HomeMy WebLinkAboutRTO Board Agenda Packet - April 19 2012TREASURE COAST REGIONAL TRANSIT ORGANIZATION (RTO) BOARD MEETING Date: Thursday, April 19, 2012 Time: 2:00 pm Location: City Council Chambers Port St. Lucie City Hall 121 SW Port St.
Lucie Boulevard Port St. Lucie, Florida _______________________________________________________ AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Agenda 5.
Approval of Meeting Summary/Minutes ? February 16, 2012 Meeting 6. Comments from the Public 7. Comments from Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Members 8. RTO Board Topical
Issues Presentation and Discussion Action: Discuss and provide comments to Staff 9. RTO Board Responsibilities and Role Review Action: Identify and confirm responsibilities and roles
10. US 1 Corridor Capital Improvement Program Update Action: Discuss and provide comments to Staff 11. FDOT Comments 12. Comments from Board Members 13. Staff Comments 14. Next Meeting
? June 21, 2012 in Martin County 15. Adjourn City of Fort Pierce City of Port St. Lucie Town of Sewall’s Poi?????nt City of Stuart Martin County St. Lucie County Economic Council of
Martin County Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County, Inc. Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization RTO
NOTICES Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to access the meeting facilities should contact Dan Lutzke, St. Lucie County Risk Manager, at 772-462-1546 or TDD 772-462-1428,
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Anyone with a disability requiring transit accommodation to attend the meeting should contact Community Transit at 772-464-7433 (Fort Pierce)
or 772-879-1287 (Port St. Lucie) at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The St. Lucie TPO satisfies the requirements of various non-discrimination laws and regulations including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons wishing
to express their concerns about Title VI should contact the St. Lucie Title VI Coordinator at 772-462-1593. Items not included on the agenda may also be heard in consideration of the
best interests of the public’s health, safety, welfare, and as necessary to protect every person’s right right of access. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the RTO
Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, that person shall need a record of the proceedings, and for such a purpose, that person may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Crèole: Si ou ta rinmin recevoua information sa en crèole si l bous
plait rèlè (772) 462-1777. Español: Si usted desea recibir esta informaciòn en español, por favor llame al (772) 462-1777.
RTO Meeting Summary Page 1 of 7 February 16, 2012 Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization (RTO) Board Meeting Summary Martin County Commissioners Chambers 3401 SE Monterey Road
Stuart, FL 34996 February 16, 2012 2:00 P.M. Members present: Commissioner Paula Lewis, Chair, St. Lucie County BOCC Commissioner Doug Smith, Vice Chair, Martin County BOCC Commissioner
Kelli Glass-Leighton, City of Stuart Councilman Jack Kelly, City of Port St. Lucie Commissioner Edward Becht, City of Ft. Pierce (arrived at 2:07 P.M.) Commissioner Tom Bausch, Town
of Sewell’s Point Joe Capra, Economic Development Council of Martin County, Inc. Members excused: H. M. Ridgely, III, Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County, Inc. Staff present:
Beth Beltran, Martin MPO Peter Buchwald, St. Lucie TPO Claudette Mahan, Martin MPO Marceia Lathou, St. Lucie TPO Others in Attendance: Ann Joslin, CUTR Rob Gregg, CUTR Richard Dreyer,
Tindale Oliver & Associates Larry Hymowitz, FDOT Arlene Tanis, FDOT Jaclyn Meli, FDOT
RTO Meeting Summary Page 2 of 7 February 16, 2012 Marianne Arbore, COASL June Dunn, COASL Corine Williams, St. Lucie BOCC Heather Young, City of Port St. Lucie Kimberly Graham, City
of Port St. Lucie Diane Moore, Martin County There was a quorum for the meeting. Agenda Item 1, Call to Order: Chairperson Lewis called the meeting to order at 2:05 P.M. Agenda Item
2, Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairperson Lewis. Agenda Item 3, Roll Call: The roll call was conducted and a quorum was present. Agenda Item 4, Approve
Agenda: Chairperson Lewis asked if there were any revisions or additions to the agenda. Mr. Jack Kelly moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Doug Smith and the motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 5, Approve Minutes (October 20, 2012): Mr. Doug Smith moved to approve the minutes of the October 20, 2012 meeting, seconded by Mr. Joe Capra. The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 6, Public Comments: None. Agenda Item 7, Business Items: A. RTO Bylaws amendment: At the previous meeting the Bylaws were approved and after the approval there was a request
to include the words “passenger rail” on page 3 where public transportation was addressed referencing different modes of transportation. In order to amend the Bylaws it had to be brought
to this meeting for approval. Staff is recommending that the language be amended to include the words “passenger rail” in the public transportation section of the Bylaws. Mr. Smith made
a motion to accept staff’s recommendation and amend the Bylaws to reflect “passenger rail” in the public transportation section of the Bylaws. Mr. Jack Kelly seconded the motion. There
were no objections. The motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item 7, Business Items: B. U. S. 1 Bus Stop Improvement Program: Ms. Beltran advised that at the last RTO Board meeting it was
determined that funds would be best spent by having a fewer number of high visibility bus shelters as opposed to making minor improvements to the 47 current bus stops on U. S. 1. A Technical
Advisory Committee (TTAC) and a subcommittee were approved by the Board to further evaluate the preferred locations for these high visibility shelters. The subcommittee had representatives
from Martin and St. Lucie Counties, City of Port St. Lucie, the City of Fort Pierce and the transit providers. Mr. Buchwald stated that the
RTO Meeting Summary Page 3 of 7 February 16, 2012 TTAC committee, per the direction of the RTO Board, identified 17 stops and suggested two bus shelter styles. Ms. Marianne Arbore, Council
on Aging of St. Lucie County, and Ms. Claudette Mahan, Associate Transit Planner for Martin presented the list of locations chosen as well as the shelter designs which were discussed
at the subcommittee meetings. The TTAC committee concurred with the recommended stops presented by the TTAC subcommittee. There was a presentation showing the U. S. 1 route as well as
the locations for each of the stops. Stops recommended by the City of Fort Pierce were the Benton Building, the K-Mart Plaza, and the Sable Palm Plaza. St. Lucie County and the transit
provider selected Midway Road South and North, and the Rio Mar South and North. The City of Port St. Lucie recommended the Chase Bank, Prima Vista Crossing, CVS Pharmacy and the TC Medical
Building. The representatives for Martin County recommended Lowe’s and BJ’s, Cracker Barrel, Barrel, Britt Road, Pineapple Commons, Regency Square, and Stuart Center. (See presentation).
