Okaloosa County BOCC — August 16, 2016 — Access EC Rider TDP - August Draft Report — reading text

another Agency on Aging, 7101 32505 company, Inc. clients only Crestview: 850-689- Okaloosa County 600 Transit Way, Fort 7809 Minibus, Paratransit Walton Beach, FL Fort wheelchair Okaloosa Service 32547 Walton: van 850-833- 9168 Commuter Okaloosa County 554 Anderson St, 850-833- 65–71 bus for No Okaloosa 5AM–5PM ~300 buses unknown Yes No School District Crestview, FL 32536 3555 persons students Okaloosa County 850-689- Ambulatory Okaloosa Veterans Services 5923 van Okaloosa Dept. of 8AM–5PM 6 11th Ave #G1, 850-651- Emergency Ambulance Okaloosa Okaloosa unless Buses 30 Yes Yes Shalimar, FL 32579 7150 Medical Services County emergency 1001 Mar Walt Dr, Shuttle for The Meridian at 877-797- 1 car, 2 4–14 Fort Walton Beach, residents No Okaloosa Daily Varies Yes No Westwood 6067 buses persons FL 32547 only Source: Survey of individual providers/organizations listed in above table. ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 42  Section 3 – Existing Transit Services Uber Uber is an international ridesourcing service headquartered in San Francisco and is a service similar to taxi except it connects drivers to consumers using a mobile app. Consumers use their smartphone to make a trip request, which is then routed to the nearest Uber driver. The drivers then use their personal car to transport consumers to their destination. Uber and other similar ridesourcing services are growing in popularity, especially among young adults, and in many locations complement gaps in transit services by helping riders complete the last leg of their trip or by providing late service when transit is not operating. Uber drivers currently provide service in Okaloosa County; Figures 3-3 through 3-5 illustrate the demand hotspots for Uber in the northwest Florida region. The service demand peaks in the late evening hours in the coastal areas of Fort Walton Beach and Destin. Figure 3-3: Uber Demand Hot Spots by Time of Day ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 43  Section 3 – Existing Transit Services Source: http://uberflpartners.com/pensacola-demand/ Figure 3-4: Uber Demand Hotspots for Weekend Evening Source: http://uberflpartners.com/pensacola-demand/ ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 44  Section 3 – Existing Transit Services Figure 3-5: Uber Driver Demand Hotspots for Weekend after Midnight Source: http://uberflpartners.com/pensacola-demand/ Trend and Peer Review and Analysis To assess how efficiently EC Rider supplies fixed-route transit service and how effective those services meet the needs of the area, a trend analysis of critical performance indicators was conducted to examine the performance of it fixed-route services over a five-year period. To complete this peer and trend analysis, data from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) were used, which includes validated National Transit Database (NTD) data for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The performance measures are used to present the data that relate to overall system performance. Three categories of performance measures were analyzed for the trend analysis of the existing transit service:  General performance measures – indicate the quantity of service supply, passenger and fare revenue generation, and resource input.  Effectiveness measures – indicate the extent to which the service is effectively provided; these measures can be used to implement goals towards improving the quality of service and customer satisfaction, and increasing the market share of transit.  Efficiency measures – indicate the extent to which cost efficiency is achieved, i.e. costs in relation to benefit; these measures can be used to implement goals towards long-term viability and stability of the service. In conjunction with the trend analysis, a peer review analysis was conducted to compare various EC Rider fixed-route performance characteristics to a group of transit peers. The trend and peer review analyses are organized by the type of measure or indicator and include statistics, figures, and tables to illustrate EC Rider’s performance over the past five years and how EC Rider compares to selected peers. The selection process for the peer review is described first, followed by a presentation of highlights from the trend and peer review analyses. Summary results are provided at the conclusion of this section with more detail provided in Appendix A. ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 45  Section 3 – Existing Transit Services Peer Selection The fixed-route peer selection was conducted using the validated 2013 NTD data. The methodology used to conduct the peer selection is based on the established standard methodology documented in Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 141, “A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry.” The methodology involves two steps—screening and peer-grouping. The goal is to identify transit agencies that are similar to EC Rider by comparing a number of characteristics that affect transit performance. Through this process, a “likeness score” is developed to determine the level of similarity between a potential peer agency and EC Rider with respect to individual factors and for the agencies overall. Three screen factors are used in the first screening step to ensure that potential peers operate a similar mix of modes as EC Rider: Rail Operator (yes/no), Rail-Only Operator (yes/no), and Heavy-Rail Operator (yes/no). The aforementioned screening step scores each potential peer for each factor. This score is used when calculating the total likeness for potential peers. After the initial screening process, 14 peer-grouping factors are used to identify transit agencies similar to EC Rider, including 5 service characteristics and 9 urban area characteristics. All of these factors are based on nationally-available measures that are consistently defined and reported. Complete definitions and scoring descriptions for each of the noted factors are documented in TCRP Report 141. The factors include: 1. Total Vehicle Miles Operated 8. Population Density 2. Total Operating Budget 9. State Capital 3. Percent Demand Response 10. Percent Population with College Degree 4. Percent Service Purchased 11. Percent Poverty 5. Service Area Type 12. Annual Delay (hours) per Traveler 6. Urban Area Population 13. Freeway Lane-Miles per Capita 7. Population Growth Rate 14. Distance to Peer System Likeness scores are calculated for each individual factor based on the percentage difference between the potential peer’s value and EC Rider’s value. A score of 0 indicates that the peer and EC Rider values are exactly alike, and a score of 1 indicates that the potential peer’s value is twice that of EC Rider. For the factors that cannot be compared by a percentage difference (e.g., state capital or distance), likeness scores are based on formulas that are designed to produce similar types of results; a score of 0 indicates identical characteristics, a score of 1 indicates a difference, and a score of 2 or more indicates a substantial difference. After the screen factor scores and peer-grouping factor scores are determined, the total likeness score for an individual potential peer agency is calculated using a sum of all likeness scores divided by a count of the peer-grouping factors. The total likeness score is interpreted as follows: ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 46  Section 3 – Existing Transit Services  Less than 0.50 – good match  0.50–0.74 – satisfactory match  0.75–0.99 – poor match  greater than 0.99 – unmatched Based on the TCRP methodology, 11 peer agencies with total likeness scores of less than 0.75 were selected for further consideration. For each peer, 8 operating variables were extracted and analyzed simultaneously, including:  Average speed  Service area population  Passenger trips  Service area population density  Revenue hours  Vehicles operated in maximum service  Revenue miles Points for each potential peer were summed to obtain a total score by which the potential peers were ranked in descending order. In examining each potential peer more closely, some peers exhibiting an outlier for a particular variable or more than one variable specified above were eliminated. For example, Eau Claire Transit had passenger trips of 1.02 million in 2011, which was 483% more than that of EC Rider. Therefore, Eau Claire Transit was removed from the potential peer list. A further examination of each peer finally resulted in the elimination of several more peers. The final five peers are presented in Table 3-5. The final peers include two Florida transit agencies and three out-of-state transit agencies. Two of the peers selected also were included in the previous TDP: