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 ­ 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

Issues Affecting Transit Population growth – 1.23 Million in % 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) Million – 2021 (17% increase) US Census 2.MPO 2035 LRTP Projection 3.Interpolation of MPO 2035 LRTP projection

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$4.69$ to 1.5 Million57$104.47$719.64$4.69$77.53 * Source: 2009 NTD Data

Service Patterns Development Patterns

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

WestshoreDowntown Tampa USF 63% of Local Ridership on 10 Routes

Fixed Route Trends FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (est.) FY % Change Ridership (Millions)* % Service: Revenue Hours (Thousands) % Productivity: Passengers per Revenue Hour % Operating Expense (Millions)** $47.31$49.95$50.74$56.15$55.67$ % *GFI farebox data ** Source: HART budget FY 2006 – FY 2011 Ridership, Service, Productivity and Cost

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)

Paratransit Trends FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (est.) FY % Change Ridership * (Thousands) % Service: Revenue Hours (Thousands) % Productivity: Passengers per Revenue Hour % Operating Expense (Millions) **$2.08$2.52$3.00$3.12$3.71$ % * Ridership information based on National Transit Database (NTD) data ** Source: HART Budget FY 2006 – FY 2011 Ridership, Service, Productivity and Cost

Paratransit Implications Strong Ridership Growth –65% increase –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

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

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

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

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

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

Status Quo Operating Plan 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

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

Status Quo Capital Plan 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

Status Quo Plan Bus Acquisition Number of Buses 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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