Ms. Arbore presented and scrutinized each stop location for St. Lucie County, and Ms. Mahan performed the same task for Martin County. They each advised of the pros and cons for each
location, what actions would need to transpire in order to prepare the locations appropriately for the shelters, and what issues they may face. Mr. Smith suggested that the stops be
numbered and that he would like to return to the Eugenia stop after the presentation. Ms. Mahan advised that based on the $500,000 grant they could get 17 stops at $29,400, the average
footprint would be between 10 to 15 feet, estimated preparation costs are approximately $19,500 to $22,500. Actual estimates will need to be obtained. Using the estimated cost presented
as an average preparation estimate between $7,000 to $10,000 will remain for the shelter, bench, solar panel, trash receptacle, and bike rack. Separately, the shelter, bench, solar panel,
trash receptacle and bike rack would be estimated at $3,000. If re-fabricated shelters are purchased, some of these amenities could be discounted. Two views of shelters were presented,
one which had previously been approved by the Martin BOCC, the other, termed the “Backward C” was also discussed as an option at the TTAC meeting. Mr. Smith asked if there was a way
to have a pull-out lane for the bus shelters at the CVS and the Eugenia stop. Ms. Arbore advised that one pull-out lane would expend the entire grant. Mr. Smith asked if those stops
could be configured in such a manner that if funds ever became available to install pull-out lanes for those two locations, that the pad and shelter wouldn’t have to be torn up, as a
corridor study will be taking place on U. S. 1 in the foreseeable future. Mr. Smith also inquired if the “Backward C” shelter would be able to be placed sideways on a sidewalk so that
additional right-of-way (ROW) would not have to be acquired? Mr. Dryer, of Tindale Oliver and Associates, stated that the shelters being discussed were chosen due to their flexibility
of the footprint to accommodate a narrow ROW. Mr. Buchwald said that none of the selected locations would require purchasing ROW. They may have to procure easements from an adjacent
property owner but these locations were specifically chosen for no ROW purchases. Also there is an opportunity for local involvement as these shelters may be fabricated locally. Mr.
Dryer stated in relation to ADA requirements, an accessible path can go through the shelter. The shelter they may need to be altered, but they just need to meet certain width and height
requirements, it can be done, but it will have to be a spot specific decision in design. Mr. Bausch inquired if the locations were chosen for the highest possibility of ridership without
consideration of cost. Ms. Mahan stated that not all of Martin County’s were chosen that way as they needed to find locations where the stops could be installed in the least amount of
time in order to meet the grant requirements. There will be ROW issues on U. S. 1 which will need to be handled at a later date. Ms. Beltran stated that some of the higher ridership
locations already have amenities, such as the Stuart Wal-Mart. Mr. Buchwald refreshed the Board of their direction at a prior meeting, stating that they wanted to do more at fewer locations
so there will be a “gateway feeling” and the stops should be in “pairs”. This was a determinating factor in how locations with ROW issues, low ridership or inability to be a unit in
a pair, were eliminated
RTO Meeting Summary Page 4 of 7 February 16, 2012 from the list. The remaining locations can be improved at a later date but with the current funds these were the best places for the
visibility and the money Ms. Arlene Tanis, from FDOT, also on the TTAC committee, clarified that this grant requires that the shelters be on the ground within three years, and some of
the other locations would not be able to be implemented as quickly. Mr. Bausch stated to not waste the funds placing a shelter in a location where it will not be used. Mr. Buchwald stated
that some stops may not be utilized because there isn’t a shelter. Each of the chosen stops are viable and worthy locations, they will all be utilized, and he believes that there will
be an increase in ridership once they are installed. This has been a collaborative effort, the transit operators, and even bus drivers were involved in the selection of these locations.
Mr. Kelly noted that there were only two stops in the City of Port St. Lucie, neither stop located near two huge attractors in the City. He asked Ms. Kim Graham if she was involved in
the selection process. Ms. Graham concurred and stated that Ms. Jennifer Gent, also from the City was involved. Ms. Graham did state that they had to meet the requirement of the grant,
evaluate ridership, and ROW. She stated that a main issue studied was the hospital and medical facilities around the CVS. They were trying to service the whole medical community, and
funds are limited. Mr. Kelly stated that he would prefer to have the shelters where the riders would be, at the two big centers which also have medical buildings and a large employment
area. He stated if he only gets two stops, that’s where he would want them. Mr. Buchwald stated that the location in question isn’t a current stop on the route. Mr. Kelly stated again,
that if he only gets two stops, that is where he wants the bus to stop. Ms. Graham stated that they will look into this again to see what can be worked out. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Kelly
that as the stops are in pairs that there are four stops in the City of Port St. Lucie, not two. Mr. Buchwald stated that the Board had directed the group to consider pairs, and one
of the locations to which the Councilman is referring does not have an opposing pair on the opposite side of the street, and the bus doesn’t currently stop on that side of the road.
Mr. Kelly stated that where Keiser University is, there is a lot of State ROW. He also wants to voice his positive opinion on the “Backwards C” shelter. Mr. Capra noted that time is
a key element in this project, and he confirmed that the route is not changing. He did note that in St. Lucie County, one bus stop location was at a vacant lot, and just down the street
there is a Social Security Building. He recognizes that it is not an opposite pair location, but he thought it may be a suggestion to consider. Mr. Capra inquired what form of branding
would actually be on the shelter. Ms. Beltran suggested changing something small like the color of a canopy, all the shelters would be the same with the exception of the color change.
Mr. Kelly stated that all the shelters on U. S. 1 need to be exactly the same to be “branded”. Mr. Becht commented that he would prefer to have the Fort Pierce bus shelter in front of
the Federal Courthouse, the State Courthouse, the City Hall, Sunrise Theater and the expanded Fort Pierce Marina. Mr. Buchwald stated to Mr. Becht, that if the Board releases its requirement
of having the shelters in “pairs”, as it now sounds like Port St. Lucie would prefer as they would like to change some of their stops, then certainly we could look at areas which did
not previously meet the criteria of having a “sister location”. Mr. Becht also addressed the branding issue, and hoped that the RTO would present to each of the cities it is servicing,
to show the locations of the shelters. Mr. Buchwald stated that these selections came from the local jurisdictions, that local staff had made the decisions and that they have informed
this Board. If these decisions need to go back through the local Boards, we will do it. Mr. Becht stated that he had seen that the City Commission had approved these sights, and seeing
it today, he realized that they had missed an area that would be one of the highest volume shelter areas on this route. He did state that the location may not have been chosen because
there isn’t a bus stop there currently. Since this Board has been informed that the shelter locations are not finalized to date, he would like his staff to revisit this item and he wants
to have a choice in the sight location from a layman’s point
RTO Meeting Summary Page 5 of 7 February 16, 2012 of view, if the City has to purchase the shelter on their own and convince the transit authority to put a stop there because that is
where he believes the ridership will be coming to or going from. Mr. Becht advised that he believed that an RTO representative needs to speak to the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County,
Port St. Lucie, Martin County and Stuart, to advise that there is an RTO looking out for the interests of the areas as that branding is as important as the shelters. Mr. Buchwald stated
that it would be helpful to staff if the Board would choose a style and a direction as to what stops with which there are no issues. The Chair stated that the Board should select a shelter
style and staff needs to find out what the actual cost would be so they will know how many shelters will be available. Mr. Smith made a motion that Martin County is fine with the stated
locations in Martin County and that the “Backward C” would be the design of choice. Mr. Kelly gave a second to the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. Mr.
Buchwald asked for additional direction as to what the Board expected of them once the non-Martin County selections were made. Ms. Lewis stated that once the individual Boards have reviewed
this again, that should be sufficient. If there is severe disagreement, then it will have to return to the TPO [RTO]. Mr. Kelly clarified that the City of Port St. Lucie only has two
bus shelters. They are CVS Pharmacy and TC Medical Center. The City only has 1 ¼ miles of U. S. 1 within its limits. Agenda Item 7, Business Items: C. RTO/RTA Development Issues: Rob
Gregg with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) advised that he was here to help support the RTO and FDOT. He advised that this Board addressed their issues as an RTA
(Regional Transit Authority) would, discussing infrastructure etc. He advised that the RTO was created by an Interlocal Agreement between the MPO and TPO. He wanted to see what support
this RTO RTO would need in its choosing to become an RTA. He stated that the RTO will have certain responsibilities for the Regional TDP. (See handout) He stated that CUTR has provided
to this Board, information from other areas about being an RTA. The National Transit Data (NTD) states that about 20% of the transit associations are RTAs. RTAs are created based on
geography, politics, corridors, travel sheds/origin-destination and can be good business sense. Being an urbanized area of this size could amount to receiving Federal funds. There are
tricks to the trade to optimize the use of those funds with local funds. He gave examples of different RTAs throughout the United States, and the roles and functions of RTAs. He stated
that becoming an RTA can help consolidate services, and that Florida has a few RTAs. He clarified that RTAs do not necessarily mean increased taxes, though they would like dedicated
funds or a referendum. He clarified that the original TDP treats this area as two counties united in a seamless “brand”, and it’s not just shelters, it’s the whole look, and how to attract
ridership. Mr. Gregg stated that CUTR needs to know how this Board wants to address the issues of responsibilities. If this area chooses to become an RTA this Board will need to decide
how they will represent and fund the effort. Mr. Gregg advised that the Board will need to reach out to the public so that they will understand what is happening. Mr. Kelly advised that
representation would be critical in this venture. He noted that the City of Port St. Lucie is growing rapidly and they will need to have more representation than what they have currently
in order to have proper representation by taxation. He also noted that he hopes the Board will not allow the Governor to appoint people to the Board, as well as a representative from
FDOT and a couple of County Commissioners. He would like to see this region to be
RTO Meeting Summary Page 6 of 7 February 16, 2012 modeled something like the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Mr. Kelly wants to maintain “home rule” and it should go by population.
Mr. Smith stated that this region needs to learn to be collectively powerful enough to leverage our dollars against other region’s dollars. We need to consider the best way to posture
ourselves to remain strong. Mr. Smith stated that branding does need to be discussed collectively throughout the region. The image of transit should be clearly branded so that it can
be marketed for tourism as it works well in other regions. He suggested that in the future, the RTO could hire a consultant to help work with the vast agencies in order to market ourselves
well. Mr. Gregg stated that there are plenty of RTA models without dedicated funding that this Board would be able to consider reviewing which may help members in making their decision.
There also are proven efficiencies in one RTA regional-type body. Often, these groups just sort of evolve, they were originally run by a City, then began adding and changing and evolving
into what they are today. The RTA will need to determine who is being served, who their partners are, what CRAs and activity centers would help contribute to funding. He reminded the
group that they can function as an RTO as long as they choose, but they are handling matters as an RTA would. He stated that this Board was created by an interlocal agreement between
the MPO and a TPO. This Board is not a dedicated recipient of funds, and money controls a lot of things. Mr. Becht concurred that branding of the RTO needs to be paramount. It needs
to be on each area television station, the Board needs to attend every meeting to really let people know what is happening and that the RTO is here in an effort to obtain public buy-in.
We need to change the way people look at how they get from one point to the other. Mr. Kelly stated that as an RTA, there would be better leverage with the State in order to obtain funds.
It’s more of a clout issue. He’d like to see Okeechobee, Indian River, Martin and St. Lucie develop a union of some sort. Ms. Glass-Leighton would like to see what RTA’s have been set
up recently and what grants are they receiving. She stated that she would rather have an idea as to what funding will be available before she suggests moving forward due to the budget
shortfalls in the United States. Mr. Gregg will get information for the next meeting. He did state that nationwide 73% of the referendums put out for transit passed in these economic
times. So it is about image, the product, the service and the infrastructure. Mr. Capra stated that the RTO needs to get aggressive on branding and selling the system. Representation
by population is an option, but another option should be who puts in the most money, if someone wants to pay more, they get more representation. This Board needs to get grants and he
hopes that CUTR can help locate funding. Whatever is proposed it must be fiscally responsible. Ms. Lewis stated that funding is available to an RTA which wouldn’t be available to an
RTO, but she feels the Board should function as an RTO for awhile to get a thorough understanding of the entire scope before moving to be an RTA. Agenda Item 8, FDOT Comments: Ms. Jacqui
Meli, the Transit Coordinator at FDOT , stated that this grant came about as she wanted more funds for St. Lucie and Martin Counties because
RTO Meeting Summary Page 7 of 7 February 16, 2012 transit is so important in connecting the U. S. 1 route. She advised of the formulas which enable funding. She stated that increased
ridership, 5307 funding is increased, the more 5307 dollars increase the opportunity for block grant funding, and more block grant funding dramatically increases the pot. This increases
your operating funding which is hard to come by. Mostly, the Federal Government issues capital funds, so increasing ridership is a big step in the right direction. Branding to increase
ridership will help bring more funds to this area. Agenda Item 9, Comments from Board Members: Mr. Bausch advised that Mayor Bloomberg’s address is Grayson Mansion, New York City, NY.
Millions of people ride the subway and he can’t get funding. Mr. Kelly stated that he saw a gas sign showing $4.01 per gallon, so people will be riding the bus next. Agenda Item 10,
Next Meeting: April 19, 2012, in St. Lucie County, in the Council Chambers. Agenda Item 11, Adjourn: A A motion to adjourn was entertained by Mr. Smith and seconded by Ms. Glass-Leighton.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 PM.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board/Committee: RTO Board Meeting Date: April 19, 2012 Item Number: 8 Item Title: RTO Board Topical Issues Presentation and Discussion Item Origination: Consultants
and staff Background: Continuing with previous RTO development presentations, this agenda item will focus on a brief review of the Regional Transit Development Plan, subsequent updates
and Transit Authority Action Plan. Discussion will include mobility needs, funding sources, goals and objectives, and considerations for the RTO’s future development. Representatives
from the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) and Tindale-Oliver & Associates (TOA) will present to the RTO Board. Requested Action: Discuss and provide comments to staff
Attachments ? PowerPoint Presentation City of Fort Pierce City of Port St. Lucie Town of Sewall’s Point City of Stuart Martin County St. Lucie County Economic Council of Martin County
Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County, Inc. Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization RTO
Agenda Item 8 RTO Board Topical Issues Presentation and Discussion
RTO/RTA Concept Needs & Services Financial Community Relevance Governance & Authority RTA Program Topics
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Initiated Regional Corridor CIP ?One System Identity – Branding ?Communication and Marketing Program ?Fare Policy and Transfer Analysis
?New Regional Service ?Performance Monitoring Program ?Comprehensive Bus Stop Program
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program RTO/RTA Concepts Needs & Services Finance Mobility Relevance Governance /Authority RTO Topic Program Purpose of RTA’s, examples,
issues, opportunities Assess existing services, types, markets, performance, infrastructure and needs Review of current funding sources, utilization, grant programs and funding alternatives
Role and impact of mobility investments to region, e.g. economy, job access, social services, environmental, energy, land use,etc. RTA Development Analysis: process, issues, alternatives
Address Responsibilities: Public Participation
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program One •TDP (Need, System, Finance) •RTO/RTA (Summit, Action Plan) Two •TDP and the RTO • Interlocal Revisited Think • Process, Coordination,
Partners •Work Program Concept
Presentation Overview Regional TDP Brief Review 1) Purpose 2) Goals /Objectives 3) Service 4) Funding 5) Organizational 6) Regional Summit 7) Implementation Partners (Counties, RTO,
FDOT) RTO: Responsibilities, Roles, Opportunities? A. Regional TDP B. Inter-Local Agreement C. Issues D. Work Program E. Public Involvement F. Resources /Coordination
Rule 14-73-001 “Provider” means a transit agency or a community transportation coordinator. A TDP shall be adopted by a provider’s governing body. A TDP shall be the provider’s planning,
development, and operational guidance document, based on a ten-year planning horizon and covers the year for which funding is sought and the nine subsequent years. TDPs shall be updated
every five years. Annual updates shall be in the form of a progress report on the ten-year implementation program. Eligibility to receive state public transit grants from the Department
is limited to those providers specifically designated by law to receive such grants TDPs are required for grant program recipients in Section 341.052, Florida Statutes Who What When
Where Why
Goal 1: Develop an effective regional public transportation system to move people throughout the region Goal 2: Increase the availability and use of public transportation services through
mobility enhancements and expanded fixed-route service Goal 3: Provide an efficient, high quality service that will meet the transportation needs of existing users and that will attract
new users Goal 4: Build meaningful and cooperative partnerships between government, private and community entities Goal 5: Ensure long term viability and stability of transit services
throughout the region RTDP Goals
Needs and Opportunities Existing Service Improvements • Span • Frequency • Weekend Future Route Network • Improve connectivity • Linkages between transfer centers • Focus on U.S. 1 •
Greater connectivity in Martin/St. Lucie Unity and unification Brand, logo, color scheme Unified system map and schedules Unified transit website
Policy & Priorities PRIORITY OUTCOMES: • Pursue RTO • Pursue single identity • Develop infrastructure • Service improvements • Future routes showing promise to generate ridership POLICY
INPUTS: Common sense Science Principles of network design
Treasure Coast Regional Transit
Organization Program Future Route Network
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program First Five Years
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Funding • St. Lucie’s operating program, including paratransit, fixed-route and enhancements, had $13.7 million unfunded in the first
five years • Recent projections by St. Lucie show a $16.05 million unfunded operating program through 2021, including existing services • Martin’s operating program, including paratransit,
fixed-route and enhancements, had $3.02 million unfunded in the first five years • Recent projections by Martin show a $8.9 million unfunded operating program through 2021
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Martin/St. Lucie Transit Authority Action Plan Key Elements • Facilitate regional transit summit • Provide blueprint for establishing
RTO • Build consensus on regional transit approach • Facilitate education on next steps
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Regional Transit Summit • January 8, 2010 • 150+ participants • Elected officials, agencies, jurisdictions, citizens • Panel discussions
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Regional Transit Summit Agenda The What – Geographic Perspectives The Why – Transit Needs & Economic Development The Who – Regional
Transit Experience The How – Next Steps
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Regional Transit Summit What did we hear? • Serve markets not boundaries • Provide mobility options • Reinforce economic development
plans • Create regional voice in partnerships • Establish trust & equity in planning & allocating resources
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Martin/St. Lucie: 4-Step Process Transit Vision & Action Plan Regional Transit Organization Regional Transit Authority Regional Dedicated
Revenue 2011-ongoing To be determined When time is right 1 2010 2 3 4 Interim steps?
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Powers & Duties of the RTO RTO Coordination Role RTA strategy Follow the regional plans Transit finance Coordinated services Coordinated
public info Regional forum for transit RTA implementation
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Regional Transit Process SUMMIT RTO Work Program Education Regional Transit Next Steps
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board/Committee: RTO Board Meeting Date: April 19, 2012 Item Number: 9 Item Title: RTO Board Responsibilities and Role Review Item Origination: Consultants and staff
Background: This agenda item will provide the Board with an overview of the potential responsibility related to the Regional Transit Development Plan (TDP) and the existing responsibilities
identified in the Interlocal Agreement creating the RTO. Specific observations and recommendations will be provided by the team of the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
and Tindale-Oliver & Associates (TOA) for the Board’s consideration of developing and maintaining an organizational work program to fulfill the responsibilities. Requested Action: a)
Approve the recommendations as presented b) Approve the recommendations as presented with conditions c) Do not approve the recommendations as presented Attachments ? PowerPoint Presentation
? Regional TDP Annual Update ? Regional TDP Annual Update Correspondence ? RTO Interlocal Agreement City of Fort Pierce City of Port St. Lucie Town of Sewall’s Point City of Stuart Martin
County St. Lucie County Economic Council of Martin County Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County, Inc. Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization RTO
Agenda Item 9 RTO BOARD Responsibilities and Role Review
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program MPO /TPO FTA FDOT County Governments RTO Relationships
RTO Responsibilities TDP 1) One System Identity – Branding 2) Communication and Marketing Program 3) Fare Policy and Transfer Analysis (fixed Route) 4) New Regional Services 5) Performance
Monitoring Program (TDP) 6) Comprehensive Bus Stop Program Inter-Local A. Consider RTA Development & Charter Language B. Regional Public Forum to address operational, financial, planning
and organizational issues C. Promote Cost Efficient and Effective Service Delivery D. Coordinate Existing Service E. Develop New Service F. Funding Analysis G. Rail Development
RTO FTA Formula FDOT Block Discretionary Grants System Generated Local Regional Funding Strategy
Service • System Performance Evaluation Process • Coordinated Service Planning Capital • Infrastructure Program • Fleet Replacement /Expansion Program Finance • Regional Federal /State
/Local Mix Analysis Grants • Regional Grant Applications Organization • Coordinated /Consolidated
System Performance Analysis Marketing Program Service Development Financial Analysis RTO PROJECT PLANNING Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Work Program Schedule
Develop Work Program with categorical functions for classification of individual projects TDP Process Coordination ?One System Identity – Branding ?Communication and Marketing Program
?Fare Policy and Transfer Analysis ?New Regional Service ?Performance Monitoring Program ?Comprehensive Bus Stop Program Capital Program
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program Recommendations ?Prioritize TDP Projects ?Coordinate Resources with Designated Recipients ?Establish Annual Work Program & Monitoring
Process ?Leverage Existing Funds ?Proactively Seek Discretionary Funds ?Utilize TTAC
Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization Program QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION
1 PORT ST. LUCIE URBANIZED AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2011 ANNUAL UPDATE Submitted by: Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc./Community Transit St. Lucie County Housing and
Community Services Department St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization Council on Aging of Martin County, Inc./Community Coach September
2011
2 BACKGROUND The Port St. Lucie Urbanized Area Regional Transit Development Plan (RTDP) has a ten (10) year planning horizon and includes public transportation goals and objectives for
St. Lucie and Martin Counties. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requires that the RTDP be updated every year with major updates every five (5) years. The last major update
of the RTDP was completed and adopted by the St. Lucie and Martin Counties Board of County Commissioners in 2009. The RTDP was endorsed by the St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization
(TPO) and the Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Joint Board in the same year. Therefore, the year 2011 is a minor update. INTRODUCTION This 2011 annual update of the currently
approved RTDP is in accordance with FDOT regulations as outlined in Rule Chapter No. 14-73.001 F.A.C. Public Transit. This minor update focuses on the adopted ten year implementation
plan as outlined in the 2010 Major Regional Transit Development Plan. Original recommendations are shown in bold italics, followed by a description of accomplishments, discrepancies
or revisions, regarding the recommendations. These elements are addressed below in detail. A. PAST YEAR’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Ten Year Program
of Potential, Phased Improvements for FY 2011 TCC Routes 1, 2, 3 – Increase Weekday Span of Service from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Stuart Shuttle, South Shuttle/Hobe Sound, Jensen Beach
– Increase Weekday Span of Service from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. FDOT’S letter dated September 14, 2010
3 1. The structure of the information in this section does not directly correspond to the information contained in the implementation plan outlined in Chapter 7 of the Regional TDP.
This section in the minor update should identify and be inclusive of both scheduled improvements, which can be project or service delivery, as reflected in the Ten Year Program of Phased
Improvements, and policy directions, which reflect strategic initiatives. Expectations for each of the scheduled improvements and initiatives conducted or implemented in the past year
should be compared to actual results. Any discrepancies should then be analyzed in Section B of the Update. Although the Program for Phased Improvements listed above has not been implemented
due to funding constraints, the following policy direction and priorities and goals and objectives have been obtained. Policy Direction and Priorities: Regional Transit Organization:
The MPO/TPO has established membership for the Regional Transit Organization (RTO). The composition of the RTO is a representative from the City of Port St. Lucie, a representative from
the City of Fort Pierce, a representative from St. Lucie County, a representative from the St. Lucie County Economic Development Council, a representative from Martin County, a representative
from the City of Stuart, a representative from Sewalls Point and a representative from the Martin County Economic Development Council. An Agreement has been prepared between CUTR and
FDOT to have Tindale-Oliver & Associates, a subcontractor of CUTR, to accomplish administrative support tasks such as establishing by-laws, rules and procedures for the operation of
the RTO and the conduct of meetings; administrative support for the RTO Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC); development of an Efficiency Report on the RTO process and updates
to the action steps the RTO could take if moving to an RTA. This project will have a timeline of 12 months from the notice to proceed. Development of Infrastructure: The Fort Pierce
Intermodal Center will be completed and operational by October 2011. This intermodal center incorporates a transfer facility for transit buses, park and ride, bicycle and pedestrian
walkways. Port St. Lucie Transfer Center – Funding has been obtained for a transfer center on Airoso Blvd. This transfer center will accommodate three buses that meet on the hour, bus
shelter, bike racks and pedestrian facilities. Completion is estimated to be September 2012. Two (2) park and rides were established located at the City of Fort Pierce Parking Garage
and 34 spaces were designated at the corner of Virginia and 25th Street by St. Lucie County. The City of Fort Pierce is designating all the spaces in the Parking Garage as a park and
ride. Shelters – St. Lucie County installed 13 transit shelters. Two more shelters will be installed by the end of the year. In Martin County, the Transit Depot, located in downtown
Stuart, is
4 currently under design and scheduled to be completed in May 2012. The Transit Depot will serve as a bus transfer facility for the regional US 1 corridor bus route and the Martin County
transfer facility. FDOT has provided a grant to establish shelters along the US 1 Corridor route for both Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Improvements on the Existing System: Martin County
implemented a no fare structure on the fixed route system and selected Council on Aging of Martin County, Inc. (COAMC) as their transit provider. COAMC has obtained a New Freedom grant
to provide transportation to disabled individuals that need assistance. An escort will be provided by COAMC and the transportation will run from 7am – 9am; 4pm -6pm. COAMC has created
a Call Center in Stuart opened from 7:30am to 4:30pm. Martin County added demand response service to their Indiantown Routes. New Routes: Martin County, starting July 1, 2011, will implement
a continuation of the TCC US 1 Route to IRSC College, Martin County Campus. Objective 1.1 & 5.4 By December 2009, adopt an action plan that will provide guidance in regard to coordinated
regional public transportation service delivery. The Regional Transit Authority Action Plan was adopted on February 18, 2010 at the Joint St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization
and Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting. Objective 2.1: Increase the number of fixed-route passenger trips by 50% between FY 2010 and FY 2019. In FY 2010, St. Lucie County
increased their fixed route trips by 46%; and Martin County increased their Indiantown fixed route trips by 38%. Objective 2.3: Add at least one vanpool to the commuter services program
each year through the 2019 TDP planning horizon. One new vanpool was added in St. Lucie County. Objective 2.4: By 2019, reduce demand for paratransit by 25 percent as fixed-route services
are improved for customers to utilize. Since 2010, Demand Response in St. Lucie County has been reduced by 18% as a result of the ADA eligibility process. Martin County is in the the
process of developing an ADA Plan.
5 Objective 3.1 Maintain an annual operating cost per passenger trip of less than $8.00 (the 2009 peer mean). St. Lucie County’s fixed route per passenger trip cost is $8.61 Martin County’s
fixed route per passenger trip is $26.65. Objective 3.3 – Obtain a fleet of vehicles with an average age of less than seven years by 2015. St. Lucie County was awarded the State of Good
Repair grant for the replacement of 12 fixed route buses. Expected delivery is June 2012. With the replacement of these vehicles the overall age of St. Lucie’s fleet will be 3.65 years.
Martin County purchased two expansion vehicles in FY10/11. The overall age of Martin County’s fleet is 3 years. Objective 4.1: Employ transportation demand management strategies that
advance the distribution and/or presentation of commuter services program and transit service benefits to the largest employers each year through the 2019 TDP planning horizon. South
Florida Commuter Services contacted and surveyed 11 major employers in St. Lucie County. 231 employees registered with the South Florida Commuter Services Program. South Florida Commuter
Services had an additional 24 vanpoolers and 54 carpoolers in St. Lucie County for FY 2010. South Florida Commuter Services contacted and surveyed 4 major employers in Martin County.
75 employees registered with the South Florida Commuter Services Program. South Florida Commuter Services had an additional 10 carpoolers in Martin County for FY 2010. For FY 2010, the
Interstate 95 Express Bus from Martin County to Palm Beach County performed 5,522 trips. Objective 4.2: Continue to conduct coordinated public outreach effort to potential and current
transit system users each year through the planning horizon of the Regional TDP. Presentations and travel training have been made throughout the year to various groups as well as advertisement
of all TPO/MPO meetings, the TIP public review process and IM4Transit campaign. March 2011 an annual public hearing, that was well advertised, was conducted to obtain public feedback.
Surveys are distributed monthly on the fixed routes to obtain public feedback. Several workshops and presentations on the Martin/St. Lucie 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan
(RLRTP) were coordinated with the transit provider. One of the presentations was held before the St. Lucie County Local Coordinating Board for the
6 Transportation Disadvantaged. A workshop was held in a low-income, minority neighborhood. An online survey was also developed. Information from the RLRTP presentations, workshops,
and surveys were used as input for the TDP Minor Update. Other public outreach activities included the transit provider’s own public hearings and a presentation and survey by the County’s
transit department that surveyed County Health Department Clients and Indian River State College students. Objective 4.3 and 5.3: Conduct activities that will support local jurisdictions
adopt transit supportive comprehensive plan amendments. City of Fort Pierce adopted language for the development of transit into their land development code as part of their Comprehensive
Plan. City of Port St. Lucie is working on surveying the public for input on future transit needs to be included in its comprehensive plan. Cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie have
implemented elements of the Transit Demand Management methodology, while St. Lucie County has recommended changes to the Evaluation Appraisal Report that impact future land use development.
Martin County included language for the development of transit into their comprehensive plan policies. Objective 4.4: Continue to convene quarterly County, transit agency and CTC coordination
meetings. Meetings continue to be held quarterly with Indian River, Martin and St. Lucie County’s transit providers, MPO/TPO Staff, CTCs and FDOT. Objective 5.1: Maintain local support
for fixed-route bus service consistent with the 2010-2019 TDP financial plan. St. Lucie County raised the MSTU rate from .0833 to .1269 to sustain the current transit system. Objective
5.2 Increase local support for fixed route transit services by 100 percent by 2019 to support increases in ridership. St. Lucie County’s MSTU was increased 52% in September 2010. 3.
Section A reports on the annual progress of continuing operations of the Treasure Coast Connector (TCC) Route 1 between St. Lucie and Martin Counties. The information indicates that
the service now consists of two routes that meet at the Treasure Coast Regional Mall and require a transfer, one operated by St. Lucie County and one operated by Martin County. The expectation
for the Update is that an
7 analysis of this discrepancy would occur in Section B of the Update, but since there is no discussion in that Section, additional concerns will be communicated here in Section A. Table
7-1 (Ten Year Program of Potential, Phased Improvements) identifies continuation of TCC Route 1 service as a regional priority. It does not indicate that a lowering of level of service
was planned or intended yet, this would be the result of splitting/fragmenting the route between two service providers and requiring a transfer. Not only would the time span of the commute
increase, but total operational costs of the services for the route would increase in response to additional drivers, vehicle maintenance and fuel. This is not reflected in the cost
per service hour in Table 7-1, this is inconsistent with the organizational vision, the TDP strategic initiative of improving regional mobility by pursuing a RTP, the Regional Transit
Authority Action Plan, and the spirit of the commitment of the Joint MPO/TPO Boards to execute a RTP Interlocal Agreement. Additionally, it is understood that the Martin County portion
of the fragmented route is being funded through JARC/New Freedom FTA funds in lieu of using FTA Section 5307 funds with a matching local contribution. The use of JARC/New Freedom funds
in this manner does not further program objectives in that improved service is not being provided to existing riders nor is expansion of opportunities to new areas being provided. Martin
County and St. Lucie County should jointly address these issues. This was addressed in St. Lucie County’s letter dated November 3, 2010 and in Martin County’s letter dated October 14,
2010 (attached). 4. Chapter 8 of the Regional TDP identifies thirteen non-service related initiatives, only some of which are identified in Section A of the Update. The next minor update
should reflect the past year’s accomplishments compared to the expected results for the reporting year. Chapter 8 non-service initiatives are incorporated in the objectives on Table
5-1. B. ANALYSIS OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PAST YEAR AND STEPS THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN ORIGINAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: FDOT’S letter dated
September 14, 2010 5. The information in this section of the Update should include an assessment of any discrepancies that result from the comparison of past year’s accomplishments
8 compared to the expected results and any steps to be taken to attain the original goals and objectives. The information contained in the Update transmittal for this section appears
to be a continuation of information that was included in Section A. 6. The analyses of the discrepancies should take into consideration how the performance of the implementation plan
for the past year relates to any adopted standards or otherwise conforms to TDP objectives. Ten Year Program of Potential, Phased Improvements for FY 2011 TCC Routes 1, 2, 3 – Increase
Weekday Span of Service from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Stuart Shuttle, South Shuttle/Hobe Sound, Jensen Beach – Increase Weekday Span of Service from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Due to funding
constraints, implementation of increased weekday span of service on Routes TCC 1, 2 and 3, and the Stuart Shuttle has not been implemented. The Hobe Sound and Jensen Beach Routes in
Martin County have been eliminated due to lack of funding. Policy and Priorities and Objective 1.2 Establish one system identity for public transportation services in the region consistent
with the action plan for coordinated regional public transportation service delivery. As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed. Objective 1.3 Develop a Communications and Marketing
Program for public transportation services in the region consistent with the action plan for coordinated regional public transportation service delivery. As the RTO develops, this item
will be addressed. Objective 1.4 Conduct a fare policy study and transfer analysis for fixed route services in support of the action plan for coordinated regional public transportation
service delivery. As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed. Objective 1.5 Develop and implement interconnecting regional transit routes consistent with the transfer centers and
service areas identified in the regional TDP. As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed. Objective 1.6 Develop and implement regional transit routes that are effective in serving
regional regional travel needs including travel to and from surrounding counties.
9 As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed. Objective 2.2 Increase the number of inter-county bus routes from one to three by 2019. As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed.
Objective 3.2 Develop a performance monitoring program that addresses performance standards for fixed-route, paratransit, and commuter services by 2010. Although both Martin and St.
Lucie County’s transit providers have a performance monitoring program in place, a unified program is not. As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed. South Florida Commuter Services
is developing an online work plan with goals and objectives that will provide reports based on region such as # of employers worked with, carpools, vanpools, etc. The anticipated implementation
will begin in October 2011. Objective 3.4 Develop a Bus Stop Infrastructure Plan by 2012. As the RTO develops, this item will be addressed. C. ANY REVISIONS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
FOR THE COMING YEAR: FDOT letter dated September 14, 2010. 2. The TDP indicates that the highest priority strategic initiative is to unify regional mobility by pursuing a regional transit
organization (RTO). While a lot of activity occurred during the Update reporting year, it is not clear in the Update what the expectation was for the reporting period in terms of action
steps and what the timeline
10 is for executing an RTO interlocal agreement or other similar outcomes within that period. Among the items to address for this initiative are: ? Progress in documenting the advantages
and disadvantages of regional transit governance in terms of expectations. ? Progress in developing a Mid-Term Action Plan (mid-term outcome) compared to expectations. ? Progress in
moving towards the “long-term phase” compared to expectations (what is the long term phase?). The MPO/TPO has established membership for the Regional Transit Organization (RTO). An Agreement
has been prepared between CUTR and FDOT to have Tindale-Oliver & Associates, a subcontractor of CUTR, to accomplish administrative support tasks such as establishing by-laws, rules and
procedures for the operation of the RTO and the conduct of meetings; administrative support for the RTO Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC); development of an Efficiency Report
on the RTO process and updates to the action steps the RTO could take if moving to an RTA. The first meeting is scheduled to occur on August 18, 2011. This project will have a timeline
of 12 months from the notice to proceed. 7. The Update identifies changes to the upcoming year that involve reductions in planned spans of service on multiple routes. Yet, there is no
discussion in the Update document regarding the public involvement process used to obtain input from the public regarding the content of the Update document. The FDOT Guidance for Producing
a Transit Development Plan document indicates at the end of Chapter 1 that opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of the Annual Update document are advised. Several
workshops and presentations on the Martin/St. Lucie 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) were coordinated with the transit provider. One of the presentations was held
before the St. Lucie County Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged. A workshop was held in a low-income, minority neighborhood. An online survey was also developed.
