ocala/marion county tdsp

Transcription

MarionCountyTDSP
Marion County
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
FINAL REPORT
Prepared For:
OCALA/MARION COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
121 Watula Avenue
Ocala, FL 34478
ph (352) 629-8297, fax (352) 368-5994
January 2013
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33602
ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106
MarionCountyTDSP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 – DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Introduction to the Service Plan...............................................................................1-1
Background of the Transportation Disadvantaged Program ......................................... 1-1
Florida Coordinated Transportation System .................................................................. 1-1
History/Background ......................................................................................................... 1-4
Summary of Existing Plans and Documents .................................................................. 1-5
Local Coordinating Board Certification .......................................................................... 1-5
B. Service Area Profile and Demographics .................................................................1-6
Service Area Description .................................................................................................. 1-6
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 1-6
Population Profile ............................................................................................................. 1-6
Age Distribution ............................................................................................................... 1-9
Income Distribution.......................................................................................................... 1-9
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 1-10
Population and Employment Densities ........................................................................... 1-11
Major Employers ..............................................................................................................1-15
Major Trip Generators ..................................................................................................... 1-16
Transportation Disadvantaged Population ..................................................................... 1-16
Commuting Patterns ........................................................................................................ 1-19
Household Vehicle Availability ........................................................................................ 1-20
C. Service Analysis ............................................................................................................ 1-20
Transportation Disadvantaged Population/Demand Projections .................................. 1-20
Forecasts of TD Population .............................................................................................. 1-21
Demand Projections.......................................................................................................... 1-23
CTC Trend Analysis ......................................................................................................... 1-25
Performance Indicators .................................................................................................... 1-26
Effectiveness Measures .................................................................................................... 1-28
Efficiency Measures ..........................................................................................................1-31
Summary Results of Trend Analysis ............................................................................... 1-33
CTC Peer Review Analysis............................................................................................... 1-34
Peer System Selection Methodology ................................................................................ 1-35
Performance Indicators .................................................................................................... 1-36
Effectiveness Measures .................................................................................................... 1-39
Efficiency Measures ..........................................................................................................1-40
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 ii Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP MariionCountyTDSSP
Summ
mary Resullts of Peer Review
R
Anallysis ........... ........................................................... 1-42
ds Assessm
ment ................................................. ........................................................... 1-43
D. Need
E. Publlic Involve
ement .............................................. ........................................................... 1-47
Barriiers to Coorrdination .......................................... ........................................................... 1-47
F. Goalls, Objectiv
ves, and In
nitiatives...................... ........................................................... 1-48
Visio
on Statemen
nt ...................................................... ........................................................... 1-48
Mission Stateme
ent .................................................... ........................................................... 1-48
Goals, Objective
es, and Initia
atives ............................ ........................................................... 1-49
G. Impllementatio
on Plan ........................................... ........................................................... 1-54
Five--Year Transsportation Disadvantag
D
ged Program
m ......................................................... 1-54
Section
n 2 – SERVIICE PLAN
A. Oper
rations Ele
ement .............................................. ........................................................... 2-1
Type
es, Hours, an
nd Days of Service
S
.......................... ........................................................... 2-1
Accesssing Servicces .................................................... ........................................................... 2-2
Eligibility
E
............................................................. ........................................................... 2-3
Prioritization
P
n ....................................................... ........................................................... 2-3
Other
O
Accesssibility Policcies/Procedu
ures............ ........................................................... 2-4
Tran
nsportation Operators
O
and
a Coordin
nation Contrracts ................................................... 2-5
Othe
er Transporttation Proviider ................................ ........................................................... 2-6
Publiic Transit Utilization
U
........................................ ........................................................... 2-7
Vehiccle Inventorry...................................................... ........................................................... 2-7
Syste
em Safety Program
P
Pla
an Certificattion ............ ........................................................... 2-9
Interr-County Services............................................... ........................................................... 2-9
Natu
ural Disaster/Emergenccy Procedures ............... ........................................................... 2-9
Mark
keting.................................................................. ........................................................... 2-10
Accep
ptable Alterrnatives ........................................... ........................................................... 2-10
B. Serv
vice Standa
ards ................................................. ........................................................... 2-10
Tindale‐Oliver & Associattes, Inc. 013 iii
January 20
Marion C
County 2013–2018
8 TDSP MariionCountyTDSSP
Section
n 3 – QUALIITY ASSUR
RANCE
A. Mon
nitoring an
nd Evaluatiion Proces
ss ........................................................................... 3-1
Comm
munity Transportation
n Coordinato
or Monitorin
ng Procedurres of Opera
ators and
Coordination Co
ontractors ......................................... ........................................................... 3-1
n Process........................................... ........................................................... 3-1
CTC Evaluation
B. Costt/Revenue Allocation
A
n and Fare Structure Justificattion ................................ 3-1
FCTD
D Calculate
ed Rates............................................ ........................................................... 3-2
Append
dix A: Summ
mary of Ex
xisting Plans and Do cuments........................................... A-1
Append
dix B: Local Coordina
ating Board Certifica
ation .................................................. B-1
Append
dix C: Peer Group An
nalysis Data
a ................ ........................................................... C-1
Append
dix D: Inven
ntory of Otther Trans
sportation Providerss ...................................... D-1
Append
dix E: Syste
em Safety Program
P
Plan
P
Certiffications ........................................... E-1
Append
dix F: MCSS
S QAPE, Corrective
C
Action
A
Pla
an, and LCB CTC Eva
aluation .... F-1
Append
dix G: FCTD
D Rate Mod
del Calcula
ation Spre
eadsheets ......................................... G-1
List of Maps
M
Map 1-1:
Map 1-2:
Map 1-3:
Map 1-4:
Map 1-5:
Map 1-6:
Map 1-7:
dy Area ............................................ ......................................................... ....1-7
Stud
Population Den
nsity (2010) .................. ...................................................... ….1-12
Emp
ployment Density
D
(2013) ............... ....................................................... ....1-13
Future Employ
yment Densiity (2022) .. ...................................................... ….1-14
Majjor Trip Gen
nerators and
d Attractorss..................................................... ….1-18
Older Adults ......................................... ...................................................... ….1-45
ation Index .................. ...................................................... ….1-46
Transit Orienta
T
List of Tables
Table 1-1:
2:
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
3:
Table 1-4
4:
Table 1-5
5:
Table 1-6
6:
Table 1-7
7:
Population Cha
aracteristicss, Marion C ounty ...........................................……
….1-8
Marrion County
y Population
n Trends forr Cities and Towns ............................. 1-8
Emp
ployment Characteristiics (March 2
2012) .................................................. 1-10
Majjor Private and
a Public Employers
E
((2011)................................................. 1-15
Marrion County
y TD Popula
ation and Pa
assenger Trrends ............................... 1-17
Cou
unty of Work
k for Workers Residing
g in Marion County,
2004 and 2009 ..................................... ........................................................... 1-19
Com
mmuting fro
om Neighborring Countiies to Marioon County,
2004 and 2009 ..................................... ........................................................... 1-20
Tindale‐Oliver & Associattes, Inc. 013 iv
January 20
Marion C
County 2013–2018
8 TDSP MarionCountyTDSP
Table 1-8:
Table 1-9:
Table 1-10:
Table 1-11:
Table 1-12:
Table 1-13:
Table 1-14:
Table 1-15:
Table 1-16:
Table 1-17:
Table 1-18:
Table 1-19:
Table 1-20:
Table 1-21:
Table 1-22:
Table 1-23:
Table 1-24:
Table 1-25:
Table 2-1:
Table 2-2:
Table 2-3:
Table 3-1:
Distribution of Vehicle Availability (2000) ................................................. 1-20
Marion County TD Population Forecasts ................................................... 1-22
Marion County Potential Transportation Disadvantaged
Population (2010) ......................................................................................... 1-22
Forecasts of Marion County Program Trip Demand
and Supply.................................................................................................... 1-24
Forecasts of Marion County TD General Trip Demand
and Supply.................................................................................................... 1-25
Marion County CTC Performance Review Measures ................................ 1-26
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis General Performance
Indicators...................................................................................................... 1-27
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis Effectiveness Measures .................. 1-29
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis Efficiency Measures ........................ 1-32
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis Summary ......................................... 1-34
MTS Selected Peer Systems ........................................................................ 1-35
Marion County CTC Peer Analysis Performance Indicators,
FY 2011......................................................................................................... 1-36
Marion County CTC Peer Analysis Effectiveness Measures,
FY 2011......................................................................................................... 1-39
Marion County CTC Peer Analysis Efficiency Measures,
FY 2011......................................................................................................... 1-41
Marion County CTC Peer Review Analysis Summary,
FY 2011......................................................................................................... 1-42
Completion Status of Previous Goals and Objectives ................................ 1-50
Ocala/Marion County Transportation Disadvantaged Goals, Objectives,
and Initiatives ............................................................................................. 1-51
Staged Five-Year Implementation Plan for the TDSP .............................. 1-55
Agreements with Outside Transportation Agencies
and Companies ............................................................................................... 2-6
Marion Transit Services Vehicle Inventory (2011) ...................................... 2-7
CTC Service Standards................................................................................ 2-11
Marion County Fare Structure ..................................................................... 3-2
List of Figures
Figure 1-1:
Figure 1-2:
Figure 1-3:
Figure 1-4:
Florida’s Transportation Disadvantaged Program:
Organization Chart … ............................................................................... …1-3
Population Age Distribution, 2010 ........................................................... ….1-9
Annual Household Income Distribution, 2010 ...................................... ….1-10
Labor Force Participation (2000 and 2010) ........................................... ….1-11
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 v Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP MarionCountyTDSP
Figure 1-5:
Figure 1-6:
Figure 1-7:
Figure 1-8:
Figure 1-9:
Figure 1-10:
Figure 1-11:
Figure 1-12:
Figure 1-13:
Figure 1-14:
Figure 1-15:
Figure 1-16:
Figure 1-17:
Figure 1-18:
Figure 1-19:
Figure 1-20:
Figure 1-21:
Figure 1-22:
Figure 1-23:
Figure 1-24:
Figure 1-25:
Figure 1-26:
Figure 1-27:
Figure 1-28:
Figure 1-29:
Figure 1-30:
Figure 1-31:
Figure 1-32:
Figure 1-33:
Figure 1-34:
Figure 1-35:
Figure 1-36:
Figure 1-37:
Figure 1-38:
Number of TD Passengers Served ......................................................... ….1-17
Passenger Trips ....................................................................................... ….1-27
Vehicle Miles ........................................................................................... ….1-27
Revenue Miles ......................................................................................... ….1-28
Operating Expense.................................................................................. ….1-28
Operating Revenue ................................................................................. ….1-28
Total Fleet ............................................................................................... ….1-28
Vehicle Miles per TD Capita .................................................................. ….1-30
Passenger Trips per TD Capita .............................................................. ….1-30
Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile .......................................................... ….1-30
Vehicle Miles per Passenger Trip .......................................................... ….1-30
Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles ...................................................... ….1-31
Vehicle Miles between Roadcalls ........................................................... ….1-31
Passenger Trips ....................................................................................... ….1-32
Operating Expense per Driver Hour ...................................................... ….1-32
Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile ..................................................... ….1-33
Service Area Population ......................................................................... ….1-37
Potential TD Population ......................................................................... ….1-37
Total Passengers Served ......................................................................... ….1-37
Passenger Trips ....................................................................................... ….1-37
Vehicle Miles ........................................................................................... ….1-37
Revenue Miles ......................................................................................... ….1-37
Operating Expense.................................................................................. ….1-38
Operating Revenue ................................................................................. ….1-38
Total Fleet ............................................................................................... ….1-38
Vehicle Miles per TD Capita .................................................................. ….1-39
Vehicle Miles per Passenger Trip .......................................................... ….1-39
Passenger Trips per TD Capita .............................................................. ….1-40
Passenger Trips per Vehicle Miles ......................................................... ….1-40
Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles ...................................................... ….1-40
Vehicle Miles between Roadcalls ........................................................... ….1-40
Operating Expense per Passenger Trips ............................................... ….1-41
Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile ..................................................... ….1-41
Operating Expense per Driver Hour ...................................................... ….1-41
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 vi Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP MarionCountyTDSP
SECTION 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. INTRODUCTION TO THE SERVICE PLAN
The Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (FCTD) requires that each
Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) submit a comprehensive Transportation
Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) or an annually updated tactical plan that includes the
following components for the local transportation disadvantaged (TD) program:




Development Plan
Service Plan
Quality Assurance
Cost/Revenue Allocations and Fare Justification
The CTC is responsible for arranging transportation for the transportation disadvantaged.
The FCTD approves the CTC every five years. With approval from the Local Coordinating
Board (LCB), the CTC may subcontract or broker transportation services to private
transportation operators. Each year, the CTC reviews all Transportation Operator
contracts before renewal to ensure the contracts comply with the standards of the FCTD.
This TDSP updates the 2007–2012 TDSP that was completed previously in 2007 and fulfills
the requirements of the FCTD as it relates to the TDSP. The LCB will review and approve
the TDSP prior to submission to the FCTD for final action. The remainder of this document
summarizes each of the components listed above.
BACKGROUND OF THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM
Florida Coordinated Transportation System
The Florida Coordinated Transportation System (FCTS) was created in 1979 with the
enactment of Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes, which defines transportation
disadvantaged as:
... those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status,
or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and
are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care,
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 1‐1 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP MarionCountyTDSP
employment, education, shopping, social activities, or children who are
handicapped or high-risk or at-risk as defined in Section 411.202, Florida
Statutes.
The statewide TD program was developed to better coordinate existing transportation
disadvantaged services sponsored by social and human service agencies. The purpose of
coordination was to address concerns about duplication and fragmentation of
transportation services. The 1979 legislation created the Coordinating Council for the
Transportation Disadvantaged in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and
gave it the responsibility to coordinate TD transportation services throughout the state.
Legislative revisions to Chapter 427 in 1989 created the FCTD (originally the
Transportation Disadvantaged Commission) to accomplish the coordination of
transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged in the State of
Florida. The FCTD is an independent State-level commission authorized to hire its own
staff and allocate funding for specialized transportation services available through the new
Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund (TDTF), which provided a dedicated funding
source. The 1989 revisions to Chapter 427 also established CTCs and LCBs to administer
and monitor the TD program at the local level in place of the Coordinated Community
Transportation Provider and the Coordinated Community Transportation Provider Council
provided for in the initial 1979 legislation. The Transportation Planning Organization
(TPO) or designated official planning agency (DOPA) performs long-range planning and
assists the CTD and LCB in implementing the TD program within the designated area.
Figure 1 is an organization chart that identifies parties involved in the provision of TD
transportation services in Florida. More than 51,144,402 trips were provided statewide to
transportation disadvantaged individuals through CTCs in 2011, a 1 percent decrease over
2010, when 51,596,487 trips were provided statewide.
Florida's TD program serves two populations groups: Potential Transportation
Disadvantaged (also referred to as "TD Category I") and the Transportation Disadvantaged
(also referred to as "TD Category II"). The Potential TD Population includes persons who
are eligible for agency-sponsored trips. The TD Population group is a subset of the
Potential TD Population group. Although the individuals in this population group are
eligible to receive agency-sponsored trips through the Florida coordinated system, they are
also eligible to receive trips subsidized by the TD Trust Fund monies allocated to local
CTCs by the Commission.
STATE LEVEL
LOCAL LEVEL
Commission for the
Transportation
Disadvantaged
State-level policy board for
the coordination of
transportation services
(7 members)
Designates
Recommends CTC to
Official Planning Agency
Metropolitan Planning
Organization or other
designated planning agency
Appoints & staffs
Local Coordinating Board
Membership parallels
Commission–identifies local
service needs, provides guidance
for coordination of services
Contracts with
Monitors
Purchasing Agencies
State agencies involved in
or funding transportation
. clients
services for their
Buys trips from
Community Transportation
Coordinator (CTC)
Entity responsible for
coordinating transportation
services within a designated
service area
Bill
Contracts with
Operators can bill directly
Operators
Entities that provide
transportation services
Provides services to
Transportation
Disadvantaged Persons
Persons who, because of
disability, age, or income,
are unable to transport
themselves
Also provide direct service
Figure 1-1
Florida’s Transportation Disadvantaged Program Organization Chart
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
Marion County Senior Services (MCSS) began serving the transportation needs of older
adults in 1976 under the name Marion Transit Services (MTS), and service has since
expanded to include the transportation disadvantaged and Medicaid clients. MCSS has
been designated as the Marion County CTC for all non-emergency medical transportation
and for those needing wheelchairs or other assistance since 1982, pursuant to Chapter 427,
F.S. and Rule 41-2 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was executed between MCSS and FDOT on January 5, 1983. In 1990,
the Ocala/Marion County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) accepted the
responsibilities of Designated Official Planning Agency for the TD program and established
the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board. Subsequently, the LCB
recommended and the TPO endorsed the appointment of MCSS as the CTC for Marion
County. As the CTC, MCSS is responsible for ensuring coordination of local transportation
services to the maximum extent feasible.
MTS provides door-to-door paratransit services to meet numerous transportation needs for
medical, life sustaining, educational, work, business, and recreational activities for Marion
County’s TD citizens as well as members of other program recipients in Marion County.
MTS’s fleet of 44 small cutaway-type buses serves an area of more than 1,600 square miles.
Trip priorities are established by the LCB, a subcommittee of the MPO. Currently, service
is provided according to the following needs as space is available:






medical
life sustaining activities
education
work
business
recreational
MTS currently has coordination contracts with two entities that provide transportation
services to their own residents: Independent Living for Retarded Adults and ARC Marion.
MTS contracts with one operator, Leopard Transportation, to provide back-up service for
overflow during normal business hours, holidays, nights, and weekends.
Leopard
Transportation provides ambulatory, wheelchair, and stretcher support.
The MTS fare is $1.00 to $5.00 per one-way trip depending on location and eligibility. MTS
accepts cash or pass for fare payment. The fare must be paid upon boarding the vehicle and
the drivers are unable to make change.
Marion County’s public transit system, SunTran, is provided by the Ocala/Marion TPO and
managed by McDonald Transit. They service began operating in 1998 and currently
operates a scheduled, fixed-route system six days per week. The service is marketed to
riders of all age groups. The regular full cash fare is $1.50, with discounts offered for
youth, students, older adults, and individuals with disabilities. Reduced rate passes are
also available for youth and older adult passengers. SunTran contracts with MTS for the
required complementary ADA paratransit services within ¾-mile of the SunTran fixedroute system.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
This section provides a summary of existing plans, programs, and documents that are or
may be relevant to the preparation of the TDSP for Marion County. The purpose of
reviewing this information is to ensure consistency, coordination, and understanding of
other transportation planning and programming activities that were recently completed or
are in the process of being developed. This TDSP is consistent with the list of planning
documents listed below. The complete summary is presented as Appendix A.









