDOT District staff based on the major elements outlined
below:
 Specification of an approved public participation process and documentation of its use.
 A situational appraisal that includes at least:
August 2009
1-2
Effects of land use, state and local transportation plans, and other governmental
actions and policies, socio-economic trends, organizational issues, and technology;
o Estimation of the community’s demand for transit service using an approved
technique; and,
o Performance evaluation of service provided in the community.
The agency vision, mission, and goals.
Consideration of alternative courses of action.
Ten-year implementation plan including:
o Ten-year program of strategies and policies;
o Maps indicating areas to be served and types and levels of service;
o Monitoring program to track performance; and,
o Ten-year financial plan noting sources and expenditures of funds.
Relationship to other plans and policies.
o




TDP Annual Update Contents: Annual updates shall be in the form of a progress report on the 10-year
implementation program, and shall include:
 Past year’s accomplishments compared to the original implementation program;
 Analysis of any discrepancies between the plan and its implementation for the past year and
steps that will be taken to attain the original goals and objectives;
 Any revisions to the implementation program for the coming year;
 Revised implementation program for the tenth year;
 Added recommendations for the new tenth year of the updated plan;
 A revised financial plan; and,
 A revised list of projects or services needed to meet the goals and objectives.
FDOT Review: Within 60 days of receipt, FDOT will notify the applicant regarding compliance and eligibility
status.
TDP Checklist
Table 1-1 is a list of TDP requirements from Rule 14-73.001. The table also indicates whether or not the
item was accomplished in this TDP.
August 2009
1-3
Table 1-1
TDP Checklist
Public Involvement Process
 Public Involvement Plan (PIP)
 PIP approved by FDOT
 TDP includes description of public involvement process
 Provide notification to FDOT
 Provide notification to Regional Workforce Board
 Provide notification to MPO
Situational Appraisal
 Land use
 State and local Transportation Plans
 Other governmental actions and policies
 Socioeconomic trends
 Organizational issues
 Technology
 10-year annual projections of transit ridership using approved model
 Do land uses and urban design patterns support/hinder transit service provision?
 Calculate farebox recovery
Mission and Goals
 Provider's vision
 Provider's mission
 Provider's goals
 Provider's objectives
Alternative Courses of Action
 Development and evaluation of alternative strategies and actions
 Benefits and costs of each alternative
 Examination of financial alternatives
Implementation Program
 10-year implementation program
 Maps indicating areas to be served
 Maps indicating types and levels of service
 Monitoring program to track performance measures
 10-year financial plan listing operating and capital expenses
 Capital acquisition or construction schedule
 Anticipated revenues by source
Relationship to Other Plans
 TDP consistent with Florida Transportation Plan
 TDP consistent with Local Government Comprehensive Plan
 TDP consistent with MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan
 TDP consistent with Regional Transportation Goals and Objectives
Submission
 Adopted by City Commission

Submitted by September 1, 2009
August 2009
1-4
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This draft report, which is compiled to support the RTS 10-Year TDP Major Update, is composed of eleven
major sections, including this introduction section. Each section is briefly described below.
Section 2 provides a review of the study area population, demographics, travel behavior, commuting
patterns, development activities, land use, and roadway considerations for the City of Gainesville. This
includes tables and maps of the study area’s baseline conditions, including population, demographic, and
Journey-to-Work characteristics from various sources. In addition, current and planned development
activities and growth are also discussed. A review of land use and roadway conditions is also included,
followed by a review of regional trends in transit.
Section 3 provides an overview of the existing fixed-route transit services in the City of Gainesville. This
includes summaries and descriptions of operating characteristics, capital equipment, and other operational
features such as Americans with Disabilities (ADA) complementary paratransit service.
Section 4 summarizes the public involvement activities that were undertaken as part of the TDP update
process and other related efforts by RTS. Public involvement activities discussed and/or summarized in this
section include the on-board transit survey distributed to RTS riders in April 2009 and other activities that
were completed as part of the TDP.
Section 5 presents the performance assessment conducted for fixed-route services. This assessment
includes a trend analysis where performance is reviewed over time. The trend analysis shows the positive
and negative trends for the years analyzed. In addition, this section provides the results of the fixed-route
peer review analysis. This type of analysis compares the performance of the public transportation system
with other transit systems selected as having similar characteristics at a given point in time. A capacity
analysis is also conducted, followed by a review and analysis of farebox recovery ratios.
Section 6 presents the review of relevant plans, studies, and policies. The purpose of this effort is to
provide information to support an understanding of transit planning issues in the Gainesville area, and
support the performance of a situational appraisal, which is an assessment of the operating environment for
the transit system.
Section 7 presents the situation appraisal for the TDP. The requirements for a major update of a TDP
include the need for a situation appraisal of the environment in which the transit agency operates. The
purpose of this appraisal is to help develop an understanding of the RTS operating environment in the
context of specific elements, including regional issues, socioeconomics, travel behavior, existing and future
land use, policy issues, organizational issues, technological issues, and environmental issues.
Section 8 presents a review and evaluation of transit demand and mobility needs regarding transit services
in the City of Gainesville. The evaluation was completed by reviewing three major components, including
ridership trends, ridership forecasting, and transit market assessment.
August 2009
1-5
Section 9 provides the transit mission for the City of Gainesville and the goals, objectives, and initiatives to
accomplish the transit mission. The mission, goals, objectives, and initiatives were developed based on
discussions with RTS staff, the RTS Strategic Plan, input through the public involvement process, and the
results of the technical evaluations.
Section 10 summarizes the potential transit priorities developed as part of the 10-year planning horizon of
this TDP update using public, Review Committee, and RTS staff input; results of various demand analyses;
and policy guidance provided by City staff, administration, and elected officials.
Section 11 presents the 10-year TDP for the City of Gainesville, developed based on coordination with RTS
staff, public involvement, transit demand analysis, and other recent assessment and evaluation studies
conducted for the Gainesville area.
August 2009
1-6
Section 2: Baseline Conditions
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The City of Gainesville is located in north central Florida and is bordered on the north by Columbia, Union,
and Bradford Counties, on the east by Putnam County, on the west by Gilchrist County, and on the south by
Levy and Marion Counties. According to the MTPO 2035 Socioeconomic Report’s 2007 base year
conditions, the City of Gainesville is approximately 60 square miles and Alachua County is approximately
785 square miles. Map 2-1 provides an illustration of the study area for the TDP.
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
The population of Alachua County is expected to increase from 217,955 in 2000 to 245,187 in 2009, an
increase of 12.5 percent. The data for 2000 through 2019 were compiled using the 2000 Census and data
from the MTPO 2035 Socioeconomic Report. Table 2-1 provides selected population characteristics for
Alachua County for 2000, 2007, 2009, and 2019.
August 2009
2-1
1
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
Points of Interest
RTS Transit Routes
MTPO Boundary
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Municipalities
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
US 441 / SR 25
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
23
4
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 75TH ST
CR 2082
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SR-120
SR-2
0
SW
CR
GAINESVILLE
SR-222
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
ARCHER
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
ALACHUA
329B
SE 110 ST/ SE 90 AVE
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
Legend
0
NE CR 1417
33
E
&
UT
RO
1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
2
-1
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
RTS Fixed-Route Inset
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
HAWTHORNE
HIGH SPRINGS
LACROSSE
MICANOPY
NEWBERRY
WALDO
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-1
Study Area and
Existing Bus Routes
MARION
Source: Alachua County Department of Growth Management, GIS Division & RTS
2-2
Table 2-1
Population Characteristics, Alachua County (2000-2019)
2000
2007
2009
2019
Change
2000-2007
Change
2007-2009
Persons
217,955
240,040
245,187
270,920
10.1%
2.1%
10.5%
Households
95,113
108,658
110,959
122,465
14.2%
2.1%
10.4%
Workers
113,346
132,432
135,922
153,371
16.8%
2.6%
12.8%
969.1
969.1
969.1
969.1
0%
0.0%
0.0%
Persons Per Household
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
-4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Persons Per Square Mile
224.9
247.7
253.0
279.6
10.1%
2.1%
10.5%
Alachua County
Total Area (Square Miles)
Change
2009-2019
Source: 2000 Census and Gainesville MTPO LRTP SE Data
The population of the City of Gainesville is expected to increase from 95,447 in 2000 to 115,731 in 2009, an
increase of 21 percent. The data for 2000, 2007, 2009, and 2019 were compiled using the 2000 Census
and data from the MTPO 2035 Socioeconomic Report. Table 2-2 provides selected population
characteristics for the City of Gainesville for 2000, 2007, 2009, and 2019.
Table 2-2
Population Characteristics, City of Gainesville (2000-2019)
2000
2007
20091
2019
Change
2000-2007
Change
2007-2009
Change
2009-2019
Persons
95,447
114,584
115,731
121,459
20.0%
1.0%
4.9%
Households
40,105
54,218
54,771
57,542
35.2%
1.0%
5.1%
Workers
49,083
90,733
92,735
102,759
84.9%
2.2%
10.8%
Total Area (Square Miles)
49.1
61.2
61.2
61.2
27.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Persons Per Household
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
-11.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Persons Per Square Mile
1,943.9
1,872.3
1,891.0
1,984.6
-3.7%
1.0%
4.9%
City of Gainesville
Source: 2000 Census and Gainesville MTPO LRTP SE Data
1The City of Gainesville’s 2009 total land area is based on April 2009 numbers and does not include June 2009 annexations.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOURNEY-TO-WORK CHARACTERISTICS
Demographic and Journey-to-Work characteristics were compiled from the 2000 Census and the 2006
American Community Survey. Both the Census and the American Community Survey base these estimates
on a sampling of the total population. The sample results are then interpreted to represent the whole
population. Journey-to-Work information was not collected in the MTPO LRTP SE Data; therefore, 2000
Census and 2006 American Community Survey data were used to illustrate the Journey-to-Work
characteristics.
Figure 2-1 provides selected demographic data for Alachua County, and Figure 2-2 illustrates Journey-toWork characteristics for Alachua County. Many of the characteristics provided in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2
were chosen because of their known influence on transit use.
August 2009
2-3
Figure 2-1 shows that Alachua County’s demographics have not significantly changed from 2000 to 2006 in
terms of ethnic diversity and gender. The education levels for the County increased slightly from 2000 to
2006. In 2000, 8.2 percent of residents had less than a 12th grade education, but in 2006 only 6.2 percent of
the population was in this category. The percent of residents with incomes greater than $100,000 also
slightly increased. In 2000, 8.7 percent of residents earned greater than $100,000 and in 2006 13.8 percent
of the population was in this category.
Figure 2-2 shows that public transit mode share has slightly increased since 2000. In 2000, 2.4 percent of
residents utilized public transit as a means of transportation to work compared to 2.8 percent of the
population in 2006. Driving alone has slightly increased. Carpooling and bicycling decreased; however,
walking and working from home increased. Travel times have increased slightly, with a larger percentage of
people traveling over 30 minutes in 2006 than in 2000.
Maps 2-2 through 2-7 provide selected characteristics for Alachua County that are particularly relevant to
the TDP process. The maps display population, employment, and dwelling unit densities by Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) for 2009 and 2019. Population density, employment density, and dwelling unit density are
highest in the center, to the south, and on the west side of the City. As expected, dwelling unit density
closely resembles the population density shown in Maps 2-2 and 2-3.
Labor Force and Employment
The current labor force, employment, and unemployment data also were analyzed for Alachua County, as
shown in Table 2-3. These figures, not seasonally adjusted, show that Alachua County has a lower
unemployment rate than the state as a whole. Due to the prevailing economic conditions, it is expected that
the unemployment rates will either remain at the current level or increase in the near future.
Table 2-3
Labor Force Statistics (2009)
Civilian Labor
Force
Number
Employed
Number
Unemployed
Unemployment
Rate1
Unemployment
Rate2
Alachua
County
131,599
123,979
7,620
5.8%
7.4%
Florida
9,181,000
8,373,000
808,000
8.8%
10.8%
Area
Source1: Labor Market Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program as of January 2009.
Source2: FloridaWorks as of June 2009.
August 2009
2-4
Figure 2-1
Demographic Characteristics, Alachua County (2000 and 2006)
Gender
0%
10%
20%
30%
50%
Ethnic Origin
Hispanic
Origin by
Race
Not of Hispanic Origin
94.3%
93.3%
5.7%
6.7%
16.5%
15.7%
41.2%
39.8%
9.6%
10.3%
3.7%
4.2%
8.2%
6.2%
20.3%
21.7%
Age
High school graduate
College < 1 year to Associate degree
9.6%
11.8%
Bachelor's degree
19.7%
18.5%
Professional school, Master’s or Doctorate
19.0%
20.4%
17.8%
14.4%
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
8.1%
8.3%
15.2%
14.4%
$15,000 to $24,999
Income
$25,000 to $34,999
12.9%
10.9%
$35,000 to $49,999
15.4%
14.0%
$50,000 to $74,999
15.3%
14.6%
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
2000
2006
32.5%
34.2%
35‑64 Years
9th grade to 12th grade, no diploma
100%
7.3%
8.0%
15‑34 Years
Less than 9th grade
90%
19.3%
19.7%
<15 Years
65+ Years
80%
73.5%
72.3%
Black
Of Hispanic Origin
70%
51.2%
50.9%
Female
Other
60%
48.8%
49.1%
Male
White
Education Level (persons age 25
and over)
40%
7.5%
9.6%
8.7%
13.8%
$31,426
1
Poverty
Status
Median Household Income
$36,899
78.0%
77.6%
Above Poverty Level
22.8%
22.4%
Below Poverty Level
Source: 2000 Census and 2006 American Community Survey
1Census data shows that nearly 30 percent of Alachua County’s population is below the poverty level. The County’s population includes
students from both UF and Santa Fe College. A 2007 Gainesville Sun article titled “Gainesville poverty up – or is it?” indicated that full-time
students reporting little or no income may be skewing the County’s poverty rates. The article also reports that in 2005 Alachua County
requested that the Census Bureau recalculate the County’s poverty rate with the student population excluded. By excluding the student
population, Alachua County’s poverty rate dropped from 22.8 percent to 13.9 percent.
August 2009
2-5
Figure 2-2
Journey-to-Work Characteristics, Alachua County (2000 and 2006)
Place of Work
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
93.1%
91.9%
Worked inside county of residence
6.2%
7.5%
Worked outside county of residence
Worked outside State of residence
0.6%
0.6%
74.7%
75.5%
Means of Transportation To Work
Car, truck, or van - drove alone
12.7%
10.4%
Car, truck, or van - carpooled
2.4%
2.8%
Public transportation
Motorcycle
0.3%
0.8%
Bicycle
2.8%
2.5%
Walked
3.2%
3.7%
Other means
3.6%
0.4%
Worked at home
3.2%
3.9%
2.6%
2.9%
Less than 5 minutes
11.5%
10.3%
Travel Time to Work
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 14 minutes
20.0%
17.5%
15 to 19 minutes
20.9%
16.5%
20 to 24 minutes
16.7%
16.7%
25 to 29 minutes
21.3%
26.8%
30 or more minutes
3.2%
3.9%
Departure
Time to
Work
Household Vehicle
Ownership
Worked at home
6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
None
66.3%
68.4%
33.7%
31.6%
Other times
7.3%
7.3%
40.1%
42.7%
One
37.8%
35.8%
Two
14.9%
10.5%
Three or more
74.7%
75.5%
Drove alone
Private Vehicle Occupancy
2000
2006
5.9%
5.4%
10.6%
7.8%
2-person carpool
1.5%
1.9%
3-person carpool
4-person carpool
0.4%
0.1%
5- or 6-person carpool
0.2%
0.1%
7-or-more-person carpool
0.0%
0.4%
12.5%
14.1%
Other means (including work at home)
Source: 2000 Census and 2006 American Community Survey
August 2009
2-6
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
RTS Transit Routes
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
2009 Population Density
NW 43RD ST
SE
23
4
CR
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SR-2
0
SW
HOO
TA R
4-6
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 8TH AVE
2-4
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
0-2
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
Persons/Acre
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
2010 RTS
Legend
0
NE CR 1417
1
E
33
UT
RO
-1
&
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
21
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
6 - 10
10 +
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-2
Existing Population
Density (2009)
MARION
Source: Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization 2007-2035 SE data forecast
2-7
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
RTS Transit Routes
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
2019 Population Density
Persons/Acre
NW 43RD ST
SE
23
4
CR
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
HOO
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SR-2
0
SW
TA R
6 - 10
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
4-6
SR-222
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
2-4
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
0-2
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
Legend
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
33
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
ST
46
SW
B LVD
TH
ST
NW 110TH AVE
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
10 +
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-3
Future Population
Density (2019)
MARION
Source: Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization 2007-2035 SE data forecast & RTS
2-8
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
RTS Transit Routes
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
2009 Employment Density
Employees/Acre
NW 43RD ST
SE
23
4
CR
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
HOO
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SR-2
0
SW
TA R
6 - 10
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
4-6
SR-222
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
2-4
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
0-2
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
Legend
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
33
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
ST
46
SW
B LVD
TH
ST
NW 110TH AVE
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
10 +
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-4
Existing Employment
Density (2009)
MARION
2-9
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
RTS Transit Routes
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
2019 Employment Density
Employees/Acre
CR
SE
23
4
CR
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
SR-2
0
SW
HOO
TA R
6 - 10
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 43RD ST
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
4-6
SR-222
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
2-4
NW 53RD AVE
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
0-2
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
2010 RTS
Legend
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
33
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
ST
46
B LVD
TH
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
10 +
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-5
Future Employment
Density (2019)
MARION
2-10
33
1
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
MTPO Boundary
2009 Dwelling Unit Density
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Dwelling Units/Acre
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
US 441 / SR 25
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
23
4
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SR-120
SR-2
0
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
SW
CR
6 - 10
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
4-6
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
2-4
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
0-2
329B
SW 30TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
Legend
City of Gainesville
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NE CR 1417
1
E
33
UT
RO
&
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
1
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
R
2
-1
NE 15TH ST
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
R
63
93
24
SR
S
BRADFORD
R
23
SW 75TH ST
/S
S R-22 6
SW
CR 231
25
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
NW 298 ST
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
10 +
P
U
T
N
A
M
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-6
Existing Dwelling Unit
Density (2009)
MARION
2-11
33
1
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
MTPO Boundary
2019 Dwelling Unit Density
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Dwelling Units/Acre
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
US 441 / SR 25
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
23
4
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SR-120
SR-2
0
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
SW
CR
6 - 10
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
4-6
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
2-4
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
0-2
329B
SW 30TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
Legend
City of Gainesville
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NE CR 1417
1
E
33
UT
RO
&
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
1
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
R
2
-1
NE 15TH ST
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
R
63
93
24
SR
S
BRADFORD
R
23
SW 75TH ST
/S
S R-22 6
SW
CR 231
25
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
NW 298 ST
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
10 +
P
U
T
N
A
M
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 2-7
Future Dwelling Unit
Density (2019)
MARION
2-12
COMMUTING PATTERNS
Alachua County
Tables 2-4 and 2-5 summarize the commuter flows for workers living in Alachua County. The analysis of
the 2006 Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) worker flow database indicates that
80.7 percent of the workers residing in Alachua County also work in Alachua County, with most working in
the City of Gainesville. The remaining 19.3 percent of the workers residing in Alachua County commute to
neighboring counties, with Duval, Marion, and “All Other Locations” having the three largest percentages of
outward commuters.
Table 2-4
Where Alachua County Residents Work, by City (2006)
City
Count
Share
Gainesville, FL
62,983
62.3%
Jacksonville, FL
3,503
3.5%
Alachua, FL
2,656
2.6%
Ocala, FL
1,370
1.4%
Newberry, FL
991
1.0%
Tallahassee, FL
801
0.8%
Tampa, FL
615
0.6%
High Springs, FL
554
0.5%
Lake City, FL
529
0.5%
Orlando, FL
389
0.4%
All Other Locations1
26,745
26.4%
All Total Jobs
101,136
100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Database
1All other locations include unincorporated areas.
August 2009
2-13
Table 2-5
Where Alachua County Residents Work, by County (2006)
County
Count
Share
Alachua Co., FL
81,573
80.7%
Duval Co., FL
3,665
3.6%
Marion Co., FL
1,993
2.0%
Hillsborough Co., FL
1,376
1.4%
Orange Co., FL
1,092
1.1%
Columbia Co., FL
841
0.8%
Leon Co., FL
832
0.8%
Levy Co., FL
814
0.8%
Pinellas Co., FL
648
0.6%
Putnam Co., FL
609
0.6%
7,693
7.6%
101,136
100%
All Total Jobs
Tables 2-6 and 2-7 summarize the labor shed for workers commuting to Alachua County. The analysis of
2006 Census LEHD database worker flow data indicates that 66.8 percent of the Alachua County workers
also live in Alachua County. The remaining 33.2 percent commute from neighboring counties, with Marion,
Duval, and “All Other Locations” having the three largest percentages. Nearly 35 percent of Alachua County
workers who live in Alachua County reside in the City of Gainesville.
August 2009
2-14
Table 2-6
Where Workers in Alachua County Live, by City (2006)
City of Residence
Count
Share
Gainesville, FL
42,111
34.5%
Jacksonville, FL
4,146
3.4%
Alachua, FL
2,206
1.8%
High Springs, FL
1,089
0.9%
Newberry, FL
1,029
0.8%
Lakeside, FL
586
0.5%
Deltona, FL
545
0.4%
Palm Bay, FL
493
0.4%
Archer, FL
453
0.4%
Ocala, FL
435
0.4%
68,976
56.5%
All Total Jobs
122,069
100%
Table 2-7
Where Workers in Alachua County Live, by County (2006)
County of
Residence
Count
Share
Alachua Co., FL
81,573
66.8%
Marion Co., FL
4,480
3.7%
Duval Co., FL
4,398
3.6%
Levy, Co., FL
3,280
2.7%
Putnam Co., FL
2,504
2.1%
Clay Co., FL
2,289
1.9%
Gilchrist Co., FL
2,109
1.7%
Seminole Co., FL
1,685
1.4%
1,628
1.3%
Columbia Co., FL
1,628
1.3%
16,496
13.5%
All Total Jobs
122,069
100%
August 2009
2-15
City of Gainesville
Tables 2-8 and 2-9 summarize the commuter flows for workers living in the City of Gainesville. The analysis
of the LEHD worker flow database indicates that in 2002, 71.6 percent of the workers residing in the City of
Gainesville also worked in Gainesville, compared to 67.8 percent in 2006. In 2002, 84.7 percent of the
workers residing in the City of Gainesville also worked in Alachua County, compared to 82 percent in 2006.
The remaining workers residing in the City of Gainesville commute to neighboring cities, with Jacksonville,
Alachua, and “All Other Locations” having the three largest percentages of outward commuters.
Table 2-8
Where City of Gainesville Residents Work, by City (2002 & 2006)
City of Residence
2002 Count
2002 Share
2006 Count
2006 Share
Gainesville, FL
31,184
71.6%
34,801
67.8%
Jacksonville, FL
1,141
2.6%
1,722
3.4%
Alachua, FL
798
1.8%
851
1.7%
Ocala, FL
509
1.2%
649
1.3%
Tallahassee, FL
370
0.8%
423
0.8%
Newberry, FL
290
0.7%
356
0.7%
Tampa, FL
350
0.8%
319
0.6%
Lake City, FL
170
0.4%
229
0.4%
Orlando, FL
144
0.3%
208
0.4%
172
0.3%
Charlotte Harbor, FL
Starke, FL
158
0.4%
8,447
19.4%
11,618
22.6%
All Total Jobs
43,561
100%
51,348
100%
August 2009
2-16
Table 2-9
Where City of Gainesville Residents Work, by County (2002 & 2006)
County of
Residence
2002 Count
2002 Share
2006 Count
2006 Share
Alachua Co., FL
36,886
84.7%
42,111
82.0%
Duval Co., FL
1,189
2.7%
1,806
3.5%
Marion Co., FL
716
1.6%
927
1.8%
658
1.5%
691
1.3%
Orange Co., FL
471
1.1%
562
1.1%
Leon Co., FL
383
0.9%
443
0.9%
Columbia Co., FL
209
0.5%
330
0.6%
Bradford Co., FL
209
0.5%
Pinellas Co., FL
207
0.5%
317
0.6%
Levy Co., FL
292
0.6%
Putnam Co., FL
287
0.6%
Volusia Co., FL
184
0.4%
2,449
5.6%
3,582
7.0%
All Total Jobs
43,561
100%
51,348
100%
Tables 2-10 and 2-11 summarize the labor shed for workers commuting to the City of Gainesville. The
analysis of the Census LEHD database worker flow data indicates that in 2002, 35.7 percent of the City of
Gainesville workers also lived in the City of Gainesville, compared to 39.4 percent in 2006, an increase of
over 10 percent. In 2002 and 2006, the remaining workers were commuting from neighboring counties, with
Jacksonville, Alachua, and “All Other Locations” having the three largest percentages. In 2002, a small
percentage of workers were commuting from Archer, Starke, and Williston; however, these cities were not
included in the 2006 labor shed report.
August 2009
2-17
Table 2-10
Where Workers in the City of Gainesville Live, by City (2002 & 2006)
City of Residence
2002 Count
2002 Share
2006 Count
2006 Share
Gainesville, FL
31,184
35.7%
34,801
39.4%
Jacksonville, FL
2,447
2.8%
2,619
3.0%
Alachua, FL
1,489
1.7%
1,429
1.6%
Newberry, FL
647
0.7%
639
0.7%
High Springs, FL
659
0.8%
631
0.7%
Deltona, FL
304
0.3%
367
0.4%
312
0.4%
306
0.3%
Palm Bay, FL
290
0.3%
Casselberry, FL
258
0.3%
Lakeside, FL
Archer, FL
344
0.4%
Starke, FL
273
0.3%
Williston, FL
272
0.3%
Daytona Beach, FL
270
0.3%
49,467
56.6%
46,631
52.8%
All Total Jobs
87,356
100%
88,283
100%
August 2009
2-18
Table 2-11
Where Workers in the City of Gainesville Live, by County (2002 & 2006)
County of Residence
2002 Count
2002 Share
2006 Count
2006 Share
Alachua Co., FL
61,383
70.3%
62,983
71.3%
Marion Co., FL
2,780
3.2%
2,930
3.3%
Duval Co., FL
2,620
3.0%
2,761
3.1%
Levy, Co., FL
2,389
2.7%
2,132
2.4%
Putnam Co., FL
1,713
2.0%
1,594
1.8%
Clay Co., FL
1,630
1.9%
1,549
1.8%
Bradford Co., FL
1,364
1.6%
1,179
1.3%
Gilchrist Co., FL
1,316
1.5%
1,101
1.2%
Columbia Co., FL
1,248
1.4%
1,051
1.2%
Seminole Co., FL
969
1.1%
984
1.1%
9,944
11.4%
10,019
11.3%
All Total Jobs
87,356
100%
88,283
100%
Major Employers
As part of the baseline conditions analysis, data on major employers in Alachua County also were reviewed
and summarized. The major industries in Alachua County include education and healthcare. Major
employment centers include the University of Florida (UF) and healthcare centers such as Shands, the
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and North Florida Regional Medical Center.
August 2009
2-19
Table 2-12
Major Private and Public Employers in Alachua County (2009)
Business Type/Sector
Number of
Employees
University of Florida
Education
14,723
Shands Hospital
Healthcare
12,588
Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Healthcare
4,317
Alachua County School Board
Public Education
4,299
City of Gainesville
City Government
2,200
Company
Publix Supermarkets
North Florida Regional Medical
Center
Grocery
2,056
Healthcare
1,700
Nationwide Insurance Company
Insurance
1,300
Alachua County
Government
1,120
Santa Fe College
Education
796
Grocery
736
Food Service
625
Dollar General Distribution Center
Retail
624
Meridian Behavioral Health Care
Mental Healthcare
620
Grocery
504
Insurance
500
Manufacturing
Unknown
Management Services
Unknown
Orthopedic/Cardio Implants
365
Communication
350
Wal-Mart Distribution Center
Gator Dining Services
Wal-Mart Stores
Tower Hill Insurance Group
Driltech Mission
ESE, Inc. (Now Mactech, Inc.)
Regeneration Technologies, Inc.
Cox Communications
Hunter Marine Corporation
Sailboats
325
Health Plans
317
Athletics
300
U.S. Postal Services
Mail Delivery
296
Florida Farm Bureau
Agricultural Association
260
CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc.
Engineering Consulting Firm
254
Performance Food Group
Distribution - Food
245
Exactech, Inc.
Orthopedic Implant Devices
235
J.C. Penney Company
Retail - Dept. and Discount
230
Healthcare Management
220
Publishing
214
Design and Manufacturing
Unknown
Property Management
200
Manufacturing
187
AvMed Health Plan
UF Athletic Association
Medical Manager
The Gainesville Sun
Moltech Power Systems
Paradigm Properties
Bear Archery
August 2009
2-20
Table 2-12 (Continued)
Major Private and Public Employers in Alachua County (2009)
Company
Campus USA Credit Union
BellSouth
Fla. Dept. of Children & Families
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Business Type/Sector
Number of
Employees
Banking Services
185
Telephone Communication
179
Human Services
172
Retail - Dept. and Discount
172
Lifesouth Community Blood Centers
Healthcare
170
Info Tech, Inc.
IT/Consulting
160
Clariant LSM
Manufacturing
140
Medical Manufacturing
140
Banking Services
135
Publication Consulting
130
Sallie Mae
Banking Services
125
Bank of America
Banking Services
115
Wachovia
Banking Services
110
MD Tech
Florida Credit Union
Naylor Publications, Inc.
Source: Gainesville Chamber of Commerce
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
FDOT’s new TDP guidelines promote focus and review of ongoing and anticipated residential and
commercial development activities. Therefore, a review of development activities and existing and future
land uses in Alachua County was conducted and summarized.
Table 2-13 presents the approved and proposed major developments within the study area. These projects
were either approved or proposed to be Transit Oriented Development with strong urban design guidelines.
August 2009
2-21
Table 2-13
Major Developments (2009)
Development
Santa Fe Village
Creekside at Beville Run
Location
Number of
Dwelling Units
Type
Alachua County
1,473
Mixed-Use
SW 20th Avenue and SE 34th Street
Hatchet Creek
Near Airport
Plum Creek
City of Gainesville
Newberry Village
Ft. Clarke Boulevard
900
Mixed-Use
Butler Plaza North
City of Gainesville
200
Mixed-Use
Alachua County
Conceptual Stage
Mixed-Use
Spring Hills
Source: RTS, City of Gainesville, and Alachua County
Newberry Village
Development of these parcels must comply with the requirements for Projects that Promote Public
Transportation contained in the Alachua County Transportation Mobility Element Policies 1.2.10 – 1.2.13. In
furtherance of this requirement, the Newberry Village shall provide:



Public transit within 15-minute peak hour frequencies and 25-minute frequencies during non-peak
hours;
Public transit connecting Santa Fe College and the Oaks Mall; and,
Public transit that is coordinated with the RTS transit hub maintained at the Oaks Mall.
Approval of Newberry Village requires the construction of dedicated transit lanes along Fort Clark Boulevard
and through the Newberry Village site.
Santa Fe Village
Development of these parcels must comply with the requirements for Projects that Promote Public
Transportation contained in the Alachua County Transportation Mobility Element Policies 1.2.10 – 1.2.13. In
furtherance of this requirement, the Santa Fe Village development has proposed:


Public transit within 15-minute peak hour frequencies and 25-minute frequencies during non-peak
hours; and,
Public transit connecting from Santa Fe Village, through Santa Fe College, Newberry Village, and
the Oaks Mall.
The Santa Fe Village development is proposing to construct dedicated lanes through the project site and
down 83rd Street to 23rd Avenue.
August 2009
2-22
FUTURE LAND USE
Alachua County has established land use and zoning maps to guide future development in the County. Map
2-8 provides a snapshot of the future land use designations for Alachua County.
August 2009
2-23
33
1
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
MTPO Boundary
2020 Future Land Use
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Aggre_Code
Active Use
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
US 441 / SR 25
CR
23
4
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
CR 1474 E
CR
SW 91ST ST
CR 2082
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SR-120
SR-2
0
SW
CR
County Use
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
Conservation
NW 53RD AVE
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
Commercial
329B
SW 30TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
Legend
City of Gainesville
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NE CR 1417
1
E
33
UT
RO
&
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
1
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
R
2
-1
NE 15TH ST
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
R
63
93
24
SR
S
BRADFORD
R
23
SW 75TH ST
/S
S R-22 6
SW
CR 231
25
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
NW 298 ST
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
Industrial
P
U
T
N
A
M
Institutional
Mixed-Use
Open
Recreation
Residential
Rural
Unknown
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
Map 2-8
Future Land Use
Source: Alachua County Department of Growth Management, GIS Division & RTS
2-24
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
According to the Alachua County 2020 Long Term Concurrency Management System Alternatives and
Priorities Analysis, the following Alachua County roads are presently operating below level of service (LOS)
standard (over capacity):


SW 20th Avenue from SW 62nd Blvd to SW 34th Street
Newberry Road (SR 26) from SW 8th to I-75
The following Alachua County roadways are operating below LOS Standard due to reserved trips from
approved developments:






Archer Road (SR 24) from SW 34th to I-75
Newberry Road (SR 26) from I-75 to CR 241 (NW 143rd)
Archer Road (SR 24) from I-75 to Tower Road (SW 75th)
Archer Road (SR 24) from Tower Road (SW 75th) to SW 91st
NW 23rd Avenue from NW 98th to NW 55th
Tower Road (SW 75th) from Archer Road (SR 24) to SW 8th Ave
The following Alachua County roadways have used over 90 percent of the available capacity with reserved
trips:




NW 83rd Street from NW 39th (SR 222) to NW 23rd
SW 20th Avenue from SW 61st to SW 62nd Blvd (Over I-75)
Williston Road (SR 121) from SW 62nd Ave to I-75
NW 39th Avenue (SR 222) from I-75 to NW 83rd Street
REGIONAL TRENDS IN TRANSIT
Environmental Initiatives
In an effort to be environmentally-friendly, RTS utilizes a 20 percent bio-diesel fuel blend on 21 campus
buses. RTS’s conversion to bio-diesel fuel on the UF campus routes was funded by UF. The remaining
RTS buses utilize ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel; however, RTS plans to convert these buses to bio-diesel fuel
as funding is available.
It has been proposed that RTS consider the use of compressed natural gas and other alternative fuels that
are low-carbon or zero-carbon motor fuels in ultra-low emission, high efficiency systems. RTS will continue
to follow developments on alternative fuels to achieve the greatest level of environmental protection through
its fleet. However, when considering the addition of or transition to other fuels RTS, must take into account
the cost impacts as well as the environmental impacts. Utilizing alternative fuels may require additional
August 2009
2-25
fueling facilities, maintenance procedures, spare parts, and staff training. In addition, access to alternative
fuels must be readily available for purchase and delivery as not to impede operations. RTS will continue to
monitor the use of alternative fuels and analyze other transit agency experiences with alternative fuels to
determine when it might be appropriate for RTS to embark on a fuel type other than diesel and bio-diesel
fuel blends for its fleet.
RTS & UF Partnership
The University of Florida and RTS developed a partnership in 1998 that provides pre-paid unlimited access
to transit service for UF students, staff, and faculty. Students pay $6.11 per credit hour for unlimited access
to RTS service. The UF transportation fee will increase from $6.11 per credit hour to $6.79 per credit hour
in August 2009. Since 1999, Santa Fe College has been trying to implement a transportation fee. Recently,
Santa Fe College initiated a Transportation Fee Bill that would have allowed Santa Fe students to have the
same pre-paid unlimited transit service as UF students. The bill was approved by the House and Senate,
but vetoed by the Governor. Santa Fe College had anticipated charging a fee of $2.36 per credit hour and
this would have added a new Route 23 and increased evening hours on Routes 10, 43, and 11.
Service Improvements
RTS has planned the following service improvements for implementation effective Fall 2009.










Route 9 – Added additional 5 minutes for round trip, which increases peak frequency to 9 minutes
Route 12 – Extended hours to 3AM
Route 21 – Added 1 bus for an additional 8 hours of service
Route 22 – Added new peak hour weekday route
Route 29 – Route will be reinstated during AM and PM peak hours
Route 34 – Added 1 bus for an additional 8 hours of service
Route 400 – Increased Saturday frequency to 30 minutes.
Route 401 – Will be discontinued and Route 20 will be reinstated.
Route 406 – Increased Saturday frequency to 30 minutes.
Later Gator – Extended hours to 3AM
In addition to the service improvements previously listed, implementing express AM and PM peak hours on
Route 25 is tentatively planned and awaiting approval.
Gainesville Zones
The City of Gainesville is divided into 3 Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEA) zones.
Currently, the City consists of zones A, B, and C. Under the new Senate Bill 360 legislation, the entire City
of Gainesville is likely to be a TCEA. The City of Gainesville has proactively initiated plans to expand the
existing TCEA zones A, B, and C, as well as add zones D, E, and M. At this time, zone A is in need of
August 2009
2-26
transit infrastructure; however, this is the only zone that does not currently have the authority to collect fees
for improvements. Map 2-9 from the City of Gainesville Planning Department illustrates the existing TCEA
zones A, B, and C and the proposed TCEA updates.
Alachua County Proposed Mobility Plan
Alachua County has prepared a Long Term Concurrency Management System to address roadways that
are either currently over capacity or will be over capacity in the near future. The concurrency management
system combines a multimodal transportation system with mixed-use land use policies that, over time,
would allow for reduced dependence on single-occupant automobile use and increased mode share for
transit, bicycling, and walking. Alachua County has initiated a mobility study to meet the requirements of
Senate Bill 360 for areas that are designated as TCEAs. Local governments utilizing the TCEA designation
must develop mobility strategies within 2 years. In addition, it is recommended that the mobility strategies
focus on alternative modes, mixing land uses, bike and pedestrian facilities as well as roadways.
August 2009
2-27
Map 2-9
12
CR 237
SR
US
Proposed Updates
CR
2
31
1
TCEA
Transportation Concurrency
Exception Area
44 1
EXISTING TCEA
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
To Zone A
24
SR
St
St
13
Rd
16
n
sto
illi
41 Pl
St
SW 34
City of Gainesville
Planning Dept.
GIS Section
W
8,800
SW 75 St
Rd
24 Ave
SR 331
This map is for informational purposes only. Do not
rely on this map for accuracy of dimensions, size or
location. The City of Gainesville does not assume
responsibility to update this information or for any
error or omission on this map. For specific information,
you are directed to contact the City of Gainesville, Florida.
File: New TCEA 070709
Source: City of Gainesville Planning and Development Services
2-28
26
SR
Wa
ld
SE 27 St
SW
20
SE 43 St
SR
t
Ave
4S
5
20
Ave
SE 15 St
I-7
SW
Ar
t Ave
Depo
SR S329B
E University Ave
SE 11 St
d
d
r R
che
e
o
North
W University Ave
US 441
62
Av
8 Ave
NE
SE
Tower Rd
SW 2 Ave
NE 16 Ave
NE 15 St
St
NW 16 Ave
Main
d
6
Blv
NW
16
NW
NW
39
NE 23 Ave
d
St
Blv
NW 23 Ave
Blv
Feet
NE
NW 31 Ave
NW 8 Ave
I
39 Ave
St
To Zone B
SW
0
NE
NW 39 Ave
5
06054-001-000
06111-001-000
06111-003-001
53 Ave
To Zone B
I-7
Zone B Call-Outs
Parcel Numbers:
NW
23
City Limits
34
34
Zone M
NW
NW
Zone E
1
SR 232
43 St
Zone D
44
NW
To Zone C
NW 55 St
To Zone B
US
SR 121
PROPOSED CHANGES
Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that includes a host of premium service
amenities, infrastructure, and technologies that distinguish it from traditional local bus service. The
Gainesville Metropolitan Area 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Plan East Gainesville
study identified community support for BRT service and associated bus service enhancements connecting
East Gainesville to major employment and shopping areas. A BRT option was determined to be the service
type that offered the greatest improvements in mobility and in alleviating traffic congestion. Based on that
determination, a set of candidate corridors were selected by MTPO and RTS staff for examination based on
key existing transit corridors in the Gainesville area. In view of its advantages over traditional local bus
service, BRT is being considered as a viable transportation alternative for the Gainesville area. A feasibility
study is currently being conducted to identify potential BRT corridors. Map 2-10 illustrates the BRT study
corridors. Through the feasibility study, nine corridors have been identified as potential corridors for
implementation of a viable BRT service. In the operating and capital priorities of this TDP, two generic
corridors have been used as placeholders for the two corridors that eventually will be identified at the
conclusion of the feasibility study as the top two priority corridors; these two are identified for implementation
in fiscal years 2014 and 2017, respectively. Specific corridors have not been identified in this TDP
document to prevent any influence on the outcome of the BRT feasibility study. It is recommended that, at
the conclusion of the BRT Feasibility Study, next steps include moving into the required federal planning
process to qualify RTS for small starts / new starts funding. The next phases of study may include, but are
not limited to, an Alternative Analysis Study, Preliminary Engineering and Design, and Final Engineering
and Design. In addition, RTS, the City of Gainesville, and Alachua County should work together to establish
an overall premium service plan for the entire County prior to moving forward with the implementation of
BRT.
August 2009
2-29
NW 43RD ST
NW
24TH
BLV
D
E
NW 53RD AVE
SR-222
NE 15TH ST
N MAIN ST
33
1
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
S
GI
93
SW 2ND AVE / SE 2ND AVE
UT
RO
ST
SR-226
SW 23RD TE
SE 4 ST/SE 21 AVE/SE 22 AVE/SE 15 ST
SR 121
4TH
SE
US 441 / SR 25
E
SW 43RD ST
SR
-20
Archer RD
Depot AVE
Hawthorne RD/SR20
SW 13th ST
SW 20 AVE/SW 62 BLVD
SW 23rd TER /SW 35th PL
SW 34th ST
University AVE
Waldo RD
CR
SR-26
SE 43RD ST/ CR 225
SW 62ND ST
R
SW 75TH ST
UF Park & Ride Facility
BRT Study Corridors
SW/SE 4TH AVE
SW 24TH AVE
Potential Hubs
&
NW 16TH AVE/CR 172
3 2 9B
5/S
I-7
SW/NW 6TH ST
D
LV
SR 26A / SW 2ND AVE
SW 24TH AVE/SW 20TH AVE
SW 91ST ST
Existing Hubs
NE 8THAV/NE 25TH ST
NW 22ND ST
B
NW 38TH ST
K
NW 55TH ST
R
LA
SW 8TH AV/SW 91ST ST
Transit Hubs
SR-120
SR
-24
C
NW 8TH AVE
SW 8TH AVE
Legend
NE 9TH ST
US 441 / SR 20 / SR 25 / SR 329
75
FT
NW 16TH BLVD
NE 31ST AVE
SE 15TH ST / NE 15TH ST
NW 43RD ST
NW 51ST ST
NW 83 ST
NW 31ST BLVD/ NW 23RD BLVD
NW 23RD AVE
I3/
-9
SR
NW 23RD AVE/CR 2062
2010 RTS
CR 232/NW 78 AVE/MILLHOPPER RD/NW 43 ST
Activity Center Boundary
RTS Transit Routes
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
R
SW 91ST ST
SW 46TH BLVD
Source: Alachua County & RTS
SR
24
SW 62ND AVE
21
-1
SR
&
1
33
SW 63RD AVE/S
W
0
ER RD
34TH ST/ARCH
2-30
0.5
1
Mile
Map 2-10
BRT Study Corridors
Section 3: Overview of Existing Services
This section provides an overview of existing transportation services and facilities within the City of
Gainesville. Transportation services in the City are composed of RTS, the City’s fixed-route bus system;
paratransit services, which include door-to-door transportation disadvantaged services and complementary
ADA (American with Disabilities Act) transportation services; and a variety of private transportation service
providers. Of those transportation services, the City of Gainesville’s Public Works Department administers
RTS and the complementary ADA service.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES AND RESOURCES
Fixed-Route Bus Service
RTS operates as a City of Gainesville Public Works department. The system consists of fixed-route bus
lines connecting the City of Gainesville, the UF campus, and some unincorporated parts of the County.
Table 3-1 provides a summary of the transit vehicles owned by RTS. As shown in the table, the entire Cityowned fleet consists of a total of 110 vehicles. RTS operates a fleet of 88 diesel buses on its fixed-route
system within a service area of approximately 74 square miles. Of those, 15 are utilized for the UF campus
and are bio-diesel-fueled vehicles. The RTS fleet contains 68 vehicles with an automatic vehicle location
system, 61 with video cameras, and 66 with talking bus capabilities. The average age of the fleet is 9.5
years, which is down from 2007 based on recent vehicle purchases made by RTS.
The regular one-way bus fare is $1.50. Half-fares are available to youth (under 17 years) and to seniors
and persons with disabilities. Children shorter than the farebox ride RTS for free. The bus service is
marketed to riders of all age groups. Passengers must be able to board, disembark, and carry their own
packages on and off the vehicles.
August 2009
3-1
Table 3-1
Fixed-Route Vehicles
NUMBER OF
VEHICLE
VEHICLES MANUFACTURER
2
8
1
1
11
2
1
1
4
9
6
1
7
3
7
4
5
12
7
5
3
4
6
AVS
OBI
OBI
GIL
GIL
OBI
OBI
OBI
OBI
NOV
NOV
GIL
GIL
GIL
GIL
GIL
GIL
GIL
FLX
GIL
GIL
GIL
GIL
AGE
LENGTH
WHEELCHAIR
LIFT
SEATING
CAPACITY
STANDING
CAPACITY
2002
1989
1989
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
2001
2001
2001
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2007
1996
1997
1996
2008
1996
22
35
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
40
40
35
LF
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
LF
OK
OK
OK
LF
OK
22
34
34
42
42
43
43
43
43
44
44
43
43
43
43
43
43
36
44
29
43
36
37
20
30
30
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
27
27
27
27
45
30
26
19
45
38
AUTOMATIC
TALKING
VEHICLE
BUS
LOCATOR (AVL)
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
VIDEO
CAMERA
YES
YES
DR500
DR500
YES
YES
DR500
DR500
DR500
DR500
DR600
DR600
DR600
DR600
DR600
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
Paratransit Services
The City’s complementary ADA service is provided by the Alachua County Community Transportation
Coordinator (CTC); MV Transportation, through a contract with RTS, is the provider. As shown in Table 3-2,
the complementary ADA service is operated utilizing 20 vehicles with platform lifts. The average age of the
paratransit fleet is 3 years.
Table 3-2
Alachua County Paratransit Vehicles
NUMBER
OF
VEHICLES
1
YEAR
MAKE
DESCRIPTION
LIFT TYPE
SEATS
WHEELCHAIR
CAPACITY
2004
Champion
E350 21' CUTAWAY
Platform
8
2
5
2005
Champion
E450 CUTAWAY 22'
Platform
12
2
1
2005
Champion
E350 21' CUTAWAY
Platform
8
2
5
2006
Champion
E350 21' CUTAWAY
Platform
8
2
1
2006
Champion
21' CUTAWAY
Platform
8
2
1
2007
Champion
21' CUTAWAY
Platform
8
2
6
2007
Champion
3500 21' CUTAWAY
Platform
8
2
August 2009
3-2
BIO-DIESEL
YES
YES
Other Capital Equipment


Shelters and Benches – RTS is in the process of transitioning its bus stop shelters to a
new design.
Route Signage – RTS is in the process of updating its existing bus stop signs to a new
circular design.
EXISTING ROUTE SYSTEM
Current Routes
The overall routing system is depicted in Map 2-1.
Major Route Connections
Several connecting points function as route anchors. These locations are major attractors of transit trips,
which serve as schedule time points and allow for coordination of route transfers. The connecting points are
as follows:





Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station – Major Transfer Facility
Oaks Mall – Transfer Stop and Unofficial Park-and-Ride
Butler Plaza – Transfer Stop (Shelter Only)
Reitz Union (McCarty Drive – UF Main Campus) – Transfer Stop
UF Park-and-Ride Lots – Park-and-Ride for UF Faculty, Staff, and Students
Hours and Days of Service
During weekdays, RTS operates 22 fixed-routes throughout the City of Gainesville and 9 routes on the UF
main campus with service spanning from approximately 6:00 am to 2:00 am. In addition, RTS operates 3
Later Gator late evening routes Thursday through Saturday from approximately 8:30 pm to 3:00 am. On the
weekends, RTS operates a total of 13 routes. Route 407 (the City North Circulator) operates only on
Sundays and Route 409 (Downtown to the Gainesville Mall) and 410 (Downtown to Santa Fe College)
operate only on Saturdays. The Saturday service span is 7:00 am to 6:00 pm and the Sunday service span
is 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Headways
Service headways during peak service range from 6 to 80 minutes and 10 to 80 minutes during off-peak
periods.
August 2009
3-3
Holidays
Currently, no service is available on the following holidays:








New Year’s Day
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Veteran’s Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
Operational Characteristics
The basic characteristics of the existing transit system are summarized in Tables 3-3 through 3-6. Tables 37 through 3-10 summarizes route-level performance statistics for FY 2008, including whether or not the
route receives any funding from UF. The total operating costs for the fixed-route system during FY 2008
were $16,396,047, while farebox revenues for that same fiscal year were $8,870,168.
Table 3-11 summarizes each route’s length and the portion of the route operating in the City of Gainesville
and Alachua County. The RTS routes that are located entirely within the City of Gainesville are not included
in Table 3-11.
August 2009
3-4
Table 3-3
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (City Routes - Spring 2009)
Route
Rou te Description
Peak Buses
Cycle Tim e
Peak Headways
(7:00am-11:00am /
2:00pm -6:00pm )
Off-Peak Headways
(6:00pm-11:00pm )
Evening Headways
(11:00pm -2:00am )
Service Sp an
# of One-Way
Trips Weekday
City Ro utes - Weekdays
1
Downtown to Butler Plaza via Archer Road
3
60
20/30
20
n/a
6:03am-7:58pm
77
2
Downtown to Health Department via SE 15th Street
1
60
60
60
n/a
6:03am-7:58pm
28
5
Downtown to Oaks Mall via University Avenue
3
60
20/30
30
30
6:03am-2:28am
101
6
Downtown to Gainesville Mall via 6th Street
1
60
60
60
n/a
6:03am-7:58pm
28
7
Downtown to Eastwood Meadows
1
60
60
60
n/a
6:03am-7:58pm
28
8
Shands to Northwood Village via NW 13th Street
3
90
30
30
n/a
5:51am-8:00pm
55
9
5
40
8
17
17
6:27am-2:18am
236
10
Lexington Crossing to McCarty Hall
Downtown to SFC via NW 16th Ave / University
Avenue
1
80
60/80
80
n/a
7:03am-7:38pm
20
11
D owntown to Eastwood Meadows via University Ave
1
60
60
60
n/a
6:03am-7:58pm
28
12
Gateway to McCarty H all
5
45
9
20
20
6:20am-2:14am
199
13
Shands to FloridaWorks via SW 13th Street
3
30
10
30
30
6:28am-1:59am
154
15
Downtown to NW 23rd Street/NW 6th Street
2
60
30
60
n/a
6:03am-10:58pm
58
16
Shands to Sugar Hill via SW 16th Street
2
40
20
30
30
6:33am-2:15am
102
17
Shands to Downtow n
2
40
20
30
30
6:43am-1:59am
100
20
Oaks Mall to McCarty Hall via SW 20th Avenue
6
60
10
30
30
6:00am-2:00am
190
21
Cabana Beach to McCarty Hall
4
48
12
12
n/a
6:34am-5:59pm
111
24
Downtown to Jobs Corps via SR 24 (Waldo Road)
1
60
60
60
n/a
6:03am-7:58pm
28
34
Lexington Crossing to the Hub
3
54
18
50
50
6:40am-1:52am
106
35
McCarty Hall to Homestead Apartments
5
45
9
22
22
6:30am-2:04am
187
36
McCarty Hall to SW 34th Street/Archer Road
2
40
20
20
n/a
7:00am-5:57pm
64
43
Downtown to SFC via 43rd Street
2
120
60
60
n/a
6:03am-6:58pm
25
75
Butler Plaza to Oaks Mall via 75th Street
3
105
35
53
n/a
6:00am-8:16pm
38
August 2009
3-5
Table 3-4
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (Campus Routes - Spring 2009)
Campus Routes (Weekdays Only Except for E/W Circulator)
Ro ute
Descriptio n
Peak Buses Cycle Time
Peak Head ways (7:00am11am / 2:00pm-6:00pm)
Off-Peak Headway
(6:00pm-11:00pm)
Evening Headway
(11:00pm-2:00am)
Service Span
(Weekday)
# One-Way Trips
Weekday
PNR 1 (118)
Park-N-Ride 1 (Harn Museum)
5
30
6
30
n/a
7:00am-7:28pm
90
PNR 2 (117)
Park-N-Ride 2 (SW 34th Street)
2
30
15
30
n/a
7:00am-7:00pm
218
Family (119)
Family Housing
1
30
30
30
n/a
7:00am-5:28pm
42
West Circulator (Fraternity Row)
2
15
8
15
n/a
7:00am-7:28pm
183
Commuter Lot (120) Commuter Lot
3
21
7
21
n/a
7:00am-7:33pm
190
N/S Circulator (122)
UF North/South Circulator
1
30
30
30
n/a
7:30am-5:29pm
40
Lakeside
2
30
15
15
n/a
7:00am-5:40pm
84
2
40
n/a
20
40
5:40pm-1:57am
40
2
20
10
20
n/a
7:05am-7:30pm
136
Frat (120)
Lakeside (125)
UF East/West Evening Circulator (Weekdays,
E/W Circulator (126) Saturdays, & Sundays)
Sorority (127)
East Circulator (Sorority Row)
August 2009
3-6
Table 3-5
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (Later Gator Routes - Spring 2009)
Later Gator Routes (Thursday - Saturday)
Route
Description
Peak Headways
Peak Buses Cycle Time (7:00am-11:00am /
2:00pm-6:00pm)
Off-Peak
Headway
(6:00pm11:00pm)
Evening
Headway
(11:00pm2:00am)
Service # One-Way
Span
Trips
(Weekday) Weekday
A (300)
Later Gator A (Reitz Union to Downtown)
3
30
n/a
10
10
8:30pm2:47am
B (301)
Later Gator B (Lexington Cr. To Downtown)
3
60
n/a
20
20
8:30pm3:05am
36
C (302)
Later Gator C (Oaks Mall to Downtown)
3
75
n/a
25
25
8:30pm3:05am
29
F (305)
Later Gator F (Campus Club to Downtown)
3
60
n/a
20
20
8:30pm3:05am
37
August 2009
3-7
72
Table 3-6
Summary of Transit Service Operating Characteristics (Weekend Routes - Spring 2009)
Weekend Routes (Saturday & Sunday)
Route
Description
Peak Buses Cycle Time
Saturday Headway
(Minutes)
Sunday
Headway
(Minutes)
Service
Span
(Saturday)
Service
Span
(Sunday)
# One-Way
Trips
Sat/Sun
n/a
22/0
15
Downtown to NW 23rd Street/NW 6th Street
1
60
60
n/a
7:03am5:58pm
75
Butler Plaza to Oaks Mall via 75th Street
1
90
90
n/a
7:03am5:58pm
n/a
16/0
10:03am4:58pm
56/14
400
Downtown to Oaks Mall (Saturday Level of Service)
2
60
60/30
60
7:03am2:28am
401
Downtown to Oaks Mall
2
60
30
60
7:03am7:58pm
10:03am4:58pm
51/14
10:03am4:58pm
22/14
402
Downtown to Campus Club
1
60
60
60
7:03am5:58pm
403
Downtown to Lexington Crossing
1
60
60
60
7:03am5:58pm
10:03am4:58pm
22/14
404
One-Stop Career Center to Shands
1
60
60
60
7:03am5:58pm
10:03am4:58pm
24/14
405
Sugar Hill to Shands
1
60
60
60
7:03am5:58pm
10:03am4:58pm
23/14
406
City East Circulator
1
60
60
60
7:03am5:58pm
10:03am4:58pm
22/14
1
60
n/a
60
n/a
10:03am4:58pm
0/14
1
60
60
60
7:03am5:58pm
10:03am4:58pm
24/14
n/a
22/0
n/a
22/0
407 (Sunday) City North Circulator (Sunday Service Only)
408
Northwood Village to Shands
Downtown to Gainesville Mall (Saturday Service
409 (Saturday) Only)
1
60
60
n/a
7:03am5:58pm
Downtown to Santa Fe College (Saturday Service
410 (Saturday) Only)
1
60
60
n/a
7:03am5:58pm
August 2009
3-8
Table 3-7
Summary of Performance Statistics (City Routes - Fiscal Year 2007/2008)
UF Funding Route
Route Description
Revenue
Miles
Farebox
Revenue
Annual
Revenue (on
Hours
Operating Cost
bus)
464,589
113,922.50
11,363.1
$43,378.82
$747,120.54
93,860
54,765.40
4,049.5
$26,266.10
$266,254.63
Passengers
No
1
Butler Plaza to Downtown via Archer Rd
No
2
Downtown to Robinson Heights via SE 15th St.
Yes
5
Oaks Mall to Downtown via University Ave.
450,620
161,199.70
13,550.5
$56,917.09
$890,946.69
No
6
Downtown to Gainesville Mall via 6th Avenue
100,829
45,344.00
4,048.2
$21,025.75
$266,169.15
No
7
Downtown to Eastwood Meadows
110,679
47,828.70
4,091.1
$30,324.09
$268,989.83
No
8
Northwood Village to Shands via NW 13th St.
320,345
141,387.50
11,007.5
$47,940.84
$723,740.50
Yes
9
Lexington Crossing to McCarty Hall
720,429
173,535.00
16,428.2
$7,805.55
$1,080,151.52
No
10
SFCC to Downtown via NW 16th Ave./University Ave.
75,694
54,322.50
3,692.9
$16,406.94
$242,805.55
No
11
Eastwood Meadows to Downtown via University Ave.
113,839
46,160.60
4,049.8
$31,396.18
$266,274.35
Yes
12
Campus Club to McCarty Hall
647,671
164,074.20
15,871.9
$13,540.17
$1,043,576.11
Yes
13
Job Services to Newell Dr./Museum Rd. via 13th St.
393,343
96,183.20
8,363.0
$21,086.19
$549,867.91
No
15
Downtown to NW 23rd St./NW 6th St.
272,139
109,946.30
7,937.6
$57,282.02
$521,898.52
Yes
16
Newell Dr./Museum Rd. to Sugar Hill via 16th Ave.
295,540
69,597.30
6,815.0
$10,945.17
$448,083.62
Yes
17
Shands @ Newell Dr. to Downtown
242,051
52,110.90
6,487.1
$7,411.46
$426,526.17
August 2009
3-9
Summary of Performance Statistics (City Routes - Fiscal Year 2007/2008)
UF Funding Route
Route Description
Passengers
Revenue
Miles
Farebox
Revenue
Annual
Revenue (on
Hours
Operating Cost
bus)
Yes
20
Oaks Mall to McCarty Hall via SW 20th Ave.
849,568 218,354.60 19,951.9
$45,061.69
$1,311,836.77
Yes
21
SW 43rd St. to McCarty Hall
337,313
75,069.80
7,273.2
$4,737.05
$478,210.93
No
24
Downtown to Job Corps via SR 24 (Waldo Rd.)
Shands to Cobblestone (Peak Hour Service - discontinued in May)
104,919
68,796.70
4,091.6
$23,650.64
$269,022.70
Yes
29
(Reinstated August 2009)
17,085
10,844.20
857.3
$765.48
$56,367.48
Yes
34
Lexington Crossing to the Hub
353,542 120,955.35 10,578.5
$8,063.09
$695,537.69
Yes
35
McCarty Hall to Homestead Apartments
543,509 169,756.00 13,659.7
$11,501.12
$898,122.65
Yes
36
McCarty Hall to SW 34th St./Archer Rd. (No Summer Service)
117,672
39,707.70
3,303.3
$887.43
$217,194.61
No
43
SFCC to Downtown via 43rd St.
152,980
77,709.60
6,224.0
$19,273.52
$409,228.00
No
75
Butler Plaza to Oaks Mall via 75th St. (90% Funded by County)
228,723 138,851.80
8,855.3
$80,675.48
$582,232.69
August 2009
3-10
Table 3-8
Summary of Performance Statistics (Campus Routes - Fiscal Year 2007/2008)
UF Funding Route
Route Description
Passengers
Revenue
Miles
Farebox
Revenue
Annual
Revenue (on
Hours
Operating Cost
bus)
Yes
117 Park-N-Ride 2 (SW 34th St.)
137,424
33,626.70
3505.2
$41.47
$230,466.90
Yes
118 Park-N-Ride 1 (Harn Museum)
535,985
71,832.70
8452.7
$500.77
$555,766.34
Yes
119 Family Housing
76,283
20,611.80
2236.2
$2.11
$147,026.86
Yes
120 West Circulator (Fraternity Row)
291,816
38,109.90
4872.9
$20.61
$320,394.49
Yes
121 Commuter Lot
227,583
56,407.00
7023.3
$18.76
$461,784.61
Yes
122 UF North/South Circulator
49,083
33,405.50
4574.9
$12.70
$300,798.36
Yes
125 Lakeside
237,990
37,762.00
4446.1
$46.96
$292,329.10
Yes
126 UF East/West Circulator (includes Sunday Service)
59,676
41,462.90
4406.2
$65.23
$289,708.31
Yes
127 East Circulator (Sorority Row)
216,399
27,039.70
4392.5
$16.25
$288,809.51
Yes
128 Lake Wauburg (Saturday Only - discontinued in September)
1,002
6,116.00
343.0
$9.50
$22,554.88
August 2009
3-11
Table 3-9
Summary of Performance Statistics (Later Gator Routes - Fiscal Year 2007/2008)
UF Funding Route
Revenue
Passengers
Miles
Route Description
Farebox
Annual
Revenue
Revenue (on
Operating Cost
Hours
bus)
Yes
300 Later Gator A (Downtown to Reitz Union)
45,333
31,367.90
2,280.8
$551.98
$149,962.60
Yes
301 Later Gator B (Lexington Cr. to Downtown)
26,122
25,512.00
1,945.8
$846.81
$127,933.72
Yes
302 Later Gator C (Oaks Mall to Downtown)
Later Gator F (Campus Club to Downtown) (Discontinued beginning May
305 2009)
33,622
24,237.85
1,969.4
$1,250.60
$129,489.37
13,819
22,706.75
2,012.5
$497.05
$132,324.51
Yes
August 2009
3-12
Table 3-10
Summary of Performance Statistics (Weekend Routes – Fiscal Year 2007/2008)
UF Funding Route
Route Description
Passengers
Revenue
Miles
Farebox
Revenue
Annual
Revenue (on
Hours
Operating Cost
bus)
Yes
400 Downtown to Oaks Mall
5,967
4,390.40
360.0
$1,389.01
$23,670.00
Yes
401 Downtown to Oaks Mall
6,903
5,179.30
360.0
$941.39
$23,670.00
Yes
402 Downtown to Campus Club
8,790
3,875.90
360.0
$888.14
$23,670.00
Yes
403 Downtown to Lexington Crossing
4,086
4,748.10
360.0
$288.11
$23,670.00
Yes
404 One-Stop Career Ctr. to Shands
2,978
2,195.20
179.6
$351.40
$11,808.70
Yes
3,811
2,058.00
179.6
$312.70
$11,808.70
3,410
4,804.80
360.0
$863.62
$23,670.00
Yes
405 Sugar Hill to Shands
City East Circulator (Trying to get money from the county unsuccessful to
406 date)
City North Circulator (Trying to get money from the county unsuccessful to
407 date)
5,656
4,257.40
357.8
$1,153.40
$23,525.35
Yes
408 Northwood Village to Shands
3,760
6,136.20
361.8
$992.83
$23,788.35
Yes
August 2009
3-13
Table 3-11
Route Lengths and Bus Stops by Location1
Route
% By Route Length
Length
1
11.2
2
12.9
5
12.8
7
12.2
10
17.0
11
13.0
13
5.9
20
11.7
21
9.7
24
18.2
43
25.7
75
23.6
400
12.8
401
15.1
402
11.4
404
5.9
406
16.9
410
19.1
Totals
Updated: June 22, 2009
1
% By Stop Count
City (%)
County (%)
Stops
City (%)
County (%)
100%
92%
96%
58%
70%
81%
68%
100%
100%
94%
72%
24%
96%
100%
100%
68%
84%
73%
82.1%
0%
8%
4%
42%
30%
19%
32%
0%
0%
6%
28%
76%
4%
0%
0%
32%
16%
27%
17.9%
59
79
69
73
83
77
35
56
44
83
124
111
69
78
61
35
80
97
1163
100%
90%
99%
60%
77%
83%
71%
100%
100%
98%
77%
15%
99%
100%
100%
71%
86%
80%
83.7%
0%
10%
1%
40%
23%
17%
29%
0%
0%
2%
23%
85%
1%
0%
0%
29%
14%
20%
16.3%
The RTS routes that are not included in Table 3-11 are located within the City of Gainesville.
August 2009
3-14
Transportation Disadvantaged
Consistent with Florida Statute 427, coordinated transportation disadvantaged (TD) services are provided
throughout Alachua County through cooperative efforts with the designated Community Transportation
Coordinator (CTC).
The TD program provides door-to-door demand response services to individuals who need assistance in
accessing daily needs such as medical, employment, grocery shopping, educational, and other life
sustaining appointments.
The current CTC is MV Transportation. Under the TD program, all agencies and transportation operators
that receive federal, state, or local government TD funds are required to contract with the CTC for
transportation services. The CTC conducts all operational planning, administration, and coordination of
transportation disadvantaged trips in the Alachua County-designated TD service area. Currently, the CTC
does not contract with any other transportation operators in the Alachua County-designated TD service
area.
Oversight of the TD program is provided through the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) and the
Local Coordinating Board (LCB). In Alachua County, the MTPO serves as the DOPA for the County. The
LCB is composed of TD service users and local agency healthcare representatives and is responsible for
providing guidance and advice to the CTC, as well as serving as the forum for any grievances or complaints
on the part of TD service users.
During FY 2008, 160,936 trips were provided through the County’s TD program. Table 3-12 includes the
breakdown of TD trips by trip type for FY 2008. As shown in the table, the largest and smallest portions of
total TD trips in FY 2008 were made for medical reasons and nutritional reasons, respectively.
Table 3-12
FY 2008 TD Trips by Purpose, Alachua County
Trip Type
Number of Trips
% of Total
Medical
86,624
53.8%
Employment
50,398
31.3%
Education / Training
5,432
3.4%
Nutritional
2,177
1.4%
Life-Sustaining / Other
16,305
10.1%
Total
160,963
100.0%
Source: 2008 FCTD Annual Performance Report
August 2009
3-15
ADA Paratransit Service
The ADA transportation service complements the existing public transportation services provided by RTS.
ADA services are for residents who live within ¾-mile on either side of the fixed-route system, but are
unable to access the fixed-route transit system due to disability.
ADA Service Information
ADA paratransit service functions as a shared-ride service with multiple passengers.
destinations must be within ¾-mile on either side of the fixed-route system.
Origins and
To use the ADA service, a person must have a disability that affects his or her ability to access the fixedroute bus. The Center for Independent Living processes all ADA paratransit applications. Individuals who
are ADA-certified must obtain an ADA photo ID card.
MV Transportation provides and schedules the appointments for the service, and an appointment must be
scheduled at least one day prior to the trip and during office hours, Monday – Sunday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Reservations may be made up to 14 days in advance. On the day of the trip, MV Transportation cannot
change pickup times or pickup / drop-off locations. Each scheduled trip must have an appointment time and
destination address.
Pickup times can be scheduled on weekdays between 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, Saturdays from 6:00 am to 7:00
pm, and Sundays from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. ADA trips have a 60-minute pickup window. Multiple trips in a
single day can be scheduled a minimum of 90 minutes apart.
Individuals who are ADA-certified ride for free on fixed-route buses. ADA riders are required to show their
ADA ID card to the RTS driver each time they board the fixed-route bus.
Visitors in the City of Gainesville whose ADA eligibility has been determined by another transit or public
agency are also able to use their ADA ID card while visiting the City of Gainesville. Visitors must provide
proof of eligibility prior to using the ADA service.
Qualification Process
RTS maintains the following qualification process for persons requesting ADA service:
1. Persons applying for ADA eligibility must first contact the Center for Independent Living at (352)
378-7474 and ask to schedule an ADA certification appointment. Transportation to the Center for
Independent Living will be provided by MV at no charge. The Center evaluates applicants and
based on a doctor’s verification of disability determines eligibility for the ADA transportation
services.
August 2009
3-16
2. When eligibility for ADA transportation services is determined, the applicant will receive written
notification of eligibility, and if the applicant is determined to be eligible, an ADA ID card.
3. Upon receipt of the ADA ID card, trips are scheduled by contacting MV Transportation at the
reservation line. ADA trip reservations must be scheduled one day prior to the planned trip.
BUS STOP PLACEMENT
Bus stop placement and spacing have a major influence on the performance of bus service. There is an
inherent tradeoff between close stops (every block or 0.125 to 0.25 mile) with short walk distances, more
frequent stops, and a longer bus trip and stops farther apart with longer walk distances, more infrequent
stops, higher speeds, and shorter bus trips. RTS staff is in the process of evaluating the existing bus stop
locations. RTS will assess the bus stop inventory and either remove or add bus stops to improve the
system’s efficiency.
PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDERS
This section includes an inventory of existing transportation service provides in Alachua County. Each
provider was mailed a short questionnaire to obtain information about its transportation services. The
questionnaire can be found in Appendix E. Table 3-13 includes information for agencies that completed the
questionnaire. In addition to those agencies, Table 3-14 includes a listing of other service providers in the
County that did not respond to the questionnaire.
Shands and the Veterans Administration both operate shuttle vans. In addition, the Veterans Administration
has five park-and-ride lots. SNAP and GatorLift are both UF on-campus bus services. SNAP provides
service in the evening and GatorLift provides ADA service.
August 2009
3-17
Table 3-13
Alachua County Transportation Service Providers
Agency / Provider
Type of
Service
A Candies Productions, Inc. / A
Candies Coach Works, Inc.
Charter
Mr. Charter, Inc.
47 & 56
Passenger
Charter
Legendary Coaches, LLC
Runways Transportation Co.
Shands
August 2009
Charter & Lease
Shuttle
Shuttle
Age of Facility
and Condition
Service Area
Primary
Destinations
24
Varies /
Charter
As Needed
80% State /
20% Out of
State
Varies
Mon - Fri
10am-6pm
(Mon-Sun
bus service
available)
$900-$1,200
depends on
miles, hours,
and
destination
Weekly
Orlando
50-60 trips per
year
24 / 7
Varies with
mileage and
duration
Day/MultiDay/Weeks/Months
Larger College
Towns and
Entertainment
Destinations
25,000 to
45,000
Fare
Unknown
USA and
Canada
2006 / Excellent
Southeast, but
will go
anywhere
1999 / Good
Good
1996 / Good
Continental US
Jacksonville,
Orlando, &
Gainesville
Shands
hospital, Health
Science Center
Average
Annual
Ridership
Service
Frequency
Hours
7 days /
week, 24
hrs / day
Mon - Fri
6:00am 12:30am
Varies
Free
10 one-way trips
per day
15-20 Minutes
3-18
Jacksonville
International
Airport, Orlando
International
Airport,
University of
Florida,
Compass Bank
on SW 34th
Hospital,
Visitor, and
Staff Garages,
Hope Lodge,
Ronald
McDonald
House, Cancer
Pavilion &
Medical Plaza
Proprietary
618,000>
Rolling Stock
Other Equipment
(1) - 1998 Prevost 5b-Pax Motor Coach
(1) - 2000 Crystal 16-Pax Mini Bus/Limo
(1) - 2007 L Sedan
(2) - 2005/2006 Limo
(1) - 2005 Hummer
(1) 1954 Rolls
(1) - 2006 56 Passenger Bus
(2) - 2007 Motor Coach
- 2005 Motor Coach
(2)
(2) - 2004 Sprinter Van (Wheelchair
Accessible, Luggage, and Wifi)
(1) - 45 pass bus
(1) - 36 pass bus
(4) - 33 pass buses
(1) - 24 pass Paratransit
The following Alachua County transportation service providers did not respond to the survey for various
reasons, including lack of interest or communications issues.
Table 3-14
Alachua County Transportation Service Providers (No Response)
MV Transportation
Veterans Cab Company
Unimet Taxicab Company
Affordable Transportation
Leopard Transport
C&V Non-Emergency Transportation
Best Care Transport
Coordinated Transportation System
Ride Solution
Gainesville Limousines
UF-SNAP
Absolute Perfect Limousine
Signature Shuttle
A Premier Carriage Company
Amtrak
A Unique Occasion
GMG Transportation
Aloha Limo of Florida
Greyhound Bus
A.R.C. Transportation, Inc
Miami Bus Service
Berg Transport, Inc
A1 Yellow Cab
City Cab
Aimtree
GMG Transportation
Bestway Cab
Hylton's VIP and Executive Service
Diamond Cab
M and T Transportation Services
Gainesville Cab Company
Ocala Limousine Service
Safety Cabs
Parrish Medivan
Southern Comfort Transportation
Premier Transportation
Commuter Taxi Cab
Pronto Limousine Service
Airport Taxi
UF-GatorLift
VIP Taxi Service
ELS Transportation
Yellow Cab Company
Holiday Coach Lines Inc. of Gainesville
Annett Bus Lines
USA Taxi and Airport Shuttle
A Florida Tour
The Bus Bank
A Susie's Limousines
BusNeeds
Fabulous Coach Lines
Prompt Charters
Premier Parties Entertainment, Inc.
Megabus.com
Travelynx
August 2009
3-19
Section 4: Public Involvement Process
A Public Involvement Plan was developed for the TDP to outline public involvement efforts throughout the
TDP process and ensure ample opportunities for the public as well as local agencies and organizations to
participate in the development of this TDP. This plan, developed in accordance with the MTPO’s Public
Involvement Plan, is presented in Appendix A. This section summarizes the public involvement activities
that were undertaken as part of the TDP major update and additional public involvement activities
undertaken directly by RTS. The components of the public involvement activities are presented below.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COMPONENTS
Review Committee Meetings
As part of the TDP update process, a TDP Review Committee was established to provide oversight and
technical feedback. The Review Committee is composed of representatives from the MTPO, UF, Santa Fe
College, the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, FloridaWorks, FDOT, RTS, and citizens. The Review
Committee met three times throughout the course of the project.
The first TDP Review Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, April 23, 2009. During this initial project
kick-off meeting, the Review Committee reviewed the TDP Public Involvement Plan, project schedule,
selected peers, scope of services, public workshop formats, and proposed candidates for the stakeholder
interview process. The second Review Committee Meeting was held Thursday, June 18, 2009. During this
meeting, the committee reviewed the results from the completed public involvement activities. The final
Review Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, July 23, 2009. During the third meeting, the committee
reviewed the draft document and provided feedback on the selected priorities.
August 2009
4-1
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
A series of interviews was conducted with 10 stakeholders identified by RTS staff. The stakeholders
included key local officials, as well as representatives from several organizations throughout Alachua
County with an interest in transportation services. Table 4-1 provides a list of the stakeholders that were
interviewed for the update process.
Table 4-1
Stakeholder Interview Participants
Name
Angela Pate
Mike Byerly
Dr. Jackson Sasser
Gail Monahan
Thomas Hawkins, Jr.
Brad Pollitt
Nick Ross
Ed Poppell
Gina Hill
Brent Christensen
Affiliation
Date of Interview
FloridaWorks
Alachua County Commissioner
Santa Fe College
Alachua County Housing Authority
City of Gainesville Commissioner
Shands
Veterans Administration
Builders Association of North Central Florida
Chamber of Commerce
May 11, 2009
May 12, 2009
May 14, 2009
May 14, 2009
May 15, 2009
May 19, 2009
May 21, 2009
May 22, 2009
June 25, 2009
July 10, 2009
A series of 27 detailed questions was developed to facilitate the discussion and obtain stakeholders’
perceptions of three major areas related to public transportation in Alachua County and the City of
Gainesville.



Existing Conditions
The Future of Transit
Transit Funding Issues
A copy of the interview script that was used for all of the interviews is presented in Appendix C. Common
perceptions and themes from the stakeholder interviews are summarized below.
Existing Conditions
(1) Are you currently aware of RTS and its services?
All of the stakeholders were aware of RTS and its services.
August 2009
4-2
(2) Is the public perception of RTS good, satisfactory, or poor?
The majority of stakeholders commented that the public’s perception of RTS is “good;” however, one
stakeholder commented that the public’s perception of RTS is good for students, but poor for people who
work in the area. A few stakeholders commented that RTS’s service is perceived as satisfactory.
(3) Do you believe RTS has done an effective job marketing transit service options?
For the most part, stakeholders believe that RTS has done an okay job marketing its transit services. One
stakeholder commented that RTS’s marketing efforts are hot and cold. Another stakeholder mentioned that
there are no futuristic options and the community needs leadership of vision in transportation. A couple
stakeholders commented that RTS has not done an effective job of marketing. One reason mentioned was
that the stakeholder is unaware of RTS’s services other than seeing empty buses driving around the City.
(4) Who do you believe uses the transit system? (Workers, Students, Unemployed, Elderly,
Tourists/Visitors)
The majority of stakeholders indicated that students, the elderly population, and low-income workers without
transportation are using the transit system. Some stakeholders also indicated that the unemployed
population utilizes the system. For the most part, stakeholders did not believe tourists and visitors are using
the system.
(5) What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School)
The majority of stakeholders believe most transit trips are for school, medical, and work. A couple of the
stakeholders were unsure of the purpose of most transit trips.
(6) What are the major destinations within your immediate community?
Stakeholders believed that the major destinations within the community include UF, Shands, downtown, the
hospitals, Santa Fe College, and major employers.
(7) What are the major destinations outside of your community where people are traveling to, from in your
area?
According to the stakeholders, major destinations outside of the community include the small outlying towns
of Alachua, Archer, Newberry, Micanopy, High Springs, and Hawthorne. One stakeholder indicated that
people are traveling to and from the bulk of housing located on the east and west sides of the city. Another
stakeholder mentioned that people are traveling to the new developments in Hawthorne because this is the
area where growth can occur. Stakeholder also believed that people are traveling to adjoining counties for
work, Ocala, Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville.
August 2009
4-3
(8) Do you use RTS? Why? Why not?
The majority of stakeholders do not use RTS. Reasons cited for not utilizing the transit system include the
service does not reach the areas where stakeholders reside, there are no Park-and-Ride lots outside of
town, and the service is not conducive to busy schedules. Only one stakeholder indicated that they use
RTS on an infrequent basis, mostly for travel to the UF campus.
(9) What do you think are the most significant issues facing automobile travelers?
Most stakeholders believe that the community perceives congestion as an issue for automobile travelers;
however, several stakeholders commented that Gainesville has limited congestion compared to other cities.
Several stakeholders indicated that the cost of gasoline and the cost of owning and maintaining vehicles are
some of the biggest issues facing automobile travelers.
(10) What do you think are the most significant issues facing transit users?
Stakeholders identified the most significant issues facing transit users as travel times including hours of
operations and headways, the lack of Park-and-Ride lots, limited east/west routes, accessibility, funding for
transit, and the cost of using transit.
(11) What groups of travelers seem to experience the most difficult transportation conditions (the disabled,
low-income, elderly, commuters, etc)? Why?
The majority of stakeholders identified the disabled, low-income, and elderly as the travelers experiencing
the worst conditions. Reasons cited for believing the disabled and low-income experience difficult
transportation conditions included the lack of density to support transit in low-income areas, the need to
drop kids off at daycare, and the need to own a vehicle because the system is not connected. One
stakeholder mentioned that workers living within 10-miles from Gainesville experience difficult transportation
conditions because of the lack of transit and Park-and-Ride lots. Another stakeholder mentioned that Santa
Fe College students experience the worst transportation conditions because there are few routes to Santa
Fe College, few access points around Santa Fe College, and limited access to the hub.
(12) Do you believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville?
The majority of stakeholders do not believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville compared to other
cities; however, a couple stakeholders mentioned that there could be a growing problem. A few
stakeholders do believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville, particularly in the morning and
afternoon.
The Future of Transit in Gainesville
(13) Is there a need for additional transit service in Gainesville?
August 2009
4-4
All of the stakeholders indicated that there is a need for additional transit service in Gainesville. Some of the
future services mentioned included: increased service to East Gainesville and the areas surrounding the UF
campus, extended transit hours, increased headways, service to the outlying communities, service to the
Gainesville Regional Airport, service on the SE 35th Boulevard and SW 20th Avenue corridors, and a
premium service such as BRT or electric streetcars. One stakeholder mentioned that the need would
depend on the frequencies and route sufficiencies.
(14) What type of transit services would you like to see more of in the Gainesville area? (More Frequent
Fixed-Route, Express Bus, Trolley, Demand Response, Increased Weekend Service, Late Evening Service)
Stakeholders also indicated that they would like to see more fixed-routes, express buses, Park-and-Ride
lots, direct and frequent routes to East Gainesville and Santa Fe College, BRT or streetcar service in the
most urbanized parts of the City, shorter travel times more specific to people’s needs, connections to Santa
Fe Healthcare and Newberry Village, and BRT service connecting with Archer and Alachua for jobs. One
stakeholder mentioned that they would like to see a trolley connecting the downtown area with UF.
(15) Do you believe that public transportation can relieve congestion in Gainesville?
The majority of stakeholders who believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville also believe that
public transportation can reduce the congestion. One stakeholder commented that public transportation
cannot relieve congestion alone, RTS needs a congestion relief strategy that focuses on increasing urban
development and coordination with the City’s planning department so that transit plans, future land use
allocations, urban design requirements, and concurrency management regulations all work in tandem to
support ridership. One stakeholder does not believe that public transportation can help relieve congestion.
(16) What efforts or initiatives are you aware of that have been undertaken in the last five years to address
traffic congestion in the region (locally)?
According to stakeholders, efforts or initiatives undertaken in the last five years to address traffic congestion
include the purchase of a Traffic Management System (TMS), discussion about implementing BRT,
FloridaWorks Green Ride, TCEAs, utilizing gas tax revenue to fund transit, and the County’s long-term
concurrency management system. One stakeholder commented that the RTS and UF agreement was an
initiative to address congestion, but this occurred over five years ago. Stakeholders who did not believe that
any initiatives have been undertaken cited reasons including there is no funding for roads and congestion is
encouraged in the community.
(17) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been successful and why?
The stakeholder that mentioned TCEAs were used to address traffic congestion also commented that the
City used the TCEA funds to increase transit ridership to UF and this has been successful because traffic
counts on many roadways and intersections surrounding the campus have declined in recent years.
August 2009
4-5
Another stakeholder commented that no initiatives have been successful because people are not using the
alternatives and there are no incentives.
(18) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been unsuccessful and why?
One stakeholder commented that the TCEAs have not been as successful as possible because they do not
address future land use and urban design. This person also mentioned that the single factor driving transit
ridership to and from UF has been the unavailability of parking and increasing ridership to other destinations
will require the integration of transit planning, concurrency management regulations, future land use
allocations, and urban design requirements. Another stakeholder mentioned that none of the initiatives
have been unsuccessful, but underused.
(19) What efforts would you like to see undertaken, to address traffic congestion in this region?
Stakeholders indicated that they would like to see BRT, Park-and-Ride lots to address traffic congestion in
the region, improved and new roads aimed at increasing capacity, and reasonable enhancements to public
transit.
(20) What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville
Metropolitan Area?
The following ideas were indentified by stakeholders in an effort to increase the use of public transit in the
Gainesville Metropolitan Area:










Implement BRT or streetcars within urbanized areas
Coordinate the transportation planning process with the City’s planning department
Create a business model that funds transportation to reduce cars and provide solutions for the
unemployed and low-income
Build Park-and-Ride lots
Expand service for working riders
Change the culture by having the Mayor and other local officials use the system
Implement universal access and free fares
Build more transit to attract more people
Encourage employers to utilize decals that encourage ridership and provide employees with
ridership opportunities
Make the buses more reliable with enough stops that a business person or worker could
reasonably use the system for transportation to work and business-related travel during the day
(21) Is more regional transportation needed to connect Gainesville with surrounding areas (such as
Alachua, Newberry, Jacksonville or Ocala)?
August 2009
4-6
The majority of stakeholders believe that more regional transportation is needed to connect Gainesville with
the surrounding areas. One stakeholder commented that the system should transport workers from outlying
areas including adjacent counties. Some of the areas identified by stakeholders include Jacksonville,
Ocala, Orlando, Tampa, Newberry, Archer, High Springs, Hawthorne, Micanopy, Bradford County, and
Gilchrist County. Some stakeholders that indicated a need for more regional transportation also indicated
that they are not willing to pay for the expansion, expansion is not a priority right now, and service should
not go to Ocala or Jacksonville. A few stakeholders do not believe more regional transit is needed. One
stakeholder commented that transit requires density and the outlying municipalities do not have the
densities required to support transit. Another stakeholder commented that there would be no cost benefit to
adding transit in the areas surrounding Gainesville.
(22) At some point in the future, do you envision that rail transit will be needed in the city/county? If so,
when should it be implemented and where should it go?
The majority of stakeholders do not envision rail transit will be needed in the city/county. Stakeholders
commented that there is no return on the investment of rail and a better alternative would be the soft-tire
version and the corridor concepts previously discussed. One stakeholder mentioned that the soft-tire
version of rail is already about 10 years late. A couple stakeholders commented that they do envision rail in
the future providing long distance access to Jacksonville, Ocala, Orlando, and Tampa. One stakeholder
commented that rail maybe a possibility in 20 years, connecting UF and student housing areas.
(23) In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit
Authority? If yes, please explain why?
Responses to the question regarding RTS remaining a City department or becoming a Regional Transit
Authority varied. One stakeholder commented that they did not care. Several stakeholders commented that
they are unsure about the question. However, one person who was unsure also commented that due to
disagreements between the City and County, there may have to be a Regional Transit Authority to
successfully implement a bus system that operates within the City and County. One stakeholder
commented that the region is not there yet, but in the future service will need to be more regional. A few
stakeholders commented that RTS should remain a City department. These stakeholders cited reasons
including an organization change could hamper the existing relationship between UF and RTS, RTS should
remain a City department to constrain growth because other areas do not require transit service, and the
City and County have proved able to cooperate to fund routes that serve developed parts of the County. A
couple of stakeholders were in favor of RTS becoming a Regional Transit Authority because this would
allow RTS to take a more regional approach and provide more opportunities for intergovernmental
coordination.
(24) Where do you see RTS ten years from now?
The stakeholders’ 10-year visions for RTS varied. A couple of stakeholders commented that RTS will not be
any different with the exception of greener, more energy-efficient buses. One stakeholder mentioned that
August 2009
4-7
since the system is geared towards students and UF has capped its growth, RTS will not grow. Another
stakeholder commented that in 10 years RTS will be a Regional Transit Authority with strong funding
sources, partnerships with the surrounding cities, and laying the groundwork for BRT or light rail. One
stakeholder’s vision for RTS includes BRT and other multimodal corridors with park-and-rides that connect
to the interstate system. Stakeholders also commented that they see RTS growing with an economical and
environmentally-friendly upgraded fleet, becoming a major player for higher education, and serving as an
active participant in the review of development proposals and coordination with the City’s planning
department. One stakeholder hopes to see RTS with a well thought out strategically planned expansion that
provides better routes and frequencies so that ridership will greatly increase.
Transit Funding
(25) What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future?
The majority of stakeholders believe that the gas tax should be used to increase transit service in the future.
Stakeholders also indicated other local funding sources that should be used to increase transit service in the
future. These local funding sources include taxes on luxuries such as yachts, airplanes, cigarettes, and
alcohol; UF student fees; developer contributions; sophisticated transportation concurrency payments
including mobility fees; long-term developer payments for premium transit service; the County; the City; and
Santa Fe College. One stakeholder commented that the local funding source should not single out builders,
developers, or homeowners.
(26) Are you willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system?
Organizations that have agreements with RTS indicated that they already contribute to the transit system.
The majority of remaining stakeholders indicated that they are willing to pay additional taxes and a couple
stakeholders indicated that they are not willing to pay additional local taxes. One stakeholder commented
that they might be willing to pay. Another stakeholder commented that they would only be willing if it can be
proven that the ridership exists and everyone is paying, not just selected groups.
(27) What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (Please specify per trip or other)
Some stakeholders commented that reasonable passenger fares should be accessible for the general
population, including universal access and free fares. Stakeholders representing organizations with RTS
pre-paid agreements commented that their transit service is prepaid. One stakeholder commented that the
fare should be dependent on the type of service provided. Premium service should cost more. Another
stakeholder commented that on the high end, fares should be equal to or less than the gas tax paid by a
resident who travels by automobile. A couple stakeholders were unsure about the question.
August 2009
4-8
Transportation Disadvantaged Board Interviews
The TDP stakeholder interview questions were also mailed out to 23 members of the TD Local Coordinating
Board. Of the 23 TD board members, 4 board members returned responses to the interview questions.
The following summarizes those responses.
Existing Conditions
(1) Are you currently aware of RTS and its services?
All of the TD board members were aware of RTS and its services.
The TD board members commented that public perception of RTS is good to satisfactory.
The majority of TD board members believe that RTS has done a good job marketing its services considering
funding issues. One member commented that RTS has not done a good job. Another member commented
that the website is good, but there should be more links from City and County government websites and
social service agency websites. This person also commented that advertising in the paper is a waste of
money.
Tourists/Visitors)
TD board members indicated that all of the above use the transit system including people on fixed incomes.
(5) What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping, Recreation, Work, School)
TD board members indicated that the purpose of most transit trips include medical, shopping, recreation,
work and school. However, some members commented that work, school, and shopping are the purpose of
most trips.
TD board members believed that the major destinations within the community include the Center for
Independent Living, library, courthouse, Oaks Mall, UF, Shands, downtown, Santa Fe College, and the VA
hospital.
August 2009
4-9
(7) What are the major destinations outside of your community where people are traveling to, from in your
area?
According to the TD board members, major destinations outside of the community include the Orlando and
Jacksonville airports, links to other public transportation, Alachua, Hawthorne, Micanopy, High Springs,
Archer, and Newberry.
None of the TD board members who responded to the questions use RTS. Some of the reasons included
owning an automobile, the system does not go to their employer, living outside of the RTS service area, and
being disabled.
TD board members indicated that congestion, the cost of gas, the cost of insurance and car payments,
gridlock, safety, traffic, school zones, and the inability to use mass transit instead of automobiles are the
most significant issues facing automobile travelers.
TD board members indicated that lack of adequate transit service for all groups, timing and availability of
buses, money, increased demand, and urban sprawl are the most significant issues facing transit users.
(11) What groups of travelers seem to experience the most difficult transportation conditions (the disabled,
low-income, elderly, commuters, etc)? Why?
The majority of TD board members identified the disabled, low-income, and elderly as the travelers
experiencing the worst conditions. Reasons cited for believing the disabled and low-income experience
difficult transportation conditions include the lack of transportation that fits their needs, access to stops, the
number of buses (1-hour headways in East Gainesville), and the inability to cope.
(12) Do you believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville?
The majority of TD board members commented that there is a congestion problem in the City of Gainesville.
The Future of Transit in Gainesville
All of the TD board members indicated that there is a need for additional transit service in Gainesville.
August 2009
4-10
(14) What type of transit services would you like to see more of in the Gainesville area? (More Frequent
Fixed-Route, Express Bus, Trolley, Demand Response, Increased Weekend Service, Late Evening Service)
TD board members indicated that they would like to see more frequent fixed-route service, increased
weekend service, more demand response service, more routes outside of the UF campus, and later evening
service.
The majority of TD board members commented that public transportation can relieve congestion to the
extent that the public transportation is more frequent with more locations.
(16) What efforts or initiatives are you aware of that have been undertaken in the last five years to address
traffic congestion in the region (locally)?
According to the TD board members, efforts or initiatives undertaken in the last five years to address traffic
congestion include the purchase of a Traffic Management System (TMS); various efforts completed by the
planning commission, TD Board, County, and City; and encouraging students to use the bus through free
rides and scarce parking. One person was unaware of any initiatives.
(17) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been successful and why?
One TD board member mentioned that less parking at UF and rides paid for through activity fees have been
successful in addressing traffic congestion. Another member commented that they did not think the TMS
has been implemented because of the budget.
(18) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been unsuccessful and why?
One TD board member commented that those with prolonged public comment confuse the process.
(19) What efforts would you like to see undertaken, to address traffic congestion in this region?
TD board members commented that they would like to see the following efforts undertaken to address traffic
congestion: alternate routes; no parking on the UF campus; business, employer, and governmental
incentives to use mass transit; allocation of money for needed road work and transportation; and expanding
the routes to the suburbs.
(20) What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit in the Gainesville
Metropolitan Area?
The following ideas were indentified by the TD board members in an effort to increase the use of public
transit in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area:
August 2009
4-11






Utilize funding from sales tax and gas tax
More timely routes (10 to 20 minute frequencies)
Increase hours
Increase advertisements
Expand routes outside of the City Limits
Create a second “hub” for buses
(21) Is more regional transportation needed to connect Gainesville with surrounding areas (such as
Alachua, Newberry, Jacksonville or Ocala)?
Half of the TD board member respondents commented that more regional transportation is needed and the
other half commented that more regional transportation is needed in the future. Areas for regional
expansion included Jacksonville, Alachua, and Newberry.
(22) At some point in the future, do you envision that rail transit will be needed in the city/county? If so,
when should it be implemented and where should it go?
The majority of TD board members envision rail transit will be needed in the city/county. One member did
not envision rail transit will be needed in the city/county. Areas mentioned for future rail included Archer
Road, Newberry Road, major cities in Florida, from Gainesville to smaller communities (i.e., Hawthorne),
Ocala, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tallahassee.
(23) In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a Regional Transit
Authority? If yes, please explain why?
TD board members believe that RTS should become a Regional Transit Authority for reasons including the
ability to acquire more funding, the ability to coordinate a wider area, and the ability to expand to rural areas.
The following identifies the TD board members’ 10-year visions for RTS:




An Authority and true regional system
More demand than ever and still growing
Continuing to cater to UF and not meeting the needs of the public
Taking care of transportation throughout the County
Transit Funding
(25) What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the future?
August 2009
4-12
To increase transit service in the future, the TD board members commented that businesses and agencies
should pay a tax for transit, dedicated funding should come from County taxes, riders should pay monthly
fees, and grants, gas tax, and sales tax should be used.
All of the TD board members who responded to the interview questions indicated that they are willing to pay
additional local taxes for an expanded transit system.
(27) What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (Please specify per trip or other)
Responses to this question varied from $1.00 per trip, $1.50 per trip, $2.00 to $3.00 per trip, and $50.00 per
month.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WORKSHOPS AND TRANSIT SURVEYS
Public workshops have proven to be an effective technique for obtaining substantive public participation in
the planning process. Early in the TDP development process, surveys and comment cards were
disseminated at the downtown bus terminal, the MTPO’s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
workshop, Santa Fe College, and the UF campus as a mechanism for obtaining input from the general
public regarding the transit needs of the City of Gainesville. These public involvement activities were also
conducted to reach the greatest number of participants and a wide geographic service area. The following
list summarizes the comments received during the survey efforts.












A small percentage of drivers need an attitude adjustment.
Route spacing between buses should be monitored from the control room to keep them properly
spaced on their routes.
More buses are needed later at night and longer on the weekends.
Why does a 20 (401) go to downtown on weekends? This route should stay the same as during
the week. Riders could just transfer on campus to another bus. Many people that ride the 20
don’t need to go into town – just to campus and connect in the Gateway area.
A friend of mine says in the summer buses need to run later at night on SW Williston Road for the
Polo’s and other apartments.
More bus stops are needed around the apartments rather than one every two to three blocks.
More bus service is needed all over the County.
Gas prices are rising again so ridership will increase; therefore, if RTS increases the routes and
duration of hours more people will ride the bus.
A bus stop is needed in front of the First Presbyterian Church on SW 2nd Avenue.
Bus service needs to start earlier on Sunday – 10 am is rather late.
Many areas of Gainesville do not have bus service.
I am disabled and use a wheelchair. Most of the drivers are very helpful and have a great
attitude. However, some drivers act like, “Darn, another wheelchair that I have to deal with, it will
August 2009
4-13



















make me late.” These are the drivers with an attitude towards the disabled people and do not
treat us well. I have experienced this treatment on Route 1 (today at 4:30 pm from Frazier
Rogers on Campus) and sometimes on a 20, a 21, and a 12. For the most part, most drivers on
these routes are excellent! But, the few with the attitude problem make it difficult for us.
I am glad Gainesville has the RTS system. Some of the problems with transportation (the need
for more buses, longer service hours, and more routes) will be made better in time – I believe this!
Thanks for having RTS for Gainesville! I appreciate you all a lot!
More frequent and later routes are needed on the eastside.
Service south on 13th between University and SW 16th Avenue.
I would like a bus service that passes 8th Avenue.
A bus on NW 8th Avenue & 34th Street would encourage my neighborhood to use the bus. My
daughter will need later buses from Santa Fe College to NW 8th Avenue & 34th Street.
The bus stops running at 6 pm and I don’t get off work until later than that so I just drive.
Currently, I am a commuter student. Therefore, I don’t utilize the bus system at this time.
I think there should be more buses that run on the weekends and evenings. And, better service
to places like the health department and North Florida Regional.
I would love to ride the bus for free like UF students.
I don’t utilize RTS because I have a car, if I didn’t then it would be fine.
Ever since I came to Gainesville, RTS has provided me with good service. Especially, the Later
Gator.
Route 1 needs more “lay-over” so it can stay on time. It is never on time, but it’s not the driver’s
fault.
The problem I have is the Sunday schedule. They never follow it.
I really do not think that RTS is fair in having the buses run only hourly on all of the eastside
routes – can you honestly say that this is being equal to everyone?
Provide service to outlying areas of the County
Provide service to NE 39th Avenue to N. FL. Evaluation & Treatment Center
Provide service to E. University Avenue past SE 43rd Street
Provide late night service to the shopping areas
Two public workshops were also held over the course of the TDP development process. The first public
workshop was held at the GRU Energy Fair on Saturday, May 16, 2009. The workshop was open-house
style, which allowed attendees to view maps and a PowerPoint presentation, ask questions, complete
surveys and comment cards, and identify areas in need of additional service. The following list summarizes
the comments received during the first public workshop.