Information from the RLRTP presentations, workshops, and surveys were used as input for the TDP Minor Update. Other public outreach activities included the transit provider’s own public
hearings and a presentation and survey by the County’s transit department that surveyed County Health Department Clients and Indian River State College students. 8. A new strategic initative
for the coming year should be considered that directs the service provider to work with local governments to develop guidance on improved TDP linkages with comprehensive plans that address
transit quality of service, locally provided transit coordination, improved accessibility issues, bus stop issues, safety concerns, etc. For the upcoming year, the RTDP calls for increased
weekday span of service in the remainder of the routes. As a result of funding constraints, none of the routes have been
11 expanded. As funding become available, providers will need to analyze the system to replace lost services or catch up with the TDP. D. REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE TENTH
YEAR FDOT letter dated September 14, 2010 9. The stated implementation program initiatives for the coming year, the tenth year, and the new tenth year are not sufficiently detailed in
order to be able to determine how they contribute to achieving goals and objectives as well as determining measures of effectiveness to gauge performance. One example is “Continue to
explore regional possibilities.” What are the specific possibilities that are being explored? In the past two years, with the reduction in funding and the increases in fuel and insurance
costs, both Martin and St. Lucie County were unable to implement the phased improvements as addressed in Table 7-1 of the Major Update of the RTDP. Since these improvements are contingent
upon the prior year’s improvement being implemented, the revised tenth year will be pushed back two years making it the eighth year as proposed in the Major Update of the RTDP. The goals
and objectives in Table 5-1 of the Major Update of the RTDP will continue to be used throughout FY 12 as funding allows. E. ADDED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEW TENTH YEAR OF THE UPDATED
PLAN: FDOT letter dated September 14, 2010. See Comment #9. RTDP is two years behind in the implementation of phased improvements, the majority of the goals and objectives are being
addressed, therefore, there are no additional recommendations for the new tenth year. F. A REVISED FINANCIAL PLAN (ATTACHED) FDOT letter dated September 14, 2010. 10. Not all FTA sources
of funding are included in the revised financial plan. There also appear to be inconsistencies with the Regional TDP and TIP documents.
12 The revised financial plan indicates the actual capital and operating budgets of Martin and St. Lucie Counties for FY 2011/12. The remaining years are the same budget as the Major
Update of the RTDP. All FTA funding sources are included and the inconsistencies with the RTDP and TIP have been addressed. 11. A revised financial plan is attached, however it identifies
“unfunded operating” at between $3M and $5.2M per year without any assessment as to how this relates to implementation program initiatives for the coming year, the tenth year, and the
new tenth year. As indicated throughout this document, operating funding has been limited to sustaining existing transit. Unfunded operations have prohibited any potential phased improvements
from being implemented. 12. The revised financial
plan shows relatively static revenues throughout the ten year period. There should be some reflection as to how this impacts the adopted levels of service for transit in each County
and the agencies’ implementation programs in terms of the attainment of goals and objectives and the need for appropriate strategic initiatives. The attached operating budgets show unfunded
operating dollars to sustain current levels of transit service and to implement enhancements to the system. As a result of the lack of funding and in the absence of acquiring future
funding, St. Lucie and Martin Counties will be forced to eliminate the fixed route service. G. A REVISED LIST OF PROJECTS OR SERVICES NEEDED TO MEET THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING
PROJECTS FOR WHICH FUNDING MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED: FDOT’s Letter dated September 14, 2010 13. It is also recommended that this revised list include more detail, as in previous
sections, in order to be able to determine how the items on the list contribute to achieving Regional TDP goals and objectives as well as determining measures of
13 effectiveness to gauge performance. Additionally, the list should indicate the items for which funding has not been identified. It would be beneficial to also include or clarify which
projects or services are not included in the adopted Cost Feasible Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (incuding Martin & St. Lucie components) as well as those intitiatives that
are complementary to or further objectives and policies of comprehensive plans and adjacent service providers. ? When the RTO is developed and functional, a decision will be made on
the identity for public transportation for Martin and St. Lucie Counties. As a result of this decision, one or both public transit agencies will need to change their identity. This has
been identified in the Cost Feasible Plan. ? A marketing program will also be developed by the RTO and will be implemented when funding is obtained. ? Regional Transit Routes, according
to the RTDP, need to be implemented when funding is obtained. ? Three inter-county routes, according to the RTDP, need to be implemented by 2019. ? Establishment of a performance monitoring
program and a bus stop infrastructure plan will be developed by the RTO. ? Maintain local support according to the RTDP’s financial plan. There is insufficient funding to sustain the
current level of transit and/or implement expanded services. ? Increase local support by 100% by 2019. SUMMARY: Despite the challenges the economic climate brought to transit in the
past years, both Martin and St. Lucie Counties succeeded in meeting numerous goals and objectives of the RTDP Major Update. With the relentless pursuit of grants and increasing revenue
streams through bus advertising and fare increases, both Martin and St. Lucie Counties were able to keep existing services intact.
14 As a result of current legislation requiring properties with a population of over 200,000 using federal monies for capital only, there is a good chance that the Port St. Lucie Urbanized
area will lose the flexibility of utilizing the Federal 5307 grant dollars for operations in the future years. With this in mind and the continued decline in local revenue due to property
values decreasing, both Martin and St. Lucie Counties may be forced to significantly reduce current service.