State of Florida TD Five-Year/Twenty-Year Plan
MCSS FCTD Annual Performance Report 2007-2011
FCTD Annual Performance Report
SunTran 2007-2016 Transit Development Plan
Ocala/Marion County 2007 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
Ocala/Marion County TPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
City of Ocala Vision 2035
Marion County Comprehensive Plan
City of Ocala Comprehensive Plan
LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD CERTIFICATION
The most recent Local Coordinating Board Certification is included as Appendix B.
B. SERVICE AREA PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION
The service area for TD services and the planning area for the Ocala/Marion County TPO
include all of Marion County as well as necessary trips to neighboring counties. Marion
County is located in north central Florida and is bordered on the north by Alachua and
Putnam counties, on the south by Sumter and Citrus counties, on the west by Levy County,
and on the east by Volusia and Lake counties. Marion County’s population is concentrated
in Ocala in the central portion of the county and to a lesser extent in Belleview in the
southern central portion of the county. The Villages area runs through the southern
portion of the county and continues into the Lake County urban area. Interstate 75 runs
north-south through the center of the county and west of Ocala. Other major north-south
routes include US 301, US 441, and US 41. SR 40 is the main east-west road through the
center of the county. For the purpose of this TDSP, the study area encompasses the entire
area of Marion County, as designated by the TPO planning area. Map 1-1 gives a physical
representation of the study area.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Population Profile
Population estimates from the 2010 Census were used to develop a population profile for
the study area. As shown in Table 1-1, the population of Marion County increased 28
percent, from 258,916 in 2000 to 331,298 in 2010. In addition, the Florida Statistical
Abstract for 2010, prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at
the University of Florida, indicates a county population projection of 398,200 by the year
2020 and 469,300 by the year 2030, which is an increase of 20 percent and 42 percent,
respectively.
There are five municipalities in Marion County: the City of Belleview, the City of
Dunnellon, the City of McIntosh, the City of Ocala, and the City of Reddick. The City of
Ocala has the highest population, with more than 10 times that of the second largest
municipality, Belleview.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 1‐6 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP OCALA/MARION COUNTY TDSP
Legend
Interstates
N
US
MCINTOSH
±
H
W
Y 31
8
Y 4 41
Major Roadways
1.5
3
6
Miles
E
Water
HW
NW HW Y 3 20
0
NW 193 ST
W HWY 318
N
Municipalities
REDDICK
H
W
NW
29
Y3
»
A
NB
I 75
2
Y
W
HW
Y
W
Y
19
NE 25 AVE
NW 44 AVE
NW 60 AVE
NE 7 ST
W Y 3 14
ã
?
E HWY 40
19
SW 20 ST
WY
SE
H
SH
SW 60 AVE
H
1 4A
NW HWY 225A
3
N
Y
NE 35 ST
W HWY 40
SW 80 AVE
H
WY
14
6
NW 110 AVE
R
W
NH
46
HW
Y
E
U
EN
D
E
SE
R
1
SE 36 AVE
AV
44
NB
I7 5
S HWY 475
2
Y
SW
Map 1-1: Study Area
SE HWY 42
18
HW
SE 145 ST
SE
S
SE HWY 484
SU
NS
ET
HA
Y2
5
SW 27 AVE
4C
S
Y2
5
SH
W
EH
W
SE 100 AVE
SE 110 ST
SU
SW 49 AVE
SE 41 CT
SW 60 AVE
0
20
W
Y
SW SB I75
RD
H
P
SW
M
SW 107 PL
75
CA
BELLEVIEW
SE 95 ST
§
¨
¦
I
AR
SE 80 ST
SW 87 PL
SW 16 AVE
SW HWY 484
SE 52 ST
M
»
A
SE 52 ST
SE
SW 140 AVE
SW 38 ST
S MAGN O LIA AVE
NW 150 AVE
EE T
32
S US HW
Y 41
ST R
3
Y
6
33
Y 40
W
WY
HW
OCALA
H
H
W
ã
?
NE 70 ST
E
SW
DUNNELLON
I7 5
SB
NW
27
W HWY 328
NE
5
US
NW HWY 464B
127
NE 90 STREET RD
Y3
1
N
NW 160 AVE
27
W HWY 326
NE
D
Y
NW 100 ST
ET R
D
NE 36 AVE
HW
75
§
¦
¨
E HWY 329
N US HWY 441 N US HWY 441
US
NW HWY 225A
N
W HWY 329
RE
N E 47 AVE
NW H
ST
E HWY 316
25
W HWY 316
17
5
SE 58 AVE
Marion County
NE
NW 165 ST
NE
HW
Ocala
R BO R RD
42
SE HW Y
Source: Marion TPO
MarionCountyTDSP
Table 1-1
Population Characteristics, Marion County
Marion
County
2000
Marion
County
2010
% Change
2000–2010
Persons
258,916
331,298
27.96%
Households
106,755
137,726
29.01%
Number of Workers
104,422
113,661
8.85%
Land Area (square miles)
1,579
1,579
0.00%
Water Area (square miles)
84
84
0.00%
Person per Household
2.36
2.4
-2.56%
Workers per Household
0.98
0.82
-1.95%
Persons per Square Mile of Land Area
164
209.82
27.94%
Workers per Square Mile of Land Area
66.14
71.98
8.83%
Population Data
Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 2010 Census, American Community Survey 2010
Table 1-2 provides population trends for Marion County, its municipalities, and other areas
for 1990, 2000, and 2010. The fastest-growing municipality in Marion County is Belleview,
with a 68.5 percent change in population from 1990 to 2010. It should be noted that 81
percent of the population in Marion County resides in unincorporated areas of the county,
which has increased from 76 percent of the population who lived in unincorporated areas in
1990.
Table 1-2
Marion County Population Trends for Cities and Towns
%
Change
2000-10
%
Change
19902010
1990
2000
2010
%
Change
1990-00
City of Belleview
2,666
3,478
4,492
30.5%
29.2%
68.5%
City of Dunnellon
1,624
1,898
1,733
16.9%
-8.7%
6.7%
City of McIntosh
411
453
452
10.2%
-.2%
10.0%
42,045
45,943
56,352
9.3%
22.7%
34.0%
554
571
506
3.1%
-11.4%
-8.7%
Unincorporated County
147,533
206,573
267,800
40.0%
29.6%
81.5%
Total County
194,833
258,916
331,398
32.9%
28.0%
70.1%
Municipality
City of Ocala
City of Reddick
Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing; 2010 Census
Age Distribution
Figure 1-2 shows the Marion County and Florida populations by age distribution.
According to the 2010 American Community Survey, more than 25 percent of Marion
County’s population is 65 years of age or older compared to 17 percent for Florida. The 45to-65 age group includes the largest percentage of both the Marion County and Florida
populations, indicating that the older age group will be increasing significantly in the
future.
100%
17.34%
25.75%
80%
27.01%
27.28%
60%
40%
25.11%
20%
13.07%
10.68%
17.47%
15.87%
Florida
Marion County
20.42%
0%
Less than 15
15 to 24
25 to 44
45 to 65
65 +
Source: 2010 American Community Survey, one-year estimates
Figure 1-2
Population Age Distribution, 2010
Income Distribution
Figure 1-3 compares the distribution of household income in Marion County and Florida.
The income distribution in Marion County is similar to the distribution in the state of
Florida, with the exception of more Marion County residents earning between $10,000 and
$24,999 and less Marion County residents earning $75,000 or more in comparison to
Florida. The Marion County median household income is approximately 20 percent lower
than the state, with Marion County’s median income at $37,044 and Florida’s at $44,409.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
15.6%
26.5%
18.7%
18.3%
18.8%
15.7%
15.5%
12.2%
22.0%
18.9%
9.3%
8.3%
Marion County
Florida
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,000
$50,000 to $74,999
$74,000 +
Source: 2010 American Community Survey, 1 year estimates
Figure 1-3
Annual Household Income Distribution, 2010
Employment
Table 1-3 includes the current labor force, employment, and unemployment data for Marion
County and Florida. The data provided in the table presents a snapshot. These figures, not
seasonally adjusted, show that Marion County has a slightly higher unemployment rate
than the state as a whole.
Figure 1-4 displays the percent of population above the age of 16 in the labor force and the
percent of the labor force employed. Marion County has a lower labor force percentage than
Florida, at approximately 50 percent compared to 60 percent. This is, in part, due to the
high retired population in the county.
Table 1-3
Employment Characteristics (March 2012)
Area
Marion County
Florida
Civilian Labor
Force
131,382
9,233,700
Number
Employed
117,864
8,441,100
Number
Unemployed
13,518
792,600
Unemployment
Rate
10.3%
8.6%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics
Florida
% of Labor Force
Employed (2000)
% in Labor Force (2000)
% of Labor Force
Employed (2010)
Marion County
% in Labor Force (2010)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Source: 2010 American Community Survey, 1 year estimates; 2000 Census of Population and Housing
Figure 1-4
Labor Force Participation (2000 and 2010)
Population and Employment Densities
Using 2010 Census data, population densities by census block group were determined. As
shown in Map 1-2, the densest areas occur east of I-75 and run south to the southern edge
of the county. The SR 200 corridor south of Ocala also has dense areas of population.
Maps 1-3 and 1-4 display the employment density for Marion County. To capture the total
number of employees who work in Marion County and not just employees who reside within
the county, the socio-economic data forecast developed for Marion County TPO’s 2035 LRTP
was used. These data were developed for 2013 and 2022 and are organized by Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) rather than census block group. TAZs are smaller than census block
groups and are used in transportation demand modeling to provide more detailed statistics
for present and future conditions. Most growth in employment density is projected to occur
along SR 200 to the southwest of Ocala, as well as in Reddick and Dunnellon.
Legend
Population 2010
Interstates
±
Major Roadways
People per Square Mile
< 50
50 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1,000
> 1,000
0
1.5
3
»
A
75
§
¦
¨
ã
?
ã
?
»
A
75
§
¦
¨
Map 1-2: Existing Population Density
Source: U.S. Census 2010
6
Miles
OCALA/MARION COUNTY TDSP
Legend
±
Employment Density 2013
Interstates
0
1.5
3
Major Roadways
Employees per Square Mile
< 25
25 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1,500
> 1,500
»
A
75
§
¨
¦
ã
?
ã
?
»
A
75
§
¨
¦
Source: Marion County TPO 2035 LRTP Forecast Socioeconomic Data
Map 1-3: Existing Employment Density
6
Miles
Legend
Future Employment 2022
±
Interstates
0
1.5
3
Major Roadways
< 25
25 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1,500
> 1,500
75
§
¨
¦
»
A
ã
?
ã
?
»
A
75
§
¨
¦
Source: Marion County TPO 2035 LRTP Forecast Socioeconomic Data
Map 1-4: Future Employment Density
6
Miles
MarionCountyTDSP
Major Employers
Major industries in Marion County include government, education, healthcare,
manufacturing, construction, and leisure/hospitality. Major employment centers include
healthcare centers such as Munroe Regional Medical Center and Ocala Regional Medical
Center and manufacturing factories such as E-ONE, Inc.; Closetmaid; Lockheed-Martin;
and Signature Brands, LLC. In addition, Cheney Brothers, Inc., and Swift Transportation
Company are major employers in the distribution and transportation sectors. Retail
centers also employ a large percentage of workers in Marion County. Table 1-4 shows the
top 20 major private sector employers and major government employers in Marion County.
Table 1-4
Top 20 Major Public and Private Employers, Marion County
Employer Name
Number of
Employees
Business Type/Sector
Major Private Sector Employers
Munroe Regional Center
2,652
Healthcare
Walmart (combined)
Ocala Regional Medical Center &
West Marion Community Hospital
Publix Supermarkets (combined)
2,370
Retail Sales
1,725
Healthcare
1,275
Retail Sales
AT&T
1,000
Support Services
Lockheed-Martin
928
Manufacturing
E-ONE, Inc.
850
Manufacturing
The Centers
568
Healthcare
Cheney Brothers, Inc.
542
Distribution
Swift Transportation Company
537
Transportation
ClosetMaid
460
Manufacturing
Hospice of Marion County, Inc.
452
Healthcare
Childhood Development Services, Inc.
371
Education
On Top of The World Communities, Inc.
358
Real Estate Developer
Signature Brands, LLC
303
Manufacturing
Custom Window Systems, Inc
302
Manufacturing/Distribution
K-Mart Corporation
300
Distribution
Townley Manufacturing Company, Inc.
256
Manufacturing
Jenkins Auto Group
205
Manufacturing
Cone Distributing, Inc.
187
Distribution
Table 1-4 (continued)
Number of
Employees
Employer Name
Business Type/Sector
Major Government Employers
Marion County Public Schools
6,031
Education
State of Florida (all departments)
2,582
Government
Marion Co. Board of County Commissioners
1,439
Government
U.S. Government
916
Government
City of Ocala (all departments)
950
Government
Marion County Sheriff’s Office
840
Government
College of Central Florida
401
Education
Source: Ocala/Marion County Community Demographic Profile, 2011
Major Trip Generators
Major trip generators in Marion County include schools, libraries, the three hospitals
located in Ocala, previously-identified major employers, shopping centers, and the Ocala
Central Business District (CBD).
Shopping centers tend to be concentrated in and around Ocala along SR 200 southwest of
Ocala, SR 40 in northeastern Ocala, and US 27 south of Ocala. Other specific generators
include the Wild Waters Family Water Park, Silver Springs Nature Park west of Silver
Springs Shores, Ocala Civic Theatre, and Central Florida Community College. Ocala is the
primary CBD in the county, serving as the center for both business and government
activities. A smaller CBD is located in Dunnellon. Map 1-5 shows the major trip
generators and attractors in Marion County.
Marion County identifies 20 key
“Employment Activity Centers,” which includes a mix of existing and planned centers.
These occur predominately along I-75, but additional employment centers are scattered
throughout the county. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan identifies Circle Square
Woods, an existing employment center, and Marion Oaks, a regional activity center.
Transportation Disadvantaged Population
Table 1-5 shows trend in the TD population and TD passengers between 2007 and 2011 in
Marion County. The TD population has risen 11 percent, from 138,818 in 2007 to 154,514
in 2011. However, the number of TD passengers served has increased at a faster pace, with
a 23 percent increase, from 6,499 2007 to 7,997 in 2011. While there is a significant
decrease in TD passengers from 2007 to 2008, the passenger count begins to increase in
2009, with the highest number of passengers served occurring in 2011.
Table 1-5
Marion County TD Population and Passenger Trends
Year
Potential TD
Population
TD Passengers
Served
2007
138,818
6,499
2008
142,570
5,292
2009
146,433
6,810
2010
150,414
6,898
2011
154,514
7,997
% Change (2007–2011)
11.3%
23.0%
Source: 2007-2011 FCTD Annual Performance Reports
MTS provides public transportation to the TD population of Marion County. MCSS is the
designated CTC for Marion County, and operates the paratransit services under the name
MTS. Priority is given to those who do not own or drive their own vehicle and do not have
family or friends to assist them in traveling to and from destination points.
Figure 1-5 shows the number of TD passengers served during the five-year period from
2007–2011.
9,000
7,997
8,000
7,000
6,499
6,000
6,810
6,898
2009
2010
5,292
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2007
2008
2011
Source: 2007–2011 FCTD Annual Performance Reports
Figure 1-5
Number of TD Passengers Served
Legend
"
W
·
²
)
"
#
*
(
!
G
m
n
ó
ô
õ
"
Z
±
MCINTOSH
Transfer Stations
Shopping
m
n
Government Facilities
0
1.5
3
Major Employers
Recreation
REDDICK
Medical Facilites
»
A
m
n
m
n
Schools
Parks
m
n
75
Airports
§
¦
¨
Interstates
Major Roadways
Municipalities
Marion County
ã
?
m
n
DUNNELLON
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
Ocala
m
n
m
n
OCALA
n n
m
m
(
!
mn
n
m
·
²
·
²
#
*
m·
n
m
"
W
mn
n
m") ²
n
#
*n
mn
n
m
#
*
)
"
m
#
m
n
m
n
* #
m
n
*#
m
#
*G
G n
#
*
m#
*n
(
!
m
**n
"
W
#
*#
m
mn
n
m
·* n
²
n
m
m #
n
m
n
#
*G
G
m
n
m
mn
n
#
*
m
n
#
*
BELLEVIEW
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m#
n
m
n
*
m
n
G
·
²
m
n
m
n
ã
?
»
A
75
§
¨
¦
nn
m
m
m
n
m
n
·
²
m
n
²
·
·
²
·
²
Map 1-5: Activity Centers
Source: Marion TPO
6
Miles
MarionCountyTDSP
Commuting Patterns
Table 1-6 summarizes the commuter flows for workers living in Marion County. The
analysis of 2009 Census worker flow data indicates that 54 percent of the workers residing
in Marion County also work in Marion County. The remaining 46 percent of workers
commute to neighboring counties, with Lake and Orange counties and all other areas not
included in the top 10 highest ranking locations having the greatest number of commuters.
While the number of commuters has increased slightly since 2004, the proportion of
workers living and working within Marion County has decreased slightly, from
approximately 60 percent in 2004 to 54 percent in 2009.
Marion Marion
(2004) (2009)
Table 1-6
County of Work for Workers Residing in Marion County, 2004 and 2009
County of Work
County of
Residence
Marion
Lake
Alachua
Orange
Duval
Hillsborough
Other
Total
# Workers
53,123
4,922
4,267
4,879
3,535
3,367
25,134
99,227
% Distribution
53.54%
4.96%
4.30%
4.92%
3.56%
3.39%
25.33%
100.00%
# Workers
58,894
5,173
4,484
4,082
2,794
3,167
19,655
98,249
% Distribution
59.94%
5.27%
4.56%
4.15%
2.84%
3.22%
20.01%
100.00%
-10.69%
-5.79%
-5.78%
18.35%
25.27%
5.27%
26.62%
0.00%
Percent Change
(2004–2009)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau “On the Map” online application; LEHD Data 2004, 2009
Table 1-7 reflects commuting flows for Marion County as a work destination. The analysis
of 2009 Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) database worker flow
data indicates that 60 percent of Marion County’s workers live in the county, a decrease of
more than 14 percent in comparison to the 2004 LEHD database. The number of workers
commuting from Orange County to Marion County for work increased by nearly 40 percent
from 2004 to 2009. In addition, persons commuting to Marion County from all other areas
not included in the top 10 highest ranked locations increased by 47 percent from 2004 to
2009.
Table 1-7
Commuting from Neighboring Counties to Marion County, 2004 and 2009
County of Residence
Marion Marion
(2004) (2009)
County of Work
Marion
Citrus
Orange
Hillsborough
Lake
Duval
Other
Total
# Workers
53,123
3,449
2,868
2,400
2,235
2,232
22,522
88,829
% Distribution
59.80%
3.88%
3.23%
2.70%
2.52%
2.51%
25.35%
100.00%
# Workers
58,894
3,194
1,966
2334
1,588
1,861
14,508
84,345
% Distribution
69.83%
3.79%
2.33%
2.77%
1.88%
2.21%
17.20%
100.00%
-14.35%
2.53%
38.52%
-2.36%
33.64%
13.88%
47.40%
5.32%
Percent Change
(2004–2009)
Source: US Census Bureau “On the Map” online application. LEHD Data 2004, 2009
Household Vehicle Availability
Table 1-8 exhibits the number of vehicles available by household within Marion County and
Florida. The distributions of household vehicle availability are fairly consistent with those
of Florida. Marion County has a slightly lower percentage of households with zero vehicles
than Florida, but a higher percentage of two-vehicle households. Almost 75 percent of the
households in the county have two or more vehicles available.
Table 1-8
Distribution of Vehicle Availability (2010)
Area
Marion County
Florida
Number of Vehicles Available
0
1
2
3+
1.2%
3.0%
25.6%
25.0%
48.2%
45.6%
25.3%
26.5%
C. SERVICE ANALYSIS
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED POPULATION/DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Population forecasts and trip demand projections were developed as part of the paratransit
market assessment for the TDSP update. The TD population forecasts are broken down by
population segment to better understand the composition of the TD population. In
addition, this section also summarizes forecasts of TD trip demand, supply, and unmet
demand for Marion County for the time period from 2013 through 2018.
Forecasts of TD Population
The TD population is estimated using the methodology described in “Methodology
Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transportation Demand at the County Level,” a publication
prepared by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of
South Florida, for the FCTD. The results provide estimates from 2013 through 2018 for the
TD population in Marion County. These population projections also are broken down into
population segments, based on the reason for the disadvantage, to better understand the
composition of the TD population.
There are two categories of TD population in Florida, the difference between which is
specifically related to funding arrangements. The first group is the “potential TD
population” (also known as TD Category I). This potential TD population includes persons
with disabilities, older adults, low-income persons, and children who are “high-risk” or “atrisk.”
The second group of TD population (also known as TD Category II) includes those persons
who are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation. These persons are
eligible to receive the same subsidies as those in Category I, plus they are eligible to receive
TD Trust Fund monies for non-sponsored general trips. Thus, this population group is
actually a subset of the potential TD population. Table 1-9 estimates the TD population for
these two categories in Marion County through 2018.
Table 1-10 further breaks down the Potential TD Population and TD Population groups in
Marion County by specific segments. Persons in either of these population groups may be
heavily dependent on some form of public transportation. The TD forecasts presented in
Tables 1-9 and 1-10 were developed by CUTR and reported in the Florida Statewide
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Population Demand and Forecasts. The
figures were initially developed in 1993 and updated in 1999.
Table 1-9
Marion County TD Population Forecasts
TD Population
Year
Category I
Category II
2013
163,090
43,327
2014
167,572
44,463
2015
172,192
45,632
2016
176,953
46,836
2017
181,858
48,075
2018
186,913
49,352
Source: CUTR, “Florida Statewide TDSP Population Demand and Forecasts,” 1999.
Table 1-10
Marion County Potential
Transportation Disadvantaged Population (2013)
Population
Estimates
Percent of
Total
Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income
2,984
1.8%
Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income
15,669
9.6%
Disabled, Elderly, Low Income
3,736
2.3%
Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income
29,926
18.3%
Non-Disabled, Elderly, Low Income
8,637
5.3%
Non-Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income
69,165
42.4%
Non-Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income
32,973
20.2%
Total Potential TD Population
163,090
100.0%
Transportation Disadvantaged, Non-Elderly, Low Income
1,438
3.3%
Transportation Disadvantaged, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income
7,551
17.4%
Transportation Disadvantaged, Elderly, Low Income
2,833
6.5%
22,692
52.4%
8,813
20.3%
43,327
100.0%
Segments
Category I – Potential TD Population
Category II – TD Population
Transportation Disadvantaged, Elderly, Non-Low Income
Non-Transportation Disadvantaged, Low Income, No Auto,
No Fixed-Route Transit
Total TD Population
Source: CUTR, “Florida Statewide TDSP Population Demand and Forecasts,” 1999.
Demand Projections
This section summarizes forecasts of TD trip demand, supply, and unmet demand for
Marion County for the time period from 2013 through 2018. These estimates are based on
the TD population forecasts that were presented previously and on information from the
Marion County CTC Annual Performance Report. Florida’s TD system provides two types
of trips: program trips and general trips. Demand for program trips is forecasted
differently than for general trips, as summarized in the remainder of this section.
Demand for Program Trips
Persons in Category I are eligible to receive governmental and social service subsidies for
program trips. A program trip is one made by a client of a government or social service
agency for the purpose of participating in a program of that agency. Examples of program
trips are trips to congregate meal sites or trips to job training facilities.
The estimated demand for program trips compared to the Potential TD estimates prepared
by CUTR is shown in Table 1-11. Program trip demand is dependent upon the existence of
the program to which the potential TD population group is transported. For example,
demand for trips to sheltered workshops exists only because there are sheltered workshop
programs. Thus, the demand for program trips is equal to the number of trips required to
take advantage of the service offered by the program. Therefore, the demand for program
trips depends on the funding level for the various social service programs. It also assumes
that the supply of program trips will increase at a rate sufficient to continue to provide the
current level of service to the Category I population. If local social service or governmental
agencies undergo major changes in the scope of their programs that require TD
transportation service, the estimates may increase or decrease at the same rate. Therefore,
the demand for program trips depends on the funding level for the various social service
programs.
Table 1-11
Forecasts of Marion County Program Trip Demand and Supply
Year
Potential TD
Population
(Category 1)
Potential
Demand for
Program
Trips
Supply of
Program
Trips
2013
163,090
249,668
249,668
2014
167,572
256,659
256,659
2015
172,192
263,846
263,846
2016
176,953
271,233
271,233
2017
181,858
278,828
278,828
2018
186,913
286,635
286,635
Source: CUTR, “Florida Statewide TDSP Population Demand and
Forecasts,”1999; Marion Senior Services, Inc. Annual Performance Report.
This information is based on projections that were completed in 1999 prior to the downturn
in the economy; therefore, population and corresponding trip projections may not be
consistent with updated Census data.
Demand for General Trips
General trips are trips made by TD persons (Category II) to destinations of their choice (not
to agency programs). Examples of general trips are trips to work or grocery stores and nonMedicaid medical trips. Deriving the demand for general trips is different than for program
trips. The methodology developed to forecast demand for general trips involves the use of
trip rates derived in a study of paratransit demand conducted in 1990 for the San Francisco
Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission by Crain & Associates, Inc., and others
(“San Francisco Bay Area Regional Paratransit Plan: Final Report”). Trip rates are the
average number of trips taken by a single transportation disadvantaged individual. The
trip rates were developed from the actual experiences of paratransit systems around the
country that were meeting most or all of the trip demand in their service areas. The use of
these trip rates is recommended by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for
estimating demand for ADA complementary paratransit.
Total demand for general trips is simply the TD population multiplied by the trip rates.
The TD population (rather than the Potential TD population) was used to forecast demand
because the TD population is the population eligible for general trips funded by the state.
According to the county level forecasts of the demand for TD services completed by CUTR,
the average monthly trip rate for Marion County is 1.2 trips per person per month. Table
1-12 shows the annual demand and supply estimates for general trips by the TD population
for Marion County for the years 2013 through 2018. As shown in the table, a gap exists
between the demand for general trips and the supply of these trips. Unmet demand refers
to demand that currently exists in the TD transportation market but is not being met due
to factors such as funding, price, convenience, comfort, eligibility, and the availability of
other transportation modes.
Table 1-12
Forecasts of Marion County TD General Trip Demand and Supply
Year
TD
population
(Category
II)
Demand
for General
Trips
Supply of
General
Trips
Unmet
Demand
for
General
Trips
2013
43,327
623,909
64,282
559,627
2014
44,463
640,267
66,082
574,185
2015
45,632
657,101
67,932
589,169
2016
46,836
674,438
69,834
604,604
2017
48,075
692,280
71,790
620,490
2018
49,352
710,669
73,800
636,869
Source: CUTR, “Florida Statewide TDSP Population Demand and Forecasts,” 1999
It should be noted that the figures related to the demand and supply of TD general purpose
trips in Marion County include trips that also will fall under the category of ADA
complementary paratransit services. The ADA provides for unconstrained delivery of
paratransit trips for persons who cannot use the fixed-route bus system due to the nature
and/or extent of their disability for trips with origin and destination points within 3/4-mile
from a fixed-route. Persons may be certified as eligible for ADA paratransit trips as well as
for TD general purpose trips. Therefore, the figures for unmet demand included in Table 112 are inflated and reflect some duplication in the calculation of trip demand due to the
supply of some trips being carried out by ADA paratransit services, satisfying an additional
portion of the demand for general trips.
CTC TREND ANALYSIS
The substantial amount of data available regarding paratransit services from the Annual
Performance Report (APR) provide an opportunity to develop an assortment of measures
with which to review the system performance of the transportation services provided by the
CTC. The APR is a compilation of information that is submitted to the FCTD by each
individual county’s CTC in an Annual Operating Report (AOR). The Ocala/Marion TPO has
the responsibility to evaluate the CTC under the Planning Grant from the FCTD.
Performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures are selected that are known to provide
a good representation of overall CTC system performance. Table 1-13 lists the measures
used in this analysis.
Table 1-13
Marion County CTC Performance Review Measures
Performance Measures
Passenger Trips
Vehicle Miles
Revenue Miles
Operating Expense
Operating Expense
(2007$)
Operating Revenue
Operating Revenue
(2007$)
Total Fleet
Effectiveness Measures
Vehicle Miles per TD Capita
Passenger Trips per TD Capita
Passenger Trips per Vehicle
Mile
Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle
Miles
Vehicle Miles between
Roadcalls/Failures
Efficiency Measures
Operating Expense per Passenger
Trip
Operating Expense per Passenger
Trip (2007$)
Operating Expense per Vehicle
Mile
Operating Expense per Vehicle
Mile (2007$)
Operating Expense per Driver
Hour
Operating Expense per Driver
Hour (2007$)
A trend analysis from FY 2007 through FY 2011 was conducted to examine the performance
of the Ocala/Marion County CTC over time. The tables and figures provided throughout
the trend analysis present selected performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures that
are available from the APRs. Results of the CTC trend analysis are provided below.
Performance Indicators
The CTC performance measures are used to present the data that are reported directly in
the APRs and reflect raw numbers of overall system performance. Six performance
measures are shown in Table 1-14 and illustrated in Figures 1-6 through 1-11.


Total annual passenger trips have fluctuated over the five-year period but have had
a mostly positive trend, from 179,300 in 2007 to 197,645 in 2011, an increase of more
than 10 percent. Most of this increase happened from 2008 to 2009, an increase of 8
percent.
Vehicle miles increased, from 1,860,893 in 2007 to 1,907,213 in 2011, an increase of
2.5 percent. Between 2007 and 2008 vehicle miles decreased by 10 percent, but have
steadily increased beginning in 2009.



Revenue miles increased by 20 percent, from 1,472,577 in 2007 to 1,770,192 in 2011.
This increase occurred steadily over the course of the five years.
Operating expenses increased from $4,051,439 in 2007 to $4,550,487 in 2011, an
overall increase of 12 percent, while operating revenue experienced a decrease
during that same time period from approximately $4,056,615 to $3,905,408, a
decrease of approximately 4 percent. However, the real dollar increase (adjusted for
inflation) in total operating expense is 0.3 percent, with an overall decrease in
operating revenue of 14 percent.
The total fleet size grew from 78 in 2007 to 93 in 2011, an increase of 19 percent.
Table 1-14
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis General Performance Indicators
Performance Measure
Passenger Trips
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
% Change
FY 2007–
FY 2011
179,300
182,010
196,613
197,964
197,645
10.2%
Vehicle Miles
1,860,893
1,681,524
1,782,006
1,819,872
1,907,213
2.5%
Revenue Miles
1,472,577
1,611,505
1,642,589
1,681,926
1,770,192
20.2%
Operating Expense
$4,051,439
$3,899,817
$4,807,039
$4,070,355
$4,550,487
12.3%
Operating Revenue
$4,056,615
$4,168,177
$4,863,785
$3,715,668
$3,905,408
-3.7%
Total Fleet
78
88
94
86
93
19.2%
Operating Expense
(2007$)
$4,051,439
$3,642,808
$4,505,509
$3,752,468
$4,062,537
0.3%
Operating Revenue
(2007$)
$4,056,615
$3,893,483
$4,558,695
$3,425,481
$3,486,630
-14.1%
Source: Annual Performance Reports from 2007 to 2011, FCTD.
250,000
2,500,000
200,000
2,000,000
150,000
1,500,000
100,000
1,000,000
50,000
500,000
0
0
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Passenger Trips
Vehicle Miles
Figure 1-6
Figure 1-7
Passenger Trips
Vehicle Miles
$6,000,000
2,000,000
$5,000,000
1,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
1,000,000
$2,000,000
500,000
$1,000,000
$0
0
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Operating Expense
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Revenue Miles
Operating Expense (2007$)
Figure 1-8
Figure 1-9
Revenue Miles
Operating Expense
$6,000,000
100
$5,000,000
80
$4,000,000
60
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
40
$1,000,000
20
$0
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Operating Revenue
0
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Total Fleet
Operating Revenue (2007$)
Figure 1-10
Figure 1-11
Operating Revenue
Total Fleet
Effectiveness measures indicate the extent to which service-related goals are being met.
For example, passenger trips per TD capita is a measure of the effectiveness of a CTC
system in meeting the transportation needs of the TD community. Selected effectiveness
measures are presented in Table 1-15 to illustrate service supply, service availability,
service consumption, and quality of service between 2007 and 2011. Figures 1-12 through
1-17 illustrate the trend in the effectiveness measures.

Vehicle miles per TD capita decreased from 13.41 in 2007 to 12.34 in 2011, a
decrease of 8 percent.

Over the five-year period, vehicle miles per passenger trip decreased by 7 percent,
from 10.38 miles in 2007 to 9.65 miles in 2011.

Passenger trips per TD capita decreased from 1.29 in 2007 to 1.28 in 2011, a
decrease of 1 percent.

Passenger trips per vehicle mile remained around 0.1 throughout the five-year time
period.

CTC accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles fluctuated over the five-year period, with an
overall increase of 320 percent from .05 in 2007 to .21 in 2011.

Vehicle miles between roadcalls decreased significantly from 132,921 in 2007 to
68,115 in 2011, a decrease of nearly 50 percent.
Table 1-15
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis
Effectiveness
Measure
Vehicle Miles per TD
Capita
Vehicle Miles per
Passenger Trip
Passenger Trips Per TD
Capita
Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Mile
Accidents per 100,000
Vehicle Miles
Vehicle Miles between
Roadcalls
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
% Change
FY 2007-FY 2011
13.41
11.79
12.17
12.10
12.34
-7.9%
10.38
9.24
9.06
9.19
9.65
-7.0%
1.29
1.28
1.34
1.32
1.28
-1.0%
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10
7.6%
0.05
0.24
0.34
0.16
0.21
320.0%
132,921
105,095
148,501
139,990
68,115
-48.8%
Source: Annual Performance Reports from 2007 to 2011, FCTD
16.0
1.60
14.0
1.40
12.0
1.20
10.0
1.00
8.0
0.80
6.0
0.60
4.0
0.40
2.0
0.20
0.0
0.00
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Vehicle Miles Per TD Capita
Passenger Trips Per TD Capita
Figure 1-12
Figure 1-13
0.12
12.00
0.10
10.00
0.08
8.00
0.06
6.00
0.04
4.00
0.02
2.00
0.00
0.00
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Mile
Vehicle Miles Per Pass. Trip
Figure 1-14
Figure 1-15
Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile
Vehicle Miles per Passenger Trip
0.30
160,000
140,000
0.25
120,000
0.20
100,000
0.15
80,000
60,000
0.10
40,000
0.05
20,000
0.00
0
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Accidents Per 100,000 Vehicle Miles
Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls
Figure 1-16
Figure 1-17
Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles
Vehicle Miles between Roadcalls
Efficiency Measures
Efficiency measures are designed to measure the level of resources necessary to achieve a
given level of output. For example, operating expense per passenger trip measures the cost
of achieving a given level of ridership on the system. Selected efficiency measures are
presented in Table 1-16 to illustrate performance of the system between 2007 and 2011.
Figures 1-18 through 1-20 are the effectiveness measures illustrated graphically.

Operating expense per passenger trip increased by 2 percent, from $22.60 per trip in
2007 to $23.02 in 2011. A decrease of 9 percent in real dollars.

The operating expense per vehicle mile increased over the five-year period, from
$2.18 in 2007 to $2.39 in 2011, an increase of approximately 10 percent. However,
in real dollars the decrease operating expense per vehicle mile decreased by 2
percent.

Operating expense per driver hour increased by 2.5 percent, from $28.86 in 2007 to
$29.56 in 2011. In real dollars, operating expense per driver hour decreased by 8.5
percent.
Table 1-16
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis
Efficiency Measures
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
% Change
FY 2007FY 2011
Operating Expense per
Passenger Trip
$22.60
$21.43
$24.45
$20.56
$23.02
1.9%
Vehicle Mile
$2.18
$2.32
$2.70
$2.24
$2.39
9.6%
Driver Hour
$28.86
$28.84
$33.74
$26.62
$29.56
2.5%
Passenger Trip (2007$)
$22.60
$20.01
$22.92
$18.95
$20.55
-9.0%
Vehicle Mile (2007$)
$2.18
$2.17
$2.53
$2.07
$2.13
-2.2%
Driver Hour (2007$)
$28.86
$26.94
$31.62
$24.54
$26.39
-8.5%
Efficiency Measure
Source: Annual Performance Reports from 2007 to 2011, FCTD
$30.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip
Operating Expense Per Driver Hour
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip (2007$)
Operating Expense Per Driver Hour (2007$)
Figure 1-18
Figure 1-19
Operating Expense per Passenger Trip
Operating Expense per Driver Hour
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Operating Expense Per Vehicle Mile
Operating Expense Per Vehicle Mile (2007$)
Figure 1-20
Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile
Summary Results of Trend Analysis
The trend analysis is only one aspect of transit performance evaluation. When combined
with the peer review analysis, however, the results provide a starting point for
understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a transit system’s performance over time
and as compared to other systems with similar characteristics.
This section identifies
strengths and weaknesses of MTS based on the trend analysis of the CTC services.
Service Consumption – Passenger trips per TD capita have decreased by one percent, while
passenger trips per vehicle mile have shown a positive trend over a relatively short period,
2007 to 2011.
Service Supply – Vehicle miles per capita (service supply) have decreased from 2007 to
2011.
Cost Efficiency – Cost efficiency over the five-year period was measured by analyzing both
the nominal and real dollar changes in costs.
Operating expenses per passenger trip,
operating expenses per vehicle mile, and operating expenses per driver hour have all
increased over the five year period; however, in real dollars, these measures have all
decreased.
Table 1-17 provides a summary of the trend analysis for the TD services provided by
Marion Transit Services, indicating each performance measure, along with the percent
change over the period from 2007 to 2011.
Table 1-17
Marion County CTC Trend Analysis Summary
Performance Indicators/Measures
Percent Change
(2007-2011)
Passenger Trips
Vehicle Miles
Revenue Miles
Operating Expense
Operating Expense (2007$)
Operating Revenue
Operating Revenue (2007$)
Total Fleet
10.2%
2.5%
20.2%
12.3%
-1.2%
-3.7%
-15.3%
19.2%
Efficiency Measures
Operating Expense per Passenger Trip (2007$)
Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile (2007$)
Operating Expense per Driver Hour (2007$)
-7.9%
-7.0%
-1.0%
7.6%
320.0%
-48.8%
1.9%
-10.4%
9.6%
-3.6%
2.5%
-9.9%
CTC PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS
A CTC peer review analysis was conducted comparing the performance of Marion County
TD services with that of other CTC systems having similar operating characteristics. The
peer review was conducted using 2011 APRs for all selected peers. A peer group analysis
serves two functions: first, it provides a comparison of how well MTS has performed relative
to similar CTCs in Florida; second, it helps to establish realistic performance standards for
the evaluation process.
Peer System Selection Methodology
The peer selection was conducted using the 2011 APRs and was limited to Florida systems.
First, the peers were initially identified through an objective assessment of two standard
variables – county population and population density. A potential peer CTC received 1.5
points for each measure when its value was within plus or minus 10 percent of Marion
County’s population or population density. One-half point was given for each CTC that fell
within plus or minus 20 percent of Marion’s values. After the total scores were determined,
the potential peers were ranked in descending order.
Second, the CTCs that received a total score of 3 points were selected. In addition, several
systems with 2 points were selected based on proximity to Marion County or similarities in
the county’s fixed route service. Table 1-18 presents the transit systems that were selected
as peers for the MTS peer review analysis. The selection criteria and the system statistics
for each of the selected peers are provided in Appendix C.
Table 1-18
MTS Selected Peer Systems
CTC Name
County
LYNX
Osceola
Collier County BOCC
Collier
Okaloosa County BOCC
Okaloosa
MV Transportation
Alachua
Lake County BOCC
Lake
Source: Annual Performance Reports, Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged
The tables and graphs presented in this section summarize selected performance indicators,
effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures for the CTCs considered for this review.
For each selected measure, the tabular analysis provides the MTS performance, 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 MTS values are away from the mean
value.
For comparison purposes, each performance measure is depicted graphically, along with the
peer group mean (the vertical line in each chart). As indicated above, all performance
statistics for the CTC peer group were obtained from the “Florida Commission for
Transportation Disadvantaged 2011 Annual Performance Report,” which contains a
compilation of the Annual Operating Reports submitted to the FCTD for FY 2011.
Performance Indicators
Selected performance indicators for the peer review are presented in this section.
Categories of performance indicators include TD population, ridership, revenue miles, and
vehicles. Table 1-19 and Figures 1-21 through 1-29 present the performance indicators for
the Marion County CTC peer review analysis.
Table 1-19
Marion County CTC Peer Analysis
Performance Indicators – FY 2011
Marion
County
Peer
Minimum
Peer
Maximum
Peer Mean
% from
Mean
Service Area Population
331,298
180,822
331,298
274,452
20.71%
Potential TD Population
154,514
59,392
154,514
109,091
41.64%
Total Passengers Served
7,997
2,337
14,698
6,853
16.70%
197,645
136,911
509,440
264,876
-25.38%
Total Vehicle Miles
1,907,213
673,237
2,615,090
1,641,155
16.21%
Total Revenue Miles
1,770,192
585,978
2,302,415
1,428,742
23.90%
Operating Expense
$4,550,487
$1,611,300
$4,966,980
$3,877,784
17.35%
Operating Revenue
$3,905,408
$1,557,996
$5,647,622
$3,690,410
5.83%
93
35
93
68
37.44%
Passenger Trips
Total Fleet
Source: 2011 Annual Performance Reports, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Alachua
Alachua
Lake
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
0
Mean
Okaloosa
Mean
Okaloosa
50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
0
50,000
Figure 1-21
Alachua
Lake
Lake
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
2,000
4,000
6,000
Mean
Okaloosa
Marion
0
8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0
Figure 1-23
400,000
500,000
600,000
Mean
Alachua
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000
Figure 1-25
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Figure 1-26
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 300,000
Okaloosa
Lake
0
200,000
Total Revenue Miles
Mean
Alachua
100,000
Figure 1-24
Total Vehicle Miles
Okaloosa
200,000
Passenger Trips
Mean
Alachua
150,000
Figure 1-22
Total Passengers Served
Okaloosa
100,000
1‐37 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP MarionCountyTDSP
Operating Expense (000)
Alachua
Alachua
Lake
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
Mean
Okaloosa
Mean
Okaloosa
Operating Revenue (000)
$5,000
$0
$6,000
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
Thousands
Thousands
Figure 1-27
Figure 1-28
Total Fleet
Mean
Okaloosa
Alachua
Lake
Marion
Osceola
Collier
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 1-29
The following is a summary of the peer review analysis performance indicators, based on
the information presented in Table 1-19 and Figures 1-21 through 1-29.




Service area population is greater than the peer group average, 20 percent above the
mean, while the potential TD population is 42 percent above the peer group average.
The passenger trips for the CTC are 25 percent below the peer group average, while
the total passengers served is approximately 17 percent above the peer group
average.
Revenue miles for MTS are 24 percent above the peer group mean.
Operating expenses and revenues for MTS are more than the peer group average by
17 percent and 6 percent, respectively.
As stated previously in the trend analysis section, effectiveness measures indicate the
extent to which various service-related goals are being achieved. Categories of effectiveness
measures include service supply, service consumption, and quality of service. Table 1-20
and Figures 1-30 through 1-35 represent the effectiveness measures for the MTS peer
review analysis.
Table 1-20
Effectiveness Measures – FY 2011
Marion
CTC
Peer
Group
Minimum
Peer
Group
Maximum
Peer
Group
Mean
Marion
CTC:
% from
Mean
12.34
10.89
21.83
15.20
-18.79%
9.65
2.91
12.28
7.04
37.02%
1.28
1.28
4.10
2.51
-48.96%
0.10
0.08
0.34
0.18
-41.29%
0.21
0.21
2.40
.97
-78.35%
68,115
14,672
168,309
57,902
17.64%
Measure
Source: 2011 Annual Performance Reports, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
Vehicle Miles Per TD Capita
Alachua
Alachua
Lake
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Figure 1-30
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Figure 1-31
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 Mean
Okaloosa
Mean
Okaloosa
Vehicle Miles Per Passenger Trip
1‐39 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP 14.00
MarionCountyTDSP
Passenger Trips Per TD Capita
Alachua
Alachua
Lake
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Mean
Okaloosa
Mean
Okaloosa
Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Mile
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.00
0.05
Figure 1-32
Alachua
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
0.50
1.00
1.50
0.25
0.30
0.35
2.00
2.50
3.00
Figure 1-34
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
Figure 1-35
The following is a summary of the effectiveness measures for the peer review analysis:

Vehicle miles per TD capita for MTS are 18 percent below peer group mean.

