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 1.2010 US Census 2.MPO 2035 LRTP Projection 3.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* Service Area Population # of Systems Avg.HighLowHART 0.5 to 1 Million42$99.77$719.64$4.69$77.53 0.5 to 1.5 Million57$104.47$719.64$4.69$77.53 * Source: 2009 NTD Data

6. Service Patterns Development Patterns

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

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

9. Fixed Route Trends FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (est.) FY 2006-2010 % Change Ridership (Millions)* 10.70 11.15 12.04 11.64 12.2613.2714.6% Service: Revenue Hours (Thousands) 556.0 588.6 568.2 581.6 600.9 601.548.7% Productivity: Passengers per Revenue Hour 19.2418.9421.220.0120.2922.065.5% Operating Expense (Millions)** $47.31$49.95$50.74$56.15$55.67$56.6917.7% *GFI farebox data ** Source: 2012-2013 HART budget FY 2006 – FY 2011 Ridership, Service, Productivity and Cost

10. Fixed Route Implications Strong ridership growth –14.6% ridership increase: 2006 – 2010* –14% increase: 1 st 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 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (est.) FY 2006-2010 % Change Ridership * (Thousands) 63.1 82.4 101.4 97.0 104.4 115.565.2% Service: Revenue Hours (Thousands) 46.4 56.0 67.2 66.2 69.8 74.750.7% Productivity: Passengers per Revenue Hour1.361.471.511.471.491.559.6% Operating Expense (Millions) **$2.08$2.52$3.00$3.12$3.71$3.9278.4% * Ridership information based on National Transit Database (NTD) data ** Source: 2012-2013 HART Budget 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 2012201320142021 Revenues (Millions)$59.7$62.2$60.4$73.2 Expenses (Millions)$59.7$62.2$65.0$77.5 Difference (Millions)None -$4.6-$4.3 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 2012201320142015- 2021 Revenues (Millions)$39.7$13.4$11.7$25.3 Expenses (Millions)$39.7$13.4$22.3$79.7 Difference (Millions)None -$10.5-$54.4 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 201220132014-2021 Number of Buses1140237 Total Cost (Millions)$1.0$8.8$61.7 Funded (Millions)$1.0$8.8$13.3 Unfunded (Millions)None $57.2 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 21 st 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