RTS needs to expand to other areas, like Alachua and Newberry. People will ride the system if it is
there. Throw out the lifeline and they will grab a hold of it. The system is wonderful and will
continue to grow and grow, grow, grow.
I would like to see a low floor bus or two on Route 75; also, later service on weekdays. My
neighbors and I carry a lot of groceries on the bus. Many of us have trouble with bus stairs.
Service is pretty good for the size of town.
August 2009
4-14








It would be nice to have Sunday service and later runs on the 75. Add a Route 63 to run on SW
63rd between Archer Road and the Williston Road & 34th Street corner.
More service in the NW section near 34th Street and Northwood Oaks & Pines subdivisions.
My daughter is in a wheelchair and feels unsafe – slides around. Tower Road bus stops are not
accessible because of the grass.
Route 5 is the best! Should keep running every 20 minutes during summer sessions. Very
supportive of the rapid transit program for the future.
Contact cars about Google Transit Services and how transit can help them.
Need 24-hour service. Need services to Orlando and Tampa. Need service everywhere, but
extended hours on Route 75.
I live in an area not served by RTS (Hamilton Heights at Newberry Road & NW 98th Street). I drive
daily to work on Newberry Road and to schools on eastside (Lincoln Middle School and Eastside
High School). I am aggravated by all the time I spend in traffic and would love to be able to use
RTS and also have my teenage son learn to use RTS. Thank you!
I would like night service on East University at least to 10 pm in order to catch the bus for work at
11:45 pm.
The results of the surveys received from the LRTP workshop, the downtown bus terminal, the Santa Fe
College campus, UF main campus, and the first public workshop indicated the following:










99 percent of respondents were aware of RTS services
75 percent of respondents feel there is a need for more transit service in Gainesville
49 percent of respondents think the public perception of RTS is satisfactory
The majority of respondents would like for RTS to increase its weekend service and fixed-route
frequencies
86 percent of respondents use RTS
66 percent of respondents are willing to pay additional local taxes for an expanded transit system
63 percent of respondents believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville
55 percent of respondents think more regional transportation is needed to connect Gainesville with
the surrounding areas
49 percent of respondents do not envision that in the future rail transit will be needed in the
county/city
51 percent of respondents believe that RTS’s priority improvement should be expanding service to
new areas
The second public workshop was held on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at the GRU building. This workshop
included a presentation of the draft TDP, a review of the projects selected for implementation over the FY
2010-2019 timeframe, a brief survey, and an open discussion period. The TDP priority project survey was
distributed in an effort to gauge the public’s opinion of the selected projects. For financial feasibility
purposes and to receive public input on the County’s proposed services, the survey only included the TDP
projects with implementation years between 2010 and 2015. The survey form provided workshop
participants with an opportunity to rate their personal level of favorability with specific potential
August 2009
4-15
improvements to existing services and/or potential new services. The summary of the survey responses are
presented in Section 10. The survey also provided a section for written comments. Following are the
unedited comments that were provided on the completed surveys.

Customer service needs to be stressed. A bus driver was listening to my conversation with
another passenger. When I got off the bus the #15 driver said, “Have a good day and quit
complaining.” She should not have gotten involved personally with my conversation with someone
else. I am concerned about cussing by drivers and passengers and the supervisor’s attitudes.
Also, please have drivers uphold rules like talking too loud on cell phones by passengers.

Include recycling containers at transit facilities [State goal for 75% recycling by 2020]. Consider
utilizing community facilities for training (i.e., complete summer training at a local school).

Thanks for listening and allowing me to input my interests.

Referring to BRT as a “premium” service is a very bad idea. The first connotation with many
students is not “better,” it’s “more expensive.” Whether or not that’s the case, it is a word to
avoid…Better to brand the program as soon as possible and stick with it. My personal choice
would be ALBRT or ALBeRT for Alachua Bus Rapid Transit of course…

1. I am interested in volunteering for future advocacy and help/serving on community boards of
review. I am a big Gainesville RTS fan! 2. RTS should become a regional transit authority. 3)
Make all stakeholders ride the buses for one week before they sit for interviews.

There needs to be a capitalization of the extension of service to new areas – this would assist in
obtaining funding and put local governments on notice on true costs. This will help with mobility
fee consideration.
Workshop attendees were also asked to indicate which type of overall improvements they believed would be
most important for RTS to pursue in the near future either improving the efficiency of existing bus routes or
extending bus service to new areas. According to the survey responses, 86 percent of the respondents
believe that RTS should improve the efficiency of the existing routes and 14 percent of the respondents
believe that RTS should extend its bus service to new areas. The following list includes the improvements
suggested by the survey respondents.








All routes need to be more frequent
RTS routes to Santa Fe College
Route 10 needs more frequent service from downtown to Santa Fe College
Anything running less than 40-minute headways
20th and 62nd due to volumes
Campus and downtown routes to reduce traffic congestion and enhance sustainability
Priority lines listed in improvements to existing services
Peak hours service to the City of Newberry and full service to Jonesville
August 2009
4-16
RTS OPERATOR SURVEY
In July 2009, RTS completed an agency transit operator survey. Because the drivers are in direct contact
with the riders every day, they are a valuable source of information concerning public opinion and attitude
about RTS’ daily operations. A total of 165 completed surveys were returned.
Operators were asked to identify and rank the most frequent complaints expressed by the passengers. The
operators were not limited to a specific number of complaints; therefore, a total of 980 responses were
documented on the 165 completed surveys. The most frequent passenger complaints are presented in
Table 4-2.
Table 4-2
Passenger Complaints Identified by Drivers
Complaints Cited Most Frequently by Drivers
Complaint
Number of Responses
Percent of Responses
Some transit operators are rude
113
12%
Bus is late
93
9%
Bus does not go where I want
89
9%
Bus did not show / passed me up
84
9%
Infrequent service
Bus schedules are difficult to
understand
No bus shelters/benches
Fare is too high
Bus leaves stop too early
Difficult to get route / schedule
information
Need park-and-ride / express
service
Bus is not clean
Eating or drinking on bus
Route or destination is not clear
Bus is not comfortable
Bus stop is not being announced
Other
Total
84
9%
82
72
67
47
8%
7%
7%
5%
43
4%
41
40
39
32
27
23
4
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
0%
980
100%
According to the responding drivers, some transit operators are rude, the bus is late, the bus does not go
where I want, the bus did not show / passed me up, and infrequent service were the most common
complaints voiced by passengers. Drivers who responded to the survey indicated that the most valid
complaints expressed by passengers included the bus does not go where I want, some transit operators are
rude, the bus is late, infrequent service, and the fare is too high.
August 2009
4-17
Drivers were also asked to indicate which improvements would be helpful to the system. Most of the
operators who completed the survey indicated that more time is needed in the schedules and that more
buses are needed on the routes. Table 4-3 shows the distribution of results for this particular survey
question.
Table 4-3
Possible Improvements Identified by Bus Drivers
Possible Improvements Most Frequently Cited by Drivers
Improvement
Number of Responses
Give more time in schedules
122
16%
More buses on routes
94
12%
Put up shelters at bus stops
87
11%
Operate express bus / park-andride service
84
11%
Maintain buses more frequently
Provide better route and schedule
information
Operate newer, smaller buses
Operate articulated vehicles
Operate alternative fuel vehicles
Lower the fares
Other
83
11%
78
57
55
50
43
11
10%
7%
7%
7%
6%
1%
Total
764
100%
The drivers were also asked to identify potential safety problems on any of the current RTS routes.
Operators who responded to the survey identified 19 routes with perceived safety problems. The following
are the specific safety problems identified by the drivers who responded to this question.







The U-turn at FloridaWorks on Route 13
The bus stop lighting at night
The intersection of 35th Place and 23rd Terrace needs a traffic light
The pullout on SW 20th Avenue at Cabana Beach
Recessed bus stops
Stops too close together
Stops too close to road
Next, the drivers were asked whether there were any run times on routes or route segments that are difficult
to maintain. The operators who responded to this question identified 28 routes with difficult schedules.
Table 4-4 lists the routes with schedules that the operators identified as being difficult to maintain. Route 15
was identified by the most responding drivers (31) as being difficult to maintain. The second most
mentioned route was Route 5, with 21 drivers indicating that this route is difficult to maintain.
August 2009
4-18
Table 4-4
Routes with Schedule Problems Identified by Drivers
Route
15
5
1
9
12
401
35
75
10
13
34
410
2
36
120
121
300
402
6
24
117
7
11
20
118
301
406
407
Total
Routes with Difficult-to-Maintain Schedules
Number of Responses
31
17%
21
12%
16
9%
15
8%
14
8%
13
7%
8
4%
6
3%
5
3%
5
3%
5
3%
5
3%
4
2%
4
2%
4
2%
4
2%
3
2%
3
2%
2
1%
2
1%
2
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
179
100%
The drivers were asked whether there were any routes that should be modified. Routes 15, 5, and 13 were
identified by the most responding drivers as needing modification. Table 4-5 lists the routes that operators
identified as in need of modification.
August 2009
4-19
Table 4-5
Routes in Need of Modification Identified by Drivers
Route
15
5
13
11
401
9
1
2
7
75
6
24
35
300
402
404
405
410
10
16
17
21
22
36
122
301
400
403
408
Total
Routes in Need of Modification
Number of Responses
12
14%
8
9%
7
8%
6
7%
6
7%
5
6%
3
4%
3
4%
3
4%
3
4%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
85
100%
Operators were also asked to identify the busiest bus stops. Operators who responded to the question
identified the following locations as having the busiest bus stops: the Estates, University Commons,
McCarty, and Shands.
DISCUSSION GROUP WORKSHOPS
To supplement the information collected during the public workshops, two discussion groups were held to
support the TDP update process. The workshops were held on Monday, May 18, 2009. The first workshop
consisted of representatives from the Center for Independent Living, the Alachua County School Board,
August 2009
4-20
Shands, RTS, the City of Newberry, and the City of Alachua. The representatives were invited to express
the views of informed “non-user” groups. During the non-user group workshop, discussion took place on
topics including:









RTS becoming a Regional Transit Authority that operates County-wide and whether or not this is
RTS’s vision for the future
The location of the RTS facility
Conducting an overview of route system needs
More Park-and-Ride locations
Increased frequency on City routes
More transportation for the elderly
Expansion implications including paratransit costs
Establishing a dedicated funding source
The allocation of funding
The second discussion group consisted of transit users. During the user group workshop, discussion took
place on topics including:














Marketing RTS services to non-users
More frequent buses
Differential in atmosphere and attitude between the campus routes and the City routes
Rewarding drivers for exemplary service
Adding the word “exemplary” and “energy-efficient” to the RTS mission statement
Implementing safety measures at the downtown terminal
Providing peak shuttles for shift work on Archer Road
Implementing a weekly pass program for visitors
Time required to access the health department and Tower Road
Changing the route numbers on the weekends
Changing the downtown terminal design
Providing more information at the bus stops
Creating a transit district with a dedicated funding source
Having UF architect students design RTS shelters
ON-BOARD SURVEY
As part of the TDP public involvement process, an on-board survey was conducted during April 2009. Onboard surveys are an important service assessment tool employed by public transportation agencies.
Feedback from the on-board survey efforts will assist RTS staff in planning for immediate service
improvements and in determining future transit needs in the City of Gainesville. In addition, RTS can use
the on-board survey results to determine the demographic make-up and travel characteristics of its existing
customer base.
August 2009
4-21
Survey Approach
On-board surveyors were utilized to help facilitate the survey administration process and ensure a higher
response rate. Four different survey instruments were prepared and administered to bus riders. A full
length survey was administered to all those who boarded each surveyed RTS bus. A shorter survey was
administered to each boarding passenger who had already filled out one or more of the full RTS survey
forms on a previous trip(s). Both the long and the short versions of the survey were translated into Spanish
language versions for distribution to Spanish-speaking patrons who were not able to complete the English
versions.
Questions on the short version asked respondents about several characteristics of their current trip only.
Previous on-board survey efforts have shown that distribution of a shorter, trip characteristics version of the
full on-board survey can be successful in increasing the overall survey response rate. The English and
Spanish versions of the full-length survey and the short trip characteristics survey instruments can be found
in Appendix B.
The on-board survey was distributed by a team of trained survey personnel. Prior to sending surveyors out
on RTS buses, a training session was conducted in order to instruct surveyors about their duties and
responsibilities and to address any issues or concerns that they may have had about the survey process.
On-Board Survey Results
The following section documents the results of the on-board survey. A total of 7,299 RTS bus riders
responded to the survey. Based on the number of total surveys packaged for distribution 23,027, a
response rate of 31.6 percent was achieved through the on-board survey effort. It is important to note that
the response rate reflects a conservative figure based on the total number of surveys packaged for
distribution. The total number of surveys packaged for distribution includes the total number of Spanish
surveys and the total number of short travel behavior surveys. In practice, a rider will be asked to fill out
only one type of survey on a given trip. If the estimate is adjusted to include this methodological aspect, the
reported response rate would be much higher.
Table 4-6 notes the number of surveys available for distribution and completed on each RTS route during
the survey effort.
August 2009
4-22
Table 4-6
Number of Completed Surveys by Route
Route #
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
20
21
24
34
35
36
43
75
117
118
119
120
121
122
125
126
127
Total
Survey Distributed
873
201
993
191
271
723
2005
141
231
1755
1083
562
742
582
1926
1124
221
963
1404
442
362
513
442
1955
262
942
693
181
442
141
661
23027
Survey Completed
369
41
196
78
65
294
857
59
41
553
395
278
235
182
399
346
66
296
382
162
91
175
271
557
75
156
234
49
137
67
170
7276
Complete Rate
42.3%
20.4%
19.7%
40.8%
24.0%
40.7%
42.7%
41.8%
17.7%
31.5%
36.5%
49.5%
31.7%
31.3%
20.7%
30.8%
29.9%
30.7%
27.2%
36.7%
25.1%
34.1%
61.3%
28.5%
28.6%
16.6%
33.8%
27.1%
31.0%
47.5%
25.7%
31.6%
For analysis purposes, the 23 questions on the long survey were divided into three major categories.
Analysis categories include travel characteristics, rider demographics, and customer service and
satisfaction. The short survey was combined with the long survey by adding the short survey responses to
the comparable travel behavior questions on the long survey.
August 2009
4-23
Travel Characteristics
Travel characteristics questions were designed to ask respondents about their individual trip attributes and
their travel behavior. Topics covered by the travel characteristics questions on the survey include:







Trip origin (type and location)
Trip destination (type and location)
Vehicle ownership
Fare type used
Transit stop/station access and egress travel mode
Transfers
Frequency of transit use
Questions 1 and 4 asked respondents about the type of place they were coming from to start their one-way
trip and the type of place they are going to on the same one-way trip, respectively. Figures 4-1 and 4-2
present the results to these two questions. As shown in Figure 4-1, most respondent trips originated at
home. The second highest trip origin indicated by respondents was college/tech. Similarly, the two highest
trip destinations were college/tech and home. The trip destination results are shown in Figure 4-2.
August 2009
4-24
Figure 4-1
Trip Origin
Where are you coming from?
2.3%
Other
51.8%
Home
2.2%
Shopping/Errands
Recreation
0.9%
College/Tech
29.3%
School (K-12)
3.3%
Social/Personal
Medical
2.4%
0.9%
Work
6.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Figure 4-2
Trip Destination
Where are you going to?
Other
3.8%
Home
Shopping/Errands
Recreation
33.2%
3.2%
1.2%
College/Tech
38.9%
School (K-12)
4.0%
Social/Personal
4.1%
Medical
1.2%
Work
0.0%
10.2%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Questions 2 and 5 asked respondents to indicate the address or name of the trip start location and their trip
end destination. Respondents were asked to specify an address: name a place, business, or building; or
indicate the nearest intersection. Information provided by respondents was geocoded using ArcGIS
software. Geocoding is the process of assigning geographic coordinates to data records. The trip origins
August 2009
4-25
and destinations were assigned to specific geographic areas of the County. Maps 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the
origins and destinations of the survey respondents.
Questions 3a and 6a on the survey asked respondents to describe how they access the transit system and
how they will reach their final destination. The responses to these questions reveal how transit users must
often times combine various modes of travel in order to complete their individual trip. As shown in Figures
4-3 and 4-4, the majority of RTS bus customers walk to and from the bus stop/station. The second most
common access and egress mode of travel to and from the bus stop is transferring to another bus route.
August 2009
4-26
25
/S
R
32
9
NW 53RD AVE
SR-120
2 39
CR 24 1 NW
NW
CR 23 6
CR
23
N E 21
&
31
CR 2
00
A / CR 1 46 9
9A
CR
21
SR- 12 0
CR 14 74 E
CR
CR
34
6
4
23
CR 32 5
WA
CAH
OO
TA R
D
CR
SE
34 6
15 2
N D ST /C R 2 0 82 S E
C
R
SE
CR 20 82
23
4
CR
SR- 20
SE 18 5TH S T
4-27
SE
SE
SR 1 21
NW 22 ND S T
US 4 41 / S R 25
SW 1 43 ST / CR 24 1
NW 43 RD S T
SW 7 5TH S T
SW 8 TH AV E
SW 9 1S T ST
20 2ND S T
SE 110 S T/ SE 90 AVE
NW 53 RD AV E
SR- 22 2
NW 23 RD AV E
B
SW 4 6TH AV E
NW 39 T H AVE
329
SW 3 0TH AV E
CR 32
SW 1 22 ND S T
SW 75TH ST
CR
SR- 45 / US -2 7
NW 94 TH AV E
1
Mile
Source: RTS 2009 On-Board Survey Results
0
NE CR 1 41 7
CR 23 1
NW 20 2N D ST
C R 2 35 A/N W 1 73 ST
ST
NW 110 TH AV E
1, 2
ST
NW 29 8 S T
-2 4
SR-2
SE
5
SR
CR 23 7 NW
SW 91ST ST
82
20
&
CR 34 6A
0.5
CR 329B
12 1
21
-1
R
S
SW
0
SR-26
SR -
VE
MTPO Boundary
CR
SW 122ND ST
R
2 3RD TE
6 2 ND A
City of Gainesville
SW
ST
43RD
SW
SW
ST
4TH
SE
E
UT
24
RTS Transit Routes
SR
-20
1
33
W
RO
SR
Trip Origin
Alachua County
5N
IS
46
BLVD
TH
23
G
93
SW
ST
T H ST
R
5/S
I-7
K BLVD
SW 24TH AVE
Legend
NE 8T HAV/NE 25
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
SR-226
43
33
1
VD
CR NW 1 86
AR
A VE
BL
NW 1 7 0T H S T
CL
S R 2 6A / SW 2ND
D
/N
W
&
23
R
RD
SR
-24
/ NW
LV D
NE 15TH ST
CR 232/NW 78 AVE/MILLHOPP ER
NE 9TH ST
TB
2010 RTS
NE 5 3 R
/S
R
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
D AVE/NE 38TH ST/NE 39TH ST
SR-121
20
N MAIN S T
FT
SW 8TH AVE
31 S
R
SR 121
ST
NW 55TH ST
NW
NW 43RD ST
H
98T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 51ST ST
NW
NW 83 ST
SR-222
/S
US 441 / SR 25
5
/I-7
NW 39TH AVE
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
-93
SR
NW 43RD ST
US
Map 4-1
Trip Origin
25
/S
R
32
9
NW 53RD AVE
SR-120
2 39
CR 24 1 NW
NW
CR 23 6
CR
23
N E 21
&
31
CR 2
00
A / CR 1 46 9
9A
CR
21
SR- 12 0
CR 14 74 E
CR
CR
34
6
4
23
CR 32 5
WA
CAH
OO
TA R
D
CR
SE
34 6
15 2
N D ST /C R 2 0 82 S E
C
R
SE
CR 20 82
23
4
CR
SR- 20
SE 18 5TH S T
4-28
SE
SE
SR 1 21
NW 22 ND S T
US 4 41 / S R 25
SW 1 43 ST / CR 24 1
NW 43 RD S T
SW 7 5TH S T
SW 8 TH AV E
SW 9 1S T ST
20 2ND S T
SE 110 S T/ SE 90 AVE
NW 53 RD AV E
SR- 22 2
NW 23 RD AV E
B
SW 4 6TH AV E
NW 39 T H AVE
329
SW 3 0TH AV E
CR 32
SW 1 22 ND S T
SW 75TH ST
CR
SR- 45 / US -2 7
NW 94 TH AV E
1
Mile
Source: RTS 2009 On-Board Survey Results
0
NE CR 1 41 7
CR 23 1
NW 20 2N D ST
C R 2 35 A/N W 1 73 ST
ST
NW 110 TH AV E
1, 2
ST
NW 29 8 S T
-2 4
SR-2
SE
5
SR
CR 23 7 NW
SW 91ST ST
82
20
&
CR 34 6A
0.5
CR 329B
12 1
21
-1
R
S
SW
0
SR-26
SR -
VE
MTPO Boundary
CR
SW 122ND ST
R
2 3RD TE
6 2 ND A
City of Gainesville
SW
ST
43RD
SW
SW
ST
4TH
SE
E
UT
24
RTS Transit Routes
SR
-20
1
33
W
RO
SR
Trip Destination
Alachua County
5N
IS
46
BLVD
TH
23
G
93
SW
ST
T H ST
R
5/S
I-7
K BLVD
SW 24TH AVE
Legend
NE 8T HAV/NE 25
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
SR-226
43
33
1
VD
CR NW 1 86
AR
A VE
BL
NW 1 7 0T H S T
CL
S R 2 6A / SW 2ND
D
/N
W
&
23
R
RD
SR
-24
/ NW
LV D
NE 15TH ST
CR 232/NW 78 AVE/MILLHOPP ER
NE 9TH ST
TB
2010 RTS
NE 5 3 R
/S
R
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
D AVE/NE 38TH ST/NE 39TH ST
SR-121
20
N MAIN S T
FT
SW 8TH AVE
31 S
R
SR 121
ST
NW 55TH ST
NW
NW 43RD ST
H
98T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 51ST ST
NW
NW 83 ST
SR-222
/S
US 441 / SR 25
5
/I-7
NW 39TH AVE
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
-93
SR
NW 43RD ST
US
Map 4-2
Trip Destination
Figure 4-3
Transit Station Access
How did you get to the bus stop for this one-way trip?
90.0%
82.5%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
7.4%
10.0%
1.9%
1.8%
5.2%
0.4%
0.8%
Transferred
Was
Rode
dropped off w/someone from another
route
who parked
Other
0.0%
Walked
Bicycled
Drove &
parked
Figure 4-4
Transit Station Egress
After you get off the bus, how will you get to your final
destination for this one-way trip?
90.0%
83.9%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
1.7%
4.1%
7.8%
1.0%
0.5%
Will be
picked up
Ride
w/someone
who parked
0.9%
0.0%
Walk
Bicycle
Drive
Transfer to
another
route
Other
Questions 3b and 6b asked bus riders whether their trip involved a transfer. About 16 percent of the
respondents indicated that their trip involved a transfer to another bus route, while 84 percent of the riders
reached their final destinations without having to transfer to another bus. Figure 4-5 shows the percent of
August 2009
4-29
respondents transferring to other routes. Figure 4-6 shows the top three routes that required transfers.
Route 1 has the highest number of riders transferring to other routes, followed by Route 5 and Route 15.
Figure 4-5
Transfer Summary
Transfers Summary
Three transfers
2.0%
Two transfers
5.1%
8.9%
One transfer
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
Figure 4-6
Top Three Transferred Routes
Top Three Transferred Routes
45.00%
40.68%
40.00%
35.00%
32.69%
30.00%
26.63%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Route 1
August 2009
Route 5
4-30
Route 15
Respondents were asked how often they complete the one-way trip they were making at the time the survey
was administered. As shown in Figure 4-7, over 50 percent of respondents indicated that they use RTS
services more than 5 times per week.
Figure 4-7
Trip Frequency
60.0%
How often do you make the one-way bus trip you are on in one
week?
56.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
14.7%
10.2%
10.6%
10.0%
4.2%
1.5%
1.9%
1.0%
Once a
month
Less than
once a
month
0.0%
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5 days
6 days
Question 10 asked bus riders about how they would complete their trip if bus service were not available.
Results to this question are shown in Figure 4-8. The most common response provided was to drive,
followed by walk. These responses, along with the large distributions of individuals who would ride with
someone else or bicycle, reflect the significant number of RTS riders who use the transit service to avoid
having to drive their automobiles.
August 2009
4-31
Figure 4-8
Mode Choice
How would you make this one-way trip if not by bus?
Other
1.4%
Moped/Scooter
2.3%
Walk
20.3%
Bicycle
14.2%
Wouldn't make trip
12.0%
Ride with someone
18.6%
Drive
31.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
To assess the utilization rates of fare media and payment methods, a question about how bus riders paid
their fare was placed on the survey. The majority of bus riders, 76 percent, utilized Gator 1 ID cards.
Approximately 6 percent of respondents indicated using a daily pass and 5 percent indicated using a
monthly pass. Figure 4-9 displays the distribution of the respondents’ fare payment methods.
Figure 4-9
Fare Payment Method
What type of fare did you pay when you boarded this bus?
Other
1.2%
ADA ID Card
2.6%
Employee Pass Program
2.6%
Gator 1 ID
75.9%
Semster Pass ($60)
2.8%
Monthly Pass ($35.00/$17.50)
5.1%
Daily Pass ($3.00)
5.6%
Half Fare ($0.75)
1.5%
Full Fare ($1.50)
0.0%
August 2009
2.8%
10.0%
20.0%
4-32
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Figure 4-10 shows the method of fare payment used by riders in different age groups. Respondents less
than 74 years of age are more likely to use Gator 1 ID cards for their trip when compared to other fare
payment options. From among the multi-ride passes, the full-fare daily pass is the most common pass used
by respondents less than 24 years of age. For the most part, the monthly pass use increases with rider age.
Figure 4-11 shows the method of fare payment used by riders with different incomes. The Gator 1 ID card
is the primary fare type for all riders, regardless of annual household incomes.
Figure 4-10
Fare Type Paid by Respondent Age
Fare Types Paid by Respondent Age
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1. 17 or under
2. 18 to 24
3. 25 to 34
4. 35 to 44
5. 45 to 54
6. 55 to 64
1. Full Fare ($1.50)
12.7%
1.1%
5.0%
5.3%
6.6%
8%
0%
0%
2. Half Fare ($0.75)
20.6%
0.9%
1.3%
1.1%
2.6%
3%
14%
43%
3. Daily Pass ($3.00)
17.5%
2.7%
7.0%
17.9%
15.4%
13%
7%
0%
4. Monthly Pass ($35.00/$17.50)
11.1%
1.7%
7.7%
16.0%
16.2%
14%
14%
14%
5. Semester Pass ($60)
12.7%
3.0%
2.5%
1.1%
3.1%
3%
0%
0%
6. Gator 1 ID
22.2%
89.3%
68.7%
34.0%
23.7%
24%
50%
29%
7. Employee Pass Program
0.0%
0.5%
2.8%
9.9%
16.2%
13%
0%
0%
8. ADA ID Card
3.2%
0.4%
3.3%
9.2%
12.7%
17%
7%
0%
9. Other
0.0%
0.5%
1.6%
5.3%
3.5%
6%
7%
14%
August 2009
4-33
7. 65 to 74
8. Over 74
Figure 4-11
Fare Type Paid by Respondent Household Income
Fare Type by Respondent Household Income
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1. Under $10,000
2. $10,000 to
19,999
3. $20,000 to
$29,999
4. $30,000 to
$39,999
5. $40,000 to
$49,999
6. $50,000 or more
7. Do not w ork
1. Full Fare ($1.50)
1.9%
2.7%
5.1%
4.1%
2.5%
1.1%
1.2%
2. Half Fare ($0.75)
0.9%
2.6%
1.2%
1.0%
2.5%
2.2%
1.5%
3. Daily Pass ($3.00)
5.9%
6.7%
12.3%
6.6%
3.4%
3.3%
3.1%
4. Monthly Pass ($35.00/$17.50)
6.6%
6.1%
8.7%
5.1%
2.5%
1.1%
2.7%
5. Semester Pass ($60)
3.0%
2.4%
2.4%
1.5%
3.4%
1.1%
3.7%
6. Gator 1 ID
74.8%
73.7%
61.1%
71.6%
74.6%
84.9%
83.6%
7. Employee Pass Program
1.5%
2.7%
6.0%
7.6%
10.2%
4.8%
0.3%
8. ADA ID Card
3.7%
1.9%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.7%
2.7%
9. Other
1.7%
1.2%
1.8%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
1.1%
Question 8 asked survey respondents how many days a week they ride the bus. This question is different
from Question 9 on the survey, which asked respondents how many times a week they make the specific
one-way trip they were making at the time they completed the survey. Instead, this question focuses on a
respondent’s overall utilization of RTS bus service, regardless of trip purpose. The results to Question 8 are
shown in Figure 4-12. Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated that they ride the bus at least five days a
week.
August 2009
4-34
Figure 4-12
Frequency of Use
How many days a week do you ride the bus?
60.0%
56.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
14.7%
10.2%
10.6%
10.0%
4.2%
1.5%
1.9%
1.0%
Once a
month
Less than
once a
month
0.0%
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5 days
6 days
Rider Demographics
The demographic portion of the survey includes a variety of questions that queried respondents about their
household income levels, age, gender, and ethnicity, among other things. Other topics covered by the
demographic questions include reasons for using RTS service and how long riders have been using RTS
service.
Question 12 on the survey asked respondents to indicate the most important reason why they ride the bus.
As shown in Figure 4-13, the number one reason selected by respondents is “Parking is too
expensive/difficult.” Another reason for using RTS that received a large percentage of responses is “RTS is
more convenient.” Combined, the indication of these reasons further suggests that a large portion of RTS’s
riders have other transportation options and, therefore, rely heavily on the transit service to avoid the
inconvenience and expense of driving their automobiles.
The responses to this question also reveal information on discretionary ridership. A substitute measure for
“choice” riders among on-board survey respondents can be gauged by the percent of responses received
for the “I prefer RTS to other alternatives” response category. That category received almost 7 percent of
responses.
August 2009
4-35
Figure 4-13
Reason for Using RTS
Compared to other transportation alternatives available to you,
what is the most important reason you ride the bus?
Other
1.9%
I do not have a car
14.3%
I do not drive
2.7%
Bus is more environmentally friendly
3.0%
Do not have valid driver's license
2.4%
Parking is too expensive/difficult
32.5%
RTS is more convenient
Traffic congestion
21.8%
0.6%
RTS fits my budget better
5.0%
Car is not available all the time
9.1%
I prefer RTS to other alternatives
0.0%
6.7%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0% 30.0%
35.0%
The on-board survey results reveal that a large portion of RTS users are loyal, long-time customers. Figure
4-14 displays the results to Question 7, which asked riders how long they have been using RTS bus service.
Nearly 50 percent of respondents indicated that they have been using RTS bus service for two or more
years. Nine percent of respondents indicated that they have been using RTS services for less than six
months or were first time riders.
August 2009
4-36
Figure 4-14
History of Use
How long have you been riding RTS?
More than 5 years
9.5%
38.4%
2 to 5 years
1 to less than 2 years
22.3%
6 month to less than a
year
20.9%
Less than 6 months
8.0%
0.8%
First-time rider
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
The results to Question 20 are displayed in Figure 4-15. Question 20 asked respondents to indicate how
many working vehicles they have available at their household. Nearly 75 percent of respondents have 1 or
more working vehicles in their households.
Figure 4-15
Working Vehicles
How many working cars, vans, and/or light trucks are available
in your household?
2 or more
vehicles, 26.7%
0 vehicles, 25.5%
1 vehicle, 47.7%
August 2009
4-37
The demographics section of the survey also asked respondents to provide some information about
themselves. These types of questions enable RTS to construct a profile of the average RTS bus service
user. Table 4-7 provides a profile of the average RTS bus rider based on the significant percentage of all
responses received for various demographic questions. The highest percentage of responses for each
category was compiled to construct the average RTS bus rider profile. Approximately, 5,000 survey
respondents provided answers to the demographic survey questions. Figure 4-16 displays the responses to
the demographic questions in graphic form. In order to analyze the demographics of the average rider from
the general population, the average rider profile was also constructed after excluding all student responses.
Table 4-7a provides a profile of the non-student bus rider. Figure 4-16a displays the non-student responses
to the demographic questions in graphic form. In addition to the rider profile, more detail regarding bus
riders can be found in Map 4-3, which illustrates the density of home locations for all RTS survey
respondents per zip code area in Gainesville.
Table 4-7
The Average RTS Bus Rider (2009)
Category
Average Rider
Demographics
Gender
Female
Ethnic Origin
White
Age
18 to 24
Annual Household Income
Under $10,000/Do not work
Regular RTS Rider
Yes
Table 4-7a
The Average RTS Bus Rider (Student Responses Excluded)
Category
Average Rider
Demographics
Gender
Female
Ethnic Origin
White
Age
18 to 24
Annual Household Income
Under $10,000/Do not work
Regular RTS Rider
Yes
August 2009
4-38
Figure 4-16
RTS Rider Demographics (2009)
Gender
Rider Demographics
Female
56.4%
Male
43.6%
Ethnic Heritage
Other
3.7%
Asian
15.6%
Hispanic
12.4%
Black
23.6%
White
44.7%
Over 74
0.2%
65 to 74
0.3%
Age
55 to 64
2.2%
45 to 54
4.6%
35 to 44
5.3%
25 to 34
15.4%
18 to 24
17 or under
70.6%
1.3%
Do not work
Income
$50,000 or more
$40,000 to $49,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$20,000 to $29,999
31.7%
8.1%
3.0%
4.9%
7.9%
$10,000 to $19,999
14.4%
Under $10,000
0.0%
August 2009
30.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
4-39
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Figure 4-16a
RTS Rider Demographics (Students Excluded)
Ethnic Heritage
Gender
Rider Demographics (Student Respondents Excluded)
Female
59.0%
Male
41.0%
Other
3.6%
Asian
8.3%
Hispanic
8.8%
Black
34.9%
White
44.5%
Over 74
0.4%
65 to 74
0.8%
Age
55 to 64
5.4%
45 to 54
11.2%
35 to 44
12.8%
25 to 34
15.3%
18 to 24
17 or under
51.5%
2.6%
Do not work
26.4%
Income
$50,000 or more
$40,000 to $49,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$20,000 to $29,999
9.6%
3.8%
6.0%
10.5%
$10,000 to $19,999
14.7%
Under $10,000
0.0%
August 2009
29.0%
10.0%
20.0%
4-40
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
31
CR
2
NE 39 ST
NW
13
TH
ST
M
VD
BL
NE
NW 24TH BLVD
NE 38 ST
N
E
SR
51 - 150
151 - 300
NE 8TH AVE
301 - 700
E UNIVERSITY AVE
E
4S
55
OR
SH
23
SE
KE
/LA
D
V
BL
>700
CR
SE 15 ST
SE 27TH ST
HA
E UNIV AVE
WT
HO
RN
ER
D
SE 15TH ST
SE 11 ST
26
NE 15TH ST
N MAIN ST
NW 6TH ST
S MA
IN S
WI
T
LL
IST
ON
RD
0 - 50
SE 41 AVE
SE H
AWT
HOR
NE R
D
SW 63RD AVE
CR 2
0
82 S
E
1
Mile
1
US 44
0.5
1
SR 12
0
4-41
CR 325
C
R
23
4
SE
SW 91ST ST
RD
Home Locations by Zip Code
HA
VE
82
20
SW
LI
IL
W
ON
ST
NE
39
T
CR
RD
Existing Transit Routes
SE
SW 122ND ST
SW 75 ST
RD
ER
H
C
AR
SW 16TH AVE/SR 226
ST
TH
SW 34TH ST
SW 2ND AVE
N 8TH ST
SW 6TH ST
NW 8TH AVE
DR M L K JR DR
NW 34TH ST
NW 38TH ST
NW 16TH BLVD
4
SE
SW 20TH AVE
Legend
MTPO Boundary
NE 23RD AVE
NE 9TH ST
NW 43RD ST
NE
WB
ER
RY
RD
SW 62 AVE
2010 RTS
City of Gainesville
SW 23RD TER
SW
ER
CH
R
A
NW 53 RD AVE
NW 31ST BLVD
ST
SW 43
SW 91 ST
5
SW 24TH AVE
I-7
SW 91 ST
LVD
KB
AR
CL
FT
ST
SW 8TH AVE
NW 51ST ST
8TH
W NEWBERRY RD
NW 23RD AVE
NW 55TH ST
9
NW
NW 39TH AVE
NW 43RD ST
BL
VD
SW 75TH ST NW 75TH ST
NW 39 AVE
95
NW 83 ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
CR 232/MILLHOPPER RD
NW
RD
DO
AL
W
NE 77 AVE
SE 43RD ST/ CR 225
NW 43RD ST
LK
NW 94 AVE
Map 4-3
Home Locations by
Zip Code
Customer Service and Satisfaction
Customer service and satisfaction questions queried respondents regarding improvements to RTS services
and about their general satisfaction levels with various aspects of RTS service. In addition, an effort was
made to cross-tabulate selected demographic characteristics with satisfaction levels, as appropriate.
General satisfaction levels were also reviewed and cross-tabulated after excluding the student responses.
For Question 13, respondents were asked to select from a list of six potential improvements that they
believed were the most important improvements for RTS to implement. For this question, survey
respondents were allowed to select more than one improvement. In addition, a space was provided on the
survey as a response category so that respondents could input their own improvement if needed. Figure 417 displays the results to the service improvements question on the survey. Figure 4-17a displays the
results utilizing responses from the general non-student population.
Figure 4-17
Service Improvements
Which of the following improvements do you think are most
important?
Other
5.3%
More Saturday service
16.1%
26.4%
More frequent service on existing routes
Later service on existing routes
Earlier service on exisiting routes
15.2%
4.0%
Express (limited stop) service
8.7%
Bus service to new areas
10.2%
14.0%
More benches and shelters at bus stops
0.0%
August 2009
5.0%
4-42
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Figure 4-17a
Service Improvements (Student Responses Excluded)
Which of the following improvements do you think are most
important? (Student Respondents Excluded)
Other
4.7%
More Saturday service
15.6%
More frequent service on existing routes
20.6%
Later service on existing routes
19.3%
Earlier service on exisiting routes
5.4%
Express (limited stop) service
6.9%
Bus service to new areas
11.6%
More benches and shelters at bus stops
0.0%
16.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
The write-in improvement requests in the “Other” category include the following.





More Sunday service
Improved customer service
Improved on-time service
More bus routes
Bike racks at bus stops
As part of the express service response category, respondents were asked to specify which road(s) on
which they would like to see express service. The most frequently referenced write-in responses were for
express service along Archer Road, 34th Street, SW 20th Avenue, 13th Street, and University Avenue.
Archer Road received the largest number of write-in responses.
Question 14 asked respondents if they would use a “premium” express bus service. As shown in Figure 418, 35 percent of the respondents indicated that they would use a BRT-like service and 50 percent indicated
that they might use the service. Figure 4-18a displays the general population responses to Question 14.
The responses displayed in Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-18a are similar.
August 2009
4-43
Figure 4-18
BRT Service
If RTS provided "premium" express bus service, would you
use that service?
Yes, 35.3%
Maybe, 49.6%
No, 15.1%
Figure 4-18a
BRT Service (Student Responses Excluded)
If RTS provided "premium" express (limited stop) bus service,
would you use that service? (Student Respondents Excluded)
Yes, 34.2%
Maybe, 48.4%
No, 17.4%
For Question 15, respondents were asked to indicate how they prefer to receive information about RTS
services, schedules, and changes. As shown in Figure 4-19, 30 percent of respondents prefer to receive
RTS information from the RTS website. Twenty-four percent prefer that RTS information is available on the
bus and 20 percent would like to see information at the bus stops. Figure 4-19a displays the non-student
August 2009
4-44
responses to Question 15. After excluding the student responses, the preference to receive information via
email and on the RTS website decreased, while the preference to receive information by telephone, paper
bus schedule, and newspaper increased.
Figure 4-19
RTS Information Dissemination
How do you prefer to receive information about RTS service,
schedules, and changes?
RTS E-mail
5.9%
In bus
Phone
24.2%
1.4%
9.7%
Paper bus schedules
Library
1.6%
At bus stop
19.7%
7.7%
Newspaper
29.8%
RTS Website
0.0%
August 2009
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
4-45
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Figure 4-19a
RTS Information Dissemination (Student Responses Excluded)
How do you prefer to receive information about RTS service,
schedules, and changes? (Student Respondents Excluded)
RTS E-mail
6.5%
In bus
Phone
24.8%
2.4%
Paper bus schedules
Library
12.6%
1.9%
At bus stop
19.7%
Newspaper
8.4%
RTS Website
0.0%
23.7%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Question 23 on the survey asked riders to rate the bus service that was provided by RTS on the day the
survey was administered. Respondents were given a list of eight service-related criteria to rate as either
“Very Poor,” “Poor,” “Fair,” “Good,” or “Very Good.” The respondents could select their responses by
circling a number from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Very Poor” and 5 being “Very Good.” The ratings of all the
respondents were then averaged to obtain a final overall rating for each criterion. Although scores for these
types of questions are typically high, understanding customer satisfaction levels assists RTS in prioritizing
which potential issues need the most attention, and which areas of service require the most improvement.
The highest scores were given to bus stop safety, driver courtesy, directness of route, and bus timeliness.
Each of those categories received average rating scores above 4.0. The availability of shelter and shade at
bus stops, the frequency of the bus, the length of the bus trip, and the website’s user friendliness each
received ratings below 4.0. The final criterion, the rider’s overall satisfaction with RTS received an average
score of 4.05. Figure 4-20 shows all 9 categories and their respective average rating scores.
The scores for Question 23 were also averaged after excluding the student responses. Figure 4-20a shows
the general population’s ratings for all 9 categories. The average scores from the general population were
higher than the scores that included the student population responses, with the exception of bus stop safety,
website user friendliness, and shelter and shade.
August 2009
4-46
Figure 4-20
Service Rating
Ridership Satisfaction (5.0 Scale)
Bus Stop Safety
4.46
Driver Courtesy
4.21
4.09
Directness of Route
Overall Satisfaction
4.05
Bus Timeliness
4.04
Website User Friendliness
3.98
Trip Length
3.83
Frequency
3.80
Shelter or Shade
3.76
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Figure 4-20a
Service Rating (Student Responses Excluded)
Rider Satisfaction (5.0 Scale)
(Student Respondents Excluded)
Bus Stop Safety
4.45
Driver Courtesy
4.31
Bus Timeliness
4.19
Directness of Route
4.12
Overall Satisfaction
4.11
3.97
Website User Friendliness
Trip Length
3.94
Frequency
3.93
3.62
Shelter or Shade
0.00
August 2009
0.50
1.00
1.50
4-47
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Figures 4-21 through 4-24 display RTS customer satisfaction ratings by age, gender, ethnic heritage, and
household income. As shown in Figure 4-21, the highest overall ratings were given by respondents
between the ages of 45 and 74, with respondents between the ages of 55 and 64 averaging an overall
rating of 4.28. The lowest overall ratings were given by respondents age 74 and over, with an average
rating of 3.38. Figure 4-22 displays the average overall system service rating by respondent’s gender.
Males typically rated the system higher than females, with an average overall service rating of 4.05,
compared to a rating of 4.04 for females. Figure 4-23 provides the average overall RTS system service
rating by respondents of different ethnic heritages. While Hispanic respondents rated the system highest on
average at 4.06, respondents indicating “Other” as their ethnic heritage rated the system lowest on average
with a rating of 4.03. Figure 4-24 displays the average overall RTS system service ratings stratified by
income level. Average overall satisfaction was highest amongst those earning between $40,000 and
$49,999, with an average overall rating of 4.14. Those earning under $10,000 and those who do not work
rated the system lowest, with an average overall rating of 4.02. Nevertheless, as indicated previously, this
is still a “Good” rating.
Figures 4-21a through 4-24a display the customer service satisfaction responses from the general
population only. After excluding the student responses, the highest overall ratings were given by
respondents between the ages of 55 to 64. Figure 4-22a displays the average overall system service rating
by respondent’s gender. Without the student responses, females rated the system higher than males, with
an overall service rating of 4.12, compared to a rating of 4.11 for males. Figure 4-23a provides the average
overall RTS system service rating by respondents of different ethnic heritages. Similar to Figure 4-23,
Hispanic respondents rated the system highest on average with a rating of 4.18 and respondents indicating
“Other” as their ethnic heritage rated the system lowest with a rating of 3.88. Figure 4-24a displays the
average overall RTS system service ratings stratified by income level. Similar Figure 4-24, overall
satisfaction was highest amongst those earning between $40,000 and $49,999. However, after excluding
the student responses the average rating increased from 4.02 to 4.24.
August 2009
4-48
Figure 4-21
Rider Satisfaction and Age
System Rating by Age
Over 74
3.38
65 to 74
4.25
55 to 64
4.28
45 to 54
4.26
35 to 44
4.16
25 to 34
4.09
18 to 24
4.00
17 or Under
4.09
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Figure 4-21a
Rider Satisfaction and Age (Student Responses Excluded)
Rider Satisfaction by Age (Students Respondents Excluded)
Over 74
3.38
65 to 74
4.25
55 to 64
4.28
45 to 54
4.26
35 to 44
4.16
25 to 34
4.09
18 to 24
4.06
17 or Under
4.09
0.00
August 2009
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
4-49
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Figure 4-22
Rider Satisfaction and Gender
System Rating by Gender
Female
4.04
Male
4.05
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Figure 4-22a
Rider Satisfaction and Gender (Student Responses Excluded)
Rider Satisfaction by Age (Student Respondents Excluded)
Female
4.12
Male
4.11
0.00
August 2009
1.00
2.00
3.00
4-50
4.00
5.00
Figure 4-23
Rider Satisfaction and Ethnic Heritage
System Rating by Ethnic Heritage
Other
4.03
Asian
4.05
Hispanic
4.06
Black
4.05
White
4.04
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Figure 4-23a
Rider Satisfaction and Ethnic Heritage (Student Responses Excluded)
Rider Satisfaction by Ethnic Heritage (Student Respondents
Excluded)
Other
3.88
Asian
4.11
Hispanic
4.18
Black
4.15
White
0.00
August 2009
4.10
1.00
2.00
3.00
4-51
4.00
5.00
Figure 4-24
Rider Satisfaction and Household Income
System Rating by Income
Do not work
4.02
$50,000 or more
4.08
$40,000 to $49,999
4.14
$30,000 to $39,999
4.11
$20,000 to $29,999
4.10
$10,000 to $19,999
4.08
Under $10,000
4.02
3.94
3.96
3.98
4.00
4.02
4.04
4.06
4.08
4.10
4.12
4.14
4.16
Figure 4-24a
Rider Satisfaction and Household Income (Student Responses Excluded)
Rider Satisfaction by Household Income (Student Respondents
Excluded)
Do not work
4.07
$50,000 or more
4.16
$40,000 to $49,999
4.24
$30,000 to $39,999
4.10
$20,000 to $29,999
4.18
$10,000 to $19,999
4.18
Under $10,000
3.95
August 2009
4.09
4.00
4.05
4.10
4-52
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
On-Board Survey General Conclusions
Results from the on-board survey provide insight into various aspects of the RTS fixed-route bus service.
Salient conclusions drawn from the on-board survey analysis are summarized in this section.










Bus riders are satisfied with the RTS service. The average overall satisfaction rating was 4.05 out
of 5.
The general population rating for RTS service is higher after excluding student responses. The
average overall satisfaction rating from the general population only was 4.11 out of 5.
A large proportion of bus riders, 76 percent, are utilizing Gator 1 ID cards to board the bus. Only 3
percent of respondents indicated paying the full cash fare to board the bus.
A large share of RTS trips are college trips. Almost 40 percent of respondents indicated
college/tech as the final destination of their particular bus trip.
Bus riders are primarily regular users of the service. Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated that
they ride the bus at least five times a week. In addition, nearly 50 percent indicated that they have
been using RTS service for more than two years.
Survey respondents indicated more frequent service on existing routes as the most important
service improvement needed to be implemented.
In addition to more frequent service, other high scoring service improvements include more
Saturday service, later service on existing routes, and more bus stop infrastructure.
Nearly 85 percent of respondents indicated that they might utilize a BRT-like service if
implemented. In addition, for those respondents who noted that express service was needed, the
most common write-in location for express service was along Archer Road.
The average RTS bus rider is a female between the ages of 18 and 24 of a white ethnic heritage
and an annual household income of less than $10,000.
After excluding student responses, the average RTS bus rider remains the same (female, between
the ages of 18 and 24, of white ethnic heritage, and an annual household income of less than
$10,000).
Based on the feedback from the on-board survey and other survey initiatives at RTS, proactive customer
service practices have been implemented to address customer concerns and improve satisfaction from a
4.04 (overall customer satisfaction) and 4.11 (customer satisfaction excluding students) respectively to a
5.00, the top rating. These improved policies and practices include the following:



More stringent hiring process for new transit operators – RTS and Human Resources have
implemented a screening test for new applicants to learn their reactions to different scenarios that
involve customer interaction. This test helps RTS evaluate the risk potential of new employees.
Establish a Call Center, which will operate as a server system designed to record calls and perform
other functions to capture customer interaction with staff via the phone.
Employee Recognition – implement an employee of the month program to highlight those
employees with exemplary customer service skills as a method of encouraging other staff to
perform accordingly.
August 2009
4-53


Summer Training – one week of intensive training on how to treat customers.
Cameras on buses and at transit facilities – this will assist in providing a visual image of customers’
interactions and the level of service that customers receive from staff.
August 2009
4-54
Section 5: Evaluation of Existing Services
This section presents the evaluation conducted for fixed-route transit services in the City of Gainesville.
This includes the results of a trend analysis where RTS’s performance is reviewed over time and a peer
review analysis to compare its performance with other similarly situated transit agencies.
FIXED-ROUTE TREND ANALYSIS
A trend analysis was conducted to examine the performance of the City of Gainesville’s fixed-route bus
service. Data were compiled based on the information received from the fixed-route transit service provider
(RTS) for five years from 2003 through 2008. This analysis includes statistical tables and graphs that
present selected performance indicators and effectiveness and efficiency measures for the selected time
period. Table 5-1 lists the measures used in this performance and trend analysis. Highlights of the trend
analysis are presented below.
Table 5-1
Performance Review Measures
RTS Analysis (2003-2008)
General Performance
Service Area Population
Passenger Trips
Vehicle Miles
Effectiveness
Vehicle Miles Per Capita
Passenger Trips Per Capita
Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile
Revenue Miles
Total Operating Expense
Total Operating Expense (in 2003$)
Passenger Fare Revenue
Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour
Number of System Failures
Revenue Miles Between Failures
Weekday Span of Service
August 2009
5-1
Efficiency
Operating Expense Per Capita
Operating Expense Per Capita (in 2003$)
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip
(in 2003$)
Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile
Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile (in 2003$)
Farebox Recovery
Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile
Average Fare
Performance Indicators
Performance indicators are used to present the data that are reported directly in the National Transit
Database (NTD) reports and relate to overall system performance. Selected performance indicators are
presented in Table 5-2 and Figures 5-1 through 5-6.
August 2009
5-2
Table 5-2
General Performance Indicators
Perform ance Measure
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
% Ch ange 20032008
General Perform ance
144,164
144,164
144,164
149,173
149,173
149,173
3.5%
Passenger Trips
8,103,120
8,066,278
8,041,803
8,562,284
8,939,334
9,004,928
11.1%
Vehicle Miles
2,582,491
2,806,894
2,820,508
2,831,654
2,934,800
2,977,556
15.3%
Revenue Miles
2,408,321
2,661,644
2,668,090
2,679,969
2,789,048
2,846,734
18.2%
Passenger Miles
27,153,323
27,029,866
26,947,851
28,683,651
29,946,768
25,213,798
-7.1%
$10,917,692
$12,608,960
$13,823,592
$14,568,986
$15,490,468
$16,396,047
50.2%
$10,917,692
$12,270,363
$12,902,239
$13,198,267
$13,798,623
$13,473,660
23.4%
$5,517,864
$6,325,217
$7,193,151
$7,961,439
$8,638,494
$8,870,168
60.8%
S ources: NTD a nd RTS
August 2009
5-3
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Passenger Trips
160,000
9,000,000
140,000
8,000,000
120,000
7,000,000
100,000
6,000,000
80,000
5,000,000
60,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
40,000
2,000,000
20,000
1,000,000
0
0
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Figure 5-3
Figure 5-4
Vehicle Miles
Revenue Miles
3,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
500,000
500,000
0
0
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Figure 5-5
Figure 5-6
Operating Expense
$10,000,000
$18,000,000
$9,000,000
$16,000,000
$8,000,000
$14,000,000
$7,000,000
$12,000,000
$6,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$8,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
Total Operating
Expense
Total Operating
Expense (in 2003$)
O
$0
$0
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
August 2009
5-4
The following is a summary of the trends that are evident among the performance indicators provided in Table 52 and Figures 5-1 through 5-6.

Service area population for RTS increased from 144,164 persons in 2003 to 149,173 persons in 2008,
an increase of almost 4 percent.

The passenger trips for RTS increased from 8,103,120 in 2003 to 9,004,928 in 2008, an increase of 11
percent.

Total vehicle miles of service have increased from 2,582,491 in 2003 to 2,977,556 in 2008, an increase
of 15 percent.

Similarly, revenue miles of service also increased from 2,408,321 in 2003 to 2,846,734 in 2008, an
increase of 18 percent.

Total operating expense increased from $10,917,692 in 2003 to $16,396,047 in 2008, an increase of
over 50 percent. However, the real dollar increase (adjusted for inflation) in total operating expense is
23 percent.

Passenger fare revenues have increased from $5,517,864 in 2003 to $8,870,168 in 2008, an increase
of almost 61 percent. In 1998, RTS and UF entered into an agreement that allowed UF students to prepay for unlimited transit service, which also resulted in an increase in passenger fare revenues.
Effectiveness Measures
Effectiveness measures indicate the extent to which service-related goals are being met. For example,
passenger trips per capita are a measure of the effectiveness of a system in meeting the transportation needs of
the community. Selected effectiveness measures are presented in Table 5-3 and Figures 5-7 through 5-14.
August 2009
5-5
Table 5-3
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
% Change 20032008
17.91
19.47
19.56
18.98
19.67
19.96
11.4%
56.21
55.95
55.78
57.40
59.93
60.37
7.4%
3.36
3.03
3.01
3.19
3.21
3.16
-6.0%
38.22
34.60
34.11
36.23
36.14
36.33
-4.9%
Average Age of Fleet (in years)
10.37
11.26
11.10
10.20
10.40
9.50
-8.4%
Average Headway (in minutes)
20.58
20.47
19.28
19.09
19.83
19.94
-3.1%
796
796
796
804
805
699
-12.2%
3,025.53
3,343.77
3,351.87
3,333.29
3,464.66
4,072.58
34.6%
19.25
19.25
19.25
19.25
20.25
20.17
4.8%
Performance Measure
Number of Vehicle System Failures
Revenue Miles Between Failures (000)
Weekday Span of Service (in hours)
August 2009
5-6
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-8
25.00
70.00
20.00
60.00
50.00
15.00
40.00
10.00
30.00
20.00
5.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Figure 5-9
Figure 5-10
4.00
45.00
3.50
40.00
3.00
35.00
30.00
2.50
25.00
2.00
20.00
1.50
15.00
1.00
10.00
0.50
5.00
0.00
0.00
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Figure 5-11
Figure 5-12
Revenue Miles Between Failures
4,500
900
4,000
750
3,500
600
3,000
2,500
450
2,000
1,500
300
1,000
150
500
0
0
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
August 2009
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
5-7
Figure 5-13
Figure 5-14
Average Age of Fleet (in years)
25.00
12.00
20.00
10.00
8.00
15.00
6.00
10.00
4.00
5.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
The following is a summary of the trends that are evident among the effectiveness measures presented in Table
5-3 and Figures 5-7 through 5-14.

Vehicle miles per capita increased by over 11 percent from 2003 through 2008.

Passenger trips per capita increased from 56.21 in 2003 to 60.37 in 2008, an increase of over 7
percent.

Passenger trips per revenue mile decreased from 3.36 in 2003 to 3.16 in 2008, a decrease of 6
percent.

Passenger trips per revenue hour decreased from 38.22 trips in 2003 to 36.33 trips in 2008, a decrease
of 5 percent.

The number of vehicle system failures decreased from 796 in 2003 to 699 in 2008, an overall decrease
of 12 percent. The revenue miles between failures, however, increased by nearly 35 percent due to an
increase in revenue miles during the same period.

Service availability increased from 19.25 hours per day to 20.17 hours per day, an increase of nearly 5
percent from 2003 to 2008.

The average fleet age decreased from 10.37 in 2003 to 9.5 in 2008, an overall decrease of 8 percent.
Efficiency Measures
Efficiency measures are designed to measure the level of resources necessary to achieve a given level of
output. Efficiency measures are presented in Table 5-4 and Figures 5-15 through 5-20.
August 2009
5-8
Table 5-4
Efficiency Measures
RTS Trend Analysis (2003-2008)
Performance Measure
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
% Change 20032008
Cost Efficiency
$75.73
$87.46
$95.89
$97.67
$103.84
$109.91
45.1%
$75.73
$85.11
$89.50
$88.48
$92.50
$90.32
19.3%
$1.35
$1.56
$1.72
$1.70
$1.73
$1.82
35.1%
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip (in 2003$)
$1.35
$1.52
$1.60
$1.54
$1.54
$1.50
11.1%
Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile
$0.40
$0.47
$0.51
$0.51
$0.52
$0.65
61.7%
Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile (in 2003$)
$0.40
$0.45
$0.48
$0.46
$0.46
$0.53
32.9%
$4.53
$4.74
$5.18
$5.44
$5.55
$5.76
27.1%
$4.53
$4.61
$4.84
$4.92
$4.95
$4.73
4.4%
Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour
$51.49
$54.08
$58.63
$61.65
$62.63
$66.16
28.5%
Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour (in 2003$)
$51.49
$52.63
$54.72
$55.85
$55.79
$54.37
5.6%
54.65%
55.77%
54.10%
7.0%
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.96
2.5%
$0.89
$0.93
$0.97
$0.99
45.6%
Operating Ratios
Farebox Recovery
50.54%
50.16%
52.04%
Vehicle Utilization
0.93
0.95
Fares
Average Fare
$0.68
$0.78
Source: NTD and RTS
August 2009
5-9
Figure 5-15
Figure 5-16
$2.00
$1.80
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
$60.00
Operating Expense Per
Capita
Capita (in 2003$)
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Passenger Trip
Passenger Trip (in 2003$)
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Figure 5-17
Figure 5-18
Farebox Recovery Ratio
$7.00
60.00%
$6.00
50.00%
$5.00
40.00%
$4.00
30.00%
$3.00
Revenue Mile
Revenue Mile (in 2003$)
$2.00
$1.00
20.00%
10.00%
$0.00
0.00%
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Figure 5-19
Figure 5-20
Average Fare
1.20
$1.20
1.00
$1.00
0.80
$0.80
0.60
$0.60
0.40
$0.40
0.20
$0.20
0.00
$0.00
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
The following is a summary of the trends that are evident among the cost efficiency measures presented in
Table 5-4 and Figures 5-15 through 5-20.

Operating expense per capita increased by 45 percent from $75.73 in 2003 to $109.91 in 2008. The
real dollar increase, however, is 19 percent.
August 2009
5-10

Operating expense per passenger trip increased from $1.35 in 2003 to $1.82 in 2008, an increase of 35
percent in nominal dollars and 11 percent in real dollars.

Operating expense per revenue mile increased from $4.53 in 2003 to $5.76 in 2008, an increase of 27
percent in nominal dollars and less than 5 percent in real dollars.

Farebox recovery increased from 50.5 percent in 2003 to 54.1 percent in 2008, an increase of 7
percent.

Revenue miles per vehicle mile increased from 0.93 in 2003 to 0.96 in 2008, an increase of 2.5 percent.

The average fare increased from $0.68 in 2003 to $0.99 in 2008, an increase of nearly 46 percent.
Summary of Trend Analysis
The trend analysis is only one aspect of transit performance evaluation. However, when combined with the peer
review analysis, the results provide a starting point for understanding the trends in transit system performance
over time and compared to other systems with similar characteristics.
Some of the key trends are described below.
Service Consumption – Passenger trips per capita has shown a positive trend over a relatively short period,
from 2003 to 2008. Passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per revenue hour have shown a
negative trend over the same period. This shows that there are more people accessing the system; however,
these passengers are traveling for shorter distances and time periods.
Service Supply – Vehicle miles per capita (service supply) has increased through 2008.
Quality of Service – The measures analyzed in this category have indicated positive trends from 2003 to 2008.
The number of vehicle system failures has decreased and the revenue miles between failures have increased.
This simply stated means that there are less overall failures, leading to an overall increase in service reliability.
Cost Efficiency – Cost efficiency over the 6-year period was measured by analyzing both the nominal and real
dollar changes in costs. To analyze the costs in real dollars, all costs were deflated to 2003 dollars using annual
deflation rates of 2.69 percent for 2004, 3.39 percent for 2005, 3.24 percent for 2006, 2.85 percent for 2007, and
3.85 percent for 2008 that are based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Operating Ratios – The farebox recovery ratio had a positive trend from 2003-2008.
Table 5-5 summarizes the trend analysis showing the positive and negative trends identified in the analysis.
August 2009
5-11
Table 5-5
Summary of Trend Analysis (2003-2008)
Measure/Indicator
Change
(2003-2008)
General Performance
3.5%
Passenger Trips
11.1%
Vehicle Miles
15.3%
Revenue Miles
18.2%
50.2%
23.4%
60.8%
Service Supply
11.4%
Service Consumption
7.4%
-6.0%
-4.9%
Quality of Service
-12.2%
Revenue Miles Between Vehicle System Failures
34.6%
Availability
Weekday Span of Service
4.8%
Cost Efficiency
45.1%
19.3%
35.1%
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip (in 2003$)
11.1%
27.1%
4.4%
Operating Ratio
Farebox Recovery Ratio
7.0%
Vehicle Utilization
Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Miles
2.5%
Fare
Average Fare
45.6%
Source: NTD and RTS
August 2009
5-12
ADA Ridership Trend
In addition to regular fixed-route trips, RTS’s complementary ADA paratransit trips have increased from 32,527 in
2003 to 38,314 in 2008. As shown in Figure 5-21, ADA passenger trips increased significantly from 2004 to 2006.
The demand has increased by nearly 18 percent since 2003.
Figure 5-21
RTS ADA Ridership Trend
RTS ADA Ridership
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FIXED-ROUTE PEER REVIEW
A peer review analysis was conducted for RTS to compare its performance at a given point in time with other
similar agencies. The peer review was conducted using 2007 NTD data, the most current validated NTD data
available. Selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are provided
throughout this section in tabular and graphical formats to illustrate the performance of the fixed-route system
relative to the peer group. For each selected indicator and measure, the tables provide the RTS 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 RTS values are away from the mean. The methodology used to select the peer
systems is discussed below.
Peer System Selection Methodology
The peer selection was conducted using the 2008 Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) database. At the
time of the peer selection process, the most current data available in the FTIS database was 2006 NTD data.
The peers were identified through an objective assessment of five standard variables in NTD. After the peer
systems were selected utilizing the FTIS database, the 2007 NTD data for each peer system was obtained
through the NTD website and used to conduct the peer review analysis. The variables used to select the peer
systems include:



Geography (southeastern United States)
Operating Expense
August 2009
5-13


Revenue Miles
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
First, the peer group selection was based on geographic location; the states included were Louisiana, Arkansas,
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Fixed-route systems
operating in these southeastern states were identified and analyzed based on the four remaining variables.
Based on the results of the FTIS peer selection process and input from RTS staff, seven transit systems were
selected for the peer review analysis. Table 5-6 presents the selected peers.
Selected performance indicators for the peer review are presented in this section. Categories of performance
indicators include population, population density, ridership, revenue miles, and vehicles. Table 5-7 and Figures
5-22 through 5-29 present the performance indicators for the RTS peer review analysis.
August 2009
5-14
Table 5-6
Selected Peer Systems
RTS Peer Review Analysis
Transit System
Location
StarMetro
Tallahassee, Florida
Lee County Transit (LeeTran)
Ft. Myers, Florida
Chatham Area Transit (CAT)
Savannah, Georgia
Knoxville Area Transit (KAT)
Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority
(CARTA)
Knoxville, Tennessee
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Lane Transit District (LTD)
Eugene, Oregon
Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (CUMTD)
Urbana, Illinois
Table 5-7
RTS Peer Review Analysis (2007)
RTS
Peer Group
Minimum
Peer Group
Maximum
Peer Group
Mean
RTS %
from the
Mean
149,173
2,016
8,939,334
2,789,048
247,350
123,484
530
2,524,263
1,649,564
139,419
451,153
4,116
9,757,984
3,464,018
279,688
215,128
1,919
5,577,995
2,593,871
203,648
-30.66%
5.07%
60.26%
7.52%
21.46%
88
$15,490,468
$8,638,494
45
$10,787,717
$1,131,023
91
$29,461,278
$8,638,494
66
$15,867,677
$3,672,519
32.58%
-2.38%
135.22%
Indicator
Service Area Population Density
Passenger Trips
Revenue Miles
Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum
Service
Passenger Fare Revenues
Figure 5-22
Figure 5-23
(persons/square mile)
CUM TD
CUM TD
LTD
Mean
LTD
RTS
Mean
RTS
CARTA
KAT
CARTA
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
CAT
0
100,000
200,000
August 2009
300,000
400,000
500,000
0
5-15
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Figure 5-24
Figure 5-25
Passenger Trips
Revenue Miles
CUM TD
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
CARTA
Mean
RTS
CARTA
KAT
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
CAT
0
2,500,000
M ean
LTD
5,000,000
7,500,000
0
10,000,000
1,000,000
Figure 5-26
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
Figure 5-27
Revenue Hours
CUM TD
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
RTS
M ean
LTD
CARTA
KAT
CARTA
Mean
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
CAT
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
0
20
Figure 5-28
40
60
80
100
Figure 5-29
Operating Expense
CUM TD
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
M e an
LTD
RTS
CARTA
KAT
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
CAT
$0
$10,000,000
August 2009
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
M ean
CARTA
$0
5-16
$2,500,000
$5,000,000
$7,500,000
$10,000,000
The following is a summary of the peer review analysis performance indicators, based on the information
presented in Table 5-7 and Figures 5-22 through 5-29.

Service area population for RTS is less than the peer group average, 31 percent below the mean, while
the population density is 6 percent above the mean.

The passenger trips for RTS are more than 60 percent above the peer group mean.

Revenue miles for RTS are 7.5 percent above the peer group mean.

RTS’s vehicles operated in maximum service are above the peer group mean by 33 percent.

Operating expense for RTS is less than the peer group average by 2.4 percent, while passenger fare
revenues are above the peer group average by more than 135 percent.
Categories of effectiveness measures include service supply, service consumption, and quality of service.
These categories are each represented by one variable: vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per revenue
mile, and weekday span of service. Table 5-8 and Figures 5-30 through 5-34 present the effectiveness
measures for the RTS peer review analysis.
Table 5-8
RTS
Peer
Group
Minimum
Peer
Group
Maximum
Peer
Group
Mean
RTS %
from the
Mean
19.67
6.99
21.49
14.34
37.17%
3.21
1.01
3.57
2.13
50.26%
20.25
17.07
22.03
19.62
3.23%
36.14
14.98
42.75
26.39
36.92%
59.93
6.73
74.16
31.68
89.16%
Measure
Source: 2007 NTD
August 2009
5-17
Figure 5-30
Figure 5-31
CUM TD
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
RTS
CARTA
CARTA
KAT
KAT
LeeTran
Mean
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
0.00
Mean
LTD
CAT
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
0.00
1.00
Figure 5-32
3.00
4.00
Figure 5-33
LTD
RTS
RTS
CARTA
CARTA
M ean
LTD
KAT
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM et ro
CAT
CAT
5.00
10.00
15.00
Mean
CUM TD
CUM TD
0.00
2.00
20.00
0.00
25.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
Figure 5-34
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
Mean
CARTA
KAT
LeeTran
StarM etro
CAT
0.00
15.00
30.00
45.00
60.00
75.00
90.00
The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures for the peer review analysis.

Vehicle miles per capita for RTS are over 37 percent above the peer group mean.
August 2009
5-18

Passenger trips per revenue mile for RTS are over 50 percent above the peer group mean.

Weekday span of service for RTS is more than 3 percent above the peer group mean.
Efficiency Measures
Categories of efficiency measures include cost efficiency and operating ratios. Table 5-9 and Figures 5-35
through 5-41 present the efficiency measures for the RTS peer review analysis.
Table 5-9
Efficiency Measures
RTS
Peer
Group
Minimum
Peer
Group
Maximum
Peer
Group
Mean
RTS % from
the Mean
$103.84
$33.80
$16.75
$83.80
23.92%
$1.73
$1.73
$5.02
$3.26
-46.89%
$5.55
$4.54
$8.50
$6.06
-8.41%
$62.63
$56.64
$105.34
$76.91
-18.58%
Farebox Recovery Ratio (%)
55.77%
9.13%
55.77%
23.49%
137.36%
0.95
0.90
0.97
0.94
0.57%
Average Fare
$0.97
$0.35
$0.97
$0.65
47.63%
Measure
Source: 2007 NTD
Figure 5-35
Figure 5-36
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
RTS
Mean
CARTA
KAT
CARTA
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
CAT
$0.00
Mean
CUM TD
LTD
$35.00
$70.00
August 2009
$105.00
$140.00
$175.00
$0.00
5-19
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$ 5.00
$6.00
Figure 5-37
Figure 5-38
CUM TD
CUM TD
LTD
Mean
LTD
CA RTA
KA T
KA T
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CA T
CA T
$ 0.00
Mean
RTS
CA RTA
RTS
$ 2.00
$ 4.00
$ 6.00
$ 8.00
$0.00
$ 10.00
$25.00
Figure 5-39
LTD
LTD
RTS
CARTA
Mean
RTS
CARTA
KAT
LeeTran
LeeTran
StarM etro
StarM etro
CAT
CAT
20%
M ean
CUM TD
10%
$100.00
CUM TD
0%
$ 75.00
Figure 5-40
Farebox Recovery
KAT
$50.00
30%
40%
50%
60%
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
Figure 5-41
Average Fare
CUM TD
LTD
RTS
M ean
CARTA
KAT
LeeTran
StarM etro
CAT
$ 0.00
August 2009
$0.25
$ 0.50
5-20
$0.75
$ 1.00
The following is a summary of the efficiency measures for the peer review analysis.

Operating expense per capita for RTS is 24 percent above the peer group mean.

Operating expense per passenger trip for RTS is 47 percent below the peer group mean.

Operating expense per revenue mile for RTS is over 8 percent below the peer group mean, while
operating expense per revenue hour is nearly 19 percent below the peer group mean.

Farebox recovery for RTS is significantly above the peer group mean, at 137 percent above the peer
group mean.
August 2009
5-21
Summary Results for Peer Review Analysis
Table 5-10 provides a summary of the peer review analysis for the RTS fixed-route system. The summary
includes the percent that RTS is away from the peer group mean for each performance measure.
Table 5-10
RTS Peer Review Analysis Summary (2007)
Performance
Indicators/Measures
Percent from
the Mean
-30.66%
5.07%
Passenger Trips
60.26%
Revenue Miles
7.52%
Revenue Hours
21.46%
32.58%
-2.38%
Passenger Fare Revenues
135.22%
Service Supply
37.17%
Service Consumption
50.26%
Quality of Service
3.23%
Cost Efficiency
23.92%
-46.89%
-8.41%
-18.58%
Operating Ratio
Farebox Recovery Ratio (%)
137.36%
Vehicle Utilization
0.57%
Fare
Average Fare
August 2009
47.63%
5-22
TRANSIT CAPACITY & SUPPLY ANALYSIS
The process used to estimate capacity for the RTS fixed-route system examines the number of routes in operation
and the size and number of vehicles in use to determine the number of potential trips that can be carried per year.
There are more sophisticated methods of determining system-wide capacity; however, based on the size of the RTS
system and the demographic make-up of Alachua County, a more simplified method was chosen. The same
methodology was applied in the estimation of ADA/paratransit services.
Fixed-Route Service Supply/Capacity Analysis
The methodology used to estimate transit capacity is based on mileage. In order to determine capacity at the route
level, the estimated seat miles and passenger miles were estimated using an assumed average trip length. The
assumed average trip length was calculated by dividing FY 2008 passenger miles traveled by the total annual
passenger trips. The methodology for the system-wide capacity estimation is as follows:
Step 1: Annual revenue miles, vehicle capacity, and ridership by route were provided by RTS staff. The route length
for each RTS route was calculated using ArcGIS geographic information system data.
Step 2: The estimated annual seat miles were calculated by multiplying the revenue miles by the average vehicle
capacity. This provides a measure of potential route capacity based on the actual revenue miles of service and the
maximum number of passengers that can be transported.
Revenue Miles
(2,846,734)
X Average Vehicle Capacity = Estimated Annual Seat Miles
(41)
(116,716,094)
Step 3: Annual passenger miles were estimated by multiplying the average trip length by the total number of
passenger trips. This provides a measure of actual passenger miles traveled in 2008, showing the actual capacity
utilized by riders.
Passenger Trips X Average Trip Length = Annual Passenger Miles
(9,004,928)
(2.8)
(25,213,798)
Step 4: To determine the estimated excess capacity, the estimated passenger miles for each route for October 2007
through September 2008 was compared to the estimated annual seat miles to determine the percent of the capacity
being used.
Estimated Passenger Miles / Estimated Seat Miles = Percent of Capacity Being Used
(25,213,798)
(116,716,094)
(21.6%)
100% - Percent of Capacity Being Used = Remaining Capacity
(100%)
(21.6%)
(78.4%)
August 2009
5-23
Table 5-11 summarizes the process used to estimate annual capacity for the existing service routes.
Fixed-Route Capacity Analysis Summary
Based on the estimated capacity analysis, RTS was using approximately 22 percent of its possible capacity in 2008.
This shows that the existing bus service has substantial capacity remaining. Routes with the least amount of excess
capacity include Routes 17, 21, 118, 120, 125, and 127. Routes with the largest amount of excess capacity include
Routes 128, 301, and 305. Excess capacities for these three routes are 99 percent, 93 percent, and 96 percent,
respectively. RTS discontinued service on Route 128 effective May 2008. In addition, RTS discontinued service on
Route 305 effective May 2009.
Excess capacity is not necessary a weakness in the system. The ridership-to-capacity ratio should be monitored
over time as part of future major updates to the TDP. In addition, route-by-route average trip length estimates are
needed in order to provide a more accurate reflection of unused capacity along all fixed-routes.
August 2009
5-24
Table 5-11
2008 Fixed-Route Transit Supply / Capacity Analysis
Route
Revenue
Miles
Average
Vehicle
Capacity*
Estimated
Annual Seat
Miles
Average
Trip
Length**
FY 2008
Annual
Ridership
1
113,923
41
4,670,823
2.8
464,589
Annual
Percent of
Passenger
Capacity
Miles
Estimated
Excess
Capacity
1,300,849
27.9%
72.1%
2
54,765
41
2,245,381
2.8
93,860
262,808
11.7%
88.3%
5
161,200
41
6,609,188
2.8
450,620
1,261,736
19.1%
80.9%
6
45,344
41
1,859,104
2.8
100,829
282,321
15.2%
84.8%
7
47,829
41
1,960,977
2.8
110,679
309,901
15.8%
84.2%
8
141,388
41
5,796,888
2.8
320,345
896,966
15.5%
84.5%
9
173,535
41
7,114,935
2.8
720,429
2,017,201
28.4%
71.6%
10
54,323
41
2,227,223
2.8
75,694
211,943
9.5%
90.5%
11
46,161
41
1,892,585
2.8
113,839
318,749
16.8%
83.2%
12
164,074
41
6,727,042
2.8
647,671
1,813,479
27.0%
73.0%
13
96,183
41
3,943,511
2.8
393,343
1,101,360
27.9%
72.1%
15
109,946
41
4,507,798
2.8
272,139
761,989
16.9%
83.1%
16
69,597
41
2,853,489
2.8
295,540
827,512
29.0%
71.0%
17
52,111
41
2,136,547
2.8
242,051
677,743
31.7%
68.3%
20
218,355
41
8,952,539
2.8
849,568
2,378,790
26.6%
73.4%
21
75,070
41
3,077,862
2.8
337,313
944,476
30.7%
69.3%
24
68,797
41
2,820,665
2.8
104,919
293,773
10.4%
89.6%
29
10,844
41
444,612
2.8
17,085
47,838
10.8%
89.2%
34
120,955
41
4,959,169
2.8
353,542
989,918
20.0%
80.0%
35
169,756
41
6,959,996
2.8
543,509
1,521,825
21.9%
78.1%
36
39,708
41
1,628,016
2.8
117,672
329,482
20.2%
79.8%
43
77,710
41
3,186,094
2.8
152,980
428,344
13.4%
86.6%
75
138,852
41
5,692,924
2.8
228,723
640,424
11.2%
88.8%
300
31,368
41
1,286,084
2.8
45,333
126,932
9.9%
90.1%
301
25,512
41
1,045,992
2.8
26,122
73,142
7.0%
93.0%
302
24,238
41
993,752
2.8
33,622
94,142
9.5%
90.5%
305
22,707
41
930,977
2.8
13,819
38,693
4.2%
95.8%
117
33,627
41
1,378,695
2.8
137,424
384,787
27.9%
72.1%
118
71,833
41
2,945,141
2.8
535,985
1,500,758
51.0%
49.0%
119
20,612
41
845,084
2.8
76,283
213,592
25.3%
74.7%
120
38,110
41
1,562,506
2.8
291,816
817,085
52.3%
47.7%
121
56,407
41
2,312,687
2.8
227,583
637,232
27.6%
72.4%
122
33,406
41
1,369,626
2.8
49,083
137,432
10.0%
90.0%
125
37,762
41
1,548,242
2.8
237,990
666,372
43.0%
57.0%
126
41,463
41
1,699,979
2.8
59,676
167,093
9.8%
90.2%
127
27,040
41
1,108,628
2.8
216,399
605,917
54.7%
45.3%
128
6,116
41
250,756
2.8
1,002
2,806
1.1%
98.9%
400-408
37,645
41
1,543,457
2.8
45,852
128,386
8.3%
91.7%
Total
2,758,268
41
113,088,970
2.8
9,004,928
25,213,798
22.3%
77.7%
*Based on vehicle inventory provided by RTS. Average seating capacity for all traditional bus routes is calculated by dividng the total seating capacity for all vehcles in the fleet by the
total number of vehicles.
**Systemwide average trip length estimated at 2.8 for all fixed-bus routes.
August 2009
5-25
Demand-Response Service Supply / Capacity Analysis
The demand response services for purchased transportation were evaluated to estimate annual capacity for 2008.
The methodology used for the demand response service capacity estimation was identical to that of the fixed-route
outlined in the previous subsection. Table 5-12 summarizes the process used to estimate annual capacity for the
existing demand response services.
Table 5-12
2008 Demand Response Service Transit Capacity / Analysis
Demand Response Purchased
Transportation
Revenue
Miles
Average
Vehicle
Capacity*
Estimated
Annual
Seat Miles
Average
Trip
Length**
FY 2008
Annual
Ridership
408,063
8
3,369,136
8
38,314
Annual
Percent of
Passenger
Capacity
Miles
315,707
9.4%
Estimated
Excess
Capacity
90.6%
*Based on FY 2008 NTD
**Average trip length estimated at 8.2 for all ADA trips.
Demand Response Service Capacity Analysis Summary
Based on the estimated capacity analysis, RTS is using approximately 9 percent of the possible capacity. This
shows that demand response service has substantial capacity remaining. Excess capacity is not necessarily a
weakness in the system, given the nature of the requested trips. Expecting full paratransit vans is unrealistic since
the service operates on the basis of advanced trip reservations, and multi-loading is often difficult to accommodate
given the often diverse nature of origins and destinations for each patron.
August 2009
5-26
Section 6: Review of Plans, Studies, and Policies
A major component of the TDP update is the review and assessment of relevant plans, studies, and policies. The
results of this effort provide information to support an understanding of transit planning issues in the Gainesville area
and, more importantly, support the performance of a situational appraisal, which is an assessment of the operating
environment for the transit system (see Section 7 of the TDP). This section reviews transit policies at the local,
regional, state, and federal levels of government. For the sake of brevity, the most important documents in terms of
their relevance to transit are summarized below, while many other documents are summarized in Appendix D.
LOCAL
The following section includes summaries of plans affecting Alachua County and the City of Gainesville.
Alachua County Comprehensive Plan
Florida law requires every incorporated municipality and county to adopt a comprehensive plan that is consistent with
the Growth Management Act of 1985. The Growth Management Act requires comprehensive plans to be consistent
with state and regional plans. For communities with a population over 50,000, comprehensive plans must include a
Transportation Element that summarizes existing and future transportation conditions, how those conditions relate to
what the community considers the ideal transportation situation, and how the community proposes to get there. The
Alachua County Comprehensive Plan is the primary policy document concerning land use, transportation, and other
planning categories for the County.
The Alachua County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1991, with the most recent amendments updating the
comprehensive plan adopted in 2002. Only the goals and objectives that are relevant to public transportation are
summarized below.
August 2009
6-1
Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.3.9.2:
Multi-family development in medium-high density and high density residential and use categories shall provide bus
shelters, if warranted based on the existing or planned bus service. The need for shelters will be determined through
consultation with the appropriate transit provider. Pedestrian facilities will be connected into the nearest pedestrian
network and available or planned mass transit facility.
Policy 2.5.4 and 2.5.6:
The development of Urban Activity Centers shall provide pedestrian and bicycle-friendly access, and provide transit
facilities to the development and surrounding community. The development of the activity center located at Archer
Road and 34th Street shall include an area for an RTS shelter and park-and-ride lot. The shelter and parking area will
be provided after RTS officials determine there is a need for the facilities. The activity center development at Tower
Road and 24th Avenue shall provide a comfortable, multi-functional space for transit riders waiting for buses. Parkand-ride bicycle storage will also be provided.
Policy 3.2.4 and 3.5.1:
According to the comprehensive plan, all neighborhood, community, and regional shopping centers shall include
pedestrian access, bicycle parking areas, bus bays, and bus shelters in an effort to encourage alternative
transportation modes. Regional shopping centers shall be served by mass transportation routes and shall be
designed to accommodate mass transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Policy 5.4.1 and 5.4.5:
Civic and government facilities, including future library branches, should be located on transit routes, in activity
centers, village centers, or near other community services to ensure accessibility. All major health facilities should be
accessible by mass transit.
Approval of applications for new developments in areas designated for urban residential uses within the Urban
Cluster, but outside the Urban Service Line shall be considered based on the existing public transit service within ¼mile, or a planned public transit line, or alternatives, which are funded and assured to be operational in time to serve
the first phase of development and each subsequent phase.
Policy 8.5.5:
Alachua County will coordinate with the MTPO and the City of Gainesville to establish a BRT system connecting east
Gainesville with centers of employment and commerce.
Transportation Mobility Element
Policy 1.1.5a:
According to the Transportation Mobility Element from the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, ridesharing
promotion and assistance (contingent upon funding) from the FDOT in terms of assistance for park-and-ride lots and
August 2009
6-2
transit service shall be implemented as part of the strategy to maintain or improve the adopted level of service
standard.
Policy 1.2.5:
Alachua County TCEA mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to the following:






Intersection and/or signalization modifications to improve roadway operations and safety
Construction of bus shelters or stations
Construction of bus turn-out facilities
Provisions for employee / resident bus pass programs
Payments to RTS in order to increase frequencies or extend service
Provisions of ridesharing or vanpooling programs
In order for project to be eligible for the TCEA, the project shall meet the following criteria:






Located within ¼-mile of an existing public transit line, or a planned public transit line, with 15 minute peak
hour frequencies, or alternatives that are funded and assured to be operational within the first phase of the
development. The alternatives may include services such as express bus service or other transit service
that meets the requirements.
The development plan includes public transit facilities and services designed to maximize the use of the
public transit line by persons expected to live and / or work within the proposed development.
The development provides a transit shelter or station on the public transit line of sufficient size to
accommodate the persons expected to live and / or work / shop within the project boundaries. The transit
shelter / station shall be safe, comfortable, and convenience for its intended users. The station shall be
located near the center of the project and shall not be a single purpose facility, but instead shall include a
mix of uses and amenities.
The project must be designed in such a way as to provide easy access for transit to serve the project. The
project should be designed to allow 80 percent of the residents / workers walking access to the transit
station. As an alternative, the project may provide for 80 percent of the users to have walking access to a
feeder service that provides for fast and easy access to the mainline shelter / station via shuttles, vans, or
some other automated form of people mover (other than a single-occupant vehicle). For the purposes of
these criteria, walking access is defined as being within ¼-mile.
Safe, comfortable, pedestrian-friendly, and bicycle-friendly facilities shall be provided for the transit shelters,
stations, and stops, including the appropriate bicycle parking and lockers.
The project shall provide a commercial center that includes the main transit station.
Transit
Policy 3.3.1:
According to the Transit Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, Alachua County will provide pertinent
data to the City of Gainesville to enhance planning for the RTS service area in the unincorporated portion of the
County. The County will coordinate with the City to establish future mass transit rights-of-way and / or corridors. The
August 2009
6-3
future rights-of-way will be protected by Alachua County through its development review process. Rights-of-way
necessary on County-maintained projects shall be acquired as soon as funds become available for such specific
projects. The County will coordinate with FDOT to determine right-of-way needs when proposed right-of-way is
located on state-maintained roadways.
Future developments at densities and intensities suitable for mass transit within or adjacent to the RTS service area
shall be designed to facilitate the use of mass transit through site design features such as covered bus stops,
pedestrian access to and from bus stops, and bus pullouts where they can be designed for easy access onto the
main line.
Policy 3.6.1:
Mass transit, and other measures such as van or carpooling and provision with the private sector of park-and-ride
facilities, shall be developed as part of the Transportation Demand Management strategies to maintain or improve
levels of service on roadway segments through non-capital intensive means.
Policy 3.6.2:
Alachua County shall continue to coordinate transit issues with its municipalities, RTS, other transportation providers,
transportation disadvantaged programs, FDOT, and the MTPO.
Policy 3.2.2:
Alachua County will also continue to provide support for the operation of paratransit service in unincorporated
Alachua County in order to provide 24-hour ambulatory and wheelchair service on a demand response basis within
the available financial resources.
City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan
The City of Gainesville is in the process of developing its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The EAR process, as required by Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3191, offers an opportunity for
the City to identify major issues and address these issues when updating the Comprehensive Plan. The following
summarizes the transportation-related goals and objectives included the City’s most recent Comprehensive Plan.
To promote mixed-use development within the City, the City recommends incorporating a transit stop into future
developments. The City’s adopted Growth Management Framework includes an Alternative Design Concept. The
Future Alternative Design Concept identifies potential future visions for Gainesville. Concept A, which is consistent to
the MTPO Livable Community Reinvestment Plan, promotes a vision that includes a high level of premium transit
service in a linear Archer Road corridor.

In order to qualify for the Urban Infill and Redevelopment Grant Program, local governments must
demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the area is within ¼-mile of a transit stop, or a sufficient number of
such transit stops will be made available concurrent with the designation.
August 2009
6-4
Transportation Mobility Element




The City must create an environment that promotes transportation choices, compact development, and a
livable city.
Site plans for new developments and redevelopment of non-residential sites shall be required to show any
existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian access to adjacent properties and transit stops.
The City shall strive to implement transportation-related aspects of Plan East Gainesville, including but not
limited to:
o
Coordinating with the MTPO to establish a Bus Rapid Transit system connecting east
Gainesville with centers of employment and commerce (Policy 1.1.13).
o
Include in the transportation network provisions for bicyclists, transit users, and pedestrians on
NE 15th Street, East University Avenue, Main Street, and NE 8th Avenue, where applicable
(Policy 1.1.13).
By 2005, the City shall continue to work with FDOT, MTPO, and Alachua County to identify future
transportation rights-of-way and to provide for development regulations and acquisition programs which will
protect such corridors for their intended future use. Such protection and long-range planning shall include
pedestrian, bicycle, car, and transit facilities (Policy 1.4.1).
Transit Element
CREATE A PREMIERE COMMUNITY TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES A VARIETY OF FLEXIBLE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES THAT PROMOTE ACCESSIBILITY AND COMFORT. THE CITY SHALL BECOME
A NATIONAL MODEL FOR EXPANDED AND ENHANCED TRANSIT SERVICE THROUGH AGGRESSIVE
EFFORTS TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND URBAN AREA. SERVICE
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE CLEANEST, QUIETEST, MOST EFFICIENT EQUIPMENT FEASIBLE.




Design RTS to strike a balance between the needs of those who are transit-dependent, and the need to
become a viable service designed for the substantially larger market of those who have a choice about
using the bus. Viable service shall be supported by ensuring that the bus system serves major trip
generators and attractors such as the UF campus and neighborhood (activity) centers, and that employment
and housing are adequately served by safe, pleasant and convenient transit stops, while also providing for
the transportation-disadvantaged.
The City shall strive to increase the amount of land designated for multi-family development, when
appropriate, on the Future Land Use Map near important transit stops along arterials and collectors.
The City shall strive to link its land use and transportation planning by establishing neighborhood (activity)
centers as “transit-oriented developments.” Ideally, transit hubs will evolve into having a sense of place and
community.
By 2005, the City shall evaluate the citywide bus stops to identify needs for bus stop improvements such as
well-designed shelters, bicycle parking, route information, benches, waste receptacles, or the need for a
new bus stop (Policy 3.1.3).
o
Transit stop enhancements
August 2009
6-5











 Comfortable seating
 Roof protection from sun and rain
 Easy-to-read route maps and schedules
 Lighting
 Bicycle parking
 Easily recognizable as a city RTS bus stop
The City shall acquire additional buses to accommodate expanded services and increased ridership (Policy
3.1.4).
The City shall support expansion of the Bus Card Pass membership to include Shands employees, and
consider establishing a program that would provide one to more city residents (Policy 3.1.5).
Increase transit ridership. Strive to carry 8 million riders per year by 2005 and 10 million riders per year by
2010 (Objective 3.2).
The City shall strive for a residential density of at least 8 units per acre for developments in areas that are or
will be served by frequent transit.
The City shall equip new RTS bus stops with easy-to-understand timetable and route information and an
easily recognizable RTS logo (Policy 3.2.2).
The City shall strive to provide main bus service within 1/4 mile of 80 percent of all medium and high density
residential areas identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, and within the RTS
service area (Policy 3.2.3).
The City bus service shall be expanded to serve a diverse cross-section of Gainesville residents (Policy
3.2.4).
The City bus service shall be enhanced to improve reliability and expand weekday evening and weekend
service (Policy 3.2.5).
By 2005, the City shall strive to have bicycle parking facilities designed in conformance with City bicycle
parking standards at all major transit stops and transfer points within city limits (Policy 4.1.12).
The City shall work with and encourage large employers to develop incentives to offer employees to reduce
single-occupant vehicle trips to work, such as flex hours, subsidized transit passes or parking cash-out
policies, for their employees (Policy 7.1.12).
The City shall monitor the ridership potential for main bus service to the Gainesville Regional Airport, and
institute such service when the City Commission determines that demand warrants transit service to the
airport and the surrounding (Policy 9.1.1).
City Transit Priorities
 Obtain additional local funding for public transit operations.
o Currently, the County has the ability to increase the local option gas tax by 5 cents. The Alachua
County Transportation Funding Advisory Committee has recommended the County increase the
tax by 5 cents, as well as dedicate a portion of the increase in County ad valorem revenue to
transportation over the next 5 years. These actions would make available an additional $7 million
per year in funding for all transportation. The committee recommended that approximately $1
million per year of the total $7 million should be allocated to public transit. The City should work
with the County to implement the recommended increase in transportation funding.
 Pursue on-going Congressional earmarks of transit capital funds.
August 2009
6-6
The City obtained 21 used buses from two other Florida transit systems in 1998. These buses were
needed to sustain a substantial increase in ridership being experienced by the transit system. All of
these buses were already eligible for replacement under federal regulations. They need to be
immediately replaced. The City obtained a Congressional earmark of federal transit capital funds
for FY 1999 in the amount of $1.5 million. This amount will allow the purchase of 5 buses and
related equipment. An earmark of $5.5 million to purchase another 19 buses will be made for FY
2001. Congressional earmark requests for transit should be made regularly.
Obtain additional FDOT funding for transit operations.
o The City, working with the County through the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization
(MTPO), successfully encouraged FDOT to include the purchase of buses with Federal Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds in the FDOT work program in 1998. Through the MTPO, the
City should pursue the allocation of FDOT state highway funds to transit operating expenses. All
FDOT state funds are flexible and may be used for either transit operating or transit capital
projects. Many local transit routes serve state corridors, such as US 441, SR 20, and SR 24. FDOT
needs to be encouraged to share in the operating expenses of transit that serves state corridors.
A multi-jurisdictional transit authority.
o Since the City acquired the Regional Transit System from Alachua County in the early 1980s, the
City has been the primary local funding agency for transit in the Gainesville urbanized area. At the
time the transit system was acquired there was much more federal operating assistance available
than is now the case. As a result, the City’s financial commitment to the transit system (which
serves the entire urbanized area) has increased to the point that almost all of the City’s share of
the local option gas tax is now devoted to the transit system. On the other hand, the County’s
financial commitment has remained modest and not connected to the amount of bus service
provided to unincorporated areas. Recently, UF has made a major commitment to funding transit
service through its Campus Development Plan and a new Student Government transit fee paid by
each student.
Increase bus frequency
o In October 1985, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council cited a study calling for 10minute frequency (headways) during peak periods and 20-minute frequency off-peak. Calthorpe
calls for 15-minute frequency throughout the day. See Table 5 for current frequencies for RTS
buses.
Bus traffic signal pre-emption/priority
o These devices allow bus drivers to trigger a green light at traffic signals. They are currently
available to the City Fire Department.
RTS is currently seeking the following to correct deficiencies in transferring from another form of travel to the
bus. For example, funding is needed to construct the new transfer facility at in the Depot Area downtown, as
well as a terminal or transfer station near or on the UF campus. “Busways” may be needed along University
Avenue and Archer Road. Park-and-ride lots are needed at Gainesville Mall, Haile Plantation, Winn Dixie on
NW 13th Street, and the Winn Dixie on South Main Street.
The overall capacity of the RTS system is, in most cases, adequate to handle trips in the year 2000.
However, additional capacity is required in particular areas – particularly in Southwest Gainesville and
o






August 2009
6-7
nearby southwestern unincorporated urban areas, where people are being left at bus stops because buses
are full on weekday mornings.
Transit System Capital Needs
 The Florida Department of Transportation 5-Year Work Program, dated February 14, 2000, contains the
following committed capital projects for the transit system:
o Passenger amenities (benches, shelters, and related)
o Expansion of the bus fleet to include “Alternate Fuel” buses (15 in FY 00’-01’ & 4 in FY 01’-02’)
o Land acquisition and design funding for new transfer center
 The Gainesville RTS prepared a Capital Improvement Program in 1999 that, in addition to the above,
included the following:
o 25 40-foot, ADA-compliant replacement buses over the next 5 years.
o 7 expansion buses (40-foot, ADA-compliant) to carry the increased passenger loads
experienced in recent years. These buses will be used to provide new RTS routes, including
more routes to the UF campus, a route to the Gainesville Regional Airport, and additional late
night service.
o 5 lift-equipped vans leased to a local operator providing the ADA-required complementary
paratransit service.
o 5 vans to be used to start a new vanpool and commuter assistance program in the county.
 The only existing trip generators and attractors not served by transit are Northwood Village, the Gainesville
Regional Airport, and the Airport Industrial Park. These are developing neighborhood (activity) centers and
RTS will assess the need for service to these areas as they develop. (RTS provided service to the airport in
the 1980s, but service was discontinued upon evaluation of the ridership generated and attracted by the
airport.)
 The Land Use Element of the County Comprehensive Plan lists a number of urban activity centers, rural
activity centers, and rural employment centers located outside the Gainesville Urban Reserve Area.
Currently, these are outside the RTS main bus service area, but within the Demand-Response System Zone
3 service area. Improvements within the existing main bus service area would have a higher priority than
would extension of main bus service to these areas. Through adoption of a TCEA, the City identified
“existing and potential transit hubs.”
Transportation Demand Management
 TDM is a program, usually involving a partnership of local employers and local government, to reduce
single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. Local governments around the nation have adopted a TDM ordinance
that requires the employer to meet SOV trip reduction targets, and usually includes a menu of strategies to
reach the targets, such as:
o
o
o
o
Flexible work hours or other modification of the work schedule
Establishment of a trip reduction coordinator for the employer
Telecommuting
Increased fees for SOV parking
August 2009
6-8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Monetary incentives for van pooling, use of public transit (usually with transit passes),
bicycling, and walking
Parking cash-out to encourage non-SOV trips by removing the large subsidy for free employee
parking, while still allowing the option of making such trips
Institution of shuttle services
Provide showers and lockers at job sites
Provide a “guaranteed ride home” program
Park-and-Ride services
Restrictions on number of travel lanes or number of parking spaces provided
The Transportation Funding Advisory Committee (TFAC) was convened to identify funding sources for
transportation modifications. In 1999, TFAC recommended that Alachua County adopt a 5-cent local option
gasoline tax increase and transportation impact fees.

Capital Improvements Element
 Mass transit capital improvements are heavily dependent on the availability of federal and state funding.
Capital improvements for transportation are scheduled and approved through the federally required
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO).
 Mass Transit: No capital improvements associated with LOS standards have been identified as necessary.
 Transportation Mobility: No capital improvements associated with LOS standards have been identified as
necessary.
City of Gainesville Draft Evaluation & Appraisal Report
The City of Gainesville is in the process of developing its Evaluation & Appraisal Report (EAR). The document will
be presented to the City Commission in fall of 2010 for adoption. The EAR is a process that the City completes every
ten years in preparation for its Comprehensive Plan update. The EAR identifies the major issues facing Gainesville
and how the Comprehensive Plan can be updated to address these issues. The City of Gainesville has identified the
following draft major issues for inclusion in the EAR.












Establish Activity Center Policies.
Improve Urban Design Requirements.
Clarify Mixed-Use Requirements.
Create a More Walkable City.
Encourage Livable Communities for All Ages.
Fund Transportation Choices.
Amend Future Land Use Map Only in Accord with Appropriate Data & Analysis.
Encourage Infill and Redevelopment.
Attract Development to Central and East Gainesville.
Navigate the New Economy.
Establish Energy Policies.
Protect Water Quantity and Water Quality.
August 2009
6-9



Strengthen Natural Resource Protection.
Review Recreation LOS.
Encourage Affordable Housing.
Alachua County Long Term Concurrency Management
In addition to the comprehensive planning requirements, a subsection of the Growth Management Act requires the
County to administer a concurrency management system, as prescribed in Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative
Code (FAC). In its most simple terms, concurrency means that development cannot proceed without the appropriate
infrastructure being in place to support the development. If a development is shown to degrade infrastructure below
the adopted level of service standard, the development must provide mitigation or not be approved. Public
transportation is an activity that is monitored as part of the concurrency requirement.
Alachua County roads presently operating below LOS Standard (over capacity):
 SW 20th Avenue from SW 62nd Blvd to SW 34th Street
 Newberry Road (SR 26) from SW 8th to I-75

Roads operating below LOS Standard with reserved trips:






Archer Road (SR 24) from SW 34th to I-75
Newberry Road (SR 26) from I-75 to CR 241 (NW 143rd)
Archer Road (SR 24) from I-75 to Tower Road (SW 75th)
Archer Road (SR 24) from Tower Road (SW 75th) to SW 91st
NW 23rd Avenue from NW 98th to NW 55th
Tower Road (SW 75th) from Archer Road (SR 24) to SW 8th Ave
Roads operating between 90 - 99 % of capacity with reserved trips:




NW 83rd Street from NW 39th (SR 222) to NW 23rd
SW 20th Avenue from SW 61st to SW 62nd Blvd (Over I-75)
Williston Road (SR 121) from SW 62nd Ave to I-75
NW 39th Avenue (SR 222) from I-75 to NW 83rd Street
Gainesville Metropolitan Area Year 2025 Livable Community Reinvestment Plan (LRTP)
The LRTP is the fundamental planning document for transportation in Alachua County. While the Comprehensive
Plan provides a vision of where the County wants to go, the LRTP provides the year-by-year needs to reach the
transportation-related goals. Although these goals are determined at the local level, they must be consistent with
federal- and state-level requirements to maintain funding.
August 2009
6-10
Every five years the MTPO updates its LRTP. Since the MTPO is currently in the process of developing its 2035
LRTP update, a summary of the 2025 LRTP is documented below.
The overlying mission of the MTPO Plan is:
“Land use developed with intensity and density that creates more balance in east-west Gainesville area
growth, connects a limited number of highly developed mixed-use centers, and is served by a highlyefficient multimodal transportation system, which allows for mode choice. The transportation system is
safely used by people of all ages and income classes, supported by a dedicated transportation funding
source and provides for:
a.
b.
c.
d.
walkable University and town centers;
improved and affordable transit service;
improved bikeway / trail system; and,
better road connectivity.”
As part of the 2025 LRTP, a telephone survey was conducted in the Gainesville Urbanized Area in the spring of 2005
to address a series of transportation issues. As shown in Figure 6-1, the survey indicates that the respondents (more
than 450 completed interviews) are most interested in investing in maintaining existing facilities. Figure 6-2 illustrates
that respondents prefer that more than half of that investment be in roads, with about one quarter spent on transit
and the remaining 24 percent divided between sidewalks for pedestrians and paths for bicyclists.
Figure 6-1
2025 LRTP Telephone Survey Responses
Source: Gainesville MTPO 2025 LRTP
August 2009
6-11
Figure 6-2
2025 LRTP Telephone Survey Allocation of Funding
Figure 6-3 illustrates the 2007 through 2011 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) high priority projects as identified by the Gainesville MTPO. Tables 6-1 and 6-2
provide the total cost of all RTS projects that were identified in the MTPO 2025 LRTP and the RTS new and
replacement bus needs that were identified in the MTPO 2025 LRTP.
Figure 6-3
2025 LRTP MTPO SAFETEA-LU Priority Projects
August 2009
6-12
Table 6-1
2025 LRTP Cost Summary of RTS Projects
Project
Estimated
Costs
Maintain Existing Fleet
$47,200,000
Enhance Existing Routes
$27,000,000
New Routes
$16,200,000
Park-and-Ride / Express Bus
$11,200,000
Bus Rapid Transit
New RTS Operations and Maintenance
Facility
$4,700,000
$24,000,000
Multimodal Facility
$3,000,000
Transfer Facilities
$4,500,000
Total
$137,800,000
Table 6-2
2025 LRTP RTS Bus Needs
Project
Buses Needed
Maintain Existing Fleet
170
Enhance Existing Routes
90
New Routes
54
Park-and-Ride / Express Bus
29
Bus Rapid Transit
4
Total
347
Plan East Gainesville
A signature project recommended in the transportation plan is the development of a BRT system that provides
improved transit travel times and amenities. The BRT would enjoy priority treatment at key traffic signals and, where
feasible, run on dedicated bus lanes using signature transit vehicles with distinctive markings and stations. The BRT
would link East Gainesville with downtown, Shands Hospital, the University of Florida, and Butler Plaza via a regional
system that would generally operate along Archer Road, Depot Avenue and the Waldo Road Rail Trail corridor to
Five Points. Two routes would then diverge – one would travel along Waldo Road to the Fairgrounds Employment
Center and Airport, and one would travel along Hawthorne Road to SE 43rd Street. Part of the system – from I-75 to
Shands – is already included in the MTPO’s 2020 long-range transportation plan. This recommendation would extend
the service along a logical corridor providing improved regional transit connectivity for Eastside residents and
businesses.
August 2009
6-13
Within the urban sector, the concept is to encourage development of urban neighborhoods and commercial areas
that are proximate or oriented to the city. A priority is to connect the eastward neighborhoods and corridors in the
Urban sector of the study area to the more vibrant University of Florida and downtown business districts with the
proposed Bus Rapid Transit system and greenways.
Hawthorne Road and NE/SE 27th Street
Hawthorne Road presents significant economic development opportunities to create pedestrian scale, transit-oriented
development with high design standards. The focus of development in the corridor is three primary activity centers
including Five Points, SE 27th Street and SE 43rd Street, the Fairgrounds Employment Center, and the Regional
Recreation Center adjacent to Fred Cone Park. The development of these activity centers is tied to a major transit
investment from Archer/downtown to East Gainesville via Hawthorne Road and to the creation of a new NE 27th
Street Greenway Corridor. The activity center designation identifies areas planned for mixed-use, high-density
development that is supported by a high level of transit service. Transition areas create the opportunity for larger
scale commercial uses, such as a grocery store, and moderate-intensity residential uses.
Five Points
The Five Points Activity Center will become the new “downtown” of Gainesville’s east side, supported by the Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) system. This activity center has been identified as a priority for redevelopment as a signature
project, or catalyst, for private sector reinvestment.
Transportation Element
Creating a more linear transit system, which provides direct and efficient linkages between emerging East Gainesville
activity centers, downtown, Santa Fe Community College, the University of Florida and the Archer Road
medical/commercial corridor would provide an incentive to use the service.

Linking East Gainesville activity centers with the downtown, University of Florida and commercial
development along the linear Archer Road corridor would create a seamless, integrated transit system.
Public Transportation
The cornerstone of the recommended transportation plan for Plan East Gainesville is to establish a Bus Rapid Transit
service that unifies East Gainesville with downtown and the Archer Road corridor as part of an integrated regional
system.
The high frequency service would employ a series of bus preferential treatments, including traffic signal priority, rapid
passenger boarding and alighting, intersection queue-jump lanes and dedicated travel lanes to reduce bus travel
times to key destinations and increase the person-carrying capacity of the transportation system. Given the redesign
August 2009
6-14
of the Depot Avenue corridor, on-street parking on parts of Hawthorne Road, and the existing rail-trail across SW
13th Street, along Depot Avenue and connecting to Waldo Road, there is good potential for a BRT service operating
on dedicated travel lanes for at least a portion of service.
The initial BRT service would connect from Archer Road to the Five Points area via Depot Avenue and the Waldo
Road rail-trail alignment. Two routes would then diverge from that centrally-located transfer station, with service
operating along Waldo Road to the proposed Fairgrounds Employment Center and Regional Airport, and along
Hawthorne Road to serve the planned mixed-use centers at 27th Street and 43rd Street. Major stations would be
located at points where redevelopment or new development is planned to occur.
Park-and-ride lots located at SE 43rd Street and on north Waldo Road would help capture new riders living near
those locations for a quick, seamless ride into the region’s employment centers.
The service plan for the BRT requires frequent service – operating at least every 10 to 15 minutes during the peak
periods – and running a longer span of service into the early evening to enable workers to reach their destination at
the end of the day. As commercial development along the line occurs, service may be extended until 10 or later. Both
the transit vehicles and stations should have signature, highly visible features to distinguish the service from ordinary
bus service.
This ultimate BRT system depends on the available funding, and the MTPO will need to prioritize each segment.
More detailed engineering analysis will need to be performed to establish an operating plan. A phased
implementation plan is recommended, which would begin introducing these service elements based on financial
feasibility. The initial link needs to provide a connection to East Gainesville at Five Points. Depending on the
availability of funding, subsequent phases would extend service northeast along Waldo Road to the
Fairgrounds/airport area, and southeast along Hawthorne Road to the SE 27th and SE 43rd Street activity centers.
Initial implementation may focus on acquisition of signature vehicles and signal system priority treatments, while later
phases would entail construction of dedicated lanes along existing right-of-way, such as the Depot Avenue and
Waldo Road rail-trail, or where on-street parking exists on Hawthorne Road.
Transit stations for the BRT service would occur in two forms: 1) stations that facilitate pedestrian accessibility
because of their proximity and integration with transit-oriented development so that with quick boarding and alighting
can occur, and 2) park-and-ride stations. Both would provide intermodal connections with other modes, such as local
bus routes, bicycle facilities, or automobile parking. The first type of transit station would include shelters, benches,
information kiosks, newspaper racks, and vending, supported by immediately adjacent commercial land uses.
Located within mixed-use centers in a more urban development framework, transit patrons would generally walk or
ride bicycles to the station. The park-and-ride BRT stations would have many of the same amenities as the first type,
but because of their suburban location would have more land devoted to parking. Approximately 10-20 parking
spaces should be reserved for transit patrons who would drive to the station. These locations must be a relatively
short drive (five minutes or less) from residential areas to capture potential riders, such as people who live in the
vicinity of Ironwood Golf Course and Eastside High School. With no charge for parking, the lots may also attract
people who are commuting to downtown or the University from outlying areas.
August 2009
6-15
Regular fixed-route bus service, operated by the Regional Transit System, may need to be modified or restructured
to feed and otherwise support the BRT service outlined in this plan. However, these operational details of BRT are
premature at this time. The main concept that should be considered is that BRT stations, particularly at Five Points
and the Fairgrounds Employment Center, serve as intermodal transfer centers, where multiple bus routes can
converge to minimize the time spent waiting to transfer between routes.
The plan supports the MTPO’s vision of a high level of premium transit service within a linear Archer Road corridor
through a series of transit preferential treatments known collectively as Bus Rapid Transit. This plan extends that
service from the Shands Hospital area through the southern part of downtown Gainesville along Depot Avenue and
into East Gainesville at Five Points. This investment would make the Archer Road premium transit service truly a
regional type of service that connects workers and employment centers in East Gainesville with major civic,
employment, and commercial destinations elsewhere in the urbanized area. This project unifies east and west parts
of the community, enhancing the transit level of service for a traditionally underserved segment of the population.
Figure 6-4 presents the Plan East Gainesville Recommended Transportation Plan developed by the MTPO.
August 2009
6-16
Figure 6-4
Plan East Gainesville Recommended Transportation Plan
Source: Gainesville MTPO Plan East Gainesville
August 2009
6-17
Urban Village – Action Plan

There are elements of a multi-modal framework already in place, and current transit ridership is high, but
multi-modal facilities and services would likely need to be expanded in order to satisfy the requirements of a
Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD).

A key finding in the transportation analysis is that the percentage of automobile trips (as a percentage of
total trips of all travel modes) on the roadway network decreases while the percentage of transit and
bicycle/pedestrian trips increases, when residential density and land use diversity are increased. This “mode
share” for transit and bicycle/pedestrian modes increases in a higher density mixed use environment. The
mode share percentages, however, remain constant when residential density reaches an average of 60
units per acre. Despite the increase in transit and bicycle/pedestrian mode share that result from higher
density and land use diversity, the total number of automobile trips on the roadway network still increases as
the population and density of the scenarios increase.

The SW 20th Avenue community charrette established the future transportation vision for this area. Included
in this transportation vision are the following elements:
o The need to construct SW 20th Avenue with the following elements included in the design: bus
bays, raised medians, roundabouts, sidewalks, transit super stops, and turn lanes.
o

The Urban Village: Southwest 20th Avenue Transportation Design Proposal recommends the
reconstruction of SW 20th Avenue as a roadway with special features that allow cars and buses to
operate more efficiently within this two-lane corridor.
The Multimodal Handbook contains performance measures that are designed to accomplish specific
multimodal objectives. These measures include the following:
o 80 percent of all facilities contained in bicycle and pedestrian networks function at level of service
C or better;
o All parcels within one-fourth (1/4) mile of a transit stop should be served by pedestrian facilities
operating at level of service C or better; and
o 80 percent of employees and dwelling units in a multimodal district must be located within one-half
(½) mile of a transit stop.
August 2009
6-18
Smart Bus Bays
With the exception of I-75, Archer Road, Newberry Road, and Southwest 34th Street, the other roadways within the
study area are predominantly two-lane roadways. With two-lane roadways, when a bus stops in the travel lane to
board or discharge passengers, the traffic in that direction of travel is forced to stop. Bus turnouts allow the bus to
leave the travel lane and vehicles to continue unimpeded while passengers board and depart from the bus.
However, when roadways become congested and there are large distances between signals, as exists on several of
the roadways within the study area, buses have difficulty finding a gap to merge back into traffic when the boarding
process is complete.
We also received several comments during the public kickoff meeting requesting mid-block pedestrian signals to
assist pedestrians in crossing roadways to reach bus stops due to large spacing between signalized intersections
that currently exist today.
One potential solution would be to combine these needs to create a synergistic solution by locating bus turnouts
together with a mid-block pedestrian signal and adding sensors to the bus turnout. This solution would allow the
sensor to notify the signal when a bus is delayed in finding an acceptable gap to merge back into traffic flow. The
traffic signal normally used by pedestrians can then be activated to briefly stop traffic allowing the bus to enter the
travel lane. The traffic flow is quickly restored and minimal delay is experienced by travelers overall.
Renderings of a smart bus bay is provided in Figures 6-5 and 6-6.
Figure 6-5
Plan View of Smart Bus Bay Concept with Median Transition
Source: FDOT Southwest 24th Avenue Multimodal Corridor Analysis Report, 2009
August 2009
6-19
Figure 6-6
Rendering of Smart Bus Bay Concept
Source: FDOT Southwest 24th Avenue Multimodal Corridor Analysis Report, 2009
The following locations were evaluated as candidates for smart bus bays as a result of their combined need for
improved pedestrian crossings and bus turnouts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Oaks Mall Area – near south entrance off of Southwest 62nd Boulevard
Southwest 62nd Boulevard at Palm Gardens/Fairmont Oaks
Southwest 62nd Boulevard at Lakewood Villas/Spyglass
Southwest 62nd Boulevard at Southwest 9th Place/Rockwood Villas
Southwest 62nd Boulevard at Melrose/Summerville/Woodlands Apartments
Southwest 20th Avenue near the intersection with Southwest 43rd Street
Southwest 43rd Street at Southwest 24th Avenue
Southwest 40th Boulevard in Butler Plaza near Archer Road
Southwest 37th Boulevard in Butler Plaza near Archer Road
Southwest 20th Avenue near the Lyons Apartments/Mill Run Condominums
Southwest 20th Avenue at Southwest 38th Terrace
Southwest 20th Avenue near The Woods
Southwest 20th Avenue near Southwest Villas
Southwest 20th Avenue near The Estates
Traffic simulation evaluation of the concept was performed using the SYNCHRO 7.0 traffic simulation software and
the concept was proven to be feasible in this analysis with minimal delay caused to the overall traffic flow. The
average bus delays decreased significantly as they were able to find gaps within the traffic stream resulting in an
enhancement to the transit operations performance.
August 2009
6-20
An analysis of the alternative locations was performed that considered the following factors:



Spacing between adjacent driveways and intersections
Site conditions such as stormwater and drainage
Potential construction costs including utility relocation
Based on this evaluation, the following sites were considered viable:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Southwest 20th Avenue near the Lyons Apartments/Mill Run Condominiums
Southwest 20th Avenue at Southwest 38th Terrace
Southwest 20th Avenue near The Woods
Southwest 20th Avenue near Southwest Villas
As part of the Southwest 20th Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study prepared by FDOT in 2009, smart bus bays were
also evaluated. This study proposed widening Southwest 20th Avenue to a two-lane divided roadway with transit
super stops using the smart bus bay concept. This report recommended two of the viable alternatives to be
constructed as part of the corridor development: (1) Lyons Apartments/Mill Run Condominiums and (2) Southwest
Villas as follows.
All alternatives have two transit super stops that will allow the buses to enter and exit the traffic stream with
little disruption to traffic. This will be accomplished by signalizing the bus bays. The signals will offer
midblock crosswalks at these two locations. The super stops will require the roadway to transition from a
divided to undivided section. This will require less right-of-way and also provide less distance for
pedestrians to cross the street. The super stops may require a gravity wall, which will depend on the
difference in elevation of the roadway and the adjacent parcel. . . The super stops will be in addition to other
bus stops, the locations of which were not analyzed during this project.
The construction of bus bays at the intersection of Southwest 20th Avenue and Southwest 38th Terrace, if constructed
as part of the installation of a traffic signal at this location, would provide similar benefit to the smart bus bays when
installed as far side bus bays (bays located downstream of the signal in each direction). Because of the location of a
large drainage ditch and drainage structures on the north side of the roadway at this location and limited right-of-way
near the intersection, this location was not recommended for construction as an interim improvement.
The Southwest Villas, located at the 3600 block of Southwest 20th Avenue, which is just east of Southwest 38th
Terrace, was selected as the preferred location for pilot implementation of this concept. This site was selected
because of its location between Southwest 38th Terrace and Southwest 34th Street, where a high number of transit
riders are known to board existing buses, and its site conditions, driveway spacing, location on a tangent section, and
costs when compared to the other locations.
August 2009
6-21
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Produced by the Gainesville MTPO, the TIP prioritizes and programs funding for specific transportation projects to be
implemented over a five-year period. Projects are reflected for all modes of transportation: roadways, public transit,
bicycle facilities, sidewalks, etc. The TIP is a “financially constrained” plan, which means that projects listed in the
plan must have a source of funding. In May 2008, the MTPO adopted the TIP for fiscal yeas 2008 / 2009 through
2012 / 13. The purpose of the TIP is to identify all transportation improvements, or projects, included in the five-year
work program for the Gainesville Urbanized Area.
Transit Development Plan, Major Update 2007-2011
The Regional Transit System, or RTS, provides fixed-route transit service to the Gainesville metropolitan area. As
part of the system’s transit planning process, RTS is required to complete a major update to its TDP every five years,
with minor updates during the interim years. The most recent major update was completed in 2006, providing a plan
for public transportation in Gainesville and parts of Alachua County for the five-year period, from FY 2007 through FY
2011. The existing TDP assesses the performance of existing services, reviews demographic and travel behavior
characteristics within the service area, summarizes local transit policies, develops proposed transit enhancements,
and prepares a five-year implementation plan. The TDP concludes with a five-year financial plan to implement the
proposed for capital and operating improvements.
The previously adopted TDP is divided into five functional chapters:
Chapter One is a compilation of base data, including demographics, employment characteristics, and travel patterns
of service area residents.
Chapter Two provides a summary of the goals and initiatives from the 2007 TDP. These goals and initiatives were
intended to guide RTS during and beyond the five-year plan horizon.
Chapter Three presents a performance evaluation of RTS using the National Transit Database, an annual report
required by the Federal Transit Administration. The evaluation measures used in this performance review are both
operational and financial. Operational measures include vehicle, employee, service, general financial, and efficiency
measures. Financial measures convey the overall costs and revenues associated with RTS’s operations. The
purpose of the performance evaluation is to measure the productivity and effectiveness of transit operations, as well
as the cost efficiency of the system, with the goal of providing more efficient and effective transit service in Alachua
County.
Chapter Four provides an estimation of the ridership demand for RTS’s services over the five-year planning horizon
of the TDP, as well as an assessment of mobility needs in the Gainesville metropolitan area and a brief evaluation of
the alternate methods for increasing mobility to meet the determined needs. This estimation is necessary in order to
plan for the future transit needs of Alachua County, as well as the development of potential transit alternatives. Using
the methodology outlined in the TDP, it was estimated that RTS’s ridership would increase from 8.1 million riders in
2005 to 11.8 million riders by 2011.
August 2009
6-22
Chapter Five is an assimilation of the data and information contained in the first four chapters and consists of two
major elements: (1) a Ten-Year Transportation Services Plan, and (2) a capital and operation plan. The Five-Year
Transportation Service Plan outlined the recommended projects and policies over the next five years and focused on
the development of new fixed-route services designed to meet the needs of the community. In order to ensure that
the services and improvements identified in the Transportation Services Plan were adequately funded, the annual
capital and operating costs and revenues necessary to achieve the planned services and improvements for the fiveyear period are identified.
Infrastructure


Expand RTS facilities including the maintenance building and the administration/operations building
Improve passenger amenities to make transit more convenient and comfortable
Technology


Improve reliability of service through implementation of on-board technologies
o Automatic Passenger Counters
o CAD/AVL equipment
o Farebox upgrades
o Video cameras
o Transit signal priority
Implement technologies that improve the information available to existing and potential transit customers to
assist in making informed travel decisions
o Implement Google Transit Trip Planner
Expand Awareness of Alternatives to Bus (ADA and commuter assistance)


Complementary paratransit service or ADA
Vanpool
Service expansion


Implement new local bus routes
Study feasibility of a bus rapid transit service
Infrastructure


Remodel and expand the RTS Training Room
o Remove storage
o Design to hold trainings and public meetings
Modernize existing operations facility
August 2009
6-23
Transit Development Plan, 2008 Annual Progress Report
As previously mentioned, RTS is required to submit an annual minor update of the TDP in the years between the
major updates. Minor updates of the TDP were completed in both 2007 and 2008, following the completion of the
major update in 2006. Similar to the major update, the goal of the minor updates is to provide a strategic guide for
public transportation in the Gainesville metropolitan area; the 2007 minor update for the four-year planning period of
FY 2008 through FY 2011 and the 2008 minor update for FY 2009 through 2011. Each minor update included
updates to the capital and operating financial plan, and performance measures. The changes resulting from the
minor updates to the 2006 TDP were reviewed and incorporated into the 2009 TDP major update.
STATE
Florida TDP Requirements (finalized February 20, 2007)
The State of Florida Public Transit Block Grant Program was enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a stable
source of State funding for public transportation. The Block Grant Program requires public transit service providers
to develop and adopt a TDP. The TDP is the source for determining the types of projects and their priority in the
public transportation component of a community’s TIP. The plan must be consistent with the approved local
government comprehensive plans and LRTPs.
Finalized on February 20, 2007, the intent of the new TDP requirements is “to provide better planned and, thus,
improved public transit services, and to provide the State with improved estimates of transit needs over a longer
period of time.” The following identified changes were made to the TDP requirements:






Extends the planning horizon from 5 years to 10 years
Requires major updates every 5 years rather than every 3 years
Requires a public involvement plan to be developed and approved by FDOT or to be consistent with the
jurisdiction’s approved public involvement plan
Requires that FDOT, the Regional Workforce Board, and the local MPO be advised of all public meetings
where the TDP is presented and discussed, and that these entities be given the opportunity to review and
comment on the TDP during the development of the mission, goals, objectives, alternatives, and 10-year
implementation program
Requires the estimation of the community’s demand for transit service (10-year annual projections) using
the planning tools provided by FDOT or a demand estimation technique approved by FDOT
Requires that annual updates be in the form of a progress report on the 10-year implementation program
and include:
o Past year’s accomplishments compared to the original implementation program
o Analysis of discrepancies between the plan and its implementation for the past year
o Any revisions to the implementation program for the coming year
o Revised implementation program for the 10th year
o Added recommendations for the new 10th year of the updated plan
August 2009
6-24
Revised financial plan
Revised list of projects or services needed to meet the goals and objectives, including projects for
which funding has not been identified
Allows for TDPs to be submitted to FDOT at any time but requires that they be submitted by September 1st,
including annual progress reports
o
o

In addition to the State mandate, the TDP can also assist in meeting several objectives, as indicated in the Manual
for the Preparation of Transit Development Plans prepared by the USF Center for Urban Transportation Research
(CUTR) in October 1993. FDOT is currently working on an update to this manual to document and support the new
TDP requirements. Other objectives of a TDP include the following:







Assess the need for transit services
Determine appropriate type and level of transit services
Identify current and planned local transit resources
Evaluate existing services
Outline capital and operating expenses for proposed service development
Identify potential and expected funding sources
Identify a staged implementation plan supporting the cost affordable TIP
Chapter 341, FS
Chapter 341 creates Public Transit Block Grants (PTBG) that shall be administered by FDOT. Block grant funds
shall only be provided to urban and rural providers designated by the United States Department of Transportation
and Community Transportation Coordinators, as defined in Chapter 427, FS. Eligible providers must establish public
transportation development plans consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with approved local government
comprehensive plans of the units of local government in which the provider is located. In developing public
transportation development plans, eligible providers must solicit comments from regional workforce boards
established under Chapter 445. The development plans must address how the public transit provider will work with
the appropriate regional workforce board to provide services to participants in the welfare transition program. Eligible
providers must provide information to the regional workforce board serving the county in which the provider is located
regarding the availability of transportation services to assist program participants. Costs for which PTBG program
funds may be expended include:



Costs of public bus transit and local public fixed guideway capital projects
Costs of public bus transit service development and transit corridor projects
Costs of public bus transit operations
All projects must be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the approved local government comprehensive
plans of the units of local government in which the project is located.
Chapter 341 also requires each public transit provider to establish public transportation development plans consistent
with approved local government comprehensive plans where there is an approved local government comprehensive
August 2009
6-25
plan in the political subdivision or political subdivisions in which the public transportation system is located. In
particular, each public transit provider shall establish productivity and performance measures, which must be
approved by FDOT and which must be selected from measures developed pursuant to §341.041(3). Each provider
shall report annually to FDOT relative to these measures. In approving these measures, FDOT shall give
consideration to the goals and objectives of each system, the needs of the local area, and the role for public transit in
the local area. In addition, each public transit provider shall publish the productivity and performance measures
established for the year in the local newspaper of its area and a report that provides quantitative data relative to the
attainment of established productivity and performance measures.
FEDERAL
The following provides summaries of federal legislation affecting transit.
SAFETEA-LU and Surface Transportation Reauthorization
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
continues and/or establishes numerous funding programs for transit. The following relevant programs are from
FDOT’s Resource Guide for Transit and Transit-Related Programs (November 2005):









Urbanized Area Formula Program
Growing States and High Density States Program
Bus and Bus Related Facilities Program
Major Capital Investment Grants of $75 Million or More
Major Capital Investment Grants of Under $75 Million
New Freedom Program
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)
Flexible Funding Programs
FHWA Discretionary Programs
SAFETEA-LU includes several different funding programs, many of which could be accessed with innovative
approaches and project ideas. It should be noted that any funds that are awarded by FTA, regardless of the initial
source of the funding, must be properly identified in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) prior to
the award being approved. With annual appropriations and allocations occurring each year, appropriate adjustments
to the FDOT Work Program are required to ensure that projects are properly included in the STIP.
Federal support in public transportation continues to grow, and the number of funding programs that can be used to
develop transit systems expands with each federal transportation reauthorization. To anticipate that federal support
will be maintained is logical, and should a local area decide to move ahead with developing a high investment service
such as bus rapid transit, federal support should be attainable.
SAFETEA-LU is set to expire on September 30, 2009, requiring Congress to decide on the future of this legislation;
however, the current economic climate has required action from the federal government prior to the initial
August 2009
6-26
reauthorization timeframe. As part of the economic stimulus legislation, referred to as the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, the federal government has dedicated financial resources towards the construction of
transportation infrastructure in unprecedented levels. The Recovery Act includes an investment of $150 billion in
new infrastructure, representing the largest increase in funding of our nation’s roads, bridges, and mass transit
systems since the creation of the national highway system in the 1950s.
The U.S. House transportation reauthorization bill, “The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009,” was
released June 2009 as the blueprint for upcoming reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU and is the first look at what
reauthorization may look like later this year. The blueprint emphasizes the growing consensus on the need for a
major overhaul of the federal transportation program. The intent of the bill is to “transform Federal surface
transportation from an amalgamation of prescriptive programs to a performance-based framework for intermodal
transportation investment.” Regardless of the form that reauthorization takes, it is clear that an even greater
emphasis will be placed on national objectives for improving safety, providing transportation choices, limiting adverse
impacts on the environment, and promoting the public health and livability of our communities.
SUMMARY
This section summarizes the most important plans, studies, policies, and legislative requirements that are relevant to
the major update of the TDP. Additional documents, which offer useful and important information, also are
summarized in Appendix D of this plan. A general observation can be made that no apparent conflicts exist with
regard to consistency with other plans.
August 2009
6-27
Section 7: Situation Appraisal
The requirements for a major update of a TDP include the need for a situation appraisal of the environment in which
the transit agency operates. The purpose of this appraisal is to help develop an understanding of RTS’s transit
operating environment in the context of the following elements:








Regional issues
Socioeconomics
Travel behavior
Existing and future land use
Policy issues
Organizational issues
Technical issues
Environmental issues
The assessment of these elements resulted in the identification of possible implications for RTS’s transit program.
The assessment and resulting implications are drawn from the following sources:




Review of relevant plans, studies, and programs prepared at all levels of government (see Section 6).
Results of technical evaluation performed as part of the TDP planning process (throughout the TDP).
Outcomes of discussions with RTS staff and the Review Committee.
Comments and guidance from the City Commission and MTPO Board.
Issues, trends, and implications are summarized for each of the major elements in the remainder of this section.
August 2009
7-1
REGIONAL TRANSIT ISSUES
Regional transit issues are of critical importance to the future of public transit in Alachua County and are highlighted
below.
Regional Transit Planning and Implementation
RTS provides service to the City of Gainesville and adjacent areas of Alachua County. RTS is a division of the City
of Gainesville’s Public Works Department. Throughout the TDP public involvement efforts, discussions took place
regarding the mission of RTS and the implications of RTS becoming a Regional Transit Authority. Representatives
from outlying municipalities participated in discussion group meetings and expressed interest in RTS providing public
transit service to their areas.

Implications – Since RTS is a department of the City of Gainesville Public Works Department, the decision
to provide regional transit service will need to be made by the City Commission. RTS staff will continue to
facilitate discussions with outlying municipalities and adjacent counties. RTS will review other viable
alternatives for commuters including commuter services and park-and-ride lots.
Commuting to and from Jobs in Alachua & Bradford Counties
Based on the analysis of the 2006 Census LEHD data provided in Section 2, a percentage of Alachua County
residents and workers commute to and from neighboring communities. FloridaWorks GREENRIDE is a regional free
web-based carpooling program for Alachua and Bradford counties. The FloridaWorks GREENRIDE website matches
potential carpoolers based on similar schedules and destinations.

Implications - In an effort to promote commuting alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, RTS is
implementing a commuter services program to promote transportation demand management (TDM)
strategies. RTS will coordinate its commuter services program with FloridaWorks GREENRIDE to
complement the existing carpooling program for Alachua County.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Population and Employment Growth
From 2000 to 2009, the population of the City of Gainesville increased by 21 percent. However, the rate of growth
has been slower in recent years. According to the MTPO’s 2035 LRTP (currently being developed), population is
projected to increase from 115,731 in 2009 to 130,623 in 2035, an annualized increase of 0.5 percent. Likewise,
employment is projected to increase from 92,735 in 2009 to 118,796 in 2035, an annualized increase of
approximately 1 percent. Based on the City’s low rate of population and employment growth, RTS will have a
minimal demand for increased transportation services within the City Limits.
August 2009
7-2
RTS’s service area encompasses areas outside of the City of Gainesville; therefore, Alachua County’s population
and employment growth was also reviewed. From 2000 to 2009, the population of Alachua County increased by
nearly 12.5 percent. Like the City of Gainesville, Alachua County’s rate of growth has also been slower in recent
years. According to the MTPO’s 2035 LRTP, population is projected to increase from 245,187 in 2009 to 312,093 in
2035, an annualized increase of approximately 1 percent. Likewise, employment is projected to increase from
135,922 in 2009 to 181,289 in 2035, an annualized increase of approximately 1 percent. With an annualized
population and employment growth increase of approximately 1 percent, the County may experience little demand for
future transit service and infrastructure.

Implications – Alachua County’s gradual population and employment growth rates may inhibit the expansion
of transit services throughout the entire County. The County and City will need to review transportation
solutions for areas with non-transit supportive densities.
Demographic and Current Transit Market
Transit markets can be organized into three major categories: traditional markets, discretionary markets, and regional
markets. The traditional market includes individuals who have no or limited transportation alternatives and rely on
public transit for essential recreational trips. This market includes the elderly, youth, disabled, low-income, and no /
limited vehicle populations. The discretionary market refers to individuals who have a choice of transportation
alternatives and may choose transit if the service is able to be competitive with the automobile in terms of travel time,
convenience, or other reasons. The regional market refers to the demand for commuter travel to other counties in
the region. Based on the RTS on-board survey results, the typical RTS rider is from the discretionary market.

Implications – Existing conditions and the quality / level of transit service near the UF campus have targeted
the discretionary market. RTS has successfully maintained a reasonable level of service on the UF routes
through the RTS and UF agreement. RTS may have an opportunity to target more traditional riders through
increased level of service and transit investment on the City routes. The challenge for RTS will be
responding to the regional transit market as it develops over time.
Persons with Disabilities
RTS’s ADA trips have increased from 32,527 in 2003 to 38,314 in FY 2008, an increase of approximately 18 percent.
It is anticipated that the demand for ADA trips will continue to grow over time.

Implications – RTS must continue to provide door-to-door, ADA paratransit service that complements fixedroute bus service and provide this service to individuals who are unable to access the RTS fixed-route
system due to a disability. RTS should consider implementing programs and services that increase the
likelihood and ability of persons with disabilities to use the less costly fixed-route bus service. Examples of
these programs and services include travel training, more and better sidewalk connections, low-floor buses,
and service / infrastructure improvements placed in areas that will serve the ADA population.
August 2009
7-3
TRAVEL BEHAVIOR
Growth Areas and Travel Demand
Development and travel patterns are continuing to expand the urban area, with higher residential and employment
growth to the west and south of the City of Gainesville. Outlying municipalities have also expressed interest in RTS
providing transit service to their communities.

Implication – As growth continues to occur in suburban and outlying areas of Alachua County, it will become
increasingly important to consider innovative public transit options, such as feeder and flex-route service,
park-and-ride lots, carpools, and vanpools.
Roadway Congestion
While congestion is not a significant problem in Alachua County today, it may become increasingly prevalent as DRIs
are planned and approved west of the City of Gainesville. Alachua County has prepared a Long Term Concurrency
Management System to address roadways that are either currently over capacity or will be over capacity in the near
future. The concurrency management system combines a multimodal transportation system with mixed-use land use
policies that over time would allow for reduced dependence on single occupant automobile use and increased mode
share for transit, bicycling, and walking.
Alachua County’s Mobility Plan promotes an alternative concurrency management system that enables development
to satisfy its transportation concurrency obligation through the payment of a multimodal transportation fee. The
Mobility Plan includes plans for future express transit and rapid transit as well as bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
Alachua County has required that the developments of Newberry Village and Santa Fe Village provide contributions
towards public transportation. Newberry Village will construct dedicated transit lanes along Fort Clarke Boulevard in
coordination with the County’s plans for future BRT service. For other outlying areas of the county, population and
employment rates are projected to increase at gradual annualized growth rates.

Implication – The City of Gainesville and Alachua County will need to work collaboratively to develop and
implement transportation services to new development through the utilization of multimodal transportation
fees. In addition, the City and County will need to work together to develop a master plan that
encompasses the results of the current BRT Feasibility Study and the proposed express and rapid transit
corridors included in the County’s Mobility Plan.
LAND USE
Existing and Future Land Use
Alachua County’s existing and future land use plans generally do not reflect development patterns, densities, and
intensities that are supportive of transit, with the exception of the City of Gainesville and the area immediately
August 2009
7-4
surrounding the City, particularly to the west. The majority of land outside of the City of Gainesville has rural and
conservation future land use designations. These development patterns reinforce the reality that the outlying
municipalities may need to consider innovative public transit options, such as feeder and flex-route service, park-andride lots, carpools, and vanpools, rather than fixed-route bus service.

Implications – RTS and Alachua County may consider working together to provide alternative public transit
options that benefit commuters living in the outlying municipalities with non-transit supportive densities.
Alachua County’s Mobility Plan creates opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) within the
County.
The City of Gainesville existing and future land use plans include the requirements for large parcels to contain a mix
of land uses to facilitate a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and promote energy-efficient land uses. The City is also
comprised of TCEA zones, which promote alternative modes of transit and urban infill.

Implications – The City’s existing and future land use plans reflect development patterns, densities, and
intensities that are supportive of transit. The 2019 transit supportive densities within the City are currently
served by RTS fixed-routes.
POLICY ISSUES
UF and RTS Agreement
In 1998, RTS entered into an agreement with UF that allows students to pre-pay for unlimited transportation service.
UF either funds or partially funds many of the RTS fixed-routes. This agreement has created a quality level of
service for students, faculty, and staff of the University. Santa Fe College attempted to implement a transportation
fee similar to UF. The bill was approved by the House and Senate, but vetoed by the Governor.
Implications – The UF campus receives a higher quality level of service as a result of the students funding the
system; however, this has created equity issues between the City and Campus routes. Based on the results of the
TDP public involvement efforts, there is also some perceived inequity between UF and Santa Fe College students.
Transit Vehicles
RTS recently made the decision to apply for transit stimulus funding from the Americans Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA). RTS will use the funding to purchase new buses.
Implications – The ARRA funds will be used to replace some of the older buses used to operate fixed-route service.
Senate Bill 360
With the recent passing of the new Senate Bill 360 legislation, the entire City of Gainesville will likely qualify as a
Dense Urban Land Area (DULA). The City is currently in the process of amending its comprehensive plan to include
August 2009
7-5
an expansion of the existing TCEA zones and 3 new TCEA zones. In addition, the Future Land Use Element is being
updated to specify the new TCEA zones and require that large developments address regional impacts. Updates are
proposed to the Concurrency Management Element that will require large development to provide transit at 15minute frequencies. The Mobility Element is being updated to include the implementation of BRT and express bus
service. The TCEA zones allow the City to support and fund mobility and alternative modes of transportation.
However, due to capacity issues, future service expansion cannot occur prior to the construction or expansion of the
existing RTS maintenance facility. The City has included funding for a new or expanded RTS maintenance facility in
its proposed amendments to the Capital Improvements Element.
Implications – The proposed amendments to expand the existing TCEAs and create 3 new TCEA zones will assist
RTS in collecting funding for future expansion and improvements, including a new or expanded maintenance facility.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
The U.S. House transportation reauthorization bill, “The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009,” was
released in June 2009 as the blueprint for the upcoming reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU and is the first look at what
reauthorization may look like later this year. The blueprint emphasizes the growing consensus on the need for a
major overhaul of the federal transportation program. The intent of the bill is to “transform federal surface
transportation from an amalgamation of prescriptive programs to a performance-based framework for intermodal
transportation investment.” Regardless of the form that reauthorization takes, it is clear that an even greater
emphasis will be placed on national objectives for improving safety, providing transportation choices, limiting adverse
impacts on the environment, and promoting the public health and livability of our community.

Implications – Many of the key themes in the reauthorization bill point to the importance of transit and its role
in achieving the national objectives summarized above. RTS will need to be prepared to respond to
reauthorization as it evolves later this year. In particular, the emphasis on transit, safety, and greenhouse
gas reduction will likely necessitate increased considerations for transit in the MTPO LRTP and other
planning initiatives.
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
RTS operates as a City of Gainesville Public Works Department and is currently the only public transit provider in
Alachua County. In 2001, an assessment of RTS’s transit system was completed. The purpose of this assessment
was to evaluate the effectiveness of current transit operations and identify opportunities for improvements through
changes to its operations, marketing, and administration.

Implications – The last Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) was developed nearly 9 years ago.
Based on the discussion that occurred during the TDP public involvement efforts regarding RTS becoming a
Regional Transit Authority, RTS may consider conducting another COA to assess the feasibility of becoming
a Regional Transit Authority. This may enable the City to make a policy decision and proceed with a clear
vision for the future of RTS. A COA will also identify productivity of existing routes and whether efficiencies
can be gained in the current RTS service.
August 2009
7-6
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Campus Routes
As a result of the agreement between UF and RTS, RTS has been able to implement advanced technologies on the
UF campus routes. Currently, RTS utilizes a 20 percent bio-diesel fuel blend on 21 campus buses. RTS
implemented the Gator Locator automatic vehicle locator (AVL) system, which provides real-time access to the
campus fixed-route bus locations via the internet. RTS is in the process of implementing a Google™ Transit trip
planner, which is trip planning software. As funds become available, RTS plans to convert the remaining buses to
bio-diesel fuel and install AVL on the remaining buses. In addition to the technologies previously mentioned, RTS
currently utilizes talking bus software on all of its fixed-route buses.

Implications – RTS City routes are operating at a lower level of service in comparison to the campus routes
with regard to technology. When funding becomes available for City routes, RTS will have to prioritize the
improvements needed to bring the City routes to the same level of service as the campus routes.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Air Quality Non-Attainment
In 2008, the Federal government reduced the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. In March
2009, Florida’s governor submitted recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the areas to
be designated as Florida’s non-attainment areas.

Implications – At the current time, the City of Gainesville is not included in the recommended areas
designated as non-attainment. RTS should continue to implement service and technologies that positively
impact air quality.
House Bill 697
Effective July 1, 2008, House Bill 697 amended Ch. 163, F.S., to establish new local planning requirements that
incorporate strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill requires local governments to apply new
requirements no later than the due date of the EAR-based amendments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Implications – RTS currently operates 21 buses using a 20 percent bio-diesel fuel blend. In addition, the
City of Gainesville and Alachua County have proposed or adopted policies that promote alternative modes
of transportation and require developments to contribute towards transit.
August 2009
7-7
SUMMARY
The situational appraisal was performed to document the current operating environment and identify potential
implications that should be considered by RTS in preparing a major update to the 10-Year TDP. The implications
summarized in this section were used to support the transit demand estimation and mobility needs assessment, as
well as the development and evaluation of transit priorities presented later in this document.
August 2009
7-8
Section 8: Transit Demand & Mobility Needs
This section presents a review and evaluation of transit demand and mobility needs regarding transit
services in the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. The evaluation was completed by reviewing three
major components, including:



Ridership trends
TBEST ridership forecasting
Transit market assessment
RIDERSHIP TRENDS
As shown in Figure 8-1, RTS has seen an increase in monthly ridership, from 987,928 monthly trips in
October 2004 to 1,110,517 monthly trips in October 2008. Ridership has shown a steady upward trend, with
seasonal fluctuations in December, May, June, July, and August when the UF students are on break and
transit services are reduced. Compared to other RTS routes, Route 20 (Oaks Mall to McCarty Hall via SW
20th Avenue) has consecutively had the greatest number of passengers from FY 2005 to FY 2009 and
accounts for nearly 10 percent of the total system-wide ridership.
August 2009
8-1
Figure 8-1
Monthly Ridership for RTS (2005 to 2009)
Monthly Ridership
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Feb-09
Dec-08
Oct-08
Aug-08
Apr-08
Jun-08
Feb-08
Oct-07
Dec-07
Aug-07
Apr-07
Jun-07
Feb-07
Oct-06
Dec-06
Aug-06
Apr-06
Jun-06
Feb-06
Oct-05
Dec-05
Jun-05
Aug-05
Apr-05
Feb-05
Oct-04
Dec-04
0
TBEST RIDERSHIP FORECASTING
FDOT’s approved transit demand forecasting tool for TDPs, Transit Boarding Estimation and Simulation
Tool (TBEST), was used to forecast future ridership demand in the City of Gainesville and Alachua County.
Designed to provide near- and mid-term forecasts of transit ridership, TBEST is a comprehensive transit
analysis and ridership-forecasting model that is capable of simulating travel demand at the individual stoplevel. It also accounts for transit network connectivity, spatial and temporal accessibility, time-of-day
variations, and route competition and complementarities.
Model Inputs and Assumptions
TBEST uses various demographic and transit network data as model inputs. These inputs and the
assumptions made in modeling the City of Gainesville’s transit service in TBEST are presented below. It
should be noted, however, that the model is not interactive with the roadway network conditions. Therefore,
ridership forecasts will not show direct sensitivity to changes in the roadway traffic conditions or speeds.

Transit Network – The transit network for RTS coded in the base TBEST model was updated to
reflect 2008 conditions, as 2008 was selected as the validation year for the model. The transit
network in TBEST required various edits to reflect the 2008 route alignments and service
characteristics in the City of Gainesville. Network edits included adding and editing routes,
generating stops, editing service span, modifying headways and travel time, defining special
generators, and other network considerations.
August 2009
8-2

Demographic Data – The demographics, including population and employment, used as the base
input for the TBEST model are derived from the MTPO 2035 LRTP SE data. The model uses a
TAZ-level personal geodatabase as the format for spatial distribution of population data.

TBEST Model Limitations – According to Florida law, TBEST is the FDOT-approved model for
transit ridership forecasting as part of TDPs in Florida. However, it is important to understand that
TBEST is just one tool for evaluating improvements to existing and future transit services.
Although TBEST provides ridership projections at the route and bus stop levels, its strength lies
more in its ability to facilitate relative comparisons of ridership productivity for various transit
network scenarios. As a result, the analyst should use caution and professional judgment when
considering the absolute ridership projections resulting from the TBEST model. TBEST continues
to be a work in progress and will become more and more useful as its limitations are addressed in
future updates to the model.
Using these inputs, assumptions, and 2008 ridership data for RTS, the TBEST model was validated for
2008. Using the validation model as the base model and TDP priorities and their corresponding
implementation years, annual TBEST ridership forecasts for the 10-year TDP were developed and are
presented in Section 11 of this report.
TRANSIT MARKET ASSESSMENT
Transit demand and mobility needs were assessed for RTS through a transit market assessment. The
transit market assessment for the City of Gainesville and Alachua County includes an evaluation of markets
from three major perspectives. These include:

Traditional market – potential traditional transit users, including elderly, youth, and persons in
households that are low-income and/or have no vehicles.