Passenger trips per vehicle mile are 41 percent below the peer group mean.

Accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles are 78 percent below the peer group mean.

Vehicle miles between roadcalls are 18 percent above the peer group mean.
Efficiency Measures
The final area addressed in the CTC peer analysis concerns system efficiency. Efficiency
measures include reviewing cost efficiencies, the level of resources required to achieve a
given level of output. Table 1-21 and Figures 1-36 through 1-38 present the efficiency
measures for the MTS peer review analysis.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 0.40
Mean
Okaloosa
Lake
0.00
0.20
Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls
Mean
Alachua
0.15
Figure 1-33
Accidents Per 100,000 Vehicle Miles
Okaloosa
0.10
1‐40 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP 200,000
MarionCountyTDSP

Operating expense per passenger trip for MTS is 44 percent above the peer group
mean.
Operating expense per vehicle mile is 2 percent below the peer group mean.
Operating expense per driver hour is 20 percent below the peer group average.


Table 1-21
Efficiency Measures – FY 2011
Peer
Peer
Group
Group
Minimum Maximum
Peer
Group
Mean
Marion CTC:
% from Mean
23.02
15.96
44.25%
1.79
3.35
2.44
-2.03%
25.56
69.02
37.10
-20.31%
Measure
Marion
CTC
23.02
9.75
2.39
29.56
Source: 2011 Annual Performance Reports, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip
Alachua
Alachua
Lake
Lake
Marion
Marion
Osceola
Osceola
Collier
Collier
0.00
5.00
10.00
Mean
Okaloosa
Mean
Okaloosa
Operating Expense Per Vehicle Mile
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.00
0.50
Figure 1-36
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Figure 1-37
Operating Expense Per Driver Hour
Mean
Okaloosa
Alachua
Lake
Marion
Osceola
Collier
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Figure 1-38
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 1‐41 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP 4.00
MarionCountyTDSP
Summary Results of Peer Review Analysis
Table 1-22 provides a summary of the peer review analysis performed for the Marion
County CTC. The summary includes each performance measure, as well as the percent
that each measure is above or below the peer group mean.
Table 1-22
Marion County CTC Peer Review Analysis Summary – FY 2011
Performance Indicators/Measures
Passenger Trips
Vehicle Miles
Revenue Miles
Operating Expenses
Operating Revenues
Total Fleet
Vehicle Miles between Road calls
Efficiency Measures
Marion CTC:
% from Mean
20.71%
41.64%
-25.38
16.21%
23.90%
17.35%
5.83%
37.44%
-18.79%
37.02%
-48.96%
-41.29%
-78.35%
17.64%
44.25%
-2.03%
-20.31%
The key strengths and weaknesses of MTS based on the peer review analysis include the
following.
Service Consumption – When comparing passenger trips per TD capita and passenger trips
per vehicle mile for MTS and its peers, MTS is below the peer group average by 49 percent
and 41 percent, respectively. This may be a result of the number of vehicle miles required
in less dense areas.
In addition, the total number of passengers served by MTS is
approximately 17 percent greater than the peer group average; however, the number of
passenger trips provided by MTS is 25 percent below the peer group average.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 1‐42 Due to
Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP MarionCountyTDSP
funding constraints, MTS prioritizes its trips and may not have the ability to provide as
many passenger trips as the peer agencies.
Service Supply – Vehicle miles per TD capita (service supply) are 19 percent below the peer
group average.
Cost Efficiency – Cost efficiency was measured by analyzing the operating expenses per
passenger trip, operating expenses per vehicle mile, and operating expenses per driver
hour. Compared to the peer groups, the cost per passenger trips is 44 percent higher than
the peer group average, which may be a result of providing service in less dense areas and
carrying fewer passengers per vehicle mile than the peer agencies. However, operating
expense per vehicle mile and operating expense per driver hour are both below the peer
group average.
D. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section includes the assessment of existing needs and unmet public transportation
needs for low-income and persons with disabilities. An inventory of existing transportation
providers and identification of redundancies and gaps in service were also used to identify
unmet needs or duplications of public transportation services.
Map 1-3, presented previously in this section, shows the employment densities within
Marion County. Map 1-6 depicts the percent of the total population age 65 and above in
Marion County. Map 1-7 presents the traditional transit market assessment that includes
population segments that historically have a higher propensity to use transit and/or are
dependent on public transit for their transportation needs. Traditional transit users
include the older adults, youths, and households that are low income and/or have not
vehicles. To create the TOI, 2010 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)
demographic data estimates were compiled at the block group level and categorized
according to each block group’s relative ability to support transit based on the prevalence of
specific demographic characteristics. For this analysis, five population and demographic
characteristics were used to develop the TOI. Each characteristic is traditionally associated
with the propensity to use transit. The five characteristics that were used to produce the
index include the following:


Population density (persons per square mile)
Proportion of the population age 65 and over (older adults)



Proportion of the population under age 16 (youths)
Proportion of the population below the poverty level
Proportion of households with no vehicles (zero-vehicle households)
ESRI data do not include zero-vehicle household information. As a surrogate measure, the
number of households with an annual income equal to or less than $10,000 was used. It was
assumed that households earning less than $10,000 were not able to afford vehicles or other
costs associated with vehicle ownership. The block groups are rated as “Very High,” “High,”
“Medium,” or “Low” in their respective levels of transit orientation, where “Very High”
reflects a very high transit orientation, i.e., a high proportion of transit dependent
populations.
Based on the existing transit services and concentrations of targeted populations, the
following needs have been identified as priority areas for increased mobility options:




Based on the TOI analysis, block groups containing high proportions of transitdependent populations are located southwest of Ocala to the east and west of SR
200.
Block groups with existing employment densities of more than 1,500 people per
square mile are located in Ocala, southwest of Ocala, Dunnellon, Belleview, and just
south of Reddick along Interstate 75. The future employment densities appear to
grow within the same areas that contain the existing employment densities, with
the exception of two block groups located in north Marion County near the Sumter
County and Lake County lines and one block group to the west of Ocala along SR 40.
Current data depicting the county’s population of persons with disabilities are not
available for mapping purposes; therefore, this analysis relies on the TD population
estimates presented earlier in this section and the percent of population at or above
age 65. Block groups containing higher percentages of the population age 65 and
over and limited transit service, include the areas the block group between NW 60
Avenue and US HWY 27, south of Belleview along HWY 441 to the Sumter County
line, Dunnellon, and to the east and west of SR 200 between SW 60 Avenue and SW
HWY 484.
Other areas with higher percentages of the population age 65 and above that contain
fixed-route transit service include Ocala and Silver Springs Shores. While these
areas have existing transit service, they may be considered for new and innovative
projects that go beyond the existing ADA requirements.
Legend
±
75
Elderly Population
65+
Interstates
§
¨
¦
0
1.5
3
Major Roadways
< 50
50 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1,000
> 1,000
»
A
75
§
¦
¨
ã
?
ã
?
»
A
75
§
¦
¨
Map 1-6: 2010 Older Adults
Source: 2010 Census Data
6
Miles
W
25
2
Y
W
31
4
NE 25 AVE
NW 44 AVE
SW
42
ST
5
NE 36 AVE
NE 7 ST
W
Y
SE 17 ST
19
SE 17 ST
SE 24 ST
SE 31 ST
SE
SE 38 ST
6
M
AR
I
CA
M
P
RD
W Y 3 14
E HWY 40
19
ã
?
WY
SE
H
SE 52 ST
SH
OCALA
VE
EA
NW 60 AVE
H
IN
32
SW 60 AVE
Y
N
NE 3 ST
SP
Y
SW 20 ST
6
Miles
NE 14 ST
SE 52 ST
NE 7 ST
W HWY 40
SW 80 AVE
3
1 4A
W
NE 35 ST
3
NE 24 ST
TR
SW 17 ST
Y
H
NW HWY 225A
NE 70 ST
E
NW 110 AVE
HW
NE 90 STREET RD
W
NH
46
HW
Y
E
AV
SU
NS
ET
HA
Y2
5
SE
R
1
D
E
44
U
EN
Y
NB
SE 36 AVE
2
HW
SW
I7 5
SE HWY 42
18
S
SE 145 ST
S
Y2
5
SE
SU
SE HWY 484
S HWY 475
4C
SH
W
EH
W
SE 100 AVE
SW 27 AVE
SW SB I75
SE 58 AVE
SE 110 ST
SW 16 AVE
SW 49 AVE
SE 41 CT
SW 60 AVE
0
20
Y
W
H
RD
SW
P
6
33
SW 107 PL
75
M
WY
BELLEVIEW
SE 95 ST
§
¨
¦
CA
SE 80 ST
SW 87 PL
I
AR
H
SW HWY 484
SE 52 ST
M
SW
»
A
SE 52 ST
SE
SW 140 AVE
SW 38 ST
S MAGN O LIA AVE
NW 150 AVE
I7 5
SB
NW
27
NE
Y3
1
Y
S US HW
Y 41
NE 36 AVE
HW
ã
?
N US HWY 441 N US HWY 441
US
NW HWY 225A
N
NW 160 AVE
27
NW HWY 464B
NE
127
S
NW 10 STTR EE
D
Y
W HWY 326
N E 47 AVE
HW
§
¦
¨
NW 100 ST
NE 35 ST
N E 28 ST
SE 11 AVE
I 75
US
75
NW 35 ST
ET R
D
E HWY 316
E HWY 329
1.5
SW 7 AVE
NB
N
W HWY 329
RE
SE 3 AVE
NW
29
Y3
NW H
ST
NW 27 AVE
W
17
5
SW 27 AVE
H
»
A
NW 165 ST
NE
HW
N
NE
REDDICK
W HWY 316
DUNNELLON
Y 40
HW
E
W HWY 318
0
Downtown Ocala
NW 193 ST
W HWY 328
HW
Y 31
8
Y 4 41
NW HW Y 3 20
Major Roadways
SunTran Routes
Marion County
±
H
SE 36 AVE
MCINTOSH
Interstates
W
US
NE 25 AVE
N
SE 22 AVE
Legend
Transit Orientation Index
Very High
High
Medium
Low
R BO R RD
Map 1-7: Transit Orientation Index
42
SE HW Y
Source: 2010 ESRI
MarionCountyTDSP
E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The public involvement activities undertaken as part of the TDSP update are described in
this section. The goal of the public involvement activities is to increase the likelihood of
active participation from citizens and stakeholder agencies during the plan update process.
The public outreach activities completed included discussion groups, stakeholder
interviews, a public workshop, and an on-board survey. Representatives from the
Ocala/Marion County Economic Development Corp., Chamber of Commerce, MCSS, the
Marion County Health Department, North Magnolia Merchants Association, Marion
County Office of Economic and Small Business Development, and City of Ocala Economic
Development participated in the interview process to provide input relating to the County’s
existing and future transportation needs. Common theme from the public outreach
included the following:










The most commonly-requested service improvements were Sunday service on routes,
later service on existing routes, and more benches and shelters at bus stops.
Lack of awareness of service availability is a major issue.
Implementation of an all-day bus pass would be useful to many riders.
Existing bus schedules are not user-friendly.
On-time performance is affected by the loading/unloading of wheelchairs, strollers,
and assisting passengers with understanding the schedule.
There are safety issues with accessing Trinity Villas and the Wal-Mart stop on
Silver Springs Boulevard.
Better connections are needed between neighborhoods and major employment/
activity centers.
Increasing service to West Ocala and other underserved areas in Marion County is a
need; however, due to the current economic situation the need is currently lessened.
Convenient park-and-ride locations are needed.
Transit services should focus on low-income and high unemployment areas.
Barriers to Coordination
The Ocala/Marion County TPO, in coordination with MTS, strives to remove barriers to the
coordinated system within its scope of authority. The opportunities for public input, the
various service types provided, and the availability of bus pass outlets at various Publix
and the College of Central Florida are examples of the efforts taken to make public
transportation available and remove barriers to coordination. However, due to policy,
funding, and other external factors some barriers to transportation coordination still exist
in Marion County, including the following:


Based on Marion County’s development patterns including the mix of urban,
suburban, and rural areas, there is a barrier to providing transit service throughout
the county due to the larger service area and limited funding available.
Uncertainty about the TD Trust Fund and local funding constraints create barriers
to providing transportation services.
F. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
Developing a vision for transit in the community is a fundamental component of the TDSP.
The vision should identify clearly what the CTC does, who they serve, and how to best
provide the service. The mission statement, goals, and objectives for public transportation
in Marion County were updated/developed based on the review and assessment of existing
conditions, feedback received during the public involvement process, and the review of local
and state transportation planning documents and policies. The goals and objectives were
developed consistent with the goals and objectives found in the past Ocala/Marion County
TDSP, the recent update to the TDP, and the Ocala/Marion County LRTP.
VISION STATEMENT
The Marion County TDSP vision statement was developed based on the overall vision for
providing transportation services in Marion County and the legislative intent of the
coordinated system. The vision statement governing transit in the Ocala/Marion County
area is as follows:
To meet the mobility needs of the elderly, disabled, and
transportation disadvantaged residents of Marion County.
MISSION STATEMENT
The existing mission statement governing transit in the Ocala/Marion County area was
retained for the TDSP Update to encourage continued progress toward accomplishment of
the mission. The mission statement is as follows:
To ensure the operation of a safe, efficient, and cost effective
transportation system that meets the needs of Marion County’s
general public, including its transportation disadvantaged,
while providing a system that is integrated with other modes of
travel, including pedestrian, bicycle, and automobiles, as well
as with the county’s existing and future land uses.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES
The goals included in this section are the long-term end toward which programs or
activities are ultimately directed. The objectives are the specific, measurable, intermediate
end that is achievable and allows measurement of progress toward a goal. The initiatives
are the course of action or way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve
an identified objective.
Many of the previous objectives established in the 2007 TDSP Update have been
accomplished and were modified in this update to ensure that MTS strives to continue
providing high levels of service. Other goals and objectives are ongoing requirements that
should be achieved throughout the duration of operation TD services in Marion County;
therefore, those objectives were also retained in this update. For example, MTS complies
with the applicable ADA requirements and should continue to do so whenever providing
ADA and/or TD services. For these reasons and to follow the established mission
statement, the majority of the previous goals, objectives, and initiatives are being retained
with slight modifications. In addition, a fifth goal was added to include objectives for
obtaining additional funding that may be used to address funding issues that have resulted
from the economic climate of the last several years.
Table 1-23 presents the completion status of the previous goals and objectives. Table 1-24
presents the updated goals, objectives, and initiatives for this TDSP Update.
Table 1-23
Completion Status of Previous Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Provide increased mobility for transportation disadvantaged services using the Marion County
Senior Services (MCSS) system and promote an increase in ridership.
Objectives:
Provide transit or demand response services to 10
Objective 1.1: percent of the transportation disadvantaged
population by 2012.
Completion Status:
In FY 2011, TD services were provided to 5.18
percent of the TD population; however, those
services coupled with fixed-route transit may
be reaching 10 percent or more of the potential
TD population.
Provide the ADA-eligible population with paratransit
Objective 1.2: service that is comparable to the service provided by
the fixed-route system.
Ongoing. In accordance with the ADA,
SunTran contracts with MTS to provide the
required complementary ADA service within
3/4-mile of its fixed routes.
Objective 1.3: Comply with all applicable ADA requirements.
Ongoing.
Never decline service to any transportation
Objective 1.4: disadvantaged individual due to lack of availability of
ADA-accessible vehicles.
For FY 2010, MTS denied a total of 815 trips.
The reasons for denial were not reported in the
AOR; however, MTS provides trips based on
funding and priority level. Medical trips
receive the highest priority and there were
zero unmet medical trips.
Goal 2: Maximize coordination and efficiency of transportation disadvantaged services with SunTran
fixed-route services and private transportation providers to better serve the entire population of
Marion County.
Objectives:
Completion Status:
While the potential TD population has
continued to grow, the number of passengers
served decreased by 18.5 percent from 2007 to
2008; however, the number of passengers
served has continued to increase from 2008 to
2011.
Objective 2.1:
Transition 25 percent of Marion Transit Services
exclusive ridership, at least partially, to fixed-route
service.
Objective 2.2:
Ensure seamless coordination between Marion Transit
Services and private transportation systems by 2012
MTS continues to coordinate with contractors.
to eliminate duplication or fragmentation of services
for in county and out of county transportation.
Goal 3: Provide for the most cost-effective transportation services possible.
Completion Status:
Objectives:
Objective 3.1:
Hold maintenance costs at less than 20 percent of
total system costs.
Objective 3.2:
Maintain annual operating cost per passenger mile of
Cost per passenger mile remain under $18.00.
under $18.00.
Objective 3.3:
Achieve an operation ratio (farebox revenues/total
operating expenses) of at least 20 percent for fixedroute and demand-responsive service.
Objective 3.4:
Maintain financial support of transportation
disadvantaged services consistent with the financial
plan in the 2007-2016 Major Update for the TDP.
Goal 4: Provide for the most comprehensive transportation services possible to serve all transportation
disadvantaged residents of Marion County.
Completion Status:
Objectives:
Objective 4.1:
Meet the future needs and demand of users for both
services and amenities described in the Major Update
to the TDP (2007-2016).
Objective 4.2:
Reevaluate transit services for the transportation
disadvantaged annually.
Services provided to the transportation
disadvantaged are evaluated annually through
the TDLCB CTC evaluation process and
annual updates to the TDSP.
Table 1-24 provides the goals, objectives, and initiatives of the Marion County
Transportation Disadvantaged Services.
Table 1-24
Ocala/Marion County Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives
Goal 1: Provide increased mobility and ridership using Marion County Senior Services, contract
providers, and SunTran to meet the demand and mobility needs of the transportation disadvantaged
in Marion County.
Objectives
Provide transit or demand response services to 10 percent of the transportation disadvantaged
Objective 1.1
population by 2017.
Provide the ADA-eligible population with paratransit service that is comparable to the service
Objective 1.2
provided by the fixed-route system.
Objective 1.3
Comply with all applicable ADA requirements.
Never decline service to any transportation disadvantaged individual due to lack of availability
Objective 1.4
of ADA-accessible vehicles.
Post SunTran information regarding paratransit services on the MCSS and
Initiative 1.1
TPO websites.
Marion Transit Services shall participate in school and community events to
Initiative 1.2
increase public awareness of transportation disadvantaged services.
Initiative 1.3
Target population segments considered to be transit-dependent.
Provide rider training for transportation disadvantaged users of Marion
Initiative 1.4
Transit Services.
Work with area employers, schools, hospitals, and other organizations to offer
Initiative 1.5
organization-sponsored passes.
Maintain a reliable and adequate fleet of ADA accessible vehicles for demandInitiative 1.6
responsive services to meet demand.
Maintain adequate personnel to staff administration and operations of
Initiative 1.7
demand response services.
Maintain existing coordination contracts and execute new ones, where
Initiative 1.8
feasible, needed, and cost-effective.
Work toward increasing the number of passenger trips per vehicle hour by a
Initiative 1.9
minimum of 1 percent each year.
Identify and accommodate opportunities for establishment or coordination of
Initiative 1.10
privately sponsored transportation services in meeting transportation needs.
Goal 2: Maximize coordination and efficiency of transportation disadvantaged services with
SunTran fixed-route services and private transportation providers to better serve the entire
population of Marion County.
Objectives
Assess Marion Transit Services ridership every five years for potential transfers to fixed-route
Objective 2.1
services.
Ensure seamless coordination between Marion Transit Services and private transportation
Objective 2.2
systems by 2017 to eliminate duplication or fragmentation of services for in county and out of
county transportation.
Objective 2.3
Comply with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
Identify and address any actual or perceived barriers to coordination in
Initiative 2.1
Marion County.
Provide rider training for fixed-route services to transportation disadvantaged
Initiative 2.2
service users.
Bring the appropriate social service organizations that provide transportation
into the coordinated system either through purchase of service contracts,
Initiative 2.3
coordination of contracts, or joint use agreements in order to reduce the
duplication of transportation services provided in the county and outside the
county.
Meet with MCSS, SunTran, and TPO staff on a quarterly basis to identify new
Initiative 2.4
methods of integrating the fixed-route and demand response systems.
Advertise the SunTran fixed-route system to Marion Transit Services users
Initiative 2.5
who can potentially utilize the fixed-route system.
Complete an inventory of existing bus stops and review each stop for possible
Initiative 2.6
ADA accessibility improvements.
Objectives
Objective 3.1
Objective 3.2
Objective 3.3
Objective 3.4
Objective 3.5
Objective 3.6
Hold maintenance costs at less than 20 percent of total system costs. Minimize costs required
to operate and administer transportation services.
Maintain annual operating cost per passenger mile of under $18.00.
Achieve an operation ratio (farebox revenues/total operating expenses) of at least 15 percent
for fixed-route and demand-responsive service.
Maintain financial support of transportation disadvantaged services consistent with the
financial plan in the 2013-2022 Major Update for the TDP.
Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transit service delivery every five years.
Reduce the duplication of transportation disadvantaged services provided within the county.
Maximize the multi-loading of vehicle trips on ADA services to reduce the cost
Initiative 3.1
per trip and maximize efficiency.
Determine most cost-effective service type in all areas, given demand,
Initiative 3.2
routings, and coverage areas.
Consider the potential for development-sponsored transportation services,
Initiative 3.3
especially for developments targeting the elderly.
Initiative 3.4 Annually review trip rates to ensure the program is sustainable.
Encourage Section 5310 grant recipients to participate in the coordination of
Initiative 3.5
the transportation disadvantaged services and maximize the use of their
vehicles.
Goal 4: Provide for the most comprehensive transportation services possible to serve all
transportation disadvantaged residents of Marion County.
Objectives
Meet the future needs and demand of users for both services and amenities described in the
Objective 4.1
Major Update to the TDP (2013-2022).
Objective 4.2
Reevaluate transit services for the transportation disadvantaged annually.
Initiative 4.1
Provide the needed vehicle capacity to meet demand and identified needs.
Maintain a reliable and adequate fleet of vehicles for demand-responsive
Initiative 4.2
services.
Provide the needed personnel to operate, maintain, and administer the
Initiative 4.3
coordinated system to meet demand and identified needs.
Develop an administration system that will handle the training, operations,
Initiative 4.4
and maintenance of different vehicles, as well as pay scales, etc.
Maintain or establish the necessary organizational structures and
Initiative 4.5
institutional arrangements necessary for the coordinated system to meet
demand and identified needs.
Design, implement, and maintain a comprehensive survey program to assess
Initiative 4.6
the community need for transit services.
As Marion Transit Services ridership increases yearly, Marion County in
Initiative 4.7
cooperation with the Ocala/Marion County TPO and the City of Ocala shall
provide additional vans for their use.
Improve infrastructure at bus stops through the provision of additional
Initiative 4.8
shelters, benches, and other passenger amenities.
Identify and secure the necessary federal, state, local, and private funding to
Initiative 4.9
support the coordinated system required to meet demand and identified
needs.
Goal 5: Deliver a safe and high quality transit experience to the customer.
Objectives
Monitor service quality and meet or exceed 90 percent on-time performance goal for both
Objective 5.1
paratransit and fixed-route service.
Objective 5.2
Maintain a no-show/same day cancellation standard of fewer than 10 percent of all trips.
Develop a performance monitoring program that addresses performance standards for fixedObjective 5.3
route and paratransit services.
Ensure that services are provided in a safe and secure manner in accordance
Initiative 5.1
with the CTD and FDOT standards and recommendations.
Educate paratransit riders about policies and continue to inform riders of
Initiative 5.2
program choices.
Initiative 5.3 Monitor and maintain service quality.
Make customer comment cards available to patrons of the fixed-route and
Initiative 5.4
demand-responsive services.
Initiative 5.5 Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit vehicles.
Increase passenger comfort through the provision of passenger shelters and
Initiative 5.6
benches.
Goal 6: Secure additional funding to meet the transportation disadvantaged demand and mobility
needs in Marion County.
Objectives
Investigate and pursue available funding opportunities at the federal, state, and local levels
Objective 6.1
and from private sources for programs or projects that serve the transportation
disadvantaged.
Educate the general public and local decision makers on the importance of
Initiative 6.1
public transportation and the need for local financial support.
Identify and accommodate opportunities for private sector participation and
Initiative 6.2
public/private partnerships in funding the public transportation system.
Work with local agencies to continue to receive sufficient funding to provide
Initiative 6.3
agency trips.
Evaluate fares on a regular basis to ensure customers contribute to
Initiative 6.4
maintaining the system within reasonable means.
Apply for JARC funds for the implementation of projects that support
Initiative 6.5
transportation to employment and/or employment-related activities.
Apply for New Freedom funds for the implementation of new and innovative
Initiative 6.6
projects that extend beyond the ADA requirements.
Identify the costs associated with demand response services and secure the
Initiative 6.7
required funding.
Submit grant applications/requests for funding available through federal,
Initiative 6.8
state, and local sources.
E. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM
The Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Marion County TDSP is presented in Table 125. The table provides an overview of an implementation schedule to meet the above-state
goals. For each of the goals, objectives, and strategies, there are identified responsible
parties and recommended timeframes for implementing the strategies, as well as selected
measures to determine whether the goals and objectives are being achieved.
Table 1-25
Staged Five-Year Implementation Plan for the TDSP
Measures
Responsible
Entity
Number of new brochures and
other customer information
disseminated
MCSS,
SunTran, and
TPO
MCSS and
TPO
Service Improvement
Year 1 or Ongoing
Develop informative and user-friendly brochures and
Ride Guide by the year 2013
Post SunTran information regarding paratransit services
on the MCSS and TPO websites.
Participate in community events to increase public
awareness of transportation disadvantaged services.
Target population segments considered to be transitdependent.
Provide rider training for transportation disadvantaged
users of Marion Transit Services.
Maintain a reliable and adequate fleet of ADA accessible
vehicles for demand-responsive services to meet demand.
Maintain adequate personnel to staff administration and
operations of demand response services.
Work toward increasing the number of passenger trips
per vehicle hour by a minimum of 1 percent each year.
Identify and address any actual or perceived barriers to
coordination in Marion County.
Provide rider training for fixed-route services to
transportation disadvantaged service users.
Number of participants
Replacement of older not cost
effective vehicles
Sufficiency of vehicle
inventory in terms of quantity,
capacity, and quality
Maintaining the minimum
number of staff required to
maintain levels of service
Decrease in cost per hour
Development of summary of
barriers to using fixed-route,
with potential solutions
Number of participants
Bring the appropriate social service organizations into
the coordinated system.
Meet with MCSS, SunTran, and TPO staff on a quarterly
basis to identify new methods of integrating the fixedroute and demand response systems.
Advertise the SunTran fixed-route system to MTS users
who can potentially use the fixed-route system.
Maximize the multi-loading of vehicle trips on ADA
services to reduce the cost per trip and maximize
efficiency.
Identify the costs associated with demand response
services and secure the required funding.
Submit grant applications/requests for funding available
through federal, state, and local sources.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 Number of community events
attended
1‐55 Increase in number of
coordinated contractors
Number of meetings
Number of ADA and TD
passengers transitioning to
fixed-route
MCSS
MCSS
MCSS
MCSS and
TPO
MCSS
MCSS
MCSS,
SunTran, and
TPO
SunTran and
TPO
TPO
MCSS,
SunTran, and
TPO
SunTran and
MCSS
Decrease in cost per trip and
number of trip denials
MCSS
Identification of grants and
other funding sources that can
be applied to coordinated
system
MCSS
MCSS/TPO
Service Improvement
Measures
Responsible
Entity
Year 1 or Ongoing (continued)
Perform scheduled maintenance activities for all transit
vehicles.
Make customer comment cards available to patrons of the
fixed-route and demand-responsive services
Identify and accommodate opportunities for private sector
participation in funding the coordinated transportation
system.
Maintain or establish the necessary organizational
structures and institutional arrangements necessary for
the coordinated system to meet demand and identified
needs.
Identify and secure the necessary federal, state, local, and
private funding to support the coordinated system required
to meet demand and identified needs.
Purchase and utilize more advanced scheduling software in
order to facilitate multi-loading of trips on the demand
responsive service and train schedulers/dispatchers to use
the software.
Replace 2 high-mileage vehicles.
Encourage marketing assistance from the LCB and the
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD)
and obtain resources to expand marketing efforts.
Use volunteers to provide a travel training program to
assist seniors with the utilization of services.
Maintenance activities
completed in accordance with
FDOT’s preventive
maintenance requirements
Number of completed
comment cards
Number of meetings held
with private developments for
consideration of sponsoring
transit services
Sufficiency of staff in terms of
quality, skills, and experience
Sufficiency of vehicle
inventory in terms of
quantity, capacity, and
quality
Identification of new grants of
other funding sources that
can be applied to coordinated
system
MCSS
MCSS and TPO
TPO
MCSS
MCSS
Purchase of ITS equipment
MCSS
effective vehicles
MCSS
Number of presentations
conducted
MCSS
MCSS and
SunTran
Maintain existing coordination contracts and execute new
ones, where feasible, needed and cost-effective.
Number of participants in
volunteer program
Number of ADA and TD
passengers transitioning to
fixed-route
Increase in number of
coordination contractors
Annually review trip rates to ensure the program is
sustainable.
Complete annual FCTD rate
justification worksheets
MCSS
Complete trend and peer
analysis annually
MCSS and TPO
Complete trend and peer
analysis annually
SunTran and
MCSS
Maintain existing contracts
Number of new agency
contracts
MCSS
Assess MTS ridership each year for potential transfers to
fixed-route services.
Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transit service
delivery every year in coordination with TDSP updates.
Evaluate fares on a regular basis to ensure customers
contribute to maintaining the system within reasonable
means.
Continue to receive funding for the provision of agency
trips.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 1‐56 MCSS
MCSS
Service Improvement
Measures
Responsible
Entity
Year 2
Work with area employers, schools, hospitals, and other
organizations to offer organization-sponsored passes.
Determine most cost-effective service type in all areas,
given demand, routings, and coverage areas.
Design, implement, and maintain a comprehensive survey
program to assess the community need for transit services.r
2
Complete an inventory of existing bus stops and review
each stop for possible ADA accessibility improvements.
Review vehicle capacity to determine whether or not the
need is being met with the existing vehicles.
Develop an administration system that will handle the
training, operations, and maintenance of different vehicles,
as well as pay scales, etc.
Apply for JARC funds for the implementation of projects
that support transportation to employment and/or
employment-related activities.
Apply for New Freedom funds for the implementation of
new and innovative projects that extend beyond the ADA
requirements.
Develop a funding for public transportation education
program for the general public and local leaders.
Encourage Section 5310 grant recipients to participate in
the coordination of the transportation disadvantaged
services and maximize the use of their vehicles.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 1‐57 Number of meetings held with
major employers, schools, and
hospitals
Decrease in cost per trip, cost
per hour, and cost per mile
MCSS
TPO
Number of completed surveys
TPO
Number of ADA accessible bus
stops
Number of trips denied due to
vehicle capacity
Increases in performance,
efficiency, and costeffectiveness.
Number of new projects that
provide access to employment
or employment-related
activities for low-income
passengers
Number of new projects that
serve older adults and
passengers with disabilities
TPO and
SunTran
MCSS and TPO
MCSS
MCSS, SunTran,
and TPO
MCSS, SunTran,
and TPO
Number of outreach activities
TPO
Increase in number of
coordinated contractors
MCSS and TPO
Service Improvement
Measures
Responsible
Entity
Year 3
Develop a performance monitoring program that
addresses performance standards for paratransit services.
Consider the potential for development-sponsored
transportation services, especially for developments
targeting older adults.
Educate paratransit riders about policies and continue to
inform riders of program choices.
Reduce the requirement for advanced reservations from 72
hours to 48 hours
Replace 1 high-mileage vehicle.
Work with local governments to assess, develop, and
implement a plan to improve access to/at SunTran bus
stops and stations, ensuring compliance with ADA and
Florida minimum accessibility standards.
Year 4
Replace 4 high-mileage vehicles.
Establish and maintain
minimum standards
Number of proposed
developments reviewed for
sponsoring potential transit
projects
Number of meetings held with
private developments for the
consideration of sponsoring
transit services
Number of participants in
travel training and at public
meetings
Reduced advance reservation
requirement
effective vehicles
MCSS
TPO
MCSS and
SunTran
MCSS
MCSS
Number of meetings held with
transportation representatives
SunTran and
TPO
Replacement of older not costeffective vehicles
MCSS
Decrease in cost per trip and
number of trip denials
MCSS
Purchase of ITS equipment
MCSS
Year 5
Explore the possibility of multi-loading by studying the
possibility of providing group trips to major employment
sites.
Investigate the need for an Automatic Vehicle Locator
(AVL) system to be used in conjunction with advanced
scheduling software.
SECTION 2
SERVICE PLAN
A. OPERATIONS ELEMENT
TYPES, HOURS, AND DAYS OF SERVICE
MTS provides public transportation services to TD residents of Marion County and to
sponsored and non-sponsored program recipients in Marion County. Trip reasons may be
prioritized due to funding reductions experienced by most sponsoring agencies, and the
prioritization format has been approved by the LCB. However, MCSS reported 815 trip
refusals in 2010 and 1,032 in 2011. The number of unmet trips has been significantly
increasing over the last seven years. Trip requests are currently prioritized in the following
order:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Medical
Life Sustaining Activities
Education
Work
Business
Recreational
MTS operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or until all passenger
return trips are completed. However, service may be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, through contracted operators, if prior arrangements are made. Special arrangements
may be made for dialysis patients and other special situations with early, late, or Saturday
appointments. No service is available on major holidays. The office hours are 8:30 a.m.
until 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Passengers are requested to
make appointments with pick up times between 9:00 a.m. and 2 p.m., so that they can be
picked up an hour prior to the appointment and returned home prior to the end of MTS
service hours. Appointments for persons residing in outlying areas should be made
between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to allow time for home pickups. Residents living in
outlying areas may need to be ready three hours prior to the scheduled pickup time.
Trips may be scheduled as early as 2 weeks in advance, but not later than 72 hours in
advance. Recurring trips, such as dialysis or therapy, can be scheduled on a permanent
basis by reserving with customer service. Customers are only required to set up this
service once by furnishing pick-up, destination, and scheduling information.
A total of 43 of the 44 TD vehicles, or 98 percent of the total vehicles, are wheelchair-liftequipped. MTS provides transportation to medical facilities in surrounding counties via
contract operators and commercial bus service. Customer multi-loading is practiced
whenever possible to transport the greatest number of passengers with maximum
efficiency. Outlying areas of Marion County are serviced on specific days of the week to
allow multi-loading by grouping requests for transportation services and utilize resources
efficiently.
There is a two-hour time window for pick-ups and returns for intra-county transportation.
There is a three-hour time window for residents living in outlying areas of the county due to
the extended travel time to outlying areas of the county. This means that passengers are
told to be ready for pick-up two or three hours prior to appointment time, depending on
their location. While passengers are told to be ready in advance of the appointment time,
returns present more of a problem, especially with doctor’s appointments due to the
unknown length of the visit. Therefore, when a passenger calls for the return trip, a driver
must be scheduled on an immediate response basis to pick up within that hour. Many
passengers view that length of time for the return trip wait as being a late trip, but, in
actuality, it is on time since it is within an hour. The public must constantly be advised of
the window to eliminate misunderstandings.
ACCESSING SERVICES
There is at least a 72-hour advance reservation requirement, although same-day service
may be accepted depending on the nature of the request and the availability of a vehicle
and driver. ADA trips may be scheduled up to 24 hours in advance. Reservations may not
be made more than two weeks prior to the appointment time. Office hours are Monday
through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and transportation services may be scheduled
during that time by calling (352) 620-3071. The phone line phone system connects
customers to a reservationist (no automated phone system). The reservationists have been
instructed to listen to every request, discuss with the scheduler the circumstances, and
make a decision to accept or deny the reservation. If the reservation time is unavailable, an
alternate day or time is offered.
All potential passengers must request transportation through the CTC. The CTC will
determine the passenger’s eligibility and assign the appropriate purchasing agency. The
CTC will then assign the trip to a manifest. The scheduler reviews the manifest to ensure
that vehicle coverage does not overlap. The manifest is then sent to a provider who
transports the passenger from origin to destination and back to origin following the
appointment.
Eligibility
The transportation service is available to certified individuals in Marion County as well as
other sponsored and non-sponsored program recipients including Medicaid recipients.
Certification is accomplished by self declaration of the potential rider. This means that the
rider must answer specific questions in order to determine his/her eligibility. Once
determined eligible, a customer service representative completes the registration by
obtaining pertinent data about the rider and entering the data into the client listing. ADA
riders are evaluated by an independent agency who forwards the evaluation to the fixedroute general manager for final determination of eligibility for ADA paratransit services.
All eligible individuals are included in a client listing that includes identification of the
passenger according to the program or agency that had authorized the transportation and if
there are any restrictions on providing services to the particular passenger. Once a client is
determined to be eligible for transportation services, information on the specific request is
taken by a reservationist on a call-intake form. The forms are filed in date order and
forwarded to the scheduler 24 hours prior to the date of service. Duplication of the
reservation is prevented by immediately confirming requests within the date order filing
system.
Prioritization
The LCB, through a subcommittee, sets prioritization guidelines when prioritization is
needed. The following guidelines will become effective as the need arises. Service is
provided according to the amount of space available, as follows:
1. Medical
a. Kidney Dialysis
b. Cancer Treatment
c. Doctor Appointments
d. Therapy
2. Life-Sustaining Activities
a. Food/Food Stamps
b. Prescriptions
c. Medicaid Recertification
d. Shopping
3. Education
a. Life Skills Training for Persons with Disabilities
b. Day Treatment Programs for Abused and/or Neglected Children
4. Employment
5. Business
a. Banking
b. Social Security
c. Visits to Hospitals/Nursing Homes
6. Recreational Trips
Other Accessibility Policies/Procedures
Service is door-to-door. It is an MTS policy that the driver will assist passengers requiring
assistance from the door at the passenger’s home and to the main entrance of the
passenger’s destination. It is the driver’s responsibility to determine who needs assistance.
If there is a person at the destination, they may assist in lieu of the driver. Drivers will not
assist a wheelchair passenger down more than one step and, in many cases, will not/cannot
push a wheelchair through loose sand or mud. Wheelchairs must not be any wider than 31
inches. Oxygen bottles may be transported if securely attached to the wheelchair or in a
small bottle that can be carried by the passenger. Additionally, being in a rural county,
there are some roads and driveways that a bus cannot drive down due to overhanging tree
branches, loose sandy road, or some other obstacle. In those cases, the passenger will be
required to meet the bus at a predetermined pick-up point.
Passengers may bring items on board the bus, but the items must be placed on the
passenger’s lap or under their seat. Drivers are not able to handle a passenger’s property.
However, shopping vans are an exception to this rule. In shopping vans passengers are
permitted to have two to three bags and the driver may assist to ensure that the bags are
safely stowed in the vehicle.
To cancel an appointment, the passenger must call the office and advise a reservationist of
the name and date of travel as soon as possible and no later than 2 hours prior to the
appointment time. Cancellations can be made between the hours of 6 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, by calling (352) 620-3071.
A designated “no-show” policy is in place. If a passenger is not available for transportation
within five minutes after the vehicle arrives, including no response at the door or refusal of
service at the door, the passenger will be considered a no-show. In the event of a no-show,
the driver calls the dispatch unit, and every effort is made to contact the customer. If the
customer cannot be located, the driver leaves a no-show notification on the customer’s
doorknob notifying the customer that their transportation was there to pick them up, and
that repeated no-shows may jeopardize their future transportation services. After a second
no-show, a letter is sent to the customer notifying him/her that an additional no-show will
result in a suspension of services. Following the third no-show, transportation may be
suspended for up to 30 days. Additional no-shows may result in a termination of services to
the customer.
Escorts are limited to one per passenger as deemed medically necessary. Escorts must be
at least 16 years of age, and they pay the standard vehicle fare. As established by Medicaid
policy, escorts for Medicaid passengers are not required to pay a fare for the service.
Dependent children may be transported if the medical appointment is for the child.
Children under the age of 5 or weighing less than 40 pounds must be in an appropriate
child seat, which may be furnished by the transport company if requested or may be
furnished by the customer. The driver is responsible for properly securing the child and the
child seat.
Schedulers determine the vehicle assignments for a particular day based on the route end
locations, mix of passenger needs, and the type of trip requests. Schedulers attempt to find
the most efficient use for vehicles each day using map-based software. Manifests are then
distributed to the transportation providers.
Providers and operators must report
completed trips back to the CTC in order to receive compensation for completing the trips.
The CTC receives any complaints from customers. Operators document the pick-up and
drop-off times and notify the dispatcher of any no-shows or cancellations. All trips are then
reconciled by the CTC’s billing department. MTS has two billing clerks that audit all
manifests for MTS and its sub-contractor. Using map-based software, the clerks calculate
direct trip miles for every passenger trip to ensure accuracy and consistency.
Documentation is forwarded to the MTS finance department in the form of invoices, and
purchasers of transportation are then billed for reimbursement. Trips are typically
coordinated for multi-loading. When trips require long travel distances, they are scheduled
on specific days in order to make multi-loading possible.
TRANSPORTATION OPERATORS AND COORDINATION CONTRACTORS
MTS subcontracts with one provider, Leopard Transport, Inc., for the provision of backup
and overflow transportation during normal business hours, holidays, nights, and weekends.
Leopard Transport provides ambulatory, wheelchair, and stretcher services. Overflow trips
are scheduled with contractors only when necessary. Operators and contractors are
obtained and contracted into the CTC as needed using the following process:
1. The needs of the CTC are identified.
2. A request for proposals is advertised in local newspapers and is sent to qualified
local transportation providers.
3. Proposals are collected and evaluated by at least a three-member panel using a
uniform assessment procedure that measures management experience and
expertise, fiscal stability, dependability, fleet capacity, expansion ability, adequate
insurance coverage, and proposed service rates.
4. The result of this assessment procedure is presented to the LCB for review and
approval.
5. In the event the CTC must initiate new or expanded service, organizations and
operators in the area will be contacted to determine their ability to respond to the
level of service needed.
6. Coordination agreements are executed with other agencies when transportation
needs cannot be met by MTS and its contractors because of timing, capacity, or
resources. After a determination of inability to serve is made by the CTC and LCB,
agencies with coordination agreements will provide their own transportation to a
designated population.
Additionally, there are two private non-profit operators under coordination contract in the
Marion CTC: Independent Living for Retarded Adults, Inc., and Association of Retarded
Citizens Marion, Inc. (ARC Marion). Table 2-1 provides the name, contact, address, phone
number, and type of agreement for each agency.
Table 2-1
Agreements with Outside Transportation Agencies and Companies
Name
Contact
Address
Phone
Agreement
Type
Glen Leopard
Transportation
Glen Leopard,
Owner
PO Box 923
Ocala, FL 34478
(352)
812-1670
Contract
Operator
Association of Retarded
Citizens Marion, Inc.
Troy Stawder,
Exec. Director
2800 SE Maricamp Rd.
Ocala, FL 34471
(352)
387-2210
Coordination
Agreement
Independent Living for
Retarded Adults, Inc.
C.R. Jones,
Treasurer
8660 SW 27th Ave.
Ocala, FL 34476
(352)
873-1117
Coordination
Agreement
Source: Ocala/Marion County 2007 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
Other Transportation Providers
A list of other transportation providers in the community is provided in Appendix D. The
first provider listed, Marion County Emergency Medical Services Alliance, Inc., is under
contract with Marion County to provide emergency medical and ambulance services within
the county.
PUBLIC TRANSIT UTILIZATION
The goal for MTS is to provide for all requested service to 100 percent of eligible
passengers. When the trip originates and terminates within the fixed-route service area,
passengers will be directed to use the fixed-route system for trips unless they are certified
as eligible for complementary ADA paratransit service.
All requests for MTS transportation services with trip origins and destinations both within
¾ mile from a SunTran fixed bus route are directed to use the fixed-route bus system. All
SunTran vehicles are ADA accessible. To ensure that all citizens of Marion County are
provided with equal access to public transportation, SunTran undergoes an ADA
certification program. SunTran contracts with the Center for Independent Living of North
Central Florida to assist with the certification process.
VEHICLE INVENTORY
To operate TD services, MTS maintains a fleet of 44 small cutaway buses ranging between
20 and 23 feet. Four of the vehicles are retired, 7 are used as back-up vehicles, and 33 are
active vehicles. With the exception of one vehicle, all other vehicles are equipped with
wheelchair lifts or ramps for wheelchair accessibility purposes. An inventory of vehicles for
MTS is provided in Table 2-2. Vehicle capacity includes the number of seats and the
number of spaces for wheelchairs on each vehicle. Every vehicle is equipped with a private
frequency radio to allow contact between the driver and the dispatcher at all times. Each
independent transportation provider has their own dispatcher, and dispatchers are able to
communicate with each other via telephone and fax. MTS has a back-up fleet available to
cover any route that may require down-time. Dispatch keeps directly in contact with all
operators, and an established process is in place to immediately resolve any issue that may
arise.
Table 2-2
Marion Transit Services Vehicle Inventory (2011)
Lift- or Ramp-
Capacity (seats/
Equipped
wheelchair spaces)
22’ Bus
No
12
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
MTS #
Year
Make
Length
1
2003
Chevy
2
2003
3
4
Lift- or Ramp-
Capacity (Seats and
Equipped
Wheelchair Spaces)
22’ Bus
Yes
16
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
8
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
9
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
10
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
16
11
2003
Chevy
22’ Bus
Yes
17
12
2005
Ford
22’ Bus
Yes
16
13
2005
Ford
22’ Bus
Yes
16
14
2005
Ford
22’ Bus
Yes
16
15
2006
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
16
2006
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
17
2006
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
18
2006
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
19
2006
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
20
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
21
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
22
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
23
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
24
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
25
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
26
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
27
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
28
2007
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
29
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
30
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
12
31
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
32
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
33
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
34
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
35
2009
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
MTS #
Year
Make
Model
5
2003
Chevy
6
2003
7
Lift- or Ramp-
Capacity (Seats and
Equipped
Wheelchair Spaces)
23’ Bus
Yes
16
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
39
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
40
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
41
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
42
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
43
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
44
2011
Chevy
23’ Bus
Yes
16
MTS #
Year
Make
Model
36
2009
Chevy
37
2009
38
Source: Marion County Senior Services
SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLAN CERTIFICATION
The MOA between MCSS and the FCTD requires that the CTC develop and implement a
System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). MTS has an approved SSPP that was developed in
compliance with Chapter 14-90, FAC, Equipment and Operational Safety Standards
Governing Public-Sector Bus Transit Systems. Private contract operators are also required
to have an SSPP. MTS is required to monitor the private contract operator’s compliance
with the SSPP requirement. The SSPP certifications for MTS and the private contractors
are presented in Appendix E.
INTER-COUNTY SERVICES
MTS transports passengers to medical facilities in surrounding counties via contract
operators and commercial bus service. Out of service area trips are provided as determined
locally and approved by the local LCB, except in instances when local ordinances prohibit
such trips. Trips are provided to Gainesville/Alachua County on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday.
NATURAL DISASTER/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Transportation services provided by the CTC are an integral part of the Marion County
Emergency Management Plan. MCSS is designated as a secondary transportation provider
in the Countywide Emergency Management Plan. MTS has a plan in place to use its
transit vehicles to evacuate people who need transportation to staging areas or to shelters
in emergency/evacuation situations.
MARKETING
Marketing is focused on getting public information to those who require the transportation
services that MTS provides. Public information is distributed to members of the
community regarding transportation services in Marion County using brochures, local
newspapers, and seminars. Other methods of distributing public information that are
undertaken by MCSS and the TPO include taking part in community functions,
distributing information at local medical facilities, and partnering with other agencies.
Brochures are often distributed through local banks, doctor’s offices, hospitals,
neighborhood stores, dining sites, case manager offices, through the mail, and at any event
where a senior services employee speaks on behalf of MCSS. Customers are also able to
access the service through the telephone directory, which lists MTS’ phone number in
Human Services in the transportation section. Vans are lettered on both sides and the rear
with the name and telephone number of MTS.
ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES
Any agency that purchases or provides transportation for persons who are transportation
disadvantaged with TD funds is to do so through a contractual arrangement with the CTC.
Exempt from this requirement are privately-owned vehicles of an agency volunteer or
employee; state-owned vehicles; privately-owned vehicles of a family member or custodian;
common carriers, such as commercial airlines or bus; emergency medical vehicles; and in
instances where the CTC determines that it is unable to provide or arrange the required
service.
B. SERVICE STANDARDS
The MCSS service standards that have been established to provide oversight of the
coordinated system are shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3
CTC Service Standards
Service Standard
Accidents
Advance Reservations
Call Hold Time
Child Restraint
Devices
Driver Criminal
Background
Screening
Escorts
Fare Collection
Passenger No-Shows
Pick-Up Window
On-Time Performance
Out-of-Service Area
Trips
Oxygen Transport
Rider Personal
Property
Roadcalls
Service Animals
Training
Wheelchair
Policy/Measure
MCSS Preventable Accident Standards are <1 accident per 100,000 miles.
Trips must be scheduled at a minimum of 72 hours prior to the date of travel
and at a maximum of 2 weeks in advance of the date of travel, with the
exception of subscription service.
MCSS’s goal is to have an average inbound telephone hold time of no longer
than 2 minutes.
Children under the age of 5 or weighing less than 40 pounds must be in an
appropriate child seat. The child seat may be furnished by the transport
company if requested or may be furnished by the customer. The driver is
responsible for properly securing the child and the child seat.
A criminal check is performed with the local Sheriff’s office and at the state
level and with the online register of sex offenders and for federal warrants.
Passengers may have one escort for assistance, if medically necessary.
Escorts must be at least 16 years of age. Escorts pay the standard vehicle
fare. Escorts for Medicaid passengers are not charged the co-pay according
to established Medicaid policy. Dependent children may be transported if
the medical appointment is for the child.
All customers are expected to pay their fare at the time that they receive
transportation services. Passengers must have exact change; drivers do not
carry money.
Passengers who make reservations and are not available for pickup within 5
minutes after van arrives to pick you up will be considered a “no show.”
After three no-shows, transportation service may be suspended for 30 days.
Customers must be ready for pick-up 2 hours prior to appointment time.
Residents living in outlying areas may need to be ready 3 hours prior.
MCSS On-Time Performance Standards are 95% or greater of trips on time.
Out-of-service area trips will be provide when determined locally and
approved by the Local Coordinating Board, except in instances where local
ordinances prohibit such trips.
Oxygen bottles may be taken if securely attached to the wheelchair or in a
small bottle carried by passenger.
Riders may carry personal property on vehicles if it can be placed on their
lap or under their seat. Drivers may not handle customer’s property. The
exception is shopping trips where the customer may have 2–3 bags, and the
driver may assist to ensure bags are safely stowed on the vehicle.
No more than one roadcall per 10,000 miles.
Certified Service Animals are allowed to accompany passengers; however,
Marion Transit must be notified of this when reservation is made
All transportation safety-sensitive employees are required to complete 60
minutes of drug and alcohol training. All new drivers are trained extensively
in a series of programs that includes biohazard cleanup, passenger
sensitivity, lift operation and wheelchair securement, child restraint, and
defensive driving. Instruction is received in a classroom setting and by
observing and interacting in the field while riding with a training driver.
Drivers cannot assist wheelchairs over more than 1 step or curb.
Wheelchairs must not be any wider than 31 inches.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 2‐11 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
SECTION 3
QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROCESS
Community Transportation Coordinator Monitoring Procedures of Operators and
Coordination Contractors
As part of the operator and coordination contractor monitoring process, MCSS uses same
criteria similar to the FDOT monitoring process. Monitoring is completed on an annual
basis. Following the monitoring process, a written report is issued to the operators and
coordination contractors. If an unfavorable report is issued, corrective actions must be
taken within the assigned amount of time. MCSS will perform a follow-up visit to ensure
the corrective actions have been completed.
CTC Evaluation
In accordance with the FCTD CTC Evaluation Workbook, the TDLCB conducts an annual
evaluation of the Marion County CTC. The purpose of the annual review is to evaluate the
CTC performance over the previous year.
In addition, the FCTD conducts triennial Quality Assurance and Program Evaluation
(QAPE) reviews as part of the FCTD’s monitoring process. The QAPE review is conducted
by an independent auditor on behalf of the FCTD and in compliance with the detailed tasks
listed in the FCTD’s monitoring tool. Using a series of interviews and system record
inspections, the QAPE auditor evaluates the system based on the FCTD standards, local
standards, and the ADA requirements. The most recent MCSS QAPE, the Corrective
Action Plan, and the TDLCB CTC Evaluation are included in Appendix G.
B. COST/REVENUE ALLOCATION AND RATE STRUCTURE JUSTIFICATION
The rate structure is the same for all TD trips within Marion County. The TD rates
presented below were determined using the FCTD standardized rate model spreadsheets
which consider past and projected costs and revenues associated with MTS’s transportation
services. The rate model is updated annually by MTS to reflect changes in revenues and
expenditures.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 3‐1 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
The rates that were calculated using the FCTD model were approved by the TDLCB and
the FCTD. The TDLCB will continue to monitor the rates on an ongoing basis to determine
when (and if) these rates need to be modified due to changes in the cost of delivery of trips.
For further details, the rate model worksheets are presented in Appendix H and the
existing SunTran and MTS fare structure is shown in Table 3-1.
FCTD Calculated Rates
Ambulatory (and Escort)
Base Charge: $8.00
Per Mile: $1.50
Wheelchair
Base Charge: $16.50
Per Mile: $2.65
Stretcher (Contracted)
Base Charge: $16.50
Per Mile: $1.51
Table 3-1
Marion County Fare Structure
SunTran One-Way Fares
Adult Regular Fare
Youth/Student Fare
Older Adult/Person with Disability Fare
Medicare Card Holder Fare
Children under Age 5 (when accompanied by paying adult)
SunTran Monthly Pass Cost
Regular Monthly Pass
Youth/Student Monthly Pass
Older Adult/Person with Disability Monthly Pass
MTS Fares
Depends on Locations and Eligibility
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 3‐2 $1.50
$1.10
$0.75
$0.75
Free
$45.00
$34.00
$23.00
$1.00 to $5.00
Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EXISTING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 A‐1 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
State of Florida TD Five-Year/Twenty-Year Plan
Developed by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (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.
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 multimodal 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 intercity) 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 multimodal 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 multimodal 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.
Annual Performance Report for Marion County
The annual transportation disadvantaged performance report prepared by FCTD was
reviewed for Marion County. The performance report provides an overview of the operating
environment, the CTC, and other information related to the TD program in Marion County.
Statistics reported by MTS in their Annual Operations Report are also provided in the
FCTD Annual Performance Report, including service statistics, passenger trip information,
a financial summary, and a graphical summary of performance indicators.
This
information was used to complete the peer and trend analysis presented in Section 1.
Annual Operations Report for Marion County
An Annual Operations Report (AOR) is submitted to the FCTD. The AOR for fiscal years
2008–2009 and 2009–2010 were reviewed for this TDSP update effort. The AOR is
compiled by MTS. Information submitted in the AOR is used to develop the Marion County
section of the Annual Performance Report produced by the FCTD, as discussed previously.
LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES
SunTran 2007–2016 Major Transit Development Plan Update
Marion County’s transit system, SunTran, provides fixed-route transit services in and
around Ocala and Silver Springs Shores. The Marion County Senior Services (MCSS) is the
designated Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Marion County and operates
the paratransit services under the name Marion Transit Services (MTS). MTS provides
public transportation to the transportation disadvantaged population of Marion County and
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit services for SunTran. The TPO is the
policy board for SunTran.
As part of the system’s transit planning process, the TPO is required to complete a major
update of its TDP every five years. The most recent major update of the TDP was
completed in 2007, providing a strategic guide for public transportation in Marion County
for a 10-year period, from FY 2007 through FY 20016. This TDP assessed the performance
of existing services, reviewed demographic and travel behavior characteristics of the service
area, summarized local transit policies, developed proposed transit enhancements, and
prepared a 10-year implementation plan for fixed-route transit services. The TDP
concluded a 10-year financial plan (projected costs and revenues) through FY 2016 that
provided guidance for SunTran during and beyond the 10-year planning horizon, along with
the capital and operating costs and revenues required to successfully execute the
implementation plan.
The TDP was developed to meet the TDP rule requirements and plan for Marion County’s
10-year vision for transit. The goals, objectives, and initiatives that were developed to
guide transit service in Marion County over the 10-year planning period are presented
below.
Goal 1: Increase ridership and accessibility for current and potential transit
users.
Objective 1.1:
Increase the fixed-route service area by 25% by 2012.
Objective 1.2:
Decrease passenger fixed-route access time by 25% by 2012.
Objective 1.3:
Increase unlimited and stored value pass sales by 100% by 2015.
Objective 1.4:
Increase ridership by 50% by 2015.
Goal 2: Maximize coordination and efficiency of transportation services to better
serve the entire population of Marion County, including the
transportation-disadvantaged, social service organizations, Medicaidsponsored transportation services, and inter-county commuters.
Objective 2.1:
Review Marion Transit Services ridership for areas of possible
transfers to Fixed-Route services.
Objective 2.2:
Ensure seamless coordination between SunTran services and
private transportation systems by 2012.
Objective 2.3:
Ensure coordination
jurisdictions.
Objective 2.4:
Provide connections to neighboring counties by 2014.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 A‐4 with
land
use
policies
and
local
Goal 3:
Provide for the most cost-effective transportation services possible.
Objective 3.1: Hold maintenance costs at less than 20% of total system costs.
Minimize costs required to operate and administer
transportation services.
Objective 3.2: Maintain annual operating cost per revenue mile of $1.00.
Objective 3.3: Achieve an operation ratio (farebox revenues/total operating
expenses) of at least 15% for fixed-route and demand-responsive
service.
Objective 3.4: Maintain financial support of transit services consistent with the
financial plan in the Major Update for the TDP (2007–2016).
Goal 4:
Promote and provide for the necessary expansion of the coordinated
transportation system necessary to meet the future needs of the general
public, including the transportation disadvantaged.
Objective 4.1: Annually review the opportunities for additional services for
future implementation including the following:
 Explore opportunities for implementing express bus service
along high density corridors in suburban areas.
 Study the demand for inter-county transit.
 Develop a new fare policy and structure.
 Study the feasibility of growth in transit services to meet the
needs of the general public, including:
o Identifying transit needs for the general public.
o Identifying potential transit demand.
o Comparing needs, demand, service costs, and potential
funding to determine feasibility.
Objective 4.2: Meet the future needs and demand of users for both services and
amenities described in the Major Update to the TDP (2007–
2016).
During the TDP development process, specific transit service target areas were identified
by TPO staff to be focus areas for new service development. Five areas were selected
including:

Area 1: Between Silver Spring Boulevard to the north, SW 60th Avenue to the west,
SW 66th Street to the south, and SW 27th Avenue to the east. Specific corridors in
Area 1 include SW 60th Avenue/Silver Spring Boulevard, 38th Street, and the
southern portion of SR 200.

Area 2: North of SR 200 and west of SW 60th Avenue. Corridors that are located
within Area 2 include SW 80th Avenue/38th Street, and the southern portion of SR
200.

Area 3: Bounded by SW 66th Avenue to the north, SR 200 to the east, CR 484 to the
south, and I-75 to the east. Corridors that run through Area 3 include SW 49th
Avenue/95th Street/SW 60th Avenue, SW 103rd Street/62nd Avenue, and southern
sections of SR 200.

Area 4: Marion Oaks area. Corridors in Area 4 include CR 484 and Marion Oaks.

Area 5: Belleview area. Corridors bisecting this area include US 301, SR 35/62nd
Avenue/102nd Place, and Abshire Boulevard/110th Street/Oak Road.
SunTran Ocala/Marion 2007 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Update
The Ocala/Marion 2007 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan updates the 2002-2007
TDSP that was completed previously in 2002. The TDSP is used by the CTC and the Local
Coordinating Board (LCB) to maintain and/or improve transportation services for the
Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) and to serve as a framework for performance
evaluation. The TDSP is updated annually and submitted to the Florida Commission for
the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) for final approval. Marion County services under
the TD program are provided funding from state TD funds, local revenues, and private
sources.
MCSS has been designated as the Marion County CTC for all non-emergency medical
transportation and for those needing wheelchairs or other assistance since 1982 pursuant
to Chapter 27, F.S. and Rule 41-2 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). A
Memorandum of Agreement was executed between MCSS and FDOT on January 5, 1983.
In 1990, the TPO accepted the responsibility of Designated Official Planning Agency for the
TD program, and established the TDLCB.
MCSS operates transportation services under the name Marion Transit Services (MTS).
MTS provides door-to-door paratransit services to meet numerous transportation needs for
medical, life sustaining, educational, work, business, and recreational activities for Marion
County’s TD citizens as well as members of other program recipients in Marion County.
The goals, objectives, and strategies that were developed as part of the TDSP are described
below.
Goal 1: Provide increased mobility for transportation disadvantaged services
using the MCSS system and promote an increase in ridership.
Objective 1.1:
Provide transit or demand response services to 10% of the
transportation disadvantaged population by 2012.
Objective 1.2:
Provide the ADA-eligible population with paratransit service
that is comparable to the service provided by the fixed-route
system.
Objective 1.3:
Comply with all applicable ADA requirements.
Objective 1.4:
Never decline service to any transportation disadvantaged
individual due to lack of availability of ADA-accessible vehicles.
Goal 2: Maximize coordination and efficiency of transportation disadvantaged
services with SunTran fixed route services and private transportation
providers to better serve the entire population of Marion County.
Objective 2.1:
Transition 25% of Marion Transit Services exclusive ridership,
at least partially, to Fixed-Route services.
Objective 2.2:
Ensure seamless coordination between Marion Transit Services
and private transportation systems by 2012 to eliminate
duplication or fragmentation of services for in county and out of
county transportation.
Objective 3.1:
Hold maintenance costs at less than 20% of total system costs.
Minimize costs required to operate and administer
transportation services.
Objective 3.2:
Maintain annual operating cost per passenger mile of under
$18.00.
Objective 3.3:
Achieve an operation ratio (farebox revenues/total operating
expenses) of at least 20% for fixed-route and demandresponsive service.
Objective 3.4:
Maintain financial support of transportation disadvantaged
services consistent with the financial plan in the Major Update
for the TDP (2007–2016).
Goal 4: Provide for the most comprehensive transportation services possible to
serve all transportation disadvantaged residents of Marion County.
Objective 4.1: Meet future needs and demand of users for both services and
amenities described in Major Update to the TDP (2007–2016).
Objective 4.2: Reevaluate transit services for the transportation disadvantaged
annually.
An implementation plan was also developed to phase potential service improvements over
the five-year period.
Ocala/Marion County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update
The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is the fundamental planning document
for long-range transportation system development in Marion County. The projects included
in the LRTP will use federal and state funds and may be pursued by the TPO over the next
25 years. The plan must be “cost feasible”; therefore, financial resources that will cover the
cost of the projects must be identified. The TPO has assumed local gas tax collections and
impact fees as a portion of the projected revenues included in the LRTP Cost Feasible Plan.
The LRTP update had an extensive public involvement process, which included a program
called “Strings and Ribbons.” The Strings and Ribbons program offered citizens an
opportunity to learn about the transportation planning process and how projects are
developed and funded. The process included interactive, hands-on activities in which
participants purchase transportation improvements that they think are important to the
overall transportation system over the next 25 years.
Transit projects that are included in the 2035 LRTP Needs Assessment are listed below and
depicted on Map 2-1.






Expanded bus service to west of the City of Ocala to the CR 484 and SR 200
intersection and south to the Sumter County line.
Expanded bus service to the east of Ocala passed SR 35 and south to Belleview and
the Sumter County line.
Dedicated bus lane along US 27/US 441.
Dedicated bus lane along CR 464.
Passenger rail from the City of Ocala to the Sumter County line.
Light rail from the City of Ocala to CR 464 (east of Belleview).
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 A‐8 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Map 2-1
Ocala 2035 Vision
The Ocala 2035 Vision was developed to describe how the community wants the city to look
and function in the future. As part of the development process and to achieve greater
public participation, the City of Ocala formed the “community Form & Design Visioning
Leadership Group.” The group was comprised of a diverse group of citizens who were
responsible for actively encouraging other citizens to participate in the vision process. The
group also evaluated all public comments and feedback received during the public meetings
and prepared the final Ocala 2035 Vision recommendations and implementation strategies.
The Ocala 2035 Vision provides a roadmap for the future, built upon community consensus
to promote continued support and implementation over time. The recommendations of the
Ocala 2035 Vision will be used to establish priorities for future decision-making. Transit
and mobility-related strategies from the Ocala 2035 Vision are listed below by design topic.
General Strategies
 Conduct a study to evaluate redevelopment potential of the West Ocala area
(Downtown to I-75, SR 200 north to City limits).
o Create Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) and/or other programs to
promote revitalization of sub-areas within West Ocala. (Year 2011)
 Redevelop the west side of Pine Avenue as High Intensity to visually, physically,
socially, and economically connect east and west. (Years 2012 and ongoing)
 Conduct a study to evaluate redevelopment potential of the Tuscawilla Park area.
o Create CRAs and/or other programs to promote revitalization. (Year 2011)
 Establish joint planning areas with Marion County to promote the Vision as it
relates to areas adjacent to the City limits and implementation of regional mobility
efforts. (Year 2011)
Urban Form & Open Space Strategies
 Implement recommendations of the Recreation and Parks Master Plan to identify,
acquire, and program new parks, trails, and open spaces in the city. Identify,
reserve, and/or acquire right-of-way needed to create a connected park system.
(Year 2011 and ongoing)
 Maintain an inventory of vacant or underused properties with existing zoning or
future land use classifications that will support mixed-use development. (Year 2012
and ongoing)
 Maintain an inventory of vacant or underused properties with development
potential adjacent to or within ¼ mile of a transit corridor depicted on the vision
plan. (Year 2012 and ongoing)
Building & Site Design Strategies
 Create an incentive program to encourage infill, development, or redevelopment.
(Year 2011–2015)
Mobility & Connectivity Strategies
 Develop Streetscape Master Plans, including landscape and hardscape details, to
improve visual aesthetics of city gateway corridors, including SR 200, SR 40, US 27,
and US 441. Coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
and Marion County to ensure that all applicable transportation design criteria are
met. (Years 2012–2015)
 Provide for an interconnected street system to relieve and distribute traffic volumes
as an alternative to roadway widening. (Year 2011 and ongoing)
 Require Complete Street evaluations for the viability of multimodal transportation
and desirable visual aesthetics. (Year 2011)
 Establish a city-wide sidewalk improvement program to provide the pedestrian
connectivity desired in the vision.
o Identify areas of the city that do not have sidewalks or have disconnected
sidewalk links. (Years 2011–2015)
o Prioritize sidewalk program to maximize connectivity and support
neighborhood sub-area plans and Parks Master Plan. (Year 2011–2015)
o Acquire easements for sidewalks where they do not exist. (Year 2011–2015)
o Include sidewalk improvements in the annual Capital Improvement
Program. (Years 2011–2015)
 Identify, reserve, and/or acquire transit corridor right-of-way for regional transit
system connections to Belleview, Silver Springs Shores, Dunnellon, the Villages,
Gainesville, Orlando, and Jacksonville. (Years 2011–2035)
 Identify, reserve, and/or acquire transit corridor right-of-way for transit system
connections in the urban core. (Years 2011-2015)
 Provide trolley service that connects the North Magnolia area, Downtown, and the
Hospital district. (Years 2016–2035)
 Provide trolley service that connects West Ocala to downtown. (Years 2016–2035)
 Establish minimum residential densities and commercial intensities to support the
use of public transportation along Complete Streets and Transit Corridors depicted
on the Vision map. Incorporate with future mobility plans. (Year 2011)
 Evaluate opportunities to reestablish passenger rail service connected to the
national Amtrak rail network. (Years 2011–2016)
The 2035 Vision Plan provides a map with an overview of the ideas presented by public
input and the Leadership Group. Map 2-2 shows Urban Form Areas and Mobility
Corridors.
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 A‐11 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Map 2-2
Marion County Comprehensive Plan
Marion County has goals, objectives, and policies within its Transportation and Land Use
Elements of the county comprehensive plan relative to the promotion and support of transit
use. The goals of the Transportation Element is to develop a balanced and sustainable
transportation system improving access and travel choices through enhancement of roads,
public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems, aviation and multimodal facilities. Mixeduse projects and development patterns that promote shorter trip lengths and generate
fewer vehicle miles traveled shall be encouraged and promoted by the County through the
Future Land Use Element and Capital Improvements Element (Policy 1A.1.7).
All new development and redevelopment within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) will
require greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. Pursuant to Policy 1A.1.8, the
following strategies will be implemented to ensure compatible uses that promote shorter
trip lengths and generate fewer vehicle miles per capita by February 10, 2012.








