1 / 28

HART Transit Development Plan

HART Transit Development Plan. June 20, 2011. Overview. TDP Purpose Plan Elements Vision Plan Status Quo Plan Action Program Next Steps. Transit Development Plan . Multi-year business plan Situation Appraisal Issues affecting HART Anticipated revenues

gazelle
Download Presentation

HART Transit Development Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HART Transit Development Plan June 20, 2011

  2. Overview • TDP Purpose • Plan Elements • Vision Plan • Status Quo Plan • Action Program • Next Steps

  3. Transit Development Plan • Multi-year business plan • Situation Appraisal • Issues affecting HART • Anticipated revenues • Prioritized service and capital projects • FDOT requirement • Major update every 5 years • Annual progress updates • Provides framework for revised strategic plan • Assessment, priorities and strategies

  4. Issues Affecting Transit • Population growth • 1.23 Million in 2010 1 • 20% increase since 2000 • Higher growth in unincorporated county – 30%; 17% for cities • 70.6% increase in Hispanic or Latino population • Additional growth projected • 1.73 Million – 2035 (38% increase) 2 • 1.47 Million – 2021 (17% increase)3 • 2010 US Census • MPO 2035 LRTP Projection • Interpolation of MPO 2035 LRTP projection

  5. Service Challenges • Limited transit service • Inadequate service on existing routes • Many areas in County not served • Lower per capita spending compared to other areas* * Source: 2009 NTD Data

  6. Development Patterns Service Patterns

  7. Productivity by Route Service supply • 95% Local • 3.3% Express • 1.7% Circulator

  8. 63% of Local Ridership on 10 Routes USF Westshore Downtown Tampa

  9. Fixed Route Trends FY 2006 – FY 2011 Ridership, Service, Productivity and Cost

  10. Fixed Route Implications • Strong ridership growth • 14.6% ridership increase: 2006 – 2010* • 14% increase: 1st 8 months of FY2011 • More productive service • Result of past service restructuring efforts • Service modifications-proposed FY12 budget (6% )** • Impacts ridership (2% decline) • * Ridership per GFI farebox data • ** Service reductions represented as total miles (compared to FY 11 budget)

  11. Paratransit Trends FY 2006 – FY 2011 Ridership, Service, Productivity and Cost

  12. Paratransit Implications • Strong Ridership Growth • 65% increase 2006-2010 • 18% increase – 1st 8 months of FY2011 • Service reductions from other agencies contribute to ridership growth • High service cost • $33.35/passenger trip * • Stringent federal requirements • Continued focus on efficiency strategies • * Proposed FY 12 budget

  13. Revenue • Continued decline in ad valorem • 21% between FY2008 and FY2012 (Projected with .5 mil) • 27% decline with .4682 mil • Uncertainty and potential reductions • Ad valorem exemptions • Federal and State funding

  14. Vision Plan • Program of services and projects to address County mobility needs • Defines community’s vision for transit over the long term

  15. Vision Plan • Development Process • Projects and services drawn from last year’s Rapid Transit Investment Plan (RTIP) • Updated to reflect additional analysis • Demographics and development patterns • Local and regional policies/plans • Other agency initiatives • RTIP scope revised to address financial issues • Light rail projects not feasible with existing funding

  16. Vision Plan Bus-Oriented Focus • Local, express, flex, paratransit • Lower cost strategies on major corridors • Bus Rapid Transit • Express service on dedicated lanes

  17. Status Quo Plan • Services and projects implemented with existing funding sources • Ad valorem, state and federal, passenger fares, miscellaneous • Coordinated with FY 2012/2013 Budget development • Additional projections to FY 2021 • Needs and revenues

  18. Status Quo Operating Plan • FY 12 - FY13 balanced (Proposed budget: bus and paratransit) • Reduced expenses – service and administrative • Enhanced revenues – fare increase, ad valorem increase, additional federal funding • Shortfall starting in FY2014 • Increased expenses: MetroRapid N-S, Fuel, Insurance • Reduced revenues • Elimination of non recurring revenue

  19. Status Quo Capital Plan • FY 2012 and 2013 • Facility upgrades, state of good repair, buses, park and ride, MetroRapid N-S • Prior year funding awards: Federal and County • Future Capital Needs • State of Good Repair • Fleet, facilities, infrastructure • Improved Access to Transit • Accessibility • Transit Signal Priority – Countywide • Enhanced fareboxes – Smartcard, Open Payment • Additional technology • Energy Initiatives • CNG fueling facility/Maintenance modifications • Solar panels

  20. Status Quo Capital Plan • Beginning in 2014: Cost of Needs > Programmed Revenues • Uncertainty with Federal & State revenues • Federal earmarks and flexible funding • Formula funds – level and amount of funding required for Operating Budget • State block and competitive funding

  21. Status Quo Plan Bus Acquisition • FY 2012 and 2013 • Bus replacement and MetroRapid North-South • Program funded - prior year federal funding • FY 2014-FY 2021 • 237 buses and vans needed – all replacement • Uncertain Federal funding

  22. Action Program • Strategies to address needs and challenges • Efficiency strategies • Funding opportunities • Partnerships • Other initiatives • Enhanced access • Planning efforts • Energy/sustainability projects

  23. Action Program • Continued Efficiency Strategies • Service restructuring • Paratransit demand management • Real time scheduling • Fare incentives • Use of smaller vehicles • Review service coordination opportunities • Sunshine Line, USF • Consortium purchases with other agencies • Evaluation of additional outsourcing opportunities

  24. Action Program • Funding Opportunities • Competitive funding applications • State • Federal • Participate in MPO Interagency Working Group • Review alternative funding sources • Other Initiatives • Concessions • Broader U-Pass application (Post-secondary institutions) • Additional advertising

  25. Action Program • Partnerships • Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority(THEA) • Feasibility study of bus toll lane concept • Price managed lane • Higher tolls in peak periods • Used by HART buses • Used by HART buses • Potential operating funding for HART • Hillsborough County Aviation Authority • TIA Master Plan Update • Opportunities for shared intermodal center • Governmental and other transit agencies • Service coordination • Additional consortium purchases

  26. Action Program • Enhanced Access • Accessibility improvements at stops and facilities • Fare payment options (smartcard, credit/debit) • Customer information (next bus arrival, cell phone applications) • Wi-Fi on buses • Online trip reservations (flex and paratransit) • Energy/Sustainability Initiatives • Alternative fuel – CNG for fleet • Solar panels • LEED certification for 21st Avenue facility

  27. Action Program • Planning Initiatives • MPO ‘Post Referendum’ analysis • Lower cost service strategies • Incremental approach to expanding transit • Funding options • City of Tampa Sustainability Study • Transit supportive development strategies • Downtown and Nebraska Avenue corridor

  28. Next Steps • Preparation of draft report • Integrate public feedback and technical analysis • HART Board review • July 18 Finance Committee • August 1 Board

More Related