Choice market – potential riders living in more densely-populated areas of the City and County
and choosing to use transit as a commuting alternative.

Regional market – potential riders wishing to access destinations throughout the Gainesville area
by using a connected regional transit system.
The first two perspectives reflect market segments from demographic and density perspectives. The third
perspective relates to market segments from a broader geographic perspective. By identifying these three
market perspectives, analysis tools can be used to understand market segments and ultimately develop
potential service improvement and policy strategies. It is important to note that the analysis tools can offer
applications for more than one market perspective. The results of each market assessment are presented
below.
August 2009
8-3
Traditional Market
As indicated previously, the traditional transit market refers to population segments that have historically had
a higher propensity to use transit. Using 2000 Census data, a Transit Orientation Index (TOI) was
developed for Alachua County. The TOI categorizes each block group in the County according to its relative
ability to support transit based on the prevalence of specific demographic characteristics. The block groups
are rated as “Very High,” “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” or “Very Low” in their respective levels of transit
orientation. It should be noted that the block groups with very low population densities (less than 100
persons per square mile) were excluded from this analysis.
To create the TOI, data from the 2000 Census were compiled at the block group level. While it is
recognized that the 2000 Census data are nearly 10 years old, this is the most recent data available at this
geographic level for which to complete this analysis. For this analysis, five population and demographic
characteristics were used to develop the TOI. Each characteristic is traditionally conducive to transit use.
The five characteristics that were used to produce the index include the following:





Population density (persons per square mile)
Proportion of the population age 60 and over (elderly)
Proportion of the population under age 16 (youths)
Proportion of the population below the poverty level
Proportion of households with no vehicle (0-vehicle households)
The 2000 TOI is illustrated in Map 8-1. The TOI analysis shows that, for the most part, block groups in
Alachua County have Low or Very Low transit orientation. The City of Gainesville has several block groups
with Medium, High, or Very High transit orientation and these areas are already currently being served by
transit. The City of Alachua has a block group with a High transit orientation and the City of Hawthorne has
a block group with a Medium transit orientation. These areas are not currently served by transit.
August 2009
8-4
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
MTPO Boundary
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Transit Orientation
NW 43RD ST
NW 53RD AVE
SE
23
4
CR
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SR-2
0
SW
HOO
TA R
Low
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
Medium
SR-222
SW 91ST ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
High
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
Very High
329B
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
Legend
City of Gainesville
NW 94TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
33
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
Very Low*
* Population Density is Less Than
100 Persons per Square Mile
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 8-1
Transit Orientation
Index
MARION
Source: Census 2000 & RTS.
8-5
Choice Market
The choice market includes potential riders living in higher density areas of the City and choosing to use
transit as a commuting alternative. As density increases, areas generally become more and more
supportive of transit.
To illustrate this relationship, a Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) was conducted based on industry
standard relationships between densities and varying levels of transit investment.
The DTA examines population and employment densities by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and categorizes
TAZs with regard to their ability to support transit. The DTA categories relate to a specific TAZ’s ability to
support minimum, high, or very high levels of transit investment. It should be noted that dwelling units are
used as a proxy for population in this analysis.
To support minimum transit investment, a TAZ must have either 4.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, or no fewer
than 4 employees per acre. To be considered supportive of high transit investment, a TAZ would need 6 to
7 dwelling units per acre, or 5 to 6 employees per acre. For a very high level of transit investment, the TAZ
needs to have 8 or more dwelling units per acre, or 7 or more employees per acre.
Map 8-2 illustrates the current (2009) DTA; Map 8-3 illustrates the future (2019) DTA.
In 2009, the only areas that qualify as transit supportive are within the City of Gainesville. A couple of TAZs
in South Gainesville have high and very high dwelling unit density thresholds. Of the TAZs that are
supportive of bus, all are currently being served by transit. In 2019, several TAZs within the City of
Gainesville generally become more supportive of transit; however, these areas are also currently being
served by transit.
Similar to the traditional market, the results of the choice market assessment are used in subsequent
chapters to support the identification of transit needs, whether it be new routes or increased frequencies.
August 2009
8-6
S
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Minimum
NW 43RD ST
Very High
NW 53RD AVE
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
CR
23
4
CR
SR-2
0
WAC
A
4
Miles
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
CR 325
CR 2082
HOO
TA R
P
U
T
N
A
M
Not Transit Supportive
Minimum
High
Very High
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
D
CR
34
6
SE 185TH ST
LEVY
CR 1474 E
CR
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 75TH ST
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
Dwelling Unit Density
Threshold
SR-222
SW 91ST ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
Legend
Employment Density
Threshold
329B
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NE CR 1417
SW 75TH ST
0
ST
1
E
33
UT
RO
-1
&
SR
-2
RD TER
W
/S
VE
A
R
21
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
C
L
A
Y
23
R
63
93
CR 231
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
BRADFORD
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
High
CR 346A
2
25
NW 94TH AVE
SW
0
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
SW
ST
NW 110TH AVE
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
MARION
S
346
E
Transit Service
Threshold Level
Minimum
Threshold
4.5 - 5 dwelling units/acre
8-7
No fewer than 4
employees/acre
High
6 - 7 dwelling units/acre
5 - 6 employees/acre
Very High
≥ 8 dwelling units/acre
7 employees/acre
Note: Thresholds are based on current FDOT TSA standards
Employment Density
Threshold
Map 8-2
2009 Density
Threshold Assessment
S
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Minimum
NW 43RD ST
Very High
NW 53RD AVE
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
CR
23
4
CR
SR-2
0
WAC
A
4
Miles
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
CR 325
CR 2082
HOO
TA R
P
U
T
N
A
M
Not Transit Supportive
Minimum
High
Very High
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
D
CR
34
6
SE 185TH ST
LEVY
CR 1474 E
CR
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 75TH ST
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
Threshold
SR-222
SW 91ST ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
Legend
Employment Density
Threshold
329B
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NE CR 1417
SW 75TH ST
0
ST
1
E
33
UT
RO
-1
&
SR
-2
RD TER
W
/S
VE
A
R
21
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
C
L
A
Y
23
R
63
93
CR 231
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
BRADFORD
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
High
CR 346A
2
25
NW 94TH AVE
SW
0
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
SW
ST
NW 110TH AVE
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
MARION
S
346
E
Transit Service
Threshold Level
Minimum
Threshold
4.5 - 5 dwelling units/acre
8-8
No fewer than 4
employees/acre
High
6 - 7 dwelling units/acre
5 - 6 employees/acre
Very High
≥ 8 dwelling units/acre
7 employees/acre
Note: Thresholds are based on current FDOT TSA standards
Employment Density
Threshold
Map 8-3
2019 Density
Threshold Assessment
Regional Market
As previously mentioned, the regional market refers to those riders who wish to access destinations throughout
Alachua County by utilizing a connected regional transit system. As discussed in previous sections, RTS is in the
process of developing a BRT Feasibility Study as well as implementing a commuter assistance program. Alachua
County’s Mobility Plan has identified corridors for future express and rapid transit. These regional initiatives may
provide additional services to those riders who wish to access destinations throughout Alachua County.
August 2009
8-9
Section 9: Goals, Objectives, & Initiatives
This section provides the transit mission for the RTS TDP (2010-2019). The mission is followed by the goals,
objectives, and initiatives designed to help accomplish the transit mission. The mission, goals, objectives, and
initiatives were developed based on discussions with RTS staff, input through the public involvement process,
Review Committee input, and the results of the TDP planning process. The RTS vision, mission, goals, objectives,
and initiatives are presented in the remainder of this section.
RTS PUBLIC TRANSIT VISION
To be the transportation mode of choice for the Gainesville Metropolitan area.
RTS PUBLIC TRANSIT MISSION
To enhance the quality of life in our community by providing safe, courteous, equitable, reliable, and energy-efficient
transportation services.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES
Goal 1: Provide equitable and balanced transportation choices that meet the needs of the populations within
the Gainesville area.
Objective 1.1:
Increase quality and level of transit services in East Gainesville.
Initiatives for Objective 1.1:
Initiative 1.1.1:
August 2009
Expand the frequency of service to 30 minutes or better on all existing East
Gainesville routes by 2016 and future routes by 2019.
9-1
Initiative 1.1.2:
Improve and maintain the transit infrastructure within East Gainesville.
Initiative 1.1.3:
Update technologies on fixed-route buses serving East Gainesville by 2019.
Objective 1.2:
Expand and maintain transportation infrastructure to enhance transportation choices and
improve capacity for future transit expansions and improvements.
Initiative 1.2.1:
Enhance bus stops according to the Bus Stop Improvement Plan by strategic
placement of 10 landing pads per year and 5 shelters per year.
Initiative 1.2.2:
Encourage multimodal practices by considering bicycle and pedestrian needs
when expanding the transit system.
Initiative 1.2.3:
Preserve the existing transit infrastructure throughout the RTS service area.
Objective 1.3:
Enhance transit services within the Gainesville area.
Initiative 1.3.1:
Increase transit ridership by 1 percent each year.
Initiative 1.3.2:
Expand service hours by 4,000 hours each year.
Initiative 1.3.3:
Increase the frequency of peak weekday service to 40 minutes or better on all
existing routes and future routes by 2019.
Initiative 1.3.4:
Promote ridership featured in the RTS Arts and Entertainment Guide.
Initiative 1.3.5:
Plan park-and-ride facilities at key locations along major corridors.
Initiative 1.3.6:
Implement BRT service within the Gainesville area and evaluate the feasibility of
other premium transit services, such as streetcar.
Initiative 1.3.7:
Conduct environmental assessments along the preferred BRT corridors that are
identified through the BRT Feasibility Study.
Initiative 1.3.8:
Coordinate with Alachua County and the MTPO to implement a comprehensive
BRT system that includes the corridors identified in Alachua County’s Mobility
Plan.
August 2009
9-2
Objective 1.4:
Implement and expand Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements.
Initiative 1.4.1:
Implement a phased update of the fare collection system to improve revenue
collection by purchasing 5 to 10 new fare boxes per year.
Initiative 1.4.2:
Maintain IT and security systems by installing web cams at the UF campus, Rosa
Parks Downtown Station, and Operations and Maintenance facility.
Initiative 1.4.3:
Implement Fleet Net for dispatch, payroll, and timekeeping by September 2010.
Initiative 1.4.4:
Add Global Positioning System (GPS) units to all new buses.
Initiative 1.4.5:
Implement Google Transit by December 2009.
Initiative 1.4.6:
Expand the Gator Locator system to include City routes by 2015.
Initiative 1.4.7:
Install Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) on 5 buses per year.
Initiative 1.4.8:
Install Talking Bus announcements on all new buses.
Initiative 1.4.9:
Implement video surveillance on board vehicles and at facilities to improve safety
and security.
Initiative 1.4.10: Develop evaluation criteria for potential and proposed ITS projects.
Objective 1.5:
Enhance RTS facilities to meet existing and future transit demands.
Initiative 1.5.1:
Continue efforts to identify funding sources to enhance the RTS maintenance
and operations facilities in order to increase the capacity needed for future
service expansions.
Initiative 1.5.2:
Continue efforts to acquire land for future expansion needs either by expanding
the current facility or relocating the facility to increase capacity.
Initiative 1.5.3:
Continue to maintain all RTS facilities (Administration, Operations, Maintenance,
and Rosa Parks Downtown Station).
August 2009
9-3
Initiative 1.5.4:
Objective 1.6:
Move to the administrative modular building by October 2009.
Enhance mobility for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passengers.
Initiative 1.6.1:
Increase ADA accessibility by adding 10 new landing pads per year.
Initiative 1.6.2:
Provide access to RTS schedules for the visually impaired.
Initiative 1.6.3:
Update the ADA paratransit guide annually.
Initiative 1.6.4:
Install mobile data terminals (MDTs) on ADA paratransit vans by 2015.
Initiative 1.6.5:
Continue to contract with the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for
the provision of paratransit service under the ADA.
Objective 1.7: Improve and maintain the RTS fleet
Initiative 1.7.1:
Operate a fleet of fixed-route vehicles with an average age of less than 6 years
by 2019.
Initiative 1.7.2:
Purchase 5-10 new buses per year to improve fleet age.
Initiative 1.7.3:
Replace 4-5 ADA paratransit vans per year.
Initiative 1.7.4:
Install tracking on support vehicles by 2015.
Initiative 1.7.5:
Install computers in supervisors’ vehicles by 2015.
Initiative 1.7.6:
Purchase 1 new support vehicle per year.
Initiative 1.7.7:
Purchase 8 new buses with ARRA funds by FY 2011.
Initiative 1.7.8:
Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit vehicles.
Objective 1.8:
August 2009
By 2019, identify and implement innovative approaches for commuter services in the
Gainesville area, e.g., vanpools, Emergency Ride Home, etc.
9-4
Initiative 1.8.1:
Coordinate the RTS commuter assistance program with the FloridaWorks
GREENRIDE web-based carpooling system and FDOT.
Goal 2: Protect and sustain the natural environment and address future energy needs and reduce energy
demand.
Objective 2.1: Reduce energy demand at facilities.
Initiative 2.1.1:
Increase recycling efforts throughout RTS.
Initiative 2.1.2:
Turn off lights and computers when not in use.
Objective 2.2: Reduce fuel consumption in RTS vehicles.
Initiative 2.2.1:
Increase efficiency by purchasing new buses.
Initiative 2.2.2:
Transition the existing bus fleet to use a bio-diesel blend by 2019.
Initiative 2.2.3:
Explore alternative energy sources.
Initiative 2.2.4:
When acquiring new buses for service expansions, consider the purchase of
smaller vehicles to match the capacity requirements of the new service.
Initiative 2.2.5:
When acquiring new buses for replacement or service expansion, consider
alternative fuels prior to the purchase of any new buses.
Initiative 2.2.6:
Purchase 1 hybrid support vehicle per year.
Initiative 2.2.7:
Reduce fuel consumption by 1 percent each year.
Objective 2.3: Reduce Gainesville residents’ total vehicle miles traveled.
Initiative 2.3.1:
August 2009
Increase transit’s share of the total trips travelled in the Gainesville metro area.
9-5
Objective 2.4: Reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuels.
Initiative 2.4.1:
Participate in local air quality improvement efforts in support of Florida HB 697
and EPA efforts.
Initiative 2.4.2:
Continue participating in FDOT (Bus Fuel Fleet Evaluation Tool) committee and
alternate fuel program (updated annually).
Goal 3: Improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods for the benefit of all residents and enhance the
community appearance.
Objective 3.1:
Enhance RTS amenities.
Initiative 3.1.1:
Increase bike racks at bus stops by 5 bike racks per year.
Initiative 3.1.2:
Continue to update all bus stops with the new RTS bus stop signage.
Initiative 3.1.3:
Pursue funding for improvements of new and existing bus stops.
Initiative 3.1.4:
Develop an amenities inventory within a geographic information system.
Objective 3.2:
Coordinate route planning with comprehensive plan use and density allocations so that
development and redevelopment along transit routes can increase the accessibility of
goods, services, and jobs from residents’ homes.
Initiative 3.2.1:
Ensure that RTS comments on all major development regarding the provision of
adequate transit access.
Initiative 3.2.2:
Conduct a training session with the City of Gainesville site review staff to educate
about the importance of transit.
Objective 3.3:
Coordinate activities with regional entities and neighboring communities.
Initiative 3.3.1:
Conduct quarterly assessments of outreach efforts to surrounding communities.
Initiative 3.3.2:
Establish an RTS booth at the Alachua County Fair to ensure that information is
distributed to a broader spectrum of visitors and residents.
August 2009
9-6
Goal 4: Increase the visibility of RTS services through marketing, education, improvement of existing
services, and the development of new services.
Objective 4.1:
Increase marketing and public outreach efforts to educate citizens and visitors about the
benefits, availability, and characteristics of existing and planned transit services.
Initiative 4.1.1:
Distribute bus schedules and system information in public places throughout the
county for residents and visitors.
Initiative 4.1.2:
Maintain and regularly update the RTS website with current service and schedule
information.
Initiative 4.1.3:
Increase RTS branding on buses, bus stops, uniforms, and shelters.
Objective 4.2:
Develop an ongoing public involvement process to solicit citizen feedback through
surveys, discussion groups, interviews, and public workshops.
Initiative 4.2.1:
Maintain an ongoing public involvement process through surveys, discussion
groups, interviews, public workshops, and participation in public events.
Initiative 4.2.2:
Conduct an on-board survey at least every 5 years as part of major TDP updates
to monitor changes in user demographics, travel behavior characteristics, and
user satisfaction.
Objective 4.3:
Pursue marketing opportunities through community organizations.
Initiative 4.3.1:
Work with community business leaders to integrate their transportation ideas into
future planning efforts.
Initiative 4.3.2:
Attend one community organization meeting each year to educate the public
about the RTS existing and planned transit system.
Initiative 4.3.3:
Distribute transit service information to at least 25 percent of businesses within
¼-mile of existing transit routes by 2016.
August 2009
9-7
Objective 4.4:
Coordinate BRT implementation with RTS marketing efforts to create a highly visible,
easily recognized, premium RTS brand.
Initiative 4.4.1:
Use buses with a modern appearance on BRT routes.
Initiative 4.4.2:
Provide attractive, welcoming, easily identifiable stations along BRT routes.
Initiative 4.4.3:
Consider unique naming or branding of BRT routes to distinguish BRT as a
premium RTS service.
Goal 5: Monitor service quality and maintain minimum standards
Objective 5.1:
Develop a performance monitoring program that addresses performance standards for
fixed-route, paratransit, and commuter transit service.
Initiative 5.1.1:
Meet the fixed-route and paratransit performance measures established in the
performance monitoring program.
Initiative 5.1.2:
Maintain an on-time performance of 90 percent on all fixed-route services by
2012.
Initiative 5.1.3:
Conduct a COA by 2013 and every subsequent 5 years for detailed information
on services.
Goal 6: Coordinate public transportation services with planning efforts.
Objective 6.1:
Promote transit improvements by integrating into the development review process.
Initiative 6.1.1:
Regularly attend development review meetings to express the importance of
transportation and transit considerations.
Initiative 6.1.2:
Encourage transit supportive strategies during the development review process.
Initiative 6.1.3:
Standardize a process for RTS to submit comments on proposed City of
Gainesville land use actions.
August 2009
9-8
Objective 6.2:
Support land use planning and regulations that encourage transit-supportive
development.
Initiative 6.2.1:
Support Transit Oriented Development patterns with land use regulations for
development and redevelopment within activity centers and adopted
transportation hubs.
Initiative 6.2.2:
Prioritize placement of premium transit routes, such as BRT or streetcar, along
corridors and to activity centers that planning efforts have identified as
appropriate for mixed-use development at sufficient densities to support transit.
Initiative 6.2.3:
Support land use regulations that require design features that facilitate
pedestrian mobility and transit ridership such as small street blocks, connectivity,
placement of parking to the side or rear of buildings, and wide sidewalks.
Initiative 6.2.4:
Support comprehensive plan future land use allocations that provide for mixeduse development and redevelopment or development and redevelopment at
densities sufficient to support transit only in those areas that pedestrians can
access from a corridor that RTS could serve with a premium transit service such
as BRT or streetcar.
Initiative 6.2.5:
Consider bus stop accessibility in the identification and prioritization of sidewalk
and bicycle facility improvements.
Objective 6.3:
Increase coordination with other planning agencies.
Initiative 6.3.1:
Coordinate planning efforts with the City of Gainesville, Alachua County,
adjacent cities, and the MTPO.
Initiative 6.3.2:
Coordinate transit planning into the long-term planning efforts of relevant local
and state agencies, governments, and organizations.
Initiative 6.3.3:
Coordinate planning efforts with local human services agencies.
Initiative 6.3.4:
Coordinate new services with the City of Gainesville and Alachua County to meet
the requirements for each TCEA zone.
August 2009
9-9
Initiative 6.3.5:
Coordinate with the City of Gainesville, adjacent cities, and Alachua County to
implement new services using mobility fees collected as part of the alternative
concurrency management process.
Initiative 6.3.6:
Ensure consistency with Alachua County and the City of Gainesville
Comprehensive Plans.
Goal 7: Maximize the use of all funding sources and services, public and private, to increase RTS revenue
and meet the need for general public transit service.
Objective 7.1:
Expand existing revenue sources.
Initiative 7.1.1:
Increase advertising revenue by 2 percent each year.
Initiative 7.1.2:
Increase revenue from other partnerships by 2 percent each year.
Initiative 7.1.3:
Coordinate with public, quasi-public, and non-profit entities in order to maximize
all potential funding opportunities for public transportation in the Gainesville area.
Initiative 7.1.4:
Educate the general public and local decision-makers on the importance of
public transportation and the need for local financial support.
Initiative 7.1.5:
Submit grant applications / requests for funding available through federal, state,
and local sources.
Initiative 7.1.6:
Request financial support from the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, the
MTPO, FDOT, and FTA on an annual basis.
Goal 8: Improve and pursue partnerships and intergovernmental relationships.
Objective 8.1:
Improve and expand transit partnerships.
Initiative 8.1.1:
Maintain focus on UF partnership.
Initiative 8.1.2:
Pursue and enhance additional public and private business partnerships.
August 2009
9-10
Initiative 8.1.3:
Increase participation in the employee bus pass program by 1 employer each
year.
Initiative 8.1.4:
Develop transit information packets for distribution by the Chamber of Commerce
and / or the Visitor & Convention Bureau.
Objective 8.2:
Increase public outreach and accessibility of RTS services to the public.
Initiative 8.2.1:
Increase networking by attending 3 Chamber of Commerce meetings per year.
Initiative 8.2.2:
Increase participation in public outreach events by attending 5 events per year.
Initiative 8.2.3:
Increase public outreach and accessibility of RTS services by conducting 5
public meetings per year.
Initiative 8.2.4:
Upgrade the RTS website to include a trip planner and provide greater
information to potential and existing customers.
Initiative 8.2.5:
Participate in local job fairs to increase knowledge about the transit system.
Objective 8.3:
Pursue coordination activities with regional entities and neighboring communities.
Initiative 8.3.1:
Meet at least annually with staff from neighboring communities to identify
innovative regional approaches to a coordinated transportation system.
Initiative 8.3.2:
Conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis to determine the feasibility of
extending services and operating regionally.
Goal 9: Increase transit ridership and improve cost efficiency
Objective 9.1:
Increase the number of fixed-route passenger trips by 10 percent from FY 2010 to FY
2019.
Objective 9.2:
Achieve and maintain an annual operating cost per one-way passenger trip to within the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) or less.
Initiatives for Objectives 9.2:
August 2009
9-11
Initiative 9.2.1:
Improve existing transit services and implement new transit services, consistent
with the 10-year transit needs identified in the 2009 TDP (2010-2019).
Initiative 9.2.2:
Increase passengers per hour each year by 1 percent.
Initiative 9.2.3:
Increase passengers per mile each year by 1 percent.
Initiative 9.2.4:
Develop a fare review and update schedule to ensure that fares on both campus
and City routes provide at least 25 percent of the total service cost without the
need to implement dramatic fare increases.
Initiative 9.2.5:
Expand more cost-efficient fixed-route services, so that higher cost paratransit
services can be restricted to the legal requirement of ¾ of a mile from a fixedroute.
Goal 10: Improve and enhance customer satisfaction.
Objective 10.1: Continue efforts to obtain customer feedback.
Initiative 10.1.1: Improve customer satisfaction by reducing the number of complaints by 1% to
3% each year.
Initiative 10.1.2: Reduce service interruptions by 3% per year.
Initiative 10.1.3: Increase customer service compliments by 1% per year.
Initiative 10.1.4: Reduce customer service complaints on ADA trips.
Initiative 10.1.5: Increase customer service compliments on ADA trips.
Initiative 10.1.6: Review the feasibility of utilizing the weekday route numbers on the weekend
routes to avoid customer confusion.
Initiative 10.1.7: Conduct customer surveys once a year.
Initiative 10.1.8: Provide continuous accessible avenues for receiving client feedback, complaints,
suggestions, and / or comments to improve service.
August 2009
9-12
Goal 11: Increase public safety and protect the safety of RTS riders.
Objective 11.1: Reduce preventable accidents and service interruptions by 3 percent each year.
Initiative 11.1.1: Expand operator safety training program.
Initiative 11.1.2: Establish a dedicated driving range.
Initiative 11.1.3: Review and improve potential safety locations identified in the RTS Operator
Survey conducted March 2009.
Initiative 11.1.4: Maintain National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliance.
Initiative 11.1.5: Increase Later Gator ridership to discourage drunk driving.
Initiative 11.1.6: Increase Gator Aider ridership to discourage drunk driving and decrease game
day traffic.
Initiative 11.1.7: Continue to monitor operations, maintenance requirements, management, and
oversight for compliance with local, state, and federal guidelines.
Goal 12: Increase RTS staff skills and knowledge
Objective 12.1: Provide opportunities for additional training to advance operator and administrative staff
skills and knowledge.
Initiative 12.1.1: Provide training to all supervisors to enhance supervisory skills and level of
mentoring.
Initiative 12.1.2: Provide opportunities for RTS staff to attend transit training and conferences.
Initiative 12.1.3: Develop employee growth plans for all staff.
Initiative 12.1.4: Track RTS staff training and progress toward meeting the established goals for
each position.
Objective 12.2: Develop standard interviewing procedures.
August 2009
9-13
Initiative 12.2.1: Develop a skill testing battery for each RTS position to be administered during the
interview process, including fleet mechanics.
Initiative 12.2.2: Develop standard interview questions for each position.
Objective 12.3: Increase employee retention by 2 percent each year.
Initiative 12.3.1: Promote dispatchers to supervisors, as appropriate.
Initiative 12.3.2: Update position descriptions.
Initiative 12.3.3: Revise Operations employee handbook to be consistent with value statements.
Initiative 12.3.4: Develop an employee recognition program.
Initiative 12.3.5: Highlight an outstanding employee each quarter.
Objective 12.4: Improve RTS internal communications.
Initiative 12.4.1: Publish an internal RTS newsletter 3 times per year.
Initiative 12.4.2: Post internal updates and memoranda at key locations throughout RTS facilities.
August 2009
9-14
Section 10: Transit Priorities
The purpose of this section is to summarize the potential transit priorities developed as part of the 10-year planning
horizon of this TDP update.
METHODS USED TO DEVELOP AND EVALUATE PRIORITIES
Potential transit priorities for the City of Gainesville and Alachua County were developed and evaluated through a
number of methods. In addition to the use of public and RTS staff input, the results of various demand analyses
were completed to indentify the initial priorities. These methods are described in more detail below.
Public Involvement
As in Section 4, citizen involvement was emphasized extensively as part of the preparation of the TDP. Efforts to
facilitate public involvement included Review Committee meetings, public workshops, surveys, discussion groups,
and stakeholder interviews.
Discussions with RTS Staff
Numerous discussions took place with the Review Committee and RTS staff throughout the TDP process, which
resulted in an extensive amount of local knowledge that can be learned only from living and working in Alachua
County on a daily basis, particularly knowledge related to the day-to-day operation of RTS. This information also was
used, as appropriate, in the development and selection of transit priorities for the City of Gainesville and Alachua
County.
August 2009
10-1
Situation Appraisal
A situation appraisal was conducted for transit to enhance the understanding of the environment in which the transit
agency operates and to understand key trends and implications that impact the approach that RTS will take in
developing transit service priorities.
Transit Demand Estimation and Mobility Needs
Section 8 provides an assessment of the potential transit demand in Alachua County. The assessment involves the
use of several techniques, including a review of ridership trends, results from the TBEST demand modeling, and an
assessment of transit markets, including traditional markets, discretionary markets, and regional markets. The
traditional market includes individuals who have no or limited transportation alternatives and rely on public transit for
essential and recreational trips. This market includes the elderly, youth, low-income, and no / limited vehicle
populations. The discretionary market refers to individuals who have a choice of transportation alternatives and may
choose transit if the service is able to be competitive with the automobile in terms of travel time, convenience, or
other characteristics. The regional market refers to the demand for commuter travel to other counties in the region.
The results of the transit market assessment were used to indentify and select transit priorities for Alachua County.
TRANSIT PRIORITIES
Tables 10-1 and 10-1B list the priorities that were identified through the TDP process for possible implementation
between FY 2010 and FY 2019. The TDP priorities were presented to the public during the second public workshop.
Workshop attendees were asked to rate their personal level of favorability with the TDP priorities scheduled for
implementation between FY 2010 and FY 2015. The summary of the survey responses are presented in Table 10-2.
The priorities listed in Tables 10-1 and 10-1B do not exactly mirror but are consistent with the goals, objectives, and
initiatives in this report. The priority tables identify the projects that are likely to move forward over the 10-year
planning horizon; the goals, objectives, and initiatives, provide a wide overview of policy and activity that will guide
RTS in implementing the priorities listed in Table 10-1 and Table 10-1B.
August 2009
10-2
Table 10-1
TDP Service Priorities (FY 2010-FY 2019)
Project
Number
Implementation
Year
1
2011
2
2011
3
2011
4
2012
5
2012
Route 10 increase fixed-route frequency to 40 minutes and Route 43 increase fixedroute frequency to 30 minutes
Route 23 – New fixed-route service from the Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College
(along Fort Clarke Boulevard)
Route 25 – New fixed-route service UF to airport area
Route 62 – New fixed-route service from the Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza
(along 62nd Blvd)
Route 1, Route 8, and Route 11 extend fixed-route hours to 11:00pm
6
2013
Implement BRT Feasibility Study Corridor Alternative #1
7
2013
Park-and-ride lot at I-75 and Newberry Road
8
2014
9
2014
10
2015
Park-and-ride lot at Butler Plaza Area
Park-and-ride lot west of I-75 and Archer Road (area between Tower Road and SW
63rd Street)
Route 6 and Route 11 increase frequency to 30 minutes
11
2015
Route 46 - New circulator route Downtown / UF
12
2015
13
2015
14
2015
15
2015
16
2016
17
2016
18
2016
19
2016
Park-and-ride lot at Eastside Activity Center (43rd and Hawthorne Road)
Express bus route from the City of Alachua to the park-and-ride lot at NW 34th and US
441 (6 am-10 am and 4 pm-8 pm)
County-Proposed Archer Road Express Bus Service (75th Street to US 441)
County-Proposed Newberry Road Express Bus Service (CR 241 to the UF) from the
City of Newberry, stopping in Jonesville, to the park-and-ride lot west of I-75 and
Newberry Road (6 am-10 am and 4 pm-8 pm). To be coordinated with County express
service
Routes 2 and Route 24 increase fixed-route frequency to 30 minutes
Extend Saturday fixed-route hours to 7:58 pm on Saturday routes (15, 75, 400, 402,
403, 404, 405, 406, 409, and 410)
Route 75 – Provide 35-minute frequency all day, extend weekday evening hours to 10
pm, extend Saturday hours to 7:58 pm, add Sunday service (10:03 am-4:58 pm), and
increase weekend frequency to 45 minutes
Park-and-ride lot at NW 34th St and US 441
20
2016
Park-and-ride lot at 39th Avenue and I-75
21
2016
Park-and-ride lot at 39th Avenue and Waldo Road
22
2016
Route 7 – Increase fixed-route frequency to 30 minutes
23
2017
24
2018
Route 39 – New fixed-route service from Spring Hills to the Gainesville Airport
25
2018
Route 44 – New fixed-route service Shands to Hunters Crossing
26
2019
Route 410 - Add Sunday fixed-route service 410 (10:03am-5:58pm)
August 2009
Priorities
10-3
TDP Service Priorities (FY 2010-FY 2019)
Project
Number
27
Implementation
Year
2019
28
2019
Route 45 – New fixed-route service from Magnolia Park (39th Avenue) to UF
29
2019
Route 88 – New fixed-route service from Oaks Mall to Super Wal-Mart (via 8th Avenue)
30
2019
31
2019
32
2019
Route 91 – New fixed-route service from Haile Plantation to SFC
Route 26 – New fixed-route service from Town of Tioga to Oaks Mall (via University
Avenue)
Route 47 – New fixed-route service from Turkey Creek to Oaks Mall (via 43rd Street and
Newberry Road)
August 2009
Priorities
Route 37 – New fixed-route service UF to Northwood
10-4
Table 10-1B
TDP Capital Priorities (FY 2010-FY 2019)
Project
Number
Implementation
Year
1
2010
2
2010 - 2019
3
2010 - 2019
4
2010 - 2019
Purchase of paratransit vans – 5 per year from 2010 through 2019 (50 total)
5
2010 - 2019
6
2010 - 2019
Purchase of support vehicles – 4 per year from 2010 through 2019 (40 total)
Purchase and install benches (5) and shelters (5) each year and install bus stops each
year as necessary
7
2010
Install Automatic Passenger Counters on 10% of all buses
8
2011
RTS Maintenance Facility – Construction Phase I
9
2011
Rehabilitate and refurbish existing maintenance facility
10
2011
Purchase video surveillance equipment on all buses
11
2012
Radio system upgrade from 800mhz analog to a digital radio system
12
2012
Rehabilitate and refurbish existing operational facility
13
2012
Purchase new Odyssey Fareboxes for all buses
14
2013
15
2013
Rehabilitate and refurbish existing training room
Dedicated lane for BRT Alternative #1, including technology for signal priority, advance
traveler information systems, vehicles, and stations
16
2014
17
2014
18
2015
19
2015
20
2015
21
2015
22
2015
23
2016
24
2016
25
2017
August 2009
Priorities
RTS Maintenance Facility – planning, land acquisition, and engineering
Purchase of rolling stock – 15 new buses for replacement of aged fleet; purchase of 10
new buses each year from 2011 through 2019 for replacement of aged fleet and
expansion of service (105 total)
Purchase of office furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE) and shop FFE each year from
2010 through 2019
RTS Maintenance Facility – Construction Phase II
Regional Transportation Center – planning, design, engineering and construction of a
multimodal regional transportation
Newberry Road Intermodal Center – construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride lot
west of Interstate 75
Butler Plaza area Intermodal Center – construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride
lot
Archer Road Intermodal Center – construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride lot
west of Interstate 75 (75th Street and Tower Road Area)
Eastside Intermodal Center – construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride lot
US 441 Intermodal Center – construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride lot
Spring Hills Area Intermodal Center – construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride
lot at I-75 and NW 39th Avenue
Airport Area Intermodal Center - construct transit transfer facility with park-and-ride lot at
Waldo Road and NW 39th Avenue
Dedicated lane for BRT Alternative #2, including technology for signal priority, advance
traveler information systems, vehicles, and stations
10-5
Table 10-2
Transit Priorities Evaluation Survey Results: Favorability of Potential Improvements
RTS TDP Projects (FY 2010 - FY 2015)
Enhance bus service facilities in order to expand services – land acquisition, planning,
design, engineering, and construction of RTS Maintenance facility
Route 1, Route 8, and Route 11 - extend fixed-route hours to 11:00 PM
Bus service from the airport, UF eastside campus, downtown, and UF
Park-and-ride lot & Newberry Road Intermodal Center (transfer facility) at I-75 and Newberry
Road
Route 6 and Route 11 - increase frequency to 30 minutes
Express bus service on Newberry Road (CR 241 to UF) from the City of Newberry, stopping
in Jonesville, to the proposed park-and-ride lot located west of I-75 and Newberry Road (6
am-10 am and 4 pm-8 pm); to be coordinated with the County
Purchase and install benches (5) and shelters (5) each year and install bus stops each year
as necessary
Rehabilitate and refurbish existing maintenance facility
Rehabilitate and refurbish existing operational facility
Dedicated lane for BRT including technology for signal priority, advance traveler information
systems, vehicles, and stations
Park-and-ride lot & US 441 Intermodal Center (transit transfer facility) at NW 34th St & US
441
Automatic Passenger Counters – Allows passenger counts independent of the operator
Bus service from the Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College
Express bus service on Archer Road (75th to 441)
Park-and-ride lot & Eastside Intermodal Center (transfer facility) at Eastside Activity Center
(43rd & Hawthorne)
Regional Transportation Center – planning, design, engineering, and construction of
multimodal regional transportation center
Park-and-ride lot & Butler Plaza Intermodal Center (transfer facility) at Butler Plaza area
Bus service from the Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza via 20th Avenue and 62nd Boulevard
August 2009
10-6
Very
Favorable
5
2
Not Very
Favorable
1
No. of
Responses
Average
Rating
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
7
4.71
4.67
4.57
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
6
4.57
4.50
4.50
2
1
0
0
7
4.43
5
4
4
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
4.43
4.43
4.43
3
2
1
0
0
6
4.33
2
4
4
3
4
1
1
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
7
7
4.33
4.29
4.29
4.29
2
5
0
0
0
7
4.29
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
7
7
4.20
4.14
4.00
4
Neutral
3
5
5
5
2
0
1
5
3
4
1
3
1
4
Transit Priorities Evaluation Survey Results: Favorability of Potential Improvements
RTS TDP Projects (FY 2010 - FY 2015)
Rehabilitate and refurbish existing training room
Route 10 – Increase frequency to 40 minutes
Route 43 – Increase frequency to 30 minutes
Park-and-ride lot & Archer Road Intermodal Center (transfer facility) west of I-75 and Archer
Road (between Tower Road and SW 63rd Street)
Upgrade radio system from 800mhz analog to a digital radio system
Bus circulator between downtown and UF
Install video surveillance equipment on buses
Install new fareboxes on all buses
August 2009
10-7
Very
Favorable
5
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
4
3
1
3
Neutral
3
2
1
0
1
1
Not Very
Favorable
1
0
0
0
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
No. of
Responses
Average
Rating
7
6
6
4.00
4.00
4.00
7
7
7
7
6
3.86
3.86
3.57
3.57
3.50
As indicated in Table 10-2, the workshop participants who completed the surveys are generally favorable to all of the
proposed improvements, as evidenced by the average scores all exceeding the 3.00 score representing neutrality.
The highest rated improvements, with scores approaching the Very Favorable (5.00) range, include (1) the land
acquisition, planning, design, engineering, and construction of the RTS maintenance facility, (2) extending the service
hours to 11:00 pm on Route 1, Route 8, and Route 11, and (3) new fixed-route service from the airport, the UF
eastside campus, downtown, and the UF main campus. The next section includes a detailed discussion of the transit
service, capital / infrastructure, and policy priorities evaluated and included as part of the TDP update.
August 2009
Ga
10-1
Section 11: Ten-Year Transit Development Plan
Based on the information presented in Section 10, the following service alternatives and implementation strategies
are provided for the RTS 10-year TDP. The TDP services represent the outcome of coordination with RTS staff, the
Review Committee, public involvement activities, and transit demand analysis. These alternatives provide for the
most viable service to be provided to existing and potential transit users. Map 11-1 shows all of the service priorities
for the 10-year TDP. Maps 11-2 through 11-5 illustrate the priorities by service type.
TEN-YEAR TDP SERVICE PRIORITIES

Continue Operating Existing Fixed Bus Routes – The existing fixed bus routes should continue to
operate. Fixed-route ridership increased from 8.2 million in 2005 to 9.1 million in 2008, indicating that the
current routes are productive and utilization of them continues to grow. As a result, it is recommended that
the existing fixed-route bus network continue to operate.

Continue to Operate Complementary ADA Paratransit Service – The existing ADA paratransit service
should be maintained, thereby continuing to serve the needs of the ADA-eligible transportation
disadvantaged residents of the City of Gainesville.

Expand Complementary ADA Paratransit Service to Complement New Service – To continue serving
the needs of the ADA-eligible transportation disadvantaged residents of the City of Gainesville and in
compliance with the ADA regulations, RTS is obligated to expand paratransit service in conjunction with the
implementation of new fixed-routes.

Improve Frequency of Service on Existing Fixed Bus Routes – Reducing headways has the potential of
improving the attractiveness and efficiency of the service. Public workshop participants and survey
respondents indicated the need for improving headways on many of the fixed bus routes.
August 2009
11-1
o
o
o
Routes 2, 6, 7, 11, 24, and 43 should be adjusted to operate at 30-minute headways during the
TDP planning horizon.
Route 75 should be adjusted to operate at 35-minute headways on weekdays and 45-minute
headways on the weekends.
Route 10 should be adjusted to operate at 40-minute headways during the TDP planning horizon.

Extend Evening Hours – Expanding hours of service will allow RTS passengers to travel later in the
evening and possibly attract more riders. The on-board survey results indicated that passengers would like
to see later evening hours on the existing routes.
o Routes 1, 8, and 11 should be adjusted to operate until 11:00 pm on weekdays.
o Route 75 should be adjusted to operate until 10:00 pm on weekdays.
o Routes 15, 75, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 409, and 410 should be adjusted to operate until 7:58 pm
on Saturdays.

Implement Additional Sunday Service – Adding Sunday service on existing bus routes will provide
passengers with greater access to jobs and other activities, as well as possibly attracting new customers
who do not use RTS because of the existing schedule and hours.
o Route 75 should operate on Sunday from 10:00 am-4:58 pm during the TDP planning horizon.
o Route 410 should include Sunday service operating from 10:03 am-5:58 pm during the TDP
planning horizon.

Implement New Fixed-Route Bus Service – Eleven new fixed bus routes were identified through public
involvement activities and discussions with the Review Committee and RTS staff. The new bus routes
include Route 23 (Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College), Route 25 (Airport, UF Eastside Campus, Downtown, and
UF), Route 62 (Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza), Route 39 (Spring Hills to Gainesville Airport), Route 44 (UF to
Hunters Crossing), Route 37 (SR 121 between NW 53rd and University Avenue), Route 45 (Magnolia Park
to UF), Route 88 (Oaks Mall to Super Wal-Mart), Route 91 (Haile Plantation to Santa Fe College), Route 26
(Town of Tioga to Oaks Mall),and Route 47 (Turkey Creek to Oaks Mall).

Implement Downtown / UF Circulator – Implementing a downtown circulator will improve access and
connectivity throughout the City center. The circulator can strengthen the downtown area by providing
greater access to downtown amenities.

Implement Express Routes – Three express routes were identified operating every 30 minutes during
peak hours (6 am-10 am and 4 pm-8 pm). The express bus route from the City of Alachua will connect at
the proposed park-and-ride lot located at NW 34th and US 441. The County-proposed Archer Road express
bus service will operate along Archer Road between 75th Street and US 441. The County-proposed
Newberry Road express bus will operate from CR 241 to UF, stopping in Jonesville, and at the proposed
park-and-ride lot located west of I-75 on Newberry Road. These routes will need to be coordinated with the
County. The County plans to begin service on these routes by 2015 pending developer contributions.
August 2009
11-2

Implement BRT Feasibility Study Corridors – Based on the final results of the BRT Feasibility Study,
implementation of the first and second preferred BRT corridors should occur within the TDP planning
horizon. The corridors will not be determined until after the BRT Feasibility Study is completed.

Implement Commuter Assistance Program – RTS should provide Transportation Demand Management
strategies aimed at reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. These strategies include, but are not limited to,
carpooling, vanpooling, and an Emergency Ride Home program. In addition, RTS should work with
FloridaWorks GREENRIDE and FDOT to coordinate strategies and commuter services.
Capital and Infrastructure Alternatives
The following capital and infrastructure alternatives were developed for the second 5 years of the TDP’s 10-year
planning horizon.

Construct a New RTS Maintenance Facility – The existing RTS maintenance facility is operating over
capacity. If RTS plans to expand the existing service area, a new maintenance facility will need to be
constructed to increase vehicle capacity. RTS has been working on plans for a new maintenance facility in
order to increase fleet capacity. The planning and land acquisition phase is programmed to begin in FY
2010. The first construction phase is scheduled to begin in FY 2011, which will create capacity for 50
vehicles. The second construction phase is scheduled to begin in FY 2014.

Rehabilitate and Refurbish Existing Facilities – The existing RTS maintenance facility, operational
facility, and training room should be rehabilitated and refurbished.

Vehicle Replacement and Acquisition – Vehicle replacement and acquisition is the most important
component of transit infrastructure for RTS. Following an increase in service frequency to 30-minute-orless headways, RTS should evaluate its vehicle replacement and acquisition plan including fixed-route,
paratransit, and support vehicles to maintain an adequate number of vehicles and avoid exceeding the FTA
spare ratio level.

Establish Park-and-Ride Lots – In conjunction with Alachua County and future private developments,
shared-use / joint-use park-and-ride lots should be established as part of the expanded transit infrastructure
program for the 10-year TDP. Park-and-ride locations identified for implementation within the TDP planning
horizon include the following:
o I-75 and Newberry Road
o Butler Plaza Area
o West of I-75 and Archer Road (area between Tower Road and SW 63rd Street)
o Eastside Activity Center (43rd and Hawthorne Road)
o NW 34th Street and US 441
o 39th Avenue and I-75
o 39th Avenue and Waldo Road
August 2009
11-3

Add Shelters, Shaded Benches, and Other Transit Infrastructure – RTS should add transit
infrastructure (e.g., purchase and installation of bus shelters, shaded benches, bike racks, etc.) as funding
becomes available.

Install Transit Technologies – Technologies have been identified to help improve the overall system
efficiency and safety. Technologies identified for implementation within the TDP planning horizon include
Automatic Passenger Counters, video surveillance equipment, radio system upgrades, and fareboxes.
Automatic Passenger Counters are used to track boarding and alighting (by stop and time of day), aid in
identifying shelter locations, monitoring route running time, and identifying bus overload situations.

Dedicate BRT Lanes – In coordination with the implementation of the first and second preferred BRT
corridors, BRT lanes will need to be dedicated. The procurement will need to include technology for signal
priority, advance traveler information systems, vehicles, and stations.

Construct New Regional Transportation Center – This project will establish a regional multimodal facility
at the existing Downtown Transfer Station. The facility will serve as a hub for fixed-route transit service and
other ground transportation services, including paratransit. This project includes costs for design and
construction of the facility.

Construct New Park-and-Ride Lot Transfer Facilities – In coordination with the proposed park-and-ride
lots previously identified, intermodal transfer facilities will be constructed at the sites to better facilitate
passenger transfers and improve system connectivity. Construction of these facilities will be coordinated
with Alachua County and potential new developments.
Planning Activities
During the 10-year planning horizon RTS will undertake several planning initiatives to provide a basis for service
changes, capital projects, and the future direction of the agency. Funds have been added to the financial plan for
these planning efforts, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Bus Rapid Transit – to qualify for FTA small starts / new starts funding, RTS may need to complete an
Alternative Analysis, Environmental Assessment, Preliminary Design and Engineering, and Final Design
and Engineering plans.

Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) – A comprehensive operations analysis will review all RTS
services and provide information on service efficiencies, route performance and overall operations. The
last COA completed by RTS was done in FY 2001. RTS should complete another COA during the 10-year
planning horizon and in conjunction with its BRT planning efforts to determine how the fixed-route bus
service will be reconfigured to support the BRT service.

Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan (ITS) – RTS’s current ITS plan should be updated to provide a
framework for all technology improvements for RTS.
August 2009
11-4

Major TDP Update – It is required by FDOT that the TDP undergo a major update for the 5th year. In
addition, FDOT requires that TDP progress reports are submitted annually.

Facilities Needs Plan – As RTS continues to grow and add new modes of transportation it will be
important to assess facility and transit infrastructure needs.

