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

dedicated to the transit stop for developments on-site or adjacent to Harbor Boulevard/Emerald Coast Parkway. However, the reduction cannot be greater than the maximum allowed for the tier that the applicant is applying for approval of (Tier 2 = 12% or Tier 3 = 18%). City of Niceville 2035 Comprehensive Plan (October 2010) According to the Transportation Element of the City of Niceville’s Comprehensive Plan, there is no mass transit within the city, nor is one planned during the planning period; thus, there are no provisions for transit. The City’s policies for transit are limited to:  Evaluating the lot usage for the existing park-and-ride lots.  Reviewing the recommendations in the WFRPC West Florida Park & Ride Lot Planning Guide to determine how to promote existing usage and where to establish new park--and-ride lots if analysis warrants the need for such facilities.  Participating in the Five-Year Transit Development Plan and ensuring that it addresses motorized and non-motorized access to all major attractors in Niceville, including intermodal terminals and access to aviation and rail facilities.  Participating in the Okaloosa-Walton TPO LRTP.  Encouraging “Master Planned Development” that following energy-efficient town planning principles to reduce VMT and vehicle emissions by encouraging other modes of transportation.  Investigating the feasibility of implementing alternatives to roadway capacity, such as multimodal systems. ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan E-25 Appendix F: Recommended Performance Monitoring Program ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan F-1 Appendix F: Recommended Performance Monitoring Program Performance Measures and Indicators Once the recommended transit services are implemented, the following fixed- and flex-route performance indicators and measures should be monitored by Okaloosa County on a quarterly basis as part of the recommended performance monitoring program.  Passenger Trips – annual number of passenger boardings on the transit vehicles.  Revenue Miles – number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers).  Revenue Hours – total hours of operation by revenue service in active revenue service.  Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile – the ratio of passenger trips to revenue miles of service. This is the key indicator of service effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided.  Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour – the ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation. However, as a fixed-route type services typically take up to three years to become established and productive, the performance data up to that point should be reviewed and interpreted cautiously. While adjustments/modifications may occur, outright discontinuations based on performance monitoring data alone are discouraged. Evaluation Methodology and Process This process is based on two measures, trips per mile and trips per hour, which are weighted equally to derive an overall route score. A route’s score for a particular measure is based on a comparison of the measure as a percentage of the system average for that particular measure. These individual measure scores are added together and divided by 2 to get a final aggregate score. This final composite performance score is an indication of a route’s performance for all three measures when compared to the system average for those measures. A higher score represents better overall performance when compared to other routes. The noted comparative performance evaluation can be beneficial, but care should be taken when using the final scores and rankings, because these figures are comparing routes to one another and may not reflect the specific goals established for a particular route (i.e., geographic coverage vs. ridership performance). The process is particularly useful, however, in highlighting those routes that may have performance-related issues. These routes can then be singled out for closer observation in future years to determine specific changes that may help mitigate any performance issues. Once a route score is determined, routes can be ranked to show the highest performing and lowest performing routes. The rankings are a useful proxy for determining the comparative performance of any ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan F-2 Appendix F: Recommended Performance Monitoring Program route, as well as highlighting changes in performance over time. To track the performance variation over time, three performance levels have been developed:  Level I – Good (≥ 75%) – Routes in this category are performing efficiently compared with the average level of all the agency’s routes.  Level II – Monitor (30–74%) – Routes in this category exhibit varying levels of performance problems and need more detailed analysis (e.g., ridechecks, on-board surveys, increased marketing efforts, etc.) to aid in identifying specific changes that can be made to help improve the route’s performance.  Level III – Route Modification or Discontinuation (≤ 29%) – Routes in this category exhibit poor performance and low efficiency. Recommendations for these routes may include truncation of the route, reduction in the route’s number of revenue hours, or discontinuation of the route. Figure F-1 illustrates the three evaluation levels and notes the recommended thresholds for each level. Figure F-1: Evaluation Levels ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan F-3