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Port St. Lucie Transfer Center FDOT Intermodal $ 300,000 20 5 1 $ 11 $ 2 20 5 1 11 2 Paratransit Vehicle
Replacement Section 5307, 5310,5309 $ 1,700,000 $ 425,000 $ 85,000 $ 935,000 $ 170,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 200,000 12 1 1 1 1 1 Fixed Route Vehicle Replacement/Expansion
State of Good Repair $ 4,550,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Cameras, AVL and Radios Section 5307, ARRA $ 2,500 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 ADP Hardware
Section 5307, ARRA $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 ADP Software Section 5307, ARRA $ 20,000 Route Signage ARRA $ 4,292 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
$ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Tires & Batteries Section 5307 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 Bus Shelters Section 5307,
5309, ARRA $ 128,396 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 New Operations/Administration Facility Land Acquisition, PD&E, Construction Section
5307,5309 $ 1,600,000 Stuart Depot Section 5307 ARRA $ 1 ,199,564 Park and Ride Facility -Kanner Highway/Southwest Transfer Center FDOT Park & Ride $ 490,000 12 4 7 5 7 4 7 Paratransit
Vehicle Replacement Section 5307, 5310 $ 840,000 $ 280,000 $ 490,000 $ 350,000 $ 490,000 $ 280,000 $ 490,000 2 1 1 1 1 1 Fixed Route Vehicle Expansion Section 5307 $ 320,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 St. Lucie County Capital Budget Funding Source Martin County Capital Budget Capital Project Description
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Local Government $476,348 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619 $436,619
Match on JARC/NF $96,000 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 $116,300 Total Local $572,348 $552,919 $552,919 $552,919 $552,919 $552,919 $552,919 $552,919
$552,919 $552,919 FDOT Block Grant $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 $325,609 TD $208,303 $234,000 $234,000 $234,000 $234,000 $234,000
$234,000 $234,000 $234,000 $234,000 Total State $533,912 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 $559,609 Section 5311 $78,700 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000
$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Section 5316 $0 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 Section 5317 $96,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000
$48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 Section 5307 $56,319 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Federal $231,019 $326,300 $336,300
$336,300 $341,300 $341,300 $341,300 $341,300 $341,300 $341,300 Total Revenues $1,337,279 $1,438,828 $1,448,828 $1,448,828 $1,453,828 $1,453,828 $1,453,828 $1,453,828 $1,453,828 $1,453,828
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Existing Paratransit $823,919 $1,275,631 $1,275,631 $1,275,631 $1,275,631 $1,275,631 $1,275,631 $1,275,631
$1,275,631 $1,275,631 Existing Fixed Route /TDP Service Plan $513,360 $460,517 $734,387 $802,427 $891,374 $975,614 $1,042,913 $1,243,290 $1,437,545 $1,624,768 TDP Enhancements -10 Yr
Programmed $273,870 $68,040 $88,947 $84,240 $67,298 $200,378 $194,254 $187,223 $125,307 Total Expenditures $1,337,279 $2,010,018 $2,078,058 $2,167,005 $2,251,245 $2,318,543 $2,518,922
$2,713,175 $2,900,399 $3,025,706 Unfunded Operating $0 -$571,190 -$629,230 -$718,177 -$797,417 -$864,715 -$1,065,094 -$1,259,347 -$1,446,571 -$1,571,878 Fiscal Year State Funds Federal
Funds OPERATING EXPENDITURES OPERATING REVENUES MARTIN COUNTY City/County Operating Fiscal Year
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 MSTU/Other Local* $1,448,311 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 $1,500,000 $1,600,000 $1,700,000
$1,800,000 $1,900,000 Match on OAA $6,052 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 $6,054 Match on TD $33,454 $33,443 $33,443 $33,443 $33,443 $33,443 $33,443 $33,443 $33,443
$33,443 $150,000 $180,000 $210,000 $240,000 $270,000 $300,000 $330,000 $360,000 $390,000 $420,000 $16,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $208,371
$199,015 $199,015 $199,015 $199,015 $199,015 $199,015 $199,015 $199,015 $199,015 Total Local $1,862,188 $1,538,512 $1,668,512 $1,798,512 $1,928,512 $2,058,512 $2,188,512 $2,318,512 $2,448,512
$2,578,512 FDOT Block Grant $1,045,724 $472,424 $489,589 $489,589 $489,589 $489,589 $489,589 $489,589 $489,589 $489,589 TD $301,086 $300,985 $300,985 $300,985 $300,985 $300,985 $300,985
$300,985 $300,985 $300,985 Service Development Grant*** $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Total State $1,346,810 $1,023,409 $1,040,574 $1,040,574
$790,574 $1,040,574 $1,040,574 $1,040,574 $1,040,574 $1,040,574 IIIB Trans. Contract $54,468 $54,494 $54,494 $54,494 $54,494 $54,494 $54,494 $54,494 $ 54,494 $ 54,494 Section 5311 $123,119
$62,498 $65,623 $68,904 $72,350 $72,350 $72,350 $72,350 $72,350 $72,350 Section 5307 $623,385 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5307 Preventive Maintenance $488,770 $667,690 $681,074 $695,128
$695,128 $695,128 $695,128 $695,128 $695,128 $695,128 Section 5307 ADA $309,787 $325,277 $341,541 $358,618 $376,549 $395,376 $415,145 $435,902 $457,697 Section 5317 $72,587 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Section 5316 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Federal $1,362,329 $1,094,469 $1,126,468 $1,160,067 $1,180,590 $1,198,521 $1,217,348 $1,237,117 $1,257,874 $1,279,669
Total Revenues $4,571,327 $3,656,390 $3,835,554 $3,999,153 $3,899,676 $4,297,607 $4,446,434 $4,596,203 $4,746,960 $4,898,755 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
2019/20 2020/21 Existing Paratransit $2,950,357 $3,097,875 $3,252,769 $3,415,407 $3,586,177 $3,765,486 $3,953,760 $4,151,448 $4,359,020 $4,576,971 Existing Fixed Route $1,620,970 $1,702,019
$1,787,120 $1,876,476 $1,970,300 $2,068,815 $2,188,806 $2,298,246 $2,413,158 $2,533,816 TDP Enhancements -10 Yr Programmed $186,127 $148,902 $253,488 $0 $209,455 $145,055 $180,047 $182,901
$127,462 Total Expenditures $4,571,327 $4,986,020 $5,188,791 $5,545,371 $5,556,477 $6,043,756 $6,287,622 $6,629,741 $6,955,080 $7,238,249 Unfunded Operating $0 -$1,329,630 -$1,353,237
-$1,546,219 -$1,656,801 -$1,746,149 -$1,841,188 -$2,033,539 -$2,208,120 -$2,339,494 Note: Not only are the expansion projects unfunded, but there is a deficit in the funding to maintain
existing transit. The budget must be balanced as indicated in FY 2011/2012. Should funding not be found in future years, a reduction in service will occur. *Based upon projected increases
in property values. **Based upon a 10% ridership increase. ***For Enhancements only. Contracts State Funds Bus Advertisement OPERATING REVENUES ST. LUCIE COUNTY OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Federal Funds City/County Operating Farebox**
Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT 3400 W. Commercial Blvd. ANANTH PRASAD, P.E. GOVERNOR Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 SECRETARY September 28,2011 Don Donaldson, P. E, Engineering
Director Martin County 2401 S.E Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996 8eth Ryder, Housing and Community Services Director St. Lucie Cou nty 2300 Virginia Ave Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Subject:
Regional Transit Development Plan (RTDP) -2011 Annual Update Progress Report Dear Mr. Donaldson and Ms. Ryder: The Department appreciates the regional cooperation and effort made to
produce the RTDP annual update and efforts of the MrrpOs and others that resulted in the creation of the Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization (TCRTO) this year. In reviewing
the document, the Department identified the following concerns outlined below. 1. The annual update should explain how current planning efforts are leading to progress towards more efficient
regional transit services that serve customer needs and desired levels of service. This is important given the complex transit planning and operations environment, with two county transit
agencies, two MrrpOs, multiple service providers and the TCRTO. We recommend revising the annual update to reflect progress achieved relative to the Regional Transit Governance Action
Plans contained in the RTDP