Major Investment Study – RTS, the City of Gainesville, Alachua County and the MTPO should review the
potential funding that will be available for transit investment and the needs of the area to determine what
major capital projects should move forward to enhance mobility options.
Policy Alternatives

Evaluate Fare Policy – Both current patrons and the general public’s perceived value of the current level of
service offered by the public transit system in Gainesville should be assessed and changes to fare policy
should be evaluated. Table 11-1 present the current fare structure adopted by RTS.
Table 11-1
RTS Current Fare Structure
Regular
Discount*
ADACertified*
One-Way Trip
$1.50
$0.75
Free
All Day Pass
$3.00
Monthly Student Pass
$17.50
Monthly Pass - Full Fare
$35.00
Fare Category
$17.50
*Senior, student, and disabled discounts are available with proof of eligibility (driver’s license, DMV identification
card, birth certificate, Medicare card, and student ID)

Evaluate the Use of Smaller Vehicles – RTS should consider the use of smaller vehicles, such as cutaway
buses or shuttle-sized vehicles, to match the capacity requirements of the new service, as a way to help
reduce future capital and operating costs.
August 2009
11-5
33
1
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
34
Proposed Fixed Routes
TH
County Proposed Routes - BRT *
ST/ARCH
ER RD
Proposed Express Routes
RTS Transit Routes
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
City of Gainesville
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
SE
23
4
SR-2
0
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
SW
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
SW 8TH AVE
SR 121
NW 23RD AVE
NW 22ND ST
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
MTPO Boundary
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
Legend
0
NE CR 1417
1
E
33
UT
RO
&
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
1
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
R
2
-1
NE 15TH ST
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
R
63
93
24
SR
S
BRADFORD
R
23
SW 75TH ST
/S
S R-22 6
SW
CR 231
25
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
NW 298 ST
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
Map 11-1
All Transit Priorities
* Note: Corridors stemming from the BRT feasibility study have not been determined at this point and are therefore not shown on the map.
11-6
3
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza
Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College
Spring Hills to Airport
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
Shands to Hunter's Crossing
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
US 441 / SR 25
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
23
4
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SR-120
SR-2
0
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
SW
CR
Oaks Mall to Walmart
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
2019 Routes
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
UF to Northwood
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
SW 46TH AVE
UF to Airport Area
329B
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
Legend
Downtown to UF Circulator
NW 94TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
2010 RTS
Proposed Fixed Routes
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
31
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
Town of Tioga to Oaks Mall
P
U
T
N
A
M
Turkey Creek to Oaks Mall
Haile Plantation to SFC
UF to Magnolia
RTS Transit Routes
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 11-2
Fixed-Route
Priorities
MARION
Source: RTS
11-7
3
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
ST
N MAIN
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
0
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
Park-and-Ride Location
RTS Transit Routes
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
City of Gainesville
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
SE
23
4
SR-2
0
CR 346A
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
SW
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
SW 8TH AVE
SR 121
NW 23RD AVE
NW 22ND ST
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
NW 39TH AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
MTPO Boundary
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
Legend
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
31
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
HOO
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
Map 11-3
Park-and-Ride
Priorities
MARION
11-8
3
33
1
NE 15TH ST
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
County Proposed Routes - BRT *
Newberry Express
City of Alachua Express
Archer Rd Express
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
RTS Transit Routes
NW 43RD ST
SE
23
4
CR
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SR-2
0
SW
HOO
TA R
City of Gainesville
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 8TH AVE
Newberry
NW 53RD AVE
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
Alachua
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
Municipalities
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
2010 RTS
Legend
0
NE CR 1417
&
E
1
34
UT
RO
2
-1
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
R
31
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
4
S
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
SW 75TH ST
BRADFORD
R
23
R
63
93
CR 231
/S
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
25
H
4T
SE
&
R
S R-22 6
SW
2
SR
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
ST
NW 110TH AVE
SW
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
NW 298 ST
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
MTPO Boundary
P
U
T
N
A
M
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
* Note: Corridors stemming from the BRT feasibility study have not been determined at this point and are therefore not shown on the map.
11-9
Map 11-4
Express Route
Priorities
33
1
&
NE 9TH ST
SR
-2
4
ST
N MAIN
34
TH
ST/ARCH
ER RD
Existing Hubs
Potential Hubs
RTS Transit Routes
CR 2
00 A / CR 146
9
City of Gainesville
NW 43RD ST
21
9A
CR
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
23
4
CR
SR-2
0
WAC
A
CR 325
CR 2082
SW
HOO
CR 346A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SE
NW 22ND ST
SR 121
SW 8TH AVE
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SR-222
SW 91ST ST
202ND ST
NW 53RD AVE
NW 23RD AVE
SW 122ND ST
SW 46TH AVE
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
SW 30TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
MTPO Boundary
329B
CR
SR-45 / US-27
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2010 RTS
Legend
0
NE CR 1417
1
E
33
UT
RO
&
SR
-2
ST
W
/S
VE
A
1
C
L
A
Y
SR-26
D
S
GI
R
2
-1
NE 15TH ST
NW 53RD AVE
32
9
RD TER
R
63
93
24
SR
S
BRADFORD
R
23
SW 75TH ST
/S
S R-22 6
SW
CR 231
25
SW
SW 91ST ST
23
R
H
4T
SE
&
/S
NW 8TH AVE
R
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
6A
ST5/S
3RD I-7
NW 202ND ST
&2
4
SW
H B LVD
ST
T
46
SW
ST
NW 110TH AVE
NE 21
20
NW 16TH BLVD
75
31
CR 237 NW
NW 298 ST
, 20
R
SR-120
SR 121
2 3 9 NW
CR
I3/
-9
SR
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
SR-26, 24
5
1 ,2
-24
SR
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
NW 23RD AVE
NW 43RD ST
NW 83 ST
SR-222
CR 236
/S
US 441 / SR 25
COLUMBIA
44
1
NW 24TH BLVD
NW 43RD ST
US
SR-121
UNION
TA R
SE
1 52
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
D
CR
34
6
S
346
E
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
Map 11-5
Transit Hubs
11-10
TEN-YEAR RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS
The FDOT-approved transit demand forecasting tool for TDPs, TBEST, was used to forecast future ridership demand
in Alachua County. Designed to provide near- and mid-term forecasts of transit ridership, TBEST is a comprehensive
transit analysis and ridership-forecasting model that is capable of simulating travel demand at the individual stoplevel. It also accounts for transit network connectivity, spatial and temporal accessibility, time-of-day variations, and
route competition and complementarities. Table 11-2 presents the ridership projections for the TDP service
alternatives. The ridership projections in Table 11-2 assume implementation of all service alternatives irrespective of
funding availability.
August 2009
11-11
Table 11-2
TBEST Ridership Projections1 (2010-2019)
ROUTE
August 2009
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
TBEST Ridership
2010
TBEST Ridership
2011
TBEST Ridership
2012
TBEST Ridership
2013
TBEST Ridership
2014
TBEST Ridership
2015
TBEST Ridership
2016
TBEST Ridership
2017
TBEST Ridership
2018
TBEST Ridership
2019
TBEST Total/Route
896,442
1,049,452
1,152,220
1,174,344
1,189,177
1,138,987
1,150,468
1,161,999
1,153,033
1,015,111
11,081,233
68,250
71,552
72,796
73,101
75,895
76,302
107,823
110,439
113,030
112,674
881,862
Route 1
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Butler Plaza
Route 2
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Health Department
Route 5
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Oaks Mall
365,049
390,931
401,168
403,682
420,675
408,381
418,465
413,893
565,353
433,984
4,221,581
Route 6
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Gainesville Mall
176,174
179,426
182,270
184,633
188,595
291,516
297,053
302,285
336,677
313,563
2,452,192
Route 7
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows
216,230
221,234
222,987
223,952
227,203
228,448
349,987
352,908
354,863
357,276
2,755,087
Route 8
Shands to Northwood Village
244,170
247,498
270,434
274,142
280,213
285,521
292,938
298,526
349,758
321,285
2,864,485
Route 9
McCarty to Hunters Run
508,127
506,705
507,136
507,060
507,263
495,935
493,852
490,144
606,527
484,353
5,107,102
Route 10
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Santa Fe College
35,408
49,276
49,555
50,495
52,857
53,772
55,423
57,277
72,593
64,516
541,172
Route 11
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Eastwood Meadows
112,547
133,172
157,531
166,268
174,396
216,510
227,787
239,674
250,520
248,742
1,927,149
Route 12
McCarty to Gateway at Gainesville
820,877
858,342
897,611
935,025
975,487
969,848
1,004,570
1,043,737
1,387,043
1,170,508
10,063,048
Route 13
Shands to FloridaWorks
450,190
467,944
492,201
517,830
555,904
604,342
677,951
784,885
1,003,021
1,225,093
6,779,362
Route 15
198,691
215,044
218,712
222,950
228,295
227,961
242,245
264,056
322,117
336,051
2,476,122
Route 16
Shands to Sugar Hill
234,899
232,639
235,204
238,506
242,418
241,300
252,654
260,274
341,605
285,166
2,564,663
Route 17
Shands to Downtown
194,361
196,799
195,453
198,069
201,498
192,227
196,190
202,311
273,456
214,503
2,064,868
Route 20
McCarty to Oaks Mall
422,019
437,959
446,199
451,503
458,224
464,112
472,941
479,880
502,477
493,155
4,628,472
Route 20B
McCarty to Oaks Mall - Evening and Weekend
174,625
173,584
170,739
169,799
166,751
162,433
160,350
161,442
214,325
153,213
1,707,261
Route 21
McCarty to Cabana Beach
289,763
293,573
298,704
298,704
303,174
306,476
311,379
315,544
343,992
327,558
3,088,869
Route 22
McCarty to SW 43rd St at SW 24th Ave
91,313
92,862
94,336
96,444
98,349
98,984
100,787
102,921
109,804
107,620
993,419
Route 23
Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College along Fort Clarke Blvd
258,928
268,529
274,015
274,650
278,054
279,832
280,467
282,016
284,683
2,481,174
Route 24
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Job Corps
147,701
151,714
155,397
161,823
165,481
252,451
264,973
249,555
265,278
1,935,988
Route 25
UF to Airport Area
1,372
1,397
1,372
1,473
1,422
1,803
2,159
2,565
2,184
15,748
Route 26
Town of Tioga to Oaks Mall via University
57,556
57,556
121,615
Route 29 - Clockwise Beaty Towers to Cobblestone
Route 29 Counterclockwise
Beaty Towers to Cobblestone
109,855
111,862
113,106
114,732
116,611
118,720
120,701
122,377
145,720
123,977
1,197,661
69,926
78,130
80,010
82,118
84,303
85,725
86,335
88,595
97,282
83,998
836,422
Route 34
The Hub to Lexington Crossing
297,282
306,324
316,281
322,478
327,304
328,574
337,668
352,958
423,723
362,864
3,375,457
Route 35
McCarty to Homestead
947,877
948,284
948,919
949,985
950,468
947,268
947,420
947,623
1,017,778
948,538
9,554,159
Route 36
McCarty to Homestead (via Archer Rd)
111,404
112,573
113,640
112,979
113,843
111,201
112,293
113,157
137,008
115,545
1,153,643
Route 37
UF to Northwood
63,068
63,068
Route 39
Spring Hills to the Gainesville Airport
110,312
131,267
241,579
Route 43
97,815
93,243
850,341
Route 44
Shands to Hunters Crossing
433,603
394,843
828,446
Route 45
Magnolia Park (39th Ave) to UF
91,821
91,821
Route 46
UF/Downtown Circulator
1,514,653
8,005,191
Route 47
Turkey Creek to Oaks Mall
39,319
39,319
65,329
84,836
84,938
85,090
85,369
84,277
1,520,927
11-12
84,430
1,534,566
85,014
1,545,184
1,889,862
TBEST Ridership Projections (2010-2019)
ROUTE
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
TBEST Ridership
2010
TBEST Ridership
2011
TBEST Ridership
2012
TBEST Ridership
2013
TBEST Ridership
2014
TBEST Ridership
2015
TBEST Ridership
2016
TBEST Ridership
2017
TBEST Ridership
2018
TBEST Ridership
2019
TBEST Total/Route
120,548
125,857
129,769
132,918
136,830
133,756
139,852
138,659
1,058,189
166,637
161,665
167,402
123,241
372,164
388,199
357,570
439,495
2,477,394
Route 62
Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza (along 62nd Blvd)
Route 75
Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza (along SW 75th St)
Route 88
Oaks Mall to Super Wal-Mart (via 8th Ave)
89,916
89,916
Route 91
Haile Plantation to Santa Fe College
15,443
15,443
Route 117
Park-and-Ride 2 (34th Street)
258,978
254,356
257,454
260,020
263,246
250,342
253,238
256,210
417,119
253,111
2,724,074
Route 118
Park-and-Ride 1 (Cultural Plaza)
447,167
443,154
447,370
448,412
450,926
455,676
458,064
460,959
533,248
463,423
4,608,398
Route 119
Family Housing
63,144
62,332
62,840
63,068
63,754
63,449
63,856
64,338
73,127
64,846
644,754
Route 120
West Circulator (Frat Row)
241,808
236,449
236,830
236,880
237,160
237,566
238,328
239,446
287,858
237,109
2,429,434
Route 121
Commuter Lot
640,664
630,250
629,768
629,869
630,606
624,891
625,018
624,357
776,834
616,433
6,428,689
Route 122
UF North/South Circulator
30,632
29,540
29,718
29,896
30,048
28,778
28,931
29,083
34,544
27,940
299,110
Route 125
Lakeside
191,668
191,414
193,446
193,523
194,259
194,488
195,377
196,139
222,529
197,434
1,970,278
Route 126
UF East/West Circulator
136,303
136,960
137,043
136,891
136,649
133,835
133,909
134,907
172,048
132,000
1,390,544
Route 127
East Circulator (Sorority Row)
340,893
332,765
309,778
307,035
328,828
336,245
306,807
308,661
428,142
337,769
3,336,925
Route 300
Later Gator A Reitz Union to Downtown
516,569
671,265
701,290
744,703
780,974
744,667
797,999
866,300
1,061,518
860,940
7,746,225
Route 301
Later Gator B Lexington Cr. to Downtown
487,544
610,785
629,464
656,349
675,585
576,143
604,137
641,004
887,802
628,478
6,397,291
Route 302
469,224
606,066
628,617
661,923
691,787
624,778
669,084
720,563
910,137
732,182
6,714,361
48,464
49,686
50,794
51,532
52,052
52,884
56,623
57,361
58,718
38,137
516,251
157,024
185,994
219,190
259,922
308,469
369,179
441,376
529,116
627,900
705,188
3,803,358
Route 402
Later Gator C Oaks Mall to Downtown
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Oaks Mall (via
University)
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Oaks Mall (via 20th
Ave)
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Gateway at
Gainesville (via Archer Rd)
1,418,160
1,470,347
1,546,241
1,594,876
1,648,728
1,691,955
1,942,725
2,022,899
2,115,126
2,217,114
17,668,170
Route 403
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Lexington Crossing
74,095
86,736
102,336
119,860
144,430
163,561
214,063
235,685
256,204
291,819
1,688,788
Route 404
Shands to FloridaWorks
6,204
6,412
6,682
7,030
7,670
8,273
16,058
17,852
20,467
24,440
121,087
Route 405
Shands to Sugar Hill
7,145
7,233
7,743
7,899
8,268
8,486
12,132
12,584
13,224
13,978
98,691
Route 406
Rosa Parks Downtown Station to Waldo Rd
85,415
117,842
147,919
189,566
244,598
297,632
445,167
507,114
507,120
560,440
3,102,814
Route 407
6,708
7,067
7,290
7,571
7,899
8,304
8,804
9,438
11,825
15,678
90,584
Route 408
Shands to Northwood Village
1,166,256
1,170,562
1,172,668
1,172,824
1,176,063
1,176,250
1,177,904
1,180,920
1,179,168
1,304,113
11,876,728
Route 409
9,412
11,253
11,856
12,470
13,114
13,868
27,113
28,844
26,442
28,694
183,066
Route 410
9,017
9,911
10,572
11,367
12,262
13,302
27,186
29,791
32,302
37,253
192,962
Route 701
County Proposed City of Newberry/Jonesville Express
Bus Service
119,964
120,066
120,193
120,294
237,084
717,601
Route 710
City of Alachua to Park-and-Ride at NW 34th & US 441
49,327
50,317
51,333
52,299
55,347
258,623
Route 711
County Proposed Archer Road Express Bus Service
140,157
149,225
156,464
301,396
311,633
1,058,875
18,744,865
20,142,858
20,868,220
24,812,248
23,313,302
186,634,145
Route 400
Route 401
TOTAL
144,579
14,179,498
156,442
15,352,821
15,977,884
16,375,682
16,866,766
1
According to Florida law, TBEST is the FDOT-approved model for transit ridership forecasting as part of Transit Development Plans in Florida. However, it is important to understand that TBEST is just one tool for evaluating improvements
to existing and future transit services. Although TBEST provides ridership projections at the route and bus stop levels, its strength lies more in its ability to facilitate relative comparisons of ridership productivity for various transit network
scenarios. As a result, the analyst should use caution and professional judgment when considering the absolute ridership projections resulting from the TBEST model. TBEST continues to be a work in progress and will become more and
more useful as its limitations are addressed in future updates to the mode.
August 2009
11-13
COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
In order to implement the 10-year TDP alternatives, coordination between the City of Gainesville, Alachua County,
and the MTPO will become increasingly important. The following requirements are identified for improving public
transportation coordination in Alachua County over the next 10 years:

RTS will work closely to ensure that the TDP is implemented. Meetings will be held on a quarterly basis to
review the progress made toward implementing the plan. These efforts will also ease the preparation of the
annual TDP progress report over the next 5 years until the time of the next major update.

RTS will encourage Alachua County and the City of Gainesville to update their respective Comprehensive
Plans to ensure consistency with the public transportation services provided within their planning areas, as
well as with the recommendations of the TDP in general.

RTS will meet with neighboring communities to identify opportunities for coordination and innovative
transportation approaches.
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Several key strategies are identified in this section to assist in carrying out the 10-year implementation plan. These
strategies are outlined below.

Implement Plan – RTS must continue to take ownership of the plan to ensure its implementation in an
efficient manner. This action requires a commitment to review and reference the plan on a regular basis to
ensure that efforts are undertaken as appropriate.

Hold Quarterly Meetings – As indicated in the discussion on monitoring performance, it is critical that RTS
staff hold regular meetings to review the progress made toward the implementation of the TDP.

Enhance Marketing and Public Awareness – Despite limited resources, RTS has made some progress in
transit marketing and education. In addition to continuing efforts, however, new opportunities for public
outreach must be sought. Further, additional resources need to be devoted to marketing to expand the level
of awareness regarding public transportation.

Maintain Quality of Service – As part of the TDP update, RTS conducted an on-board survey in which
respondents were asked to rate the system on several ridership satisfaction criteria, including service
frequency, reliability, driver courtesy, and bus stop safety. The scores reflected an overall high level of
satisfaction with the quality of transit services being provided. It is important that on-board surveys be
conducted periodically as part of service assessment and implementation. Since word-of-mouth is perhaps
the most effective form of marketing, this quality of service must be maintained and improved to keep
existing users satisfied and to ultimately attract new users over time.
August 2009
11-14
MONITORING PROGRAM TO TRACK PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A significant part of a transit agency’s operation is continuously reviewing performance and effectiveness. RTS staff
regularly collects and summarizes ridership and performance measures that are reviewed for effectiveness and
analyzed against historical performance data. The performance monitoring program includes routine collection and
reporting of the following information:







Farebox revenues
Passenger trips per revenue miles
Operating cost per passenger trip
Unlinked passenger trips for fixed-route services
Total scheduled trips and operating costs for the ADA paratransit system
Marketing / public outreach activities
Route alignments / changes
TEN-YEAR TDP NEEDS
As indicated previously, transit alternatives for Alachua County were evaluated and prioritized through a number of
factors including the following:





Public involvement
Discussions with RTS staff
Discussions with the TDP Review Committee
Situation appraisal
Transit demand estimation and mobility needs
TEN-YEAR TDP FINANCIAL PLAN
Numerous assumptions were made to project public transportation costs and revenues for the time period from FY
2010 through FY 2019. The assumptions made for operating and capital costs and revenues for fixed-route and
complementary ADA paratransit services, as well as the addition of premium transit modes are based on a variety of
factors, including trend data, recent changes to the transit system, previous TDPs, and discussions with RTS staff.
These assumptions are summarized below.
Cost Assumptions

Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the last 10 years from 2000 to 2009, the average annual
inflation rate is approximately 2.5 percent. Therefore, an annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent is used for all
operating cost projections for fixed-route and ADA paratransit services.
August 2009
11-15

Annual operating cost for fixed-route service is based on the estimated FY 2010 operating cost of
$17,226,097. The FY 2008 fixed-route operating cost of $16,396,047 was used as a base cost and inflated
using an inflation rate of 2.5 percent per year thereafter.

The annual operating cost for existing ADA complementary paratransit services is based on the projected
FY 2010 ADA paratransit operating cost of $1,000,000. The FY 2008 paratransit operating cost of $773,171
was used as a base cost and inflated using an inflation rate of 2.5 percent per year thereafter, which brought
the FY 2010 cost to $812,313. In addition to regular inflation, a 23 percent increase was added to the FY
2010 paratransit cost based on recent contract discussions with the paratransit provider that reflect the
future cost of providing paratransit service would be significantly higher than the current rates.

Based on the RTS historical data, the annual operating cost for ADA complementary paratransit service
improvements is assumed at 6 percent of the cost of fixed-route service improvements.

Based on the current cost of transit vehicles in Florida and recent RTS vehicle purchases, unit costs of
$400,000 per bus were used. The unit costs include the additional cost for equipment upgrades, such as
wheelchair lifts. Based on the State of Florida contract for paratransit vehicles and industry trends, the
average unit cost of ADA complementary paratransit vehicles is assumed to be $62,500. Based on
estimates for hybrid-electric articulated BRT vehicles, unit costs of $1,000,000 for BRT vehicles were used.
Revenue Assumptions

Based on the FY 2009 budget, Federal Section 5307 funds are assumed to be $3,237,500 in FY 2010.
Thereafter, an inflation factor of 2.5 percent is used annually.

Based on the FY 2009 budget, Federal Section 5309 funds are assumed to be $2,500,000 in FY 2010.
Thereafter, an inflation factor of 2.5 percent is used annually. In addition to the inflation factor all FYs that
include facility improvements and bus expansions, it is assumed that Federal Section 5309 allocations will
be increased to cover at a minimum 80 percent of the improvements. Toll revenue credits may be utilized
by RTS to offset remaining capital costs on vehicles and facilities.

New Starts Funding also allocated under the Federal Section 5309 funding is assumed to pay for 50 percent
of the BRT capital cost.

It assumed that Federal Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute and Section 5317 New Freedom
funding will be sought by RTS from the FDOT to support transit operating activities. Section 5316 and 5317
funds are formula based funds for urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 and for areas with less than
200,000 persons the funds are distributed to the State. It is assumed that RTS will apply for funds from the
FDOT until the urbanized area population is 200,000 or more and funds can be directly received by RTS.

State Block Grant funding contributions are estimated at $1,404,219 for FY 2010. Thereafter, an inflation
factor of 2.5 percent is used annually.
August 2009
11-16

State New Starts funding is assumed for the BRT alternatives at 25 percent of the capital costs of these
service improvements. RTS will have to apply for these funds through the FDOT.

The existing local revenues are estimated at $2,114,622 for FY 2010. Thereafter, an inflation factor of 2.5
percent is used annually. Additional local revenues will be needed to implement service expansion and
improvements. All additional revenues beyond the current local contributions including the annual inflation
rate are assumed to come from new or increased local revenue sources. Potential new revenue sources
are described below.

It assumed that Alachua County and the City of Gainesville will evenly contribute to the remaining 25
percent of funding necessary for the BRT capital improvements. The equal division of the BRT between the
City and County was assumed because at present alignments for the BRT improvements are not identified.

It is assumed that a bill will be passed in the Florida Legislature and become law in FY 2010 allowing
colleges to assess fees per credit hour that can support transportation services. It is also assumed that at
such time that it is lawful, Santa Fe College will charge a per credit hour fee to support increased fixed-route
service to their college.

The $9,740,150 in revenue provided to RTS by the University of Florida agreement is based on RTS’s FY
2009 Budget. Thereafter, an inflation factor of 2.5 percent is used annually. In addition, the new UF
Downtown Circulator is added to the UF costs from its inception through FY 2019.

RTS received funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in FY 2009 to purchase 11
buses.
Using these cost and revenue assumptions, the financial plan for implementing the 10-year TDP recommendations
are presented below.
August 2009
11-17
Operating and Capital Needs and Costs
Operating and capital needs are summarized in this section, along with the projected costs associated with those
needs over the next 10 years.
Table 11-3 presents the operating plan associated with the 10-year implementation plan. Table 11-4 presents the
projected annual operating costs for the next 10 years. As indicated previously, projected annual operating costs are
adjusted to reflect an annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent.
Tables 11-5 and 11-6 summarize the capital requirements necessary to support fixed-route bus services over the
same time period. The capital needs relate to the expansion of the RTS maintenance facility, construction of new
transportation centers, and the replacement and acquisition of buses needed to maintain and expand bus services in
the next 10 years. Other infrastructure needs include shelters and benches.
Table 11-7 presents the total operating and capital costs for the transit services associated with the 10-year
implementation plan. Table 11-8 also provides a summary of capital and operating revenues and the local revenue
needed for the next 10 years.
Potential Revenue Sources
In order for RTS in conjunction with the City of Gainesville and Alachua County to move forward with the 10-year plan
additional revenue sources will be necessary to address unfunded needs. The list below provides revenue sources
that RTS, the City of Gainesville and/or Alachua County may be eligible for during FY 2010 – 2019. It is important to
note, that during the planning horizon additional sources of funding may surface that are not currently available.
Therefore, it is important that all agencies supporting public transit improvements continue to review funding
opportunities and exhaust all available sources to support public transit enhancements.

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) – capital funding made available to
assist with the funding projects similar to those funded under the New Starts and Small Starts Federal
funding programs;

Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) - discretionary grant program for
public transportation projects that result in a decrease in a transit system’s energy use or reduce a transit
system’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;

Charter County Surtax – a sales tax up to 1 percent and outside of the 1 percent cap on other discretionary
sales taxes, which must be approved by a majority vote of the electorate and can be utilized by a transit
agency for the purposes of development, construction, equipment, maintenance, operation, supportive
services, including a countywide bus system, and related costs of a fixed guideway rapid transit system;

Ad Valorem Increase – both the city and county could increase the millage rate to generate revenues to
support transit operations. The County also has the ability to create a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU)
August 2009
11-18
and levy a millage to support additional public transit service. In addition, to expand services out to
unincorporated areas of Alachua County a municipal service benefit district is also an option available to
Alachua County;

Gas Tax – increases to the gas tax can be applied and utilized to fund operating and capital expenditures.
However, as transit use increases and the rate at which gas is consumed fluctuates gas tax revenues may
be an unstable source of funding for transit services;

Sales Tax – The city may levy the additional ½ cent of the discretionary sales tax to raise additional funds to
fund transit service costs;

Fare Increase – RTS should evaluate the fares charged for service periodically to ensure that the cost of
service to users is maintained at a reasonable percentage consistent with the provision of service and also
to prevent having to shock customers with a significant increase in fares due to minor increases not
periodically occurring;

Private Partnerships – The City of Gainesville and Alachua County should work with RTS to continue to
support transit services through new development. As new development occurs the City and County should
ensure that the appropriate contributions are being secured for capital and operating costs related to
providing public transit service to the development. Partnerships should also be sought with major
employers to create employee pass programs or make donations to support transit service to their
workplaces;

Public Transportation Pilot Program Grants – this grant opportunity is available through the SAFETEA-LU
transportation bill and provides assistance for innovative activities to involve the public in the planning
process for transportation. If awarded this grant could assist in offsetting new marketing and/or public
involvement efforts that might be implemented to support new and existing transit service; and

Service Development Grants (SDGs) – these grants are made available through the FDOT to assist with
new and innovative public transit operating and capital expenses. The current revenue assumes an annual
allotment of SDGs, but these funds can be sought above the rate currently included in the 10-year financial
plan.
August 2009
11-19
Table 11-3
Implementation Schedule for TDP Transit Improvements (FY 2010 – FY 2019)
Existing Service/Service Enhancement
Continue Existing Fixed-Route Services
Continue Operating Complementary ADA Paratransit Service
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
17,226,097
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,000,000
Route 10 - Increase Frequency to 40 Minutes
140,131
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
192,680
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 23 - Fixed-Route Service from the Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College (Along
Fort Clarke Boulevard)
455,425
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 25 - Fixed-Route Service UF to the Airport Area
562,748
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 62 - Fixed-Route Service from the Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza
492,404
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 1, Route 8, and Route 11 - Extend Fixed-Route Hours to 11:00 PM
105,098
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Implementation of BRT Feasibility Study Corridor Alternative #1
450,000
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at I-75 and Newberry Road
10,000
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at Butler Plaza Area
10,000
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Park-and-Ride Lost West of I-75 and Archer Road
10,000
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 6 and Route 11 - Increase Frequency to 30 Minutes
490,458
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 46 - New Circulator Route Downtown / UF
420,393
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10,000
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Express Bus Service from the City of Alachua to the Park-and-Ride Lot at NW
34th & US 441
385,360
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
385,360
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
County Proposed Newberry Road Express Bus Service
385,360
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Routes 2 and 24 - Increase Frequency to 30 Minutes
455,425
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
60,543
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
131,374
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 75 - Extend Weekday Hours to 10:00 PM
35,033
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 75 - Add Sunday Service (10:03 AM-4:58 PM)
28,916
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 75 - Increase Weekend Frequency to 45 Minutes
46,988
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at Eastside Activity Center
Routes 15, 75, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 409, and 410 - Extend Saturday Hours
to 7:58 PM
Park-and-Ride Lot at NW 34th St and US 441
10,000
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at 39th Avenue and I-75
10,000
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Park-and-Ride Lot at 39th Avenue and Waldo Road
10,000
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
450,000
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route 39 - Fixed-Route Service from Spring Hills to the Gainesville Airport
488,025
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Route 44 - Fixed-Route Service Shands to Hunters Crossing
342,959
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
32,530
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Route 410 - Add Sunday Fixed-Route Service (10:03 AM-5:58 PM)
August 2009
Annual
Operating
Cost
Route 37 - Fixed-Route Service UF to Northwood (Along SR 121 Between NW
53rd Avenue and University Avenue)
595,556
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Route 45 - Fixed-Route Service from Magnolia Park (39th Ave) to UF
595,556
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Route 88 - Fixed-Route Service from Oaks Mall to Super Wal-Mart
595,556
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Route 91 - Fixed-Route Service from Haile Plantation to Santa Fe College
595,556
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Route 26 - Fixed-Route Service from Town of Tioga to Oaks Mall
595,556
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Route 47 - Fixed-Route Service from Turkey Creek to Oaks Mall
595,556
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Provide Complementary Paratransit Service on New Routes
Varies
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Transit Studies
Varies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
11-20
Table 11-4
Operating Costs for TDP Transit Improvements (FY 2010 – FY 2019)
Existing Service/Service Enhancement
10-Year Total
(2010-2019)
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
$17,226,097
$17,226,097
$17,656,749
$18,098,168
$18,550,622
$19,014,388
$19,489,748
$19,976,991
$20,476,416
$20,988,326
$21,513,035
$192,990,541
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,025,000
$1,050,625
$1,076,891
$1,103,813
$1,131,408
$1,159,693
$1,188,686
$1,218,403
$1,248,863
$11,203,382
$140,131
$0
$143,634
$147,225
$150,906
$154,678
$158,545
$162,509
$166,572
$170,736
$175,004
$1,429,810
$192,680
$0
$197,497
$202,434
$207,495
$212,683
$218,000
$223,450
$229,036
$234,762
$240,631
$1,965,988
Route 23 - Fixed-Route Service from the Oaks Mall to Santa Fe College (Along
Fort Clarke Boulevard)
$455,425
$0
$466,811
$478,481
$490,443
$502,704
$515,272
$528,153
$541,357
$554,891
$568,763
$4,646,875
Route 25 - Fixed-Route Service UF to the Airport Area
$562,748
$0
$576,817
$591,237
$606,018
$621,168
$636,698
$652,615
$668,931
$685,654
$702,795
$5,741,933
Route 62 - Fixed-Route Service from the Oaks Mall to Butler Plaza
$492,404
$0
$0
$517,332
$530,266
$543,522
$557,110
$571,038
$585,314
$599,947
$614,945
$4,519,474
Route 1, Route 8, and Route 11 - Extend Fixed-Route Hours to 11:00 PM
$105,098
$0
$0
$110,419
$113,179
$116,009
$118,909
$121,881
$124,928
$128,052
$131,253
$964,630
Continue Operating Existing Fixed Bus Routes
Continue Operating Complementary ADA Paratransit Service
$450,000
$0
$0
$0
$484,601
$496,716
$509,134
$521,862
$534,909
$548,281
$561,988
$3,657,491
Park-and-Ride Lot at I-75 and Newberry Road
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$10,769
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,769
Park-and-Ride Lot at Butler Plaza Area
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,038
Park-and-Ride Lost West of I-75 and Archer Road
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,038
Route 6 and Route 11 - Increase Frequency to 30 Minutes
$490,458
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$554,908
$568,781
$583,000
$597,575
$612,515
$2,916,780
Route 46 - New Circulator Route Downtown / UF
$420,393
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$475,636
$487,527
$499,715
$512,208
$525,013
$2,500,100
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,314
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,314
Express Bus Service from the City of Alachua to the Park-and-Ride Lot at NW 34th
& US 441
$385,360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$435,999
$446,899
$458,072
$469,524
$481,262
$2,291,756
$385,360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$435,999
$446,899
$458,072
$469,524
$481,262
$2,291,756
Park-and-Ride Lot at Eastside Activity Center
County Proposed Newberry Road Express Bus Service
$385,360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$435,999
$446,899
$458,072
$469,524
$481,262
$2,291,756
Routes 2 and 24 - Increase Frequency to 30 Minutes
$455,425
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$528,153
$541,357
$554,891
$568,763
$2,193,165
$60,543
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$70,211
$71,967
$73,766
$75,610
$291,554
$131,374
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$152,354
$156,162
$160,066
$164,068
$632,651
Route 75 - Extend Weekday Hours to 10:00 PM
$35,033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,628
$41,643
$42,684
$43,751
$168,706
Route 75 - Add Sunday Service (10:03 AM-4:58 PM)
$28,916
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,534
$34,372
$35,231
$36,112
$139,249
Route 75 - Increase Weekend Frequency to 45 Minutes
$46,988
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$54,492
$55,854
$57,250
$58,682
$226,278
Park-and-Ride Lot at NW 34th St and US 441
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,597
$0
$0
$0
$11,597
Park-and-Ride Lot at 39th Avenue and I-75
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,597
$0
$0
$0
$11,597
Park-and-Ride Lot at 39th Avenue and Waldo Road
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,597
$0
$0
$0
$11,597
Routes 15, 75, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 409, and 410 - Extend Saturday Hours to
7:58 PM
$450,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$534,909
$548,281
$561,988
$1,645,178
Route 39 - Fixed-Route Service from Spring Hills to the Gainesville Airport
$488,025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$594,611
$609,476
$1,204,087
Route 44 - Fixed-Route Service Shands to Hunters Crossing
$342,959
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$417,862
$428,309
$846,171
$32,530
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,626
$40,626
Route 37 - Fixed-Route Service UF to Northwood (Along SR 121 Between NW
53rd Avenue and University Avenue)
$595,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$743,768
$743,768
Route 45 - Fixed-Route Service from Magnolia Park (39th Ave) to UF
$595,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$743,768
$743,768
Route 88 - Fixed-Route Service from Oaks Mall to Super Wal-Mart
$595,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$743,768
$743,768
Route 91 - Fixed-Route Service from Haile Plantation to Santa Fe College
$595,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$743,768
$743,768
Route 26 - Fixed-Route Service from Town of Tioga to Oaks Mall
$595,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$743,768
$743,768
Route 47 - Fixed-Route Service from Turkey Creek to Oaks Mall
$595,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$743,768
$743,768
Route 410 - Add Sunday Fixed-Route Service (10:03 AM-5:58 PM)
Provide Complementary Paratransit Service on New Routes
Varies
$0
$62,618
$95,223
$97,604
$100,044
$102,545
$105,108
$107,736
$171,178
$443,214
$1,285,269
Transit Studies
Varies
$538,175
$400,000
$100,000
$250,000
$250,000
$100,000
$500,000
$250,000
$100,000
$500,000
$2,988,175
N/A
$18,764,272
$20,529,126
$21,391,145
$22,568,793
$23,137,801
$25,887,224
$27,834,470
$28,767,080
$30,403,229
$36,331,798
$255,614,937
Projected Annual Operating Costs
August 2009
Annual
Operating
Cost
11-21
Table 11-5
Summary of Capital Needs (FY 2010- FY 2019)
10-Year
Need
Capital Needs
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
Vehicle Requirements
Continue Existing and New Fixed Bus Routes (replacement buses)
105
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Continue Operating Complementary ADA Paratransit Service (replacement vans)
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Support Vehicles
40
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
BRT Vehicles
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
105
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
40
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
Number of New/Replacement Buses
Number of
eplacement/New
R
DA ans A
Number of upport ehicles
S
Number of RT ehicles
B
V
V
V
Other Transit Infrastructure
Benches
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bus Stop Shelters
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Surveillance Cameras
440
0
440
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fareboxes
110
0
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maintenance Facility
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Radio System Upgrades
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BRT Lanes and Technologies
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Regional Transportation Center
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Passenger Transfer Facilities
7
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
Automatic Passenger Counters
Bike Racks
August 2009
11-22
Table 11-6
Summary of Projected Capital Costs (FY 2010 – FY 2019)
Category
New and Replacement buses
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
10-Year Total
(2009-2019)
FY 2019
$400,000
$6,150,000
$4,202,500
$4,307,563
$4,415,252
$4,525,633
$4,638,774
$4,754,743
$4,873,612
$4,995,452
$5,120,338
$47,983,865
Office furniture and equipment
$25,000
$25,625
$26,266
$26,922
$27,595
$28,285
$28,992
$29,717
$30,460
$31,222
$32,002
$287,087
ADA vans (new and replacement)
$62,500
$320,313
$328,320
$336,528
$344,942
$353,565
$362,404
$371,464
$380,751
$390,270
$400,026
$3,588,583
Support vehicles (new and replacement)
$25,000
$102,500
$105,063
$107,689
$110,381
$113,141
$115,969
$118,869
$121,840
$124,886
$128,008
$1,148,347
Benches (with shade and concrete work)
$4,000
$20,500
$21,013
$21,538
$22,076
$22,628
$23,194
$23,774
$24,368
$24,977
$25,602
$229,669
$35,000
$179,375
$183,859
$188,456
$193,167
$197,996
$202,946
$208,020
$213,221
$218,551
$224,015
$2,009,607
$1,800
$9,225
$9,456
$9,692
$9,934
$10,183
$10,437
$10,698
$10,966
$11,240
$11,521
$103,351
Automatic Passenger Counters
$25,000
$256,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$256,250
Maintenance Facility Expansion
$20,000,000
$0
$10,506,250
$0
$0
$11,314,082
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$21,820,332
Maintenance Facility Refurbishment/Rehabilitation
$300,000
$0
$315,188
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$315,188
Video Surveillance Equipment
$150,000
$0
$157,594
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$157,594
$50,000
$0
$0
$53,845
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$53,845
Operational Facility Refurbishment/Rehabilitation
$238,000
$0
$0
$256,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$256,300
Fareboxes
$200,000
$0
$0
$215,378
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$215,378
Training Room Refurbishment/Rehabilitation
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$16,557,193
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,557,193
BRT Vehicles
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$4,415,252
$0
$0
$0
$4,873,612
$0
$0
$9,288,863
Multimodal Regional Transportation Center
(planning, design, engineering, and construction)
$3,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,394,225
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,394,225
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,877
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,877
Butler Plaza Intermodal Center (planning, design,
engineering, and construction)
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,159,693
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,159,693
Archer Road Intermodal Center (planning, design,
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,877
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,877
Eastside Intermodal Center (planning, design,
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,877
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,877
US 441 Intermodal Center (planning, design,
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$579,847
$0
$0
$0
$0
$579,847
Spring Hills Area Intermodal Center (planning,
design, engineering, and construction)
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$475,474
$0
$0
$0
$475,474
Airport Area Intermodal Center (planning, design,
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$475,474
$0
$0
$0
$475,474
$15,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,276,043
$0
$0
$18,276,043
$5,523,910 $26,095,792
$19,959,738
$8,513,889
$6,468,234 $28,804,872
$5,796,597
Bus Stop Shelters
Bike Racks
Radio System
Dedicated Lane for BRT Alternative #1 (with signal
priority, advance traveler information systems,
vehicles, and stations)
Newberry Road Intermodal Center (planning,
design, engineering, and construction)
Dedicated Lane for BRT Alternative #2 (with signal
priority, advance traveler information systems,
vehicles, and stations)
Total
August 2009
Unit Cost
(2009$)
N/A
$7,063,788 $15,855,507
11-23
$5,941,512 $130,023,840
Table 11-7
Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Costs for Fixed-Route and ADA Services (FY 2010 – FY 2019)
Source
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
10-Year Total
OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS
Operating Costs - Existing Service
Operating Costs - Enhancements
Total Operating Costs
Capital Costs
Total Capital Costs
Total Costs
August 2009
$18,764,272
$19,081,749
$19,248,793
$19,877,513
$20,368,201
$20,721,156
$21,636,685
$21,915,102
$22,306,729
$23,261,898
$207,182,098
$0
$1,447,376
$2,142,351
$2,691,280
$2,769,600
$5,166,069
$6,197,785
$6,851,978
$8,096,499
$13,069,901
$48,432,839
$18,764,272
$20,529,126
$21,391,145
$22,568,793
$23,137,801
$25,887,224
$27,834,470
$28,767,080
$30,403,229
$7,063,788
$15,855,507
$5,523,910
$26,095,792
$19,959,738
$8,513,889
$6,468,234
$28,804,872
$5,796,597
$7,063,788
$15,855,507
$5,523,910
$26,095,792
$19,959,738
$8,513,889
$6,468,234
$28,804,872
$5,796,597
$5,941,512 $130,023,840
$25,828,060
$36,384,633
$26,915,055
$48,664,585
$43,097,539
$34,401,114
$34,302,704
$57,571,952
$36,199,826
$42,273,311 $385,638,777
11-24
$36,331,798 $255,614,937
$5,941,512
$130,023,840
Table 11-8
Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Revenues for Fixed-Route and ADA Services (FY 2010 – FY 2019)
Source
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
10-Year Total
OPERATING REVENUES
Federal
Section 5307 for Operating
$1,700,000
$1,742,500
$1,786,063
$1,830,714
$1,876,482
$1,923,394
$1,971,479
$2,020,766
$2,071,285
$2,123,067
$19,045,749
Section 5316
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$1,350,000
Section 5317
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$900,000
Section 5311
$800,000
$461,624
$485,842
$510,134
$533,390
$533,390
$533,390
$533,390
$533,390
$533,390
$5,457,940
Section 5303
$20,000
$20,500
$21,013
$21,538
$22,076
$22,628
$23,194
$23,774
$24,368
$24,977
$224,068
$1,404,219
$1,439,325
$1,475,308
$1,512,191
$1,549,995
$1,588,745
$1,628,464
$1,669,175
$1,710,905
$1,753,677
$15,732,004
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$2,114,622
$2,167,488
$2,221,675
$2,277,217
$2,334,147
$2,392,501
$2,452,313
$2,513,621
$2,576,462
$2,640,873
$23,690,918
$100,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$3,250,000
Unfunded - Additional New Local Funds for Fixed-Route
$0
$269,549
$607,927
$746,247
$776,387
$1,334,840
$2,392,401
$2,169,971
$2,519,647
$6,712,578
$17,529,548
Unfunded - Additional New Local Funds for BRT
$0
$0
$0
$242,300
$248,358
$254,567
$260,931
$534,909
$548,281
$561,988
$2,651,334
$1,089,479
$1,116,716
$1,144,634
$1,173,250
$1,202,581
$1,232,645
$1,263,462
$1,295,048
$1,327,424
$1,360,610
$12,205,849
Unfunded - Additional New County Funds for Express Service
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,307,998
$1,340,698
$1,374,216
$1,408,571
$1,443,786
$6,875,269
Unfunded - Additional New County Funds for Fixed-Route
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$224,805
$230,425
$830,797
$851,567
$2,137,594
Unfunded - Additional New County Funds for BRT
$0
$0
$0
$242,300
$248,358
$254,567
$260,931
$534,909
$548,281
$561,988
$2,651,334
Farebox Revenues
$1,182,149
$1,293,335
$1,347,642
$1,421,834
$1,457,681
$1,630,895
$1,753,572
$1,812,326
$1,915,403
$2,288,903
$16,103,741
$9,740,150
$9,983,654
$10,233,245
$10,489,076
$10,751,303
$11,020,086
$11,295,588
$11,577,978
$11,867,427
$12,164,113
$109,122,619
Santa Fe College
$0
$807,942
$828,140
$848,844
$870,065
$891,817
$914,112
$936,965
$960,389
$1,728,167
$8,786,441
City of Newberry
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$218,000
$223,450
$229,036
$234,762
$240,631
$1,145,878
$150,000
$153,750
$157,594
$161,534
$165,572
$169,711
$173,954
$178,303
$182,760
$187,329
$1,680,507
Collision Repair Revenue
$50,000
$51,250
$52,531
$53,845
$55,191
$56,570
$57,985
$59,434
$60,920
$62,443
$560,169
Proceeds / Sales Surplus
$30,000
$30,750
$31,519
$32,307
$33,114
$33,942
$34,791
$35,661
$36,552
$37,466
$336,101
$4,770
$4,889
$5,011
$5,137
$5,265
$5,397
$5,532
$5,670
$5,812
$5,957
$53,440
VA Employee Pass Program
$11,813
$12,108
$12,411
$12,721
$13,039
$13,365
$13,699
$14,042
$14,393
$14,753
$132,346
Shands Employee Pass Program
$46,170
$47,324
$48,507
$49,720
$50,963
$52,237
$53,543
$54,882
$56,254
$57,660
$517,260
Interest on Investments
$20,900
$21,423
$21,958
$22,507
$23,070
$23,646
$24,238
$24,844
$25,465
$26,101
$234,151
Other (Gas Tax Refund, etc)
$200,000
$205,000
$210,125
$215,378
$220,763
$226,282
$231,939
$237,737
$243,681
$249,773
$2,240,676
Total Operating Revenue
$18,764,272
$20,529,126
$21,391,145
$22,568,793
$23,137,801
$25,887,224
$27,834,470
$28,767,080
$30,403,229
$36,331,798
$255,614,938
Total Operating Cost
$18,764,272
$20,529,126
$21,391,145
$22,568,793
$23,137,801
$25,887,224
$27,834,470
$28,767,080
$30,403,229
$36,331,798
$255,614,938
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
State
FDOT State Block Grants
FDOT Service Development
City
Existing Local Funds
Unfunded - New Local Match for SDG, JARC, NF
County
Existing County Funds
Other
Advertising Revenues
GRU Employee Pass Program
Fund Balance
August 2009
11-25
$0
Summary of Potential Operating and Capital Revenues for Fixed-Route and ADA Services (FY 2010 – FY 2019)
Source
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
10-Year Total
CAPITAL REVENUES
Fund Balance from Previous Year
$0
($1,489,144)
$40,612
$1,193,423
($1,602,712)
($3,101,033)
($1,335,447)
$1,835,673
($214,924)
$1,472,150
Federal
-$3,201,402
$0
Section 5307 for Capital
$1,537,500
$1,575,938
$1,615,336
$1,655,719
$1,697,112
$1,739,540
$1,783,029
$1,827,604
$1,873,294
$1,920,127
$17,225,199
Section 5309
$2,500,000
$2,562,500
$2,626,563
$2,692,227
$2,759,532
$2,828,521
$3,399,234
$3,484,214
$3,571,320
$3,660,603
$30,084,712
$22,745
$11,121,438
$256,300
$0
$11,314,088
$1,700,000
$1,588,250
$0
$0
$0
$26,002,820
$250,000
$256,250
$262,656
$269,223
$275,953
$282,852
$289,923
$297,171
$304,601
$312,216
$2,800,845
$0
$0
$0
$8,440,130
$0
$0
$0
$9,494,627
$0
$0
$17,934,758
$864,399
$886,009
$908,159
$930,863
$954,135
$977,988
$1,002,438
$1,027,499
$1,053,186
$1,079,516
$9,684,191
Additional Section 5309
STP Funds
New Starts / Small Starts
STIC Funds
State
New Starts / Small Starts
$4,139,298
$4,747,314
$8,886,612
City
Existing Local Funds for Capital
$0
$573,129
$587,457
$602,144
$617,197
$632,627
$648,443
$664,654
$681,270
$698,302
$5,705,223
$400,000
$410,000
$420,250
$2,500,405
$430,756
$441,525
$452,563
$2,837,534
$0
$0
$7,893,034
$0
$0
$0
$2,069,649
$412,643
$1,583,647
$475,474
$2,373,657
$0
$0
$6,915,071
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$92,775
$0
$0
$0
$0
$92,775
Total Capital Revenue
$5,574,644
$15,896,119
$6,717,333
$24,493,080
$16,858,705
$7,178,442
$8,303,907
$28,589,949
$7,268,748
$9,142,913
$130,023,840
Total Capital Cost
$7,063,788
$15,855,507
$5,523,910
$26,095,792
$19,959,738
$8,513,889
$6,468,234
$28,804,872
$5,796,597
$5,941,512
$130,023,840
$40,612
$1,193,423
($1,602,712)
($3,101,033)
($1,335,447)
$1,835,673
$1,472,150
$3,201,401
Unfunded - Additional New Local Funds for Capital
County
Unfunded - Additional New County Funds for Capital
Other
City of Newberry Funds for Transfer Facilities
Fund Balance
($1,489,144)
($214,924)
$0
TOTAL COST VS. LOCAL REVENUES
Total Cost
Existing Local Revenue (City & County)
Unfunded - Additional New Local Funds (City & County)
Total Local Revenue Need
Percent Local Share
August 2009
$25,828,060
$36,384,633
$26,915,055
$48,664,585
$43,097,539
$34,401,113
$34,302,704
$57,571,952
$36,199,826
$42,273,310
$385,638,778
$3,204,101
$3,857,333
$3,953,766
$4,052,610
$4,153,925
$4,257,773
$4,364,218
$4,473,323
$4,585,156
$4,699,785
$41,601,990
$500,000
$1,029,549
$1,378,177
$6,150,902
$2,466,502
$5,619,919
$5,757,805
$10,405,621
$6,205,578
$10,481,907
$49,995,960
$3,704,101
$4,886,882
$5,331,943
$10,203,512
$6,620,427
$9,877,693
$10,122,022
$14,878,944
$10,790,734
$15,181,692
$91,597,950
14.34%
13.43%
19.81%
20.97%
11-26
15.36%
28.71%
29.51%
25.84%
29.81%
35.91%
23.75%
Appendix A
TDP Public Involvement Plan
August 2009
A-1
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Prepared for:
P.O. Box 490, Station 4
Gainesville, FL 32602
ph (352) 334-2609, fax (352) 334-2607
April 2009
1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33602
ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106
1595 S. Semoran Boulevard, Suite 1540
Winter Park, Florida 32792
ph (407) 657-9210, fax (407) 657-9106
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction…………….. ..................................................................................................................................
Public Involvement Plan Techniques.............................................................................................................
Direct Involvement Activities .......................................................................................................................
Information Distribution Activities................................................................................................................
Measures of Effectiveness…………….. ..........................................................................................................
Public Involvement Schedule .........................................................................................................................
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-5
3-1
4-1
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Preliminary Project Schedule.............................................................................................................
April 2009
ii
4-1
Regional Transit System
Public Involvement Plan
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Gainesville’s Regional Transit System (RTS) is in the process of developing its ten-year Transit
Development Plan (TDP) major update. The ten-year TDP is a strategic guide for public transportation in the
community over the next ten years. The plan also represents the transit agency’s vision for public transportation in
its service area during the ten year time period. Several public involvement activities were selected for inclusion in
the TDP’s public involvement process to ensure the active participation of citizens in the community. Each of the
public involvement activities are discussed in this section. The activities have been placed into two major categories:
direct involvement activities and information distribution activities. Direct involvement activities refer to those that
engage the public in “hands on” workshops and/or discussion about the project. The information distribution activities
refer to public information materials that are used to inform the general public of project related topics and issues.
This Public Involvement Plan (PIP) has been developed as part of the TDP in order to formally document all planned
public outreach activities to be undertaken. The Plan identifies numerous opportunities for public involvement as well
as involvement on the part of local agencies and organizations. In accordance with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) TDP Florida Rule 14-73.001, this Plan was developed to be consistent with the Metropolitan
Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO) for the Gainesville Urbanized Area’s Public Involvement Plan.
Activities proposed within this PIP include coordination with the TDP review committee, stakeholder interviews, onboard survey, discussion group workshops, and public workshops. The results of the public involvement activities
will be used in the development of the ten-year transit plan as part of the major TDP update.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
RTS is committed to ensuring that no person shall on the basis of race, color or national origin, sex, age, disability,
family or religious status, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of
1987, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
otherwise subjected to discrimination or retaliation under any RTS program or activity.
Environmental Justice
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1994 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order on Environmental
Justice requires that the transportation planning process seeks to identify the needs of low-income and minority
populations. RTS is committed to enhancing public involvement activities to identify and address the needs of
minority and low-income populations in making transportation decision.
April 2009
1-1
Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Public transportation providers receiving federal funding from the DOT have a responsibility, under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to ensure Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons have meaningful
access to benefits, services, information, and other important programs and activities. LEP persons include
individuals who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. RTS is committed to creating a
positive environment for LEP persons and ensuring that LEP persons have an opportunity for full participation in
public involvement activities.
Special Accommodations
Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or persons who
require translation service to participate in public meeting activities are requested to notify RTS at least seven days
prior to workshops or meetings. Requests for alternative format materials or translation should be made in advance
to accommodate the development and provision of these materials. RTS public meeting notices will include the RTS
staff contact phone number and deadline date for requesting special accommodations at workshops or meetings.
April 2009
1-2
II. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN TECHNIQUES
Many public involvement techniques were selected for inclusion in the TDP PIP to maximize the potential for active
participation by citizens in the community. Each of the techniques is briefly summarized in this Section. Direct
involvement techniques refer to those that engage the public in “hands on” workshops and/or discussion about the
project. Information distribution techniques refer to those that utilize the dissemination of public information materials
to inform the general public of the project.
Direct Involvement Activities
Public involvement activities involving direct interaction with agencies, organizations, and/or citizens will be used
throughout the study process. The direct involvement activities selected for the study include the following.








Review Committee Meetings
Stakeholder Interviews
Transit Passenger Surveys
Public Workshops
Discussion Groups
Public Presentations
Local Government Agency Participation
MTPO Board and MTPO Advisory Committees Participation
The following section describes each direct involvement activity in detail. In addition, the number of times each
activity is programmed to be performed is noted where appropriate.

Review Committee – A TDP Review Committee will be assembled to provide project oversight and
technical feedback throughout the TDP development process. A TDP Review Committee kick-off meeting is
tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 23, 2009 to discuss the scope of work for the project and the
preliminary project schedule. The Review Committee is scheduled to meet three times throughout the
course of the project. Representatives from the following agencies and organizations may be selected as
Review Committee members:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) Administrator and Operator
City of Gainesville
Alachua County
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (MTPO)
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Regional Workforce Board (FloridaWorks)
Project Consultants
April 2009
2-1

Stakeholder Interviews – Stakeholder interviews will be conducted to solicit ideas, concerns, and
comments from key individuals/organizations, community leaders, and other individuals identified
by RTS and the Review Committee to obtain their opinions and ideas regarding current and future
transit services in the Gainesville area. Interviews are planned to be held with ten stakeholders
and will seek to assess the stakeholder’s views of current transit service, implementing and funding
new transit projects, as well as identifying transit issues that are of greatest local concern. The
interviews will be conducted by telephone and will require approximately thirty to forty-five minutes
of the stakeholder’s time. A brief questionnaire will be developed to include several open-ended
questions pertaining to the stakeholder’s perceptions of existing transit services, as well as their
opinions regarding the future of public transportation in the community. The stakeholder questions
can be provided in advance for review prior to the interview. Representatives from the following
agencies and organizations may be selected for stakeholder interview:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
City of Gainesville Commissioners
Alachua County Commissioners
FDOT
FloridaWorks
Gainesville Chamber of Commerce
Transportation Disadvantaged Board Member
Builders Association of North Central Florida
Surrounding Communities

Transit Passenger Surveys – A system-wide on-board survey of RTS fixed-route bus patrons will be
designed and conducted to inquire about passenger demographics, travel behavior, satisfaction, needs, and
issues. The survey sample will include 50 percent of weekday scheduled bus trips. On-board surveyors will
help facilitate the survey administration process by distributing and collecting survey questionnaires.

Transit Operator Surveys – RTS has recently conducted an operator survey and will share the results for
inclusion in the TDP public involvement section.

Public Workshops – Public workshops have proven to be an effective technique for obtaining substantive
public participation in the planning process and will be the primary mechanism to obtain input from the
general public regarding the transit needs of the City of Gainesville. The public workshop locations will be
selected by the RTS staff in coordination with the Review Committee. The workshop locations will be
selected in an attempt to distribute meetings across the RTS geographic service area. If necessary,
additional public involvement activities may be conducted to reach the greatest number of participants
throughout the RTS service area.
April 2009
2-2
The first workshop will occur early in the process, during the second task when specific baseline conditions
and policy and market factors are being assessed. The first workshop will be held at a centrally located mall
or other venue with significant public walk-through traffic and will be conducted jointly by the Consultant and
the RTS staff. The purpose of the first workshop will be to acquire additional input on the perceptions of
transit service and mobility needs in the study area. The second workshop is anticipated to occur later in
the process once the potential transit alternative improvements and solutions have been identified. This will
allow the public to provide input on the prioritization of the proposed alternatives in the final TDP
implementation plan. Public workshop participants will have 45 days after each workshop to submit
comments on the materials presented.
The public workshops conducted as part of the study process will be an “open-house”-style workshop and
may employ one or more public participation techniques (presentations, surveys, dot polling, visual displays,
and other informational materials). The types of strategies employed will depend on the workshop topics
and venues.
o
Open House Workshops – An open house is typically the most flexible public workshop that allows
participants to tour staged workshop stations at their own pace. Workshop stations will be
designed to address separate issues. This public involvement technique is typically designed to be
informal and does not require an invitation to participate. It also may be appropriate to coordinate
some of the public workshops with other scheduled events to help spur attendance. This will
provide opportunities for all interested parties to be actively engaged in the public involvement
process for the major TDP update.
The detailed schedule of these meetings will be determined in conjunction with RTS staff. At a minimum,
these workshops shall be given public notice in accordance with the City of Gainesville, RTS, and the
MTPO’s public notification requirements. However, it is anticipated that additional marketing materials will
be developed to promote the public workshops and information about the public workshops will likely be
posted in County government buildings, public libraries, municipal governments, recreation centers,
community centers, newspapers, and buses within the City of Gainesville.

Discussion Group Workshops – To supplement the information collected during the previously listed
public involvement activities, two discussion groups will be held to support the TDP update process. One of
the workshops will be conducted using current transit riders to help represent the “user” perspective.
Participants of the transit-user discussion group will be recruited through flyers on-board the RTS buses. In
addition, one of the workshops will consist of members from the business, health, and education
communities, as well as local chambers of commerce, to help represent the view of informed “non-users”.
RTS staff will work with the Review Committee to identify and recruit potential “user” and “non-user”
participants and preferred venues for the workshops.

Public Presentations – A total of four presentations of the TDP will be made at the direction of RTS staff
and may include:
April 2009
2-3
o
Board of County Commissioners – The Board of County Commissioners is the governing body for
County Government. The Board is responsible for creating policies that establish the County's
budget, enacting new laws, ruling on rezoning applications and other land-use cases, and
appointing the County Manager and the County Attorney.
o
Transit Agency Advisory Board – The RTS Advisory Board is composed of a total of nine
members. The Advisory Board advises the City Commission on matters relating to public transit
development in the City of Gainesville and Alachua County.
o
MTPO Board – The MTPO Board is composed of decision-makers responsible for regional
transportation planning in the Gainesville area. Consequently, it is critical to keep them informed
throughout the project and to obtain their input and guidance for the study.
o
MTPO Technical Advisory Committee – The TAC is composed of technically qualified
representatives of agencies responsible for local planning and engineering activities throughout
Alachua County. It is the responsibility of the TAC:




To coordinate transportation planning and programming activities;
To review transportation studies and reports;
To review work programs and transportation improvement programs; and
To provide technical recommendations to the MTPO on transportation issues.
o
MTPO Citizens Advisory Committee – The role of the CAC is to represent the views of Alachua’s
citizens in regards to transportation-related matters. The CAC is composed of citizens appointed
by the MTPO Board.
o
Regional Workforce Board – FloridaWorks is the name for the Alachua/Bradford Regional
Workforce Board. It is made up of community leaders from the public and private sector who share
the goal of developing and sustaining a qualified and effective regional workforce.
Presentations may also be made to the City of Gainesville or various community councils or commissions in Alachua
County.

Peer Review and Involvement – In addition to RTS, the public involvement process for the TDP update will
also include the involvement of other entities, such as FDOT, the regional workforce board, and other
interested parties, as appropriate. These parties will be invited to all public participation events, provided a
copy of the public involvement summary for review, and provided an opportunity to review and comment on
the draft TDP.
April 2009
2-4
Information Distribution Activities
The information distribution activities selected for the TDP are listed and discussed below.

Public Involvement Plan – The public involvement plan will be made available to RTS staff for placement
on the RTS web site.

Press Releases/Flyers for Public Workshops – Press releases and flyers will be prepared prior to each of
the public workshops to notify citizens and encourage participation. Flyers will be made available in a
variety of formats and forums to be determined by the Review Committee and will be provided to RTS staff
for distribution. In addition, the workshops will be noticed in the Gainesville Sun and the Gainesville
Guardian by display ads.

Channel 12 (Gainesville Public Channel) – To the degree feasible, TDP meetings and other project
announcements will be advertised on Gainesville’s Community 12 Television.

Reports and Information for RTS Web Site – Technical reports, study and workshop materials, and other
information will be provided to RTS staff for posting on the RTS web site.

Notification of General Public – The general public will be notified of public meetings through a number of
methods: legal advertisement, RTS website, flyers, and press releases.

Mailing/Contact Lists – If available, the RTS mailing list will enable the distribution of project-related
information throughout the development of the TDP. Mailings will be designed to reach diverse populations
throughout the City of Gainesville and the study area. Specifically, an effort will be made to reach local
stakeholder groups with study materials. Such groups include the City of Gainesville Chamber of
Commerce, the University of Florida Student Government, and the Gainesville Community Redevelopment
Agency among others.

2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Website – Information will be shared with the 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) project team for inclusion on the 2035 LRTP Livable Transportation website
(livabletransportation.org).

Additional Presentation and Workshop Materials – Public involvement materials developed for the public
involvement plan will be made available to RTS staff and Review Committee members for use at their
discretion at other public involvement events and opportunities. Materials include presentations,
presentation boards, surveys, and other tools and informational resources used to gather public input
throughout the study process.
April 2009
2-5
III. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
Effectiveness measures have been established to evaluate the effectiveness of the public involvement process. For
the purposes of this Public Involvement Plan, effectiveness measures will be defined as follows:

Total number of persons engaged – This will be measured by using a sign-in/attendance log to monitor
attendance for any discussion group, Review Committee meeting, and public workshop.

Total number of public involvement events – The total number of public involvement events will be
documented within the public involvement section of the TDP. In addition, the public meeting locations will
be depicted on a map within the RTS geographic service area.

Total number of persons surveyed – The total number of persons surveyed will be documented in the
public involvement section of the TDP.

Total visits to website to complete surveys – Surveys accessed and completed on the RTS website will
be documented and included in the public involvement section of the TDP.

Total service recommendations in ten-year plan that result from public involvement – Public
involvement participants will be given comment forms to document comments and/or recommendations. All
questions that cannot be answered at the meetings will be responded to in writing within 45 days, provided
the person provides their name and address.
April 2009
3-1
IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCHEDULE
A project schedule was developed for the public participation portions of the study. This project schedule is
provided in Table 1. Please note that the dates for specific meetings and public involvement activities are
approximate and subject to change pending on guidance from RTS and the project Review Committee.
Table 1
Preliminary Project Public Involvement Schedule
Public Involvement Activity
Date
On-Board Survey
Stakeholder Interviews
Review Committee Meeting #1
Agency Discussion Group
Transit Users Discussion Group
Public Workshop #1
Public Workshop #1 - Public Comments Deadline
Public Workshop #2
Presentation #1 (Direction of RTS Staff)
Presentation Draft Final TDP for Approval (MTPO Board)
All Public Comments Due
April 2009
4-1
April 4, 2009 – April 9, 2009
April 14, 2009 – April 16, 2009
April 13, 2009 – April 15, 2009
April 23, 2009
May 7, 2009
May 7, 2009
May 15, 2009
May 21, 2009
June 18, 2009
June 29, 2009
July 10, 2009
July 28, 2009
July 29, 2009
July 29, 2009
August 10, 2009
August 24, 2009
Appendix B
On-Board Survey Instruments
August 2009
B-1
August 2009
B-2
August 2009
B-3
August 2009
B-4
August 2009
B-5
August 2009
B-6
August 2009
B-7
Appendix C
Stakeholder Interview Questions
August 2009
C-1
RTS TDP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
(1) Are you currently aware of Regional Transit System (RTS) and its services?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
(4) What type of transit services would you like to see more of in the Gainesville area?
(More Frequent Fixed-Route, Express Bus, Trolley, Demand Response, Increased
Weekend Service, Late Evening Service)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(6) What are reasonable passenger fares for transit service? (please specify per trip or
other) ________________________________________________________
Tourists/Visitors)
_______________________________________________________________
(8) What do you believe is the purpose of most transit trips? (Medical, Shopping,
Recreation, Work, School)
_______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
August 2009
C-2
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(12) What groups of travelers seem to experience the most difficult transportation
conditions (the disabled, low-income, elderly, commuters, etc)? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(13) Do you believe there is a congestion problem in Gainesville? (If Yes, go to the next
question, if No skip to question 20)
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
(15) What efforts or initiatives are you aware of that have been undertaken in the last five
years to address traffic congestion in the region (locally)?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(16) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been successful and
why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
August 2009
C-3
(17) (Of those listed above), which would you describe as having been unsuccessful and
why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(18) What efforts would you like to see undertaken, to address traffic congestion in this
region?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(20) What are the major destinations outside of your community where people are traveling
to, from your area?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(21) What additional steps do you feel should be taken to increase the use of public transit
in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
(22) Is more regional transportation needed to connect Gainesville with surrounding areas
(such as Alachua, Newberry, Jacksonville or Ocala)?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
August 2009
C-4
(23) At some point in the future, do you envision that rail transit will be needed in the
city/county? If so, when should it be implemented and where should it go?
_______________________________________________________________
(24) In the future, do you believe that RTS should remain a City department or become a
Regional Transit Authority? If yes, please explain why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
(25) What types of local funding sources should be used to increase transit service in the
future?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
August 2009
C-5
Appendix D
Additional Review of Plans, Studies, & Policies
August 2009
D-1
ADDITIONAL STATE DOCUMENTS
2025 Florida Transportation Plan (December 2005)
The 2025 FTP, adopted December 2005, is Florida’s statewide 20-year transportation plan, which provides
a policy framework for allocating funding that will be spent to meet the transportation needs of the state.
Florida is committed to providing livable communities and mobility for people and freight through greater
connectivity and meeting the rising needs of businesses and households for safety, security, efficiency, and
reliability. The FTP provides goals and objectives for Florida’s transportation system. The long range goals
with supporting objectives that are pertinent to RTS are as follows:
 Enriched quality of life and responsible environmental stewardship.
o Plan, develop, implement, and fund the transportation system to accommodate the human
scale, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit-oriented, and other community-enhancing
features, unless inappropriate.

A stronger economy through enhanced mobility for people and freight.
o Focus attention on meeting regional mobility needs that transcend traditional jurisdictional
boundaries and ensuring connectivity between SIS, regional, and local facilities.
o Facilitate economic development opportunities in Florida’s economically-distressed areas
by improving transportation access from these areas to markets in a manner that reflects
regional and community visions.
o Develop multimodal transportation systems that support community visions.
o Expand transportation choices to enhance local mobility and to maintain the performance
of the SIS and regionally significant facilities.
o Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles, especially during
peak hours of highway use.
o Ensure that the transportation system is accessible to all users, including young, elderly,
disabled, and economically disadvantaged persons.

Sustainable transportation investments in Florida’s future.
o Reduce the cost of providing and operating transportation facilities.
o Document the gap between funding resources and needs across all levels and all modes
in a consistent and compatible format.
In summary, the FTP supports the development of state, regional, and local transit services. The growth in
Florida requires new and innovative approaches by all modes to meet the needs today and in the future. An
update of the FTP is scheduled to begin later in 2009.
August 2009
D-2
Transit 2020
FDOT provides policy guidance to local jurisdictions through the State of Florida Transit Plan, Transit 2020.
Florida is committed to reducing congestion through the promotion of public transportation. FDOT provides
funds to local public transportation systems in the form of Block Grants. The mission, goals, and objectives
from the current 2020 public transportation plan are provided below.
The mission of Transit 2020 is to provide a safe, interconnected statewide transportation system for
Florida’s citizens and visitors that ensures the mobility of people and goods while enhancing economic
prosperity and sustaining the quality of our environment.
The three key issues of Transit 2020 include transit service, funding, and planning/policy. For each of the
three issues, a related goal and set of supporting objectives have been identified to set the direction for
transit in Florida for the next 20 years. This plan was formally adopted by FDOT’s executive committee in
1998. Updates were originally planned to follow this effort, but to date none have been released.
Goal 1:
Goal 2:
Implement a transit system that improves and expands travel choices for Floridians and
visitors.
Objective 1.1:
Achieve the quantity and quality of local transit (core) service sufficient to
increase transit ridership in Florida at twice the average rate of population
growth through 2020.
Objective 1.2:
Develop and expand regional transportation service in corridors where the
number of inter-county trips exceeds established thresholds.
Objective 1.3:
Expand the transit market to include a greater percentage of riders who
have a choice between transit and auto for their trips.
Objective 1.4:
Provide an effective and efficient mix of transit modes and transfer
facilities to achieve seamless intermodal travel.
Sustain and expand investment in public transportation from all existing and potential
public and private funding services.
Objective 2.1:
Achieve adequate and stable funding levels to meet transit needs for
service preservation, operating and capital expansion, and technological
innovation.
Objective 2.2:
Utilize flexible funding opportunities for transit.
Objective 2.3:
Use creative and innovative funding strategies.
August 2009
D-3
Goal 3:
Develop, promote, and encourage transit supportive policies, institutional arrangements,
and practices.
Objective 3.1:
Promote land use planning and urban design practices that facilitate transit
service and access.
Objective 3.2:
Foster institutional arrangements, practices, and cultures that establish
clearly defined roles, promote staff teamwork, encourage partnership with
transit providers, and support a result-oriented management approach.
Objective 3.3:
Develop a multi-modal transportation planning process that addresses the
wide range of policy issues involved in making sound, long-range
transportation investment decisions, including technological innovation and
the environmental and economic benefits of transit.
Objective 3.4:
Establish broad-based public and political support of transit as a mobility
choice and enhancement to Floridians’ quality of life.
FDOT Work Program
FDOT annually develops a Five-Year Work Program. The Work Program is a project-specific list of
transportation activities and improvements developed in cooperation with the MTPO and local transportation
agencies. The Work Program must be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the capital
improvement elements of local government comprehensive plans.
The Tentative Work Program is presented to the Legislature at the beginning of each legislative session. It
identifies transportation projects and programmed funding by year and is adopted by July 1 each year.
Once adopted, the Work Program is used by FDOT to develop the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) that is used at the federal level to ensure that planning efforts are consistent with federal
guidelines. All transit funding coming through FTA must be included in the STIP before a grant award can
be finalized and approved. Close coordination with FDOT on the programming of federal funds is required
in the development of the Tentative Work Program, as well as throughout the year as federal adjustments
and allocations are announced.
State transit planning and programs encourage the growth of public transportation services, as well as
support the increasing local investment in transit systems. The State has several funding programs that are
available if local areas are able to commit to a dedicated funding source for system development and
expansion. Legislation passed over the past few years indicates that the State plans to continue to foster a
multimodal approach to transportation investment.
August 2009
D-4
Strategic Intermodal System
FDOT has developed a transportation system designed to enhance Florida’s economic competitiveness.
This system, known as the Strategic Intermodal System, or SIS, is composed of transportation facilities and
services of statewide and inter-regional significance. In 2003, the Florida Legislature enacted a law
establishing the SIS. This new system represents a fundamental shift in the way Florida views the
development and financing of transportation facilities and services.
The SIS was designated through the work of statewide transportation partners in 2003 under the Omnibus
Transportation Bill. The Legislature recommended partners and enacted objective criteria and thresholds,
based on quantitative measures of transportation and economic activity. Two types of facilities were
established, including:

SIS Facilities – facilities that play a critical role in moving people and goods to and from other
states and nations, as well as between major economic regions in Florida.

Emerging SIS Facilities – facilities that do not currently meet adopted SIS criteria but are
experiencing growing levels of activity.
SIS corridors in Alachua County include Newberry Road (SR 26) from I-75 to the Gilchrist County line, I-75
from the Marion County line to the Columbia County line, Williston Road (SR 331), Hawthorne Road (SR
20), SR 301, and NW 39th Avenue (SR 222). State financial strategies emphasize funding for SIS facilities,
along with linkages between SIS facilities, including express bus service on the highway corridors and bus
routes serving intermodal facilities.
RTS will continue to coordinate with FDOT to understand specific implications of the SIS regarding public
transportation. Since significant State funding will be allocated to the SIS, it will be important to identify
transit facilities that should be considered for inclusion as an SIS or emerging SIS facility.
State of Florida TD Five-Year/Twenty-Year Plan
Developed by the CTD, this plan is required under the Florida Statutes and includes the following elements:




Explanation of the Florida Coordinated Transportation System
Five-Year Report Card
Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Review
Strategic Vision and Goals, Objectives, and Measures
The Long-Range and Five-Year strategic visions were reviewed and used for guidance and are indicated
below.
August 2009
D-5
Long-Range Strategic Vision
Create a strategy for the Florida CTD to support the development of a universal transportation system with
the following features:





A coordinated, cost-effective multi-modal transportation system delivered through public-private
partnerships
A single, uniform funding system with a single eligibility determination process
A sliding scale of fare payment based on a person’s ability to pay
Use of electronic fare media for all passengers
Services that are designed and implemented regionally (both inter-county and inter-city) throughout
the state
Five-Year Strategic Vision
Develop and field-test a model community transportation system for persons who are TD incorporating the
following features:





Statewide coordination of community transportation services using Advanced Public Transportation
Systems including Smart Traveler Technology, Smart Vehicle Technology, and Smart Intermodal
Systems.
Statewide coordination and consolidation of community transportation funding sources
A statewide information management system for tracking passenger eligibility determination.
Integration of Smart Vehicle Technology on a statewide multi-modal basis to improve vehicle and
fleet planning, scheduling, and operations. This effort includes vehicle and ridership data
collection, electronic fare media, and geographic information system (GIS) applications.
Development of a multi-modal transportation network to optimize the transportation system as a
whole, using Smart Intermodal Systems. This feature would be available in all areas of the state
via electronic access.
State Growth Management Legislation
2009 Growth Management Legislation
The purpose of SB 360 is to direct growth into compact urban areas by removing State-mandated
concurrency requirements within dense urban areas. The Bill automatically designates many cities, urban
service areas of some counties, and some entire counties as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas
(TCEAs). Within these TCEAs, the Bill makes it clear that concurrency is to be determined by local officials.
The Bill removes State-mandated concurrency for such areas; however, local comprehensive plans and
land development regulations implementing transportation concurrency for these areas will stay in effect
unless modified. Therefore, it becomes important for the administrations of local governments that are
August 2009
D-6
designated as TCEAs to understand the importance and value of a good transportation system and to
establish a clear mobility plan that addresses multi-modal facilities, services, and finances. With this
renewed emphasis on growth management, local governments have the opportunity to craft local TCEAs
that promote local growth objectives.
2005 Growth Management Legislation
SB 360 was approved and signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush on June 24, 2005. The law is referred to
as the Growth Management (GM) legislation. The highlights of the GM legislation include “closing the gap”
between development and construction of needed transportation and school facilities and requiring
communities to identify water supplies needed for growth; set up a “pay-as-you-grow” system to reduce
backlogs and future growth needs; and link policies, plans, and budgets to ensure that infrastructure is
available to support local growth plans.
SB 360 requires that transportation improvements to meet concurrency are constructed or under
construction within three years of the issuance of the building permit. In some situations, when the traffic
impact mitigation is planned for the near future, a developer may be able to meet concurrency requirements
through monetary “proportionate fair-share” contributions. In some cases, it may be appropriate for transit
proportionate share to be considered, such as for developments serving a large number of transit riders or
where roadways are physically constrained so that expansion is not possible.
The new funding programs that are potentially applicable to RTS are listed below, along with the amount of
statewide funding available over the 10-year life span of the law and its applicability for use on transit
projects. Some of these descriptions are taken from FDOT’s Resource Guide for Transit and TransitRelated Programs (November 2005).

“New Starts” Transit Program – $709 million (annual amounts starting at $54 million and
increasing to $75 million) – The program’s purpose is to assist local governments in the
development of fixed guideway and bus rapid transit projects and to use State funds to leverage
local revenues and secure federal discretionary transit “New Starts” funding. Eligible projects will
be major new transit capital projects in metropolitan areas and must support local plans to direct
growth where desired. FDOT can fund up to 50 percent of the non-federal share, with a limit of
12.5 percent on projects that do not receive FTA New Starts funding, and State funding
participation is dependent on an acceptable FTA rating.

Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) – $1.015 billion (annual amounts in most
years of $115 million) – Created by the 2005 Legislature, TRIP is a 50/50 match program designed
to provide an incentive for regional planning to leverage investments in regionally-significant
transportation facilities and to link investments to growth management objectives. Eligible
participants include all Counties, MPOs, and multi-county transportation authorities. However, they
must form regional partnerships to include two or more contiguous counties and/or MPOs, a multicounty regional transportation authority, or an MPO comprised of three or more counties. These
August 2009
D-7
regional partners must develop a regional plan that designates regionally-significant facilities and
includes a priority listing of eligible projects.

State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) – $100 million (one-time allocation to be added to the existing
program, but reserved for growth management related projects.) – The SIB has been a good
resource for agencies when projects are truly a priority and adequate funding from grants or
earmarks are not enough. These interest-free loans can be applied for in the Work Program cycle
and, depending upon fund availability and project priority, the funding can be paid back over an
extended time period (up to 30 years).

SIS – $2.8 billion (recurring allocation of $300-$500 million annually) – Increasing the capacity of
SIS facilities is the highest priority in the state. Improving the access to and within hubs is critical
to efficient operation of the SIS. Therefore, FDOT developed guidelines that were designed to help
“close the gap” identified in the GM legislation.
In summary, the 2005 GM legislation provides for many new and creative opportunities to fund transit
projects. New state transit funding programs, as well as legislation that identifies transit as a growth
management strategy, will offer new transit funding opportunities that should be investigated by RTS.
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DOCUMENTS
Clean Air Act of 1990
The Clean Air Act of 1990, and subsequent amendments, determines the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are standards based on the amount of particulate matter in the air, measured
in parts per million for the following pollutants:






Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Ozone (O3)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Lead (Pb)
Particulate Matter (PM)
When monitored pollutant concentrations of the above exceed the standards identified in the NAAQS a
certain number of times over a three-year period, that area is then designated a non-attainment area by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A non-attainment designation carries certain regulatory
consequences. First, a non-attainment area must prove that its LRTP will not result in increased pollution,
also known as transportation conformity. If an area cannot show transportation conformity, the area
becomes ineligible to use or acquire new Federal highway funds.
August 2009
D-8
Federal Regulations Concerning Drug and Alcohol Testing
On January 1, 1995, FTA required large transit employers to begin drug and alcohol testing of employees
performing safety-sensitive functions and submit annual reports by March 15 of each year beginning in
1996. The annual report includes the number of employees who had a verified positive for the use of
prohibited drugs and the number of employees who tested positive for the misuse of alcohol. Small
employers commenced their FTA-required testing on January 1, 1996, and began reporting the same
information as the large employers beginning March 15, 1997. The testing rules were updated on August 1,
2001, and established a random testing rate for prohibited drugs and the misuse of alcohol.
The rules require that employers conduct random drug tests at a rate equivalent to at least 50 percent of
their total number of safety-sensitive employees for prohibited drug use and at least 25 percent for the
misuse of alcohol. The rules provide that the drug random testing rate may be lowered to 25 percent if the
"positive rate" for the entire transit industry is less than 1.0 percent for two preceding consecutive years.
Once lowered, it may be raised to 50 percent if the positive rate equals or exceeds 1.0 percent for any one
year (“positive rate” means the number of positive results for random drug tests conducted under 49 CFR
655.45 plus the number of refusals of random tests required by 49 CFR 655.49, divided by the total number
of random drug tests plus the number of refusals of random tests required by 49 CFR Part 655).
The alcohol provisions provide that the random rate may be lowered to 10 percent if the “violation rate” for
the entire transit industry is less than 0.5 percent for two consecutive years. It will remain at 25 percent if
the “violation rate” is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent but less than 1.0 percent, and it will be raised to 50
percent if the “violation rate” is 1.0 percent or greater for any one year ("violation rate" means the number of
covered employees found during random tests given under 49 CFR 655.45 to have an alcohol concentration
of 0.04 or greater, plus the number of employees who refuse a random test required by 49 CFR 655.49,
divided by the total reported number of random alcohol tests plus the total number of refusals of random
tests required by 49 CFR Part 655). In 49 CFR 655.45(b), it is stated that the decision
to increase or decrease the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug and alcohol
testing is based, in part, on the reported positive drug and alcohol violation rates for the
entire industry. The information used for this determination is drawn from the drug and
alcohol Management Information System reports required by 49 CFR Part 655. In
determining the reliability of the data, the Administrator shall consider the quality and
completeness of the reported data, may obtain additional information or reports from
employers, and may make appropriate modifications in calculating the industry's verified
positive results and violation rates.
On January 9, 2007, the Administrator announced that the random drug testing rate would be reduced from
50 to 25 percent for 2007 due to a “positive rate” lower than 1.0 percent for random drug test data from 2003
through 2005. The alcohol testing rate was reduced to 10 percent in 2006 and will remain at that level for
2007.
August 2009
D-9
Appendix E
Transportation Provider Questionnaire
August 2009
E-1
Gainesville Transportation Service Provider Survey
Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) is in the process of developing its ten-year Transit Development Plan
(TDP) major update, in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) TDP Florida Rule 14-73.001.
The State of Florida requires that RTS list all of the transportation providers within its geographic service area. Please
take the time to fill out this survey and assist RTS in providing better transportation to all of Gainesville’s
residents.
1.
What is the name of your company? _____________________________________________
2.
What type of service do you provide? (e.g., taxi, demand response, charter) ______________
3.
Please list the location of your facilities:
Name (e.g., dispatch) Location
Age
__________________
__________________
__________________
_________
_________
_________
Condition (please circle one)
______
______
______
Excellent Good Fair Poor
4.
What are the boundaries of your service area? _______________________________
5.
What are your hours of operation? _________________________________________
6.
What is your fare per trip? ________________________________________________
7.
What is your service frequency? __________________________________________
8.
What are your primary destinations? _______________________________________
9.
What is your average annual ridership? _____________________________________
10. Please list your rolling stock
Type (e.g., car, bus)
Age
Number of Units Special Accessories
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
11. Please list any other equipment used to perform daily operation (e.g., automotive repair)
Type
Age
Number of Units Condition (please circle one)
__________________
__________________
__________________
_________
_________
_________
______
______
______
11. Please list any affiliations with groups or programs involved with public transit:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please return the completed survey to Tindale-Oliver &
Associates, Inc., 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792, or fax to (407) 657-9285, or
email [email protected]. If the information is available in another format, please mail, fax, or e-mail the existing
format without completing this questionnaire.
August 2009
E-2
Appendix F
Farebox Recovery Ratio Report
August 2009
F-1
ANNUAL FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO REPORT – JULY 2009
REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (RTS) – FIXED ROUTE SYSTEM,
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
CURRENT FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO
The farebox recovery ratio (FRR) for RTS, the public transportation provider for the Gainesville area, was
54.1 percent in FY 2008. The background with regards to the farebox recovery ratio includes the following.
PRIOR YEAR FARE STUDIES AND CHANGES
In FY 2009, the regular fare was increased by 50 cents to $1.50 and the discounted fare from $0.50 to
$0.75. While RTS recognized that some initial ridership reduction typically occurs with fare increases, this
was felt to be temporary, and total fare receipts would increase with the change in fares. RTS also collects
pre-paid fares through agreements with the University of Florida (UF), Shands, the Veterans Administration,
Alachua County, and Gainesville Regional Utilities. The UF and RTS agreement allows students to pre-pay
for unlimited access to RTS services. As a result of this agreement, RTS’s farebox recovery ratio is
significantly higher than its peer systems. The City of Gainesville staff also receives pre-paid unlimited bus
service through the RTS Employee Pass Program.
STRATEGIES THAT WILL AFFECT THE FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO
The 2009 Transit Development Plan (TDP) update identifies strategies that will be used to maintain or
increase the farebox recovery ratio, including the following:







Monitor key performance measures for individual fixed-routes.
Ensure that transit serves major activity centers, potentially increasing the effectiveness of service.
Increase ridership by continuing to transition transportation disadvantaged and ADA patrons to
fixed-route service.
Increase ridership through enhanced marketing and community relations activities.
Minimize costs required to operate and administer transportation services.
Determine the most cost-effective service type on all major corridors given demand, routings, and
coverage areas.
Continue negotiating the level of transit service with the University of Florida.
RTS FARE STRUCTURE (FY 2009)
Customer Type
Adult - Regular
Fare
Discount Fare
August 2009
Fare Type
Current
Fare
Cash Fare
$1.50
All-Day Pass
$3.00
Monthly Pass
Student Semester
Pass
$35.00
Cash Fare (Half Fare)
Monthly Pass (Half
Fare)
$0.75
F-2
$60.00
$17.50
Appendix G
ADDITIONAL MAPPING ANALYSIS
August 2009
G-1
UNION
23
&
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
SR 121
34
TH
ST
/
&
SR
-2
4
CR 2
A RCHER RD
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
00 A / CR 146
9
Percent Under 16
NW 53RD AVE
1% - 10%
9A
21
CR
23
4
CR
SW 91ST ST
CR 325
CR 2082
WAC
AH
OOT
AR
10% - 15%
CR
CR 1474 E
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-120
SR-2
0
CR 346A
Legend
RTS Transit Routes
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
E/
SW
2010 RTS
0%
SW
CR
3
SR-26
329B
75
1
0
NE CR 1417
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
RD
-1
&
I3/
-9
SR
SW 46TH AVE
SR
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
SR-22 6
S W 63
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
ST
NW 94TH AVE
21
33
C
L
A
Y
ST
ST
ST
AV
NW 39TH AVE
4
3RD
NW 110TH AVE
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
2
SR
SR
-2
H
4T
SE
NE 21
1
4
SW
-2
SR
NW 298 ST
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
5
23
41 ,
NE 9TH ST
CR 2
CR 241 NW
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
BRADFORD
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
SR-222
33
1
COLUMBIA
NE 15TH ST
Gainesville Inset
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
15% - 39%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
Source: Census 2000 & RTS
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of
Population Under Age 16
UNION
23
&
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
SR 121
34
TH
ST
/
&
SR
-2
4
CR 2
A RCHER RD
MTPO Boundary
00 A / CR 146
9
Percent Over 60
0%
1% - 10%
9A
21
CR
23
4
CR
SW 91ST ST
CR 346A
CR 325
CR 2082
WAC
AH
OOT
AR
10% - 15%
CR
CR 1474 E
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-120
SR-2
0
SW
Legend
City of Gainesville
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
E/
SW
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
NW 53RD AVE
NW 23RD AVE
CR
3
SR-26
329B
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
75
1
0
NE CR 1417
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
RD
&
I3/
-9
SR
SR-22 6
S W 63
SW 46TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
SW 8TH AVE
ST
SW 30TH AVE
SR
-1
21
33
C
L
A
Y
ST
ST
ST
AV
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
4
3RD
NW 110TH AVE
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
2
SR
SR
-2
H
4T
SE
NE 21
1
4
SW
-2
SR
NW 298 ST
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
5
23
41 ,
NE 9TH ST
CR 2
CR 241 NW
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
BRADFORD
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
SR-222
33
1
COLUMBIA
NE 15TH ST
Gainesville Inset
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
15% - 32%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of
Population Over Age 60
UNION
Gainesville Inset
NW 53RD AVE
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
33
1
SR
-2
4
MTPO Boundary
00 A / CR 146
9
1% - 25%
9A
21
23
4
CR
CR 325
WAC
AH
OOT
AR
26% - 50%
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-120
SW 91ST ST
SW 122ND ST
City of Gainesville
0%
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
3
RTS Transit Routes
Percent of Workers
SR-2
0
SW
2010 RTS
Legend
NW 53RD AVE
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
SR-26
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
202ND ST
NW 39TH AVE
CR 2
1
33
0
NE CR 1417
&
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
ST
SW 46TH AVE
SR-22 6
C
L
A
Y
329B
SW 30TH AVE
H
4T
SE
ST
&
21
-1
SR
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
4
75
NW 110TH AVE
2
SR
SR
-2
3/I
-9
SR
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
CR 237 NW
NW 298 ST
ST
-2
SR
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
NE 21
1
NE 9TH ST
23
5
23
41 ,
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
SR 121
CR 2
CR 241 NW
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
NE 15TH ST
BRADFORD
SR-222
&
COLUMBIA
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
51% - 75%
76% - 98%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of Workers
with Over 20 Minute
Commute Time
UNION
23
&
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
SR 121
E/
SW
34
TH
ST
/
&
SR
-2
4
CR 2
A RCHER RD
Percent of Workers
1% - 10%
9A
21
23
4
CR
SW 91ST ST
CR 325
OOT
AR
11% - 15%
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-120
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
3
MTPO Boundary
00 A / CR 146
9
0%
SR-2
0
WAC
AH
Legend
City of Gainesville
NW 53RD AVE
SW
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
3
SR-26
329B
&
75
1
0
NE CR 1417
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
RD
2
-1
I3/
-9
SR
SW 46TH AVE
SR
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
SR-22 6
S W 63
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
ST
NW 94TH AVE
31
C
L
A
Y
ST
ST
ST
AV
NW 39TH AVE
4
3RD
NW 110TH AVE
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
2
SR
SR
-2
H
4T
SE
NE 21
1
4
SW
-2
SR
NW 298 ST
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
5
23
41 ,
NE 9TH ST
CR 2
CR 241 NW
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
BRADFORD
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
SR-222
33
1
COLUMBIA
NE 15TH ST
Gainesville Inset
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
16% - 28%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of Workers
with Over 45 Minute
Commute Time
UNION
23
&
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
SR 121
34
TH
ST
/
&
SR
-2
4
CR 2
A RCHER RD
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
00 A / CR 146
9
Percent Under $10,000
NW 53RD AVE
1% - 10%
9A
21
CR
23
4
CR
SW 91ST ST
CR 325
CR 2082
WAC
AH
OOT
AR
10% - 25%
CR
CR 1474 E
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-120
SR-2
0
CR 346A
Legend
RTS Transit Routes
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
E/
SW
2010 RTS
0%
SW
CR
3
SR-26
329B
75
1
0
NE CR 1417
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
RD
-1
&
I3/
-9
SR
SW 46TH AVE
SR
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
SR-22 6
S W 63
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
ST
NW 94TH AVE
21
33
C
L
A
Y
ST
ST
ST
AV
NW 39TH AVE
4
3RD
NW 110TH AVE
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
2
SR
SR
-2
H
4T
SE
NE 21
1
4
SW
-2
SR
NW 298 ST
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
5
23
41 ,
NE 9TH ST
CR 2
CR 241 NW
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
BRADFORD
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
SR-222
33
1
COLUMBIA
NE 15TH ST
Gainesville Inset
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
25% - 50%
50% - 62%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of
Households with Income
Under $10,000
UNION
23
&
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
SR 121
E/
SW
34
TH
ST
/
&
SR
-2
4
CR 2
A RCHER RD
00 A / CR 146
9
Percent One Vehicle
1% - 10%
10% - 25%
9A
21
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
CR
23
4
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-120
SW 91ST ST
CR 325
CR 2082
CR 346A
CR
3
MTPO Boundary
0%
SR-2
0
WAC
AH
OOT
AR
Legend
City of Gainesville
NW 53RD AVE
SW
2010 RTS
RTS Transit Routes
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
1
SR-26
329B
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
33
75
&
0
NE CR 1417
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
RD
-1
21
I3/
-9
SR
SR-22 6
S W 63
SW 46TH AVE
SR
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
ST
SW 30TH AVE
NW 39TH AVE
4
C
L
A
Y
ST
ST
ST
AV
NW 94TH AVE
CR 32
2
SR
3RD
NW 110TH AVE
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
1,2
SR
-2
H
4T
SE
NE 21
4
SW
- 24
SR
NW 298 ST
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
5
31
NE 9TH ST
CR 2
CR 241 NW
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
BRADFORD
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
SR-222
33
1
COLUMBIA
NE 15TH ST
Gainesville Inset
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
25% - 50%
50% - 75%
75% - 82%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of
Households with One
Vehicle
UNION
23
&
CR 231
NW 43RD ST
SR 121
34
TH
ST
/
&
SR
-2
4
CR 2
A RCHER RD
City of Gainesville
MTPO Boundary
00 A / CR 146
9
Percent No Vehicle
NW 53RD AVE
0% - 10%
9A
CR
CR 1474 E
CR
23
4
CR
SW 91ST ST
SR-2
0
CR 346A
CR 325
CR 2082
WAC
AH
OOT
AR
10% - 25%
21
SR-120
SE
US 441 / SR 25
SR 121
NW 22ND ST
SR-222
SW 75TH ST
SW 143 ST / CR 241
SW 122ND ST
202ND ST
E/
SW
Legend
RTS Transit Routes
329B
NW 170TH ST
CR NW 186
23
5N
W
CR
SR-45 / US-27
75
SR-26
2010 RTS
0%
SW
CR
3
0
NE CR 1417
CR 235A/NW 173 ST
NW 202ND ST
RD
-1
&
I3/
-9
SR
SW 46TH AVE
SR
NW 23RD AVE
SW 8TH AVE
SR-22 6
S W 63
SW 30TH AVE
CR 32
ST
NW 94TH AVE
21
3
31
C
L
A
Y
ST
ST
ST
AV
NW 39TH AVE
4
3RD
NW 110TH AVE
CR 237 NW
G
I
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
2
SR
SR
-2
H
4T
SE
NE 21
1
4
SW
-2
SR
NW 298 ST
SR-26, 24, 20 & 26A
5
23
41 ,
NE 9TH ST
CR 2
CR 241 NW
NW 16TH BLVD
NW 8TH AVE
21
SR-1
3 9 NW
CR 236
BRADFORD
SR-120
US 441 / SR 25
NW 43RD ST
SR-222
33
1
COLUMBIA
NE 15TH ST
Gainesville Inset
SE
15 2
N D ST/CR 2082 SE
P
U
T
N
A
M
25% - 49%
D
CR
46
3 46
SE
SE 185TH ST
0
2
4
Miles
LEVY
MARION
2000 Percent of
Households with No
Vehicles
Appendix H
RTS TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACRONYM LIST
August 2009
H-1
RTS Transit Development Plan Acronyms
ADA
APC
ARRA
AVL
BRT
COA
CPI
CTC
CUTR
DOPA
DRI
DTA
DULA
EAR
EPA
FAC
FDOT
FS
FTA
FTIS
GHG
GIS
GPS
GRU
ITS
JARC
LCB
LEHD
LOS
LRTP
MDT
MMTD
MSTU
MTPO
NAAQS
NIMS
NTD
PIP
PTBG
RTS
SAFETEA-LU
SDG
SE
SOV
STIP
STP
TAZ
TBEST
Americans with Disabilities Act
Automatic Passenger Counter
Americans Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Automatic Vehicle Locator
Bus Rapid Transit
Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Consumer Price Index
Community Transportation Coordinator
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Designated Official Planning Agency
Development of Regional Impact
Density Threshold Assessment
Dense Urban Land Area
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Environmental Protection Agency
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Statute
Federal Transit Administration
Florida Transit Information System
Greenhouse Gas
Geographic Information System
Global Positioning System
Gainesville Regional Utilities
Intelligent Transportation System
Job Access and Reverse Commute
Local Coordinating Board
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
Level of Service
Long Range Transportation Plan
Mobile Data Terminal
Multimodal Transportation District
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
National Incident Management System
National Transit Database
Public Transit Block Grant
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users
Service Development Grant
Socioeconomic
Single-Occupant Vehicle
State Transportation Improvement Program
Surface Transportation Program
Traffic Analysis Zone
Transit Boarding Estimation and Simulation Tool
August 2009
H-2
RTS Transit Development Plan Acronyms (Continued)
TCEA
TD
TDM
TDP
TFAC
TIGER
TIGGER
TIP
TMS
TOD
TOI
UF
USF
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area
Transportation Disadvantaged
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Funding Advisory Committee
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
Transportation Investment for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction
Transportation Improvement Program
Traffic Management System
Transit Oriented Development
Transit Orientation Index
University of South Florida
August 2009
H-3

10-year Transit Development Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Fastfrate Roadfrate SS.indd

june 4 : fado irish pub

Pharr District Regional Characteristics and Inventory

PATransit Port Authority of Allegheny County DR500C Talking Bus

WURTA Update August 2014 Where did June go? Well, let`s get to it

The Use of Geographic Data at Winnipeg Transit

Cimarron Transit WorkRide

PDF.

Wednesday, March 20 6 to 8 p.m. Centerra Mirage Elementary