Require interconnected developments for vehicular and pedestrian connection
between developments.
Use access management standards to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Allow innovative site designs and roadway configurations to minimize the number of
lane-miles needed while maximizing access.
Minimize gated communities, which prevent existing or future roadway
interconnections.
Promote use of public transit by requiring development along transit corridors and
routes to accommodate mass transit and provide for park-and-ride areas, sheltered
bus/rail stops, and bus turnouts, as appropriate.
Discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles by adopting reduced parking
requirements and by limiting roadway capacity on key roads, as appropriate, as a
disincentive to automobile travel.
Protect existing railroad corridors and facilitate the location of industrial and
commercial employment centers along those corridors, and encourage increased use
of rail transport by industrial and commercial enterprises.
Encourage walking and bicycle use by requiring bikeways, trails, and pedestrian
paths for development with the UGB.
The County also has an objective to ensure adequate rights-of-way for roadway, mass
transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and protect existing and future rights-of-way
from building encroachment. To meet this objective, the County has developed policies for
minimum right-of-way requirements in the Land Development Code (LCD) and rights-of Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 A‐13 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
way acquisition (Policies 1A.2.1 through 1A.2.7). Where site and location analysis
determines that there is a need, the County may provide or require the provision of bicycle
and/or pedestrian ways, and/or other alternative modes of transportation through the LDC
to connect residential, recreational, schools, and commercial areas internally and to
adjacent properties unless such facilities would create a safety hazard.
Policy 1A.3.3 requires new residential and non-residential development and redevelopment
projects generating more than 1,000 net new trips accessing arterial or collector roadways
to enhance community health, reduce GHG emissions, increase connectivity, and minimize
trips on major roadways through the provision of the following facilities:
Residential Development
 Deeding of land or conveyance of required easements generally parallel to a
property’s frontage of residential development located on arterial or collector
roadways to the county, as needed, for the construction of public sidewalks, bus
turn-out facilities, and/or bus shelters.
 Interconnected local streets, drive accesses, pedestrian networks and bicycle
networks that provide access between land uses (including non-residential uses) and
direct routes to transit to reduce congestion. These projects include, but are not
limited to State and County arterials and collectors. Developers may deed land for
right-of-way and/or construct roadway extensions to County specifications.
Non-Residential Development
 Deeding of land or conveyance of required easements generally parallel to a
property’s frontage of non-residential development located on arterial or collector
roadways to the county, as needed, for the construction of public sidewalks, bus
turn-out facilities, and/or bus shelters.
 Development of, or participation in, a transportation demand management (TDM)
program that provides funding or incentives for transportation modes other than
single occupant vehicle to reduce VMT. Such TDM programs shall utilize a
methodology approved by the County and may require performance monitoring and
reporting.
Marion County’s Mass Transit Sub-Element goal is to coordinate with the TPO to
undertake action to serve transportation disadvantaged persons with an efficient mass
transit system; provide for the development of a rational and integrated multimodal
transportation system; provide management support to coordinate all components of the
mass transit service system and relevant comprehensive plan elements; and preserve
options to promote the development of long-range transit alternatives.
In Objective 1b.7 and its implementing policies, the County’s objective is to have all areas
within an UGB identified in the Future Transportation Corridor Map served by transit.
Within an UGB availability of transit facilities shall be one of the criteria used to evaluate
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, Marion County shall require that
transit facilities, such as turn-out bays, preemptive signals, high-occupancy vehicle lanes,
bus-only lanes, and transit shelter locations identified within future transit corridors and
existing routes lacking adequate facilities, be included in roadway design proposals for the
expansion of arterials or collectors. For Developments of Regional Impact, and for new
developments, Marion County may require site and building design to be coordinated with
public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
The County shall provide connections between and within land uses in order to increase
pedestrian mobility and transit accessibility where opportunities and resources permit. A
list of transit-related short term (5yr) and long term (2035) strategies for implementation of
this policy are listed below (Policy 1b.8.7).
Short Term
 Improvements to existing transit routes including increased service levels
 Connections of established transit stops to the sidewalk network
Long Term
 New transit fixed facilities such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
In addition, Policy 1b.9.1 includes parking strategies to enhance multimodal opportunities,
including locating bus stops at existing, major parking facilities (i.e. malls and shopping
centers).
The County’s comprehensive plan focuses on the provision of future transit service for new
development and redevelopment through the LDC to develop a balanced and sustainable
transportation system. Strategies have also been included to encourage multimodal
opportunities and the availability of transit services within the UGB.
City of Ocala Comprehensive Plan
The City of Ocala’s adopted Comprehensive Plan was last updated in Winter 2009 and has
several goals, objectives, and policies that may impact transit services and/or planning. In
the Transportation Element, the following goals, objectives, and policies are specific to
transit and are therefore pertinent to SunTran and transportation disadvantaged services.
Goal 1: To create and maintain a safe, efficient, and aesthetic transportation
system that encourages multimodal transportation.
Objective 8:
Incorporate Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies into the land use and transportation planning process
to reduce travel demand.
Policy 8.1: Develop a Commuter Assistance Program through
coordination with FDOT, TPO, and the TDM
clearinghouse
at
the
Center
for
Urban
Transportation Research (CUTR).
Policy 8.2: Encourage new development and existing businesses
to participate in TDM strategies such as carpooling,
vanpooling, parking management, telecommuting,
flexible work hours, bicycle, and mass transit
provisions.
Objective 9: Design roads to accommodate alternative transportation modes,
aesthetics and safety.
Objective 10: Develop and maintain adequate access routes to the airport and
rail service that is properly integrated with the transportation
system shown on the transportation map series.
Policy 10.3: Coordinate intermodal management of surface
transportation within airports, rail service, and
related facilities.
Objective 11: Preserve the potential expansion of the airport to accommodate
future growth in quantitative and qualitative terms.
Policy 11.6: Establish a transit stop at the airport at such time
that commercial service becomes available.
Policy 11.9: As an integral component of the airport master
planning process, the City shall make provisions for
regional transportation facilities for the efficient use
and operation of the Airport.
Objective 12: Provide Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) for the city
service area that will increase mobility while increasing safety.
Goal 3: Provide an efficient and safe public transit system that is accessible to
all citizens.
Objective 1: Provide safe and efficient public transit services based upon
existing and proposed major trip generators and attractors.
Policy 1.1: All development and redevelopment projects will be
required to address transit amenities such as bus
stops and accessibility, where appropriate.
Policy 1.2:
Policy 1.3:
Policy 1.4:
Identify future transit needs by participating in the
Ocala/Marion County TPO TDP updates.
By the year 2003, the City will determine the
feasibility of implementing a park and ride program
in conjunction with the SunTran bus system through
coordination with the Ocala/Marion TPO.
Construct sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, and improve
access to bus stops at appropriate locations.
Goal 4: Direct growth to the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area/Urban
Redevelopment Area, as shown on Map 5 of the Future Land Use Map
Series, in order to discourage urban sprawl; reduce development
pressures on rural lands; maximize the use of existing public facilities;
and centralize commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and
cultural activities.
Policy 1.2.3: The City shall adopt the following development
standards as a means of encouraging alternative
modes of transportation within the TCEA:
b. Construction of bus shelters or bus lighting
using solar technology, built to City
specifications.
c. Construction of bus turn-out facilities.
d. Payments to SunTran bus system, which either
increase service frequency or add additional
bus services.
Policy 2.3:
All new developments within the TCEA that meet
or exceed 200 linear feet of property frontage shall
include sidewalks with benches.
All new
developments with the TCEA shall provide lighting
either by way of solar powered lighting on covered
benches or street lamps and shade trees, if
applicable. If shade trees are not applicable to that
area, covered benches with solar lighting are
required. These covered benches can be used as bus
transportation
stops
promoting
multimodal
transportation.
The review of transit planning documents was conducted to enhance the understanding of
existing plans and programs that are relevant to public transportation in Marion County.
In addition to providing guidance for the goals and objectives, the background review also
helped identify relevant data and information available from existing sources. The
guidance and information were used to support the development of this TDSP.
APPENDIX B
LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD CERTIFICATION
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 B‐1 Marion County 2012–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
APPENDIX C
PEER SELECTION DATA
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 C‐1 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
Marion County CTC Peer Systems (Florida)
Name
Osceola
Collier
Okaloosa
Alachua
Lake
Marion
Mean
Land Area Service Area Density (sq mi)
Population (per sq. mi.)
1,327
1,998
930
875
938
1,585
1,276
268,685
321,520
180,822
247,336
297,052
331,298
265,311
202
161
194
283
317
209
208
Passenger Trips
5,697
2,660
6,307
2,143
17,850
6,898
6,926
Vehicle Miles
1,987,598
1,476,166
683,233
1,239,074
2,522,672
1,819,872
1,621,436
Miles Revenue Between Road Miles
Calls
1,668,543
1,241,324
591,105
1,050,116
2,102,883
1,681,926
1,389,316
21,842
27,852
683,233
14,577
17,279
139,990
150,796
Accidents per 100,000 Miles
2.26
2.32
0.44
2.18
0.40
0.16
1
# of Vehicles
60
27
65
41
91
86
62
Driver Hours
126,153
91,701
64,888
84,978
119,697
152,880
106,716
TD Population
82,353
131,575
58,012
94,221
119,583
150,414
106,026
Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
3,773,092
3,460,167
1,598,338
3,059,528
6,165,996
3,715,668
3,628,798
3,830,517
4,161,683
1,577,959
2,903,072
5,037,400
4,070,355
3,596,831
Notes: 1. Peer systems were selected based on service area population, service area population density, and land area, using 2010 census population data
2. Based on 2010 AOR data from Florida Commission for TD. Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 C‐2 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
APPENDIX D
INVENTORY OF OTHER TRANSPORTATION
PROVIDERS
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 D‐1 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion County TDSP
Name
Type
Ownership
Service
Area
Marion County
Emergency
Medical Services
Alliance, Inc.
Emergency
ambulance
services
Non-profit
governmental
agency
Marion
County
Pronto
Limousine
Services
Livery services
Private
Marion
County
Leopard
Transport Inc.
Livery services
Private
Marion
County
Private
Lake
County,
Marion
County
Private
Ocala,
Orlando,
airports
Lake Limousine
Livery services
and airport
shuttle
Stagecoach
Limousine
Livery services
and airport
transportation
Service
Frequency
Facility
Address
Vehicles
Seating
Capacity
Reg.
Fare
24 hrs.
N/A
2631 SE 3rd
Street
Ocala, FL 34471
(352) 291-8030
54
ambulances
N/A
N/A
24 hrs.
Demandresponse
Ocala, FL 34474
(352) 427-2942
8 varied
vehicles
1–24
passengers,
dependent
on vehicle
Varies
24
hours
N/A
PO Box 923
Ocala, FL 34478
(352) 368-2089
35
Varies
Varies
24
hours
2 hrs
Mon–Fri
4 hrs
Sun–Sat
or demand
response
321 Southridge
Industrial Dr.
Tavares, FL
32778
(352) 622-2292
18
47passenger
buses (2)
10passenger
vans (16)
Varies
N/A
8377 SW 56th
Terrace
Ocala, FL 34476
(352) 854-6642
Varies
Varies
Varies
Service
Period
7am –
10pm
Greyhound Bus
Lines
Fixed route
Intercity Bus
All U.S.
365
days
N/A
Not in area
13
55
Amtrak
Fixed route
shuttle
Intercity
Bus/Train
All U.S.
365
days
N/A
Not in area
2
55
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 D‐2 Varies,
but
averages
$13–$30
for direct
routes
$16 to
trains
APPENDIX E
SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLAN CERTIFICATIONS
Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2013 E‐1 Marion County 2013–2018 TDSP Marion Cou
unty TDSSP
APP
PENDIX
XF
QAPE, CORRECT
TIVE AC
CTION PLAN, AND L
LCB CTC
C
EVAL
LUATIO
ON
Tindale‐Oliver & Associattes, Inc. 013 F‐1
January 20
Marion C
County 2013–2018
8 TDSP Marion Cou
unty TDSSP
APPENDIX
XG
FCTD
D RATE
E MODE
EL CAL
LCULAT
TION S
SPREAD
DSHEET
TS
Tindale‐Oliver & Associattes, Inc. 013 G‐1
January 20
Marion C
County 2013–2018
8 TDSP Preliminary Information Worksheet
Version 1.4
CTC Name: Marion Senior Services,
Services Inc.
Inc
County (Service Area): Marion
Contact Person: Donna Hersom/Julie Poole
Phone # (352) 620-3519 or (352) 620-3501
Check Applicable Characteristic:
ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE:
NETWORK TYPE:
Governmental
Fully Brokered
Private Non
Non-Profit
Profit
Partially Brokered
Private For Profit
Sole Source
Once completed,
p
,p
proceed to the Worksheet entitled
"Comprehensive Budget"
Marion 2015-2016 Amended Rates_ CTD Approved: Preliminary Information
Page 1 of 10
Comprehensive Budget Worksheet
Version 1.4
CTC: Marion Senior Services, Inc.
County: Marion
1. Complete applicable GREEN cells in columns 2, 3, 4, and 7
Current Year's
APPROVED
Budget, as
amended
Prior Year's
ACTUALS
1
from
from
Jan 1st of
Jan 1st of
2014
2015
Upcoming Year's
PROPOSED
Budget
Proposed
% Change
% Change
from
from Prior
Current
Year to
Year to
Current
Upcoming
Year
Year
5
6
from
Jan 1st of 3
2016
to
to
to
Dec 31st of
2014
2
Dec 31st of
2015
3
Dec 31st of
2016
4
Confirm whether revenues are collected as a system subsidy VS
a purchase of service at a unit price.
Explain Changes in Column 6 That Are > ± 10% and Also > ± $50,000
7
REVENUES (CTC/Operators ONLY / Do NOT include coordination contractors!)
Local Non-Govt
Farebox
Medicaid Co-Pay Received
Donations/ Contributions
In-Kind, Contributed Services
Other
Bus Pass Program Revenue
$
$
96,285
1,213
$
$
96,300
-
$
$
96,300
-
0.0%
-100.0%
$
10,708
$
-
$
-
-100.0%
0.0%
Local Government
District School Board
Compl. ADA Services
County Cash
County In-Kind, Contributed Services
City Cash
City In-kind, Contributed Services
Other Cash
Other In-Kind, Contributed Services
County cash is used as match for capital equipment and trips at the rates in this
spreadsheet.
$
1,135,797
$
1,250,253
$
1,225,253
$
-
$
-
$
-
10.1%
-2.0%
$
$
$
660,944
138,168
-
$
$
$
822,216
138,168
-
$
$
$
822,216
138,168
-
24.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$
$
329,521
695,116
$
$
571,126
760,522
$
$
760,522
73.3%
9.4%
-100.0%
0.0%
$
$
827,318
238,403
$
$
40,000
420,000
$
$
420,000
-95.2%
76.2%
-100.0%
0.0%
$
1,748
$
1,550
$
2,000
-11.3%
29.0%
CTD
Non-Spons. Trip Program
Non-Spons. Capital Equipment
Rural Capital Equipment
Other TD (specify in explanation)
USDOT & FDOT
49 USC 5307
49 USC 5310
49 USC 5311 (Operating)
49 USC 5311(Capital)
Block Grant
Service Development
Commuter Assistance
Other DOT (specify in explanation)
5311 paid at a per unit trip rate plus mileage.
AHCA
Medicaid
Other AHCA (specify in explanation)
TD/Medicaid Contract ended February 28, 2015. Other AHCA are funds
received from Access2Care - Broker facilitating transportation for Medicaid
beneficiaries.
DCF
Alcoh, Drug & Mental Health
Family Safety & Preservation
Comm. Care Dis./Aging & Adult Serv.
Other DCF (specify in explanation)
DOH
Children Medical Services
County Public Health
Other DOH (specify in explanation)
DOE (state)
Carl Perkins
Div of Blind Services
Vocational Rehabilitation
Day Care Programs
Other DOE (specify in explanation)
AWI
WAGES/Workforce Board
Other AWI (specify in explanation)
DOEA
Older Americans Act
Community Care for Elderly
Other DOEA (specify in explanation)
Other includes OAA, CCE, and Med Waiver contracts not at the prices
calculated by this spreadsheet.
DCA
Community Services
Other DCA (specify in explanation)
Bus Pass Admin. Revenue
Marion 2015-2016 Amended Rates_ CTD Approved: Comprehensive Budget
Page 2 of 10
Version 1.4
County: Marion
Current Year's
APPROVED
Budget, as
amended
Prior Year's
ACTUALS
1
from
from
Jan 1st of
Jan 1st of
2014
2015
Upcoming Year's
PROPOSED
Budget
Proposed
% Change
% Change
from
from Prior
Current
Year to
Year to
Current
Upcoming
Year
Year
5
6
from
Jan 1st of 3
2016
to
to
to
Dec 31st of
2014
2
Dec 31st of
2015
3
Dec 31st of
2016
4
7
APD
Office of Disability Determination
Developmental Services
Other APD (specify in explanation)
DJJ
(specify in explanation)
Other Fed or State
xxx
xxx
xxx
Other Revenues
Interest Earnings
Insurance Loss Reimbursement
Fuel Tax Refund
$
$
3,730
55,595
$
$
-
-100.0%
-100.0%
Balancing Revenue to Prevent Deficit
Actual or Planned Use of Cash Reserve
Balancing Revenue is Short By =
$
Total Revenues =
$4,194,546
0
$
$4,100,135
1
$3,464,459
-2.3%
-15.5%
EXPENDITURES ((CTC/Operators
ONLY / Do NOT include Coordination Contractors!))
p
Operating Expenditures
Labor
Fringe Benefits
Services
Materials and Supplies
Utilities
Casualty and Liability
Taxes
Purchased Transportation:
Purchased Bus Pass Expenses
School Bus Utilization Expenses
Contracted Transportation Services
Other
Miscellaneous
Operating Debt Service - Principal & Interest
Leases and Rentals
Contrib. to Capital Equip. Replacement Fund
Allocated Indirect
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,362,070
467,907
305,898
685,122
25,509
134,295
1,334
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,227,773
482,690
304,905
664,972
26,509
147,807
1,401
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,266,686
487,840
306,707
612,048
26,509
155,197
1,471
-9.9%
3.2%
-0.3%
-2.9%
3.9%
10.1%
5.0%
3.2%
1.1%
0.6%
-8.0%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
$
$
$
149,105
425,802
$
$
$
9,209
425,343
$
$
$
9,210
423,849
-93.8%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.4%
$
21,423
$
21,423
$
21,423
0.0%
0.0%
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
467,690
69,631
$
$
709,294
78,811
$
$
138,168
15,352
51.7%
13.2%
-80.5%
-80.5%
$3,464,460
-0.4%
-15.5%
Miscellaneous includes depriciation.
Capital Expenditures
Equip. Purchases with Grant Funds
Equip. Purchases with Local Revenue
Equip. Purchases with Rate Generated Rev.
Capital Debt Service - Principal & Interest
ACTUAL YEAR GAIN
Total Expenditures =
$78,761
$4,115,785
$4,100,135
See NOTES Below.
Once completed, proceed to the Worksheet entitled "Budgeted Rate Base"
ACTUAL year GAIN (program revenue) MUST be reinvested as a trip or system subsidy. Adjustments must be Identified and explained in a following year, or
applied as a Rate Base Adjustment to proposed year's rates on the next sheet.
Page 3 of 10
Version 1.4
County: Marion
Prior Year's
ACTUALS
1
Current Year's
APPROVED
Budget, as
amended
from
from
Jan 1st of
Jan 1st of
2014
2015
Upcoming Year's
PROPOSED
Budget
from
Jan 1st of 3
2016
to
to
to
Dec 31st of
2014
2
Dec 31st of
2015
3
Dec 31st of
2016
4
Proposed
% Change
% Change
from
from Prior
Current
Year to
Year to
Current
Upcoming
Year
Year
5
6
7
Page 4 of 10
Budgeted Rate Base Worksheet
Version 1.4
CTC:
County:
Marion Senior Services, Inc.
Marion
1. Complete applicable GREEN cells in column 3; YELLOW and BLUE cells are automatically completed in column 3
2. Complete applicable GOLD cells in column and 5
Upcoming Year's
BUDGETED
Revenues
from
Jan 1st of
2016
to
Dec 31st of
2016
2
1
What amount of the
Budgeted Revenue
in col. 2 will be
generated at the
rate per unit
determined by this
Budgeted Rate
spreadsheet, OR
Subsidy
b id R
Revenue
used as local match S
EXcluded from
for these type
the Rate Base
revenues?
3
4
What amount of the
Subsidy Revenue in
col. 4 will come
from funds to
purchase
equipment, OR will
be used as match
for the purchase of
equipment?
5
REVENUES (CTC/Operators ONLY)
Local Non-Govt
Farebox
Medicaid Co-Pay Received
Donations/ Contributions
Other Bus Pass Program Revenue
$
$
$
$
$
$
96,300
-
$
96,300
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,225,253
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,071,733
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
153,520
-
$
$
$
$
$
822,216
138,168
-
$
$
$
822,216
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
138,168
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
760,522
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
760,522
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
420,000
-
$
$
$
420,000
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
15,352
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
138,168
-
YELLOW cells
are NEVER Generated by Applying Authorized Rates
Local Government
District School Board
Compl. ADA Services
County Cash
County In-Kind, Contributed Services
City Cash
City In-kind, Contributed Services
Other Cash
Other In-Kind, Contributed Services
BLUE cells
Should be funds generated by rates in this spreadsheet
CTD
Non-Spons. Trip Program
Non-Spons. Capital Equipment
Rural Capital Equipment
Other TD
local match req.
$
$
$
91,357
15,352
-
USDOT & FDOT
49 USC 5307
49 USC 5310
49 USC 5311 (Operating)
49 USC 5311(Capital)
Block Grant
Service Development
Commuter Assistance
Other DOT
AHCA
Medicaid
Other AHCA
DCF
Alcoh, Drug & Mental Health
Family Safety & Preservation
Comm. Care Dis./Aging & Adult Serv.
Other DCF
DOH
Children Medical Services
County Public Health
Other DOH
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
2,000
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
2,000
-
$
$
$
-
DOE (state)
Carl Perkins
Div of Blind Services
Vocational Rehabilitation
Dayy Care Programs
g
Other DOE
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
GREEN cells
MAY BE Revenue Generated by Applying
Authorized Rate per Mile/Trip Charges
Fill in that portion of budgeted revenue in Column 2 that will be
GENERATED through the application of authorized per mile,
mile
per trip, or combination per trip plus per mile rates. Also,
include the amount of funds that are Earmarked as local match
for Transportation Services and NOT Capital Equipment
purchases.
If the Farebox Revenues are used as a source of Local Match
Dollars, then identify the appropriate amount of Farebox
Revenue that represents the portion of Local Match required
on any state or federal grants. This does not mean that
Farebox is the only source for Local Match.
Please review all Grant Applications and Agreements
containing State and/or Federal funds for the proper Match
Requirement levels and allowed sources.
GOLD cells
Fill in that portion of Budgeted Rate Subsidy Revenue in
Column 4 that will come from Funds Earmarked by the Funding
Source for Purchasing Capital Equipment. Also include the
portion of Local Funds earmarked as Match related to the
Purchase of Capital Equipment if a match amount is required
by the Funding Source.
AWI
WAGES/Workforce Board
AWI
DOEA
Older Americans Act
Community Care for Elderly
Other DOEA
DCA
Community Services
Other DCA
Marion 2015-2016 Amended Rates_ CTD Approved: Budgeted Rate Base
Page 5 of 10
Budgeted Rate Base Worksheet
Version 1.4
CTC:
County:
Marion Senior Services, Inc.
Marion
1. Complete applicable GREEN cells in column 3; YELLOW and BLUE cells are automatically completed in column 3
2. Complete applicable GOLD cells in column and 5
Upcoming Year's
BUDGETED
Revenues
from
Jan 1st of
2016
to
Dec 31st of
2016
2
1
What amount of the
Budgeted Revenue
in col. 2 will be
generated at the
rate per unit
determined by this
Budgeted Rate
spreadsheet, OR
Subsidy
b id R
Revenue
used as local match S
EXcluded from
for these type
the Rate Base
revenues?
3
4
What amount of the
Subsidy Revenue in
col. 4 will come
from funds to
purchase
equipment, OR will
be used as match
for the purchase of
equipment?
5
APD
Office of Disability Determination
Developmental Services
Other APD
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
DJJ
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
3,464,459
$
3,170,771
$
293,688
DJJ
Other Fed or State
xxx
xxx
xxx
Other Revenues
Interest Earnings
Insurance Loss Reimbursement
Fuel Tax Refund
Balancing Revenue to Prevent Deficit
Actual or Planned Use of Cash Reserve
Total Revenues =
EXPENDITURES (CTC/Operators ONLY)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,266,686
487,840
306,707
612,048
26,509
155,197
1,471
Purchased Transportation:
Purchased Bus Pass Expenses
School Bus Utilization Expenses
Contracted Transportation Services
Other
Miscellaneous
Operating Debt Service - Principal & Interest
Leases and Rentals
Contrib. to Capital Equip. Replacement Fund
Allocated Indirect
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,210
423,849
21,423
-
$
$
$
$
138,168
15,352
-
153,520
$
140,168
Amount of
Budgeted
Operating Rate
Subsidy Revenue
Operating Expenditures
Labor
Fringe Benefits
Services
Materials and Supplies
Utilities
Casualty and Liability
Taxes
$
1 Rate
Base Adjustment Cell
Capital Expenditures
Equip. Purchases with Grant Funds
Equip. Purchases with Local Revenue
Equip. Purchases with Rate Generated Rev.
Capital Debt Service - Principal & Interest
$
-
Total Expenditures = $
3,464,460
minus EXCLUDED Subsidy Revenue = $
Budgeted Total Expenditures INCLUDED in
Rate Base = $
293,688
3,170,772
1
Rate Base Adjustment =
Adjusted Expenditures Included in Rate
Base = $
1
3,170,772
$
If necessary and justified, this cell is where you
could optionally adjust proposed service rates
up or down to adjust for program revenue (or
unapproved profit), or losses from the Actual
period shown at the bottom of the
Comprehensive Budget Sheet. This is not the
only acceptable location or method of
reconciling
for excess gains or losses. If
allowed by the respective funding sources,
excess gains may also be adjusted by providing
system subsidy revenue or by the purchase of
additional trips in a period following the Actual
period. If such an adjustment has been made,
provide notation in the respective exlanation
area of the Comprehensive Budget tab.
The Difference between Expenses and Revenues for Fiscal Year:
2014 -
Once Completed, Proceed to the Worksheet entitled "Program-wide Rates"
Marion 2015-2016 Amended Rates_ CTD Approved: Budgeted Rate Base
Page 6 of 10
Worksheet for Program-wide Rates
CTC:
County:
Marion Senior ServVersion 1.4
Marion
1. Complete Total Projected Passenger Miles and ONE-WAY Passenger Trips ( GREEN cells) below
Do NOT include trips or miles related to Coordination Contractors!
Do NOT include School Board trips or miles UNLESS…........
g trips
p and passenger
p
g miles related to services you
y purchased
p
y
p
p
passenger
from your
transportation
operators!
INCLUDE all ONE-WAY p
Do NOT include trips or miles for services provided to the general public/private pay UNLESS..
Do NOT include escort activity as passenger trips or passenger miles unless charged the full rate for service!
Do NOT include fixed route bus program trips or passenger miles!
PROGRAM-WIDE RATES
Total Projected Passenger Miles =
Rate Per Passenger Mile = $
Total Projected Passenger Trips =
Rate Per Passenger Trip = $
721 800
721,800
4.39
Fiscal Year
2016
86,500
36.66
Avg. Passenger Trip Length =
8.3 Miles
Rates If No Revenue Funds Were Identified As Subsidy
Funds
Rate Per Passenger Mile = $
4.80
Rate Per Passenger Trip = $
40.05
Once Completed, Proceed to the Worksheet entitled "Multiple Service Rates"
Vehicle Miles
The miles that a vehicle is scheduled to or actually travels from the time it pulls out from its garage to go into revenue service to the time it pulls in from revenue service.
Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM)
The miles that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue miles exclude:
Deadhead
Operator training, and
Vehicle maintenance testing, as well as
School bus and charter services.
Passenger Miles (PM)
The cumulative sum of the distances ridden by each passenger.
Marion 2015-2016 Amended Rates_ CTD Approved: Program-wide Rates
Page 7 of 10
Worksheet for Multiple Service Rates
Marion Senior SeVersion 1.4
Marion
CTC:
County:
1. Answer the questions by completing the GREEN cells starting in Section I for all services
2. Follow the DARK RED prompts directing you to skip or go to certain questions and sections based on previous answers
SECTION I: Services Provided
1
Ambulatory
1
Yes
1. Will the CTC be providing any of these Services to transportation disadvantaged passengers in the
upcoming budget year?........................................................................................
Wheelchair
1
Stretcher
Yes
No
No
Go to Section II
for Ambulatory
Service
Go to Section II
for Wheelchair
Service
2
Group
Yes
Yes
No
No
Go to Section II
for Stretcher
Service
STOP! Do NOT
Complete
Sections II - V
for Group
Service
SECTION II: Contracted Services
2
Ambulatory
2
Yes
1. Will the CTC be contracting out any of these Services TOTALLY in the upcoming budget year?....
No
2
Yes
No
Leave Blank
Skip # 2, 3 & 4
and Go to
Section III for
Wheelchair
Service
2
Yes
1
Ambulatory
Yes
No
No
Complete Cells
Below
Wheelchair
Do Not
Complete
Section II for
Group Service
2
Yes
No
Do NOT
Complete
Section II for
Group Service
25,000
2,500
2 500
200
Stretcher
per Passenger Mile =
$
10.00
per Passenger Trip =
$
125.00
Go to Section III
for Wheelchair
Service
Group
No
Yes
No
Leave Blank
2
Yes
Answer # 2 for
Stretcher
Service
$
Go to Section III
for Ambulatory
Service
Go to # 4 below
for Stretcher
Service
$
25,000 The sum cannot exceed total contracted services on Comp. Budget Wrksht
2,500
2 500
200
Group
Do NOT
Complete
Section II for
Group Service
Combination Trip and Mile Rate
4. If you answered # 3 & want a Combined Rate per Trip PLUS a per Mile add-on for 1 or more
services, INPUT the Desired per Trip Rate (but must be less than per trip rate in #3 above =
Rate per Passenger Mile for Balance =
Leave Blank
and Go to
Section III for
Ambulatory
Service
Marion 2015-2016 Amended Rates_ CTD Approved: Multiple Service Rates
Stretcher
No
3. If you answered YES to #1 & #2 above, how much is the proposed contract amount for the service?
How
many off the
Miles
H
th total
t t l projected
j t d Passenger
P
Mil relate
l t to
t the
th contracted
t t d service?
i ?
How many of the total projected passenger trips relate to the contracted service?
Effective Rate for Contracted Services:
1
Yes
Skip # 2, 3 & 4
and Go to
Section III for
Ambulatory
Service
2. If you answered YES to #1 above, do you want to arrive at the billing rate by simply dividing the proposed
contract amount by the projected Passenger Miles / passenger trips?.....
Wheelchair
Leave Blank
and Go to
Section III for
Wheelchair
Service
$
53.25
$
5.74
STOP! Do NOT
Complete
Sections III - V
for Stretcher
Service
Do NOT
Complete
Section II for
Group Service
Page 8 of 10
Marion
CTC:
County:
SECTION III: Escort Service
2
1. Do you want to charge all escorts a fee?.................................................................
Yes
No
Skip #2 - 4 and
Section IV and
Go to Section V
2. If you answered Yes to #1, do you want to charge the fee per passenger trip OR ………....
Pass. Trip
per passenger mile?.........................
1 Leave Blank
Pass. Mile
3. If you answered Yes to # 1 and completed # 2, for how many of the projected
Passenger Trips / Passenger Miles will a passenger be accompanied by an escort?
Leave Blank
4. How much will you charge each escort?....................................................................
Leave Blank
$
-
Do NOT
Complete
Section IV
SECTION IV: Group Service Loading
1. If the message "You Must Complete This Section" appears to the right, what is the projected total
number of Group Service Passenger Miles? (otherwise leave blank)............................
Loading Rate
0 00
0.00
………. And what is the projected total number of Group Vehicle Revenue Miles?
00
to 1
1.00
SECTION V: Rate Calculations for Mulitple Services:
1. Input Projected Passenger Miles and Passenger Trips for each Service in the GREEN cells and the Rates for each Service will be calculated automatically
* Miles and Trips you input must sum to the total for all Services entered on the "Program-wide Rates" Worksheet, MINUS miles
and trips for contracted services IF the rates were calculated in the Section II above
* Be sure to leave the service BLANK if you answered NO in Section I or YES to question #2 in Section II
RATES FOR FY:
Ambul
Wheel Chair
2016
Stretcher
Group
Leave Blank
Projected Passenger Miles (excluding totally contracted services addressed in Section II) =
719,300
=
Rate per Passenger Mile =
614,300 +
105,000 +
$3.96
$6.79
86,300
Rate per Passenger Trip =
0
$10.00
$0.00
$0.00
per passenger
Ambul
Projected Passenger Trips (excluding totally contracted services addressed in Section II) =
Leave Blank
+
=
Wheel Chair
67,900 +
18,400 +
$31.63
$54.23
Stretcher
Leave Blank
per group
Group
Leave Blank
+
$125.00
$0.00
$0.00
per passenger
2 If you answered # 1 above and want a COMBINED Rate per Trip PLUS a per Mile add-on for 1 or more services,…
per group
Combination Trip and Mile Rate
Ambul
Wheel Chair
Stretcher
Leave Blank
Group
Leave Blank
…INPUT the Desired Rate per Trip (but must be less than per trip rate above) =
Rate per Passenger Mile for Balance =
$0.00
$3.96
$6.79
$5.74
S S
See
Sect.
t II
$0.00
$0.00
per passenger
per group
Rates If No Revenue Funds Were Identified As Subsidy Funds
Ambul
Rate per Passenger Mile =
Rate per Passenger Trip =
$4.36
Wheel Chair
Stretcher
$7.48
$11.01
Ambul
Wheel Chair
Stretcher
$34.84
$59.72
$137.66
Group
$0.00
$0.00
per passenger
per group
Group
$0.00
$0.00
per passenger
per group
Page 9 of 10
CTC:
County:
Marion
Program These Rates Into Your Medicaid Encounter Data
Page 10 of 10

ocala/marion county tdsp

Transcription

Similar documents

Centerville Cross Country Night at Marion`s Piazza

News2You online newspaper - T-Room

our 2014 pillars club - United Way of Marion County

Faience Aryballos Description Chronology Provenance Present

September 2015 Newsletter

Clearwave Communications, Delta

Alliant Energy-Marion, Iowa Municipalization Brochure

Coupons For Education Vendor List

front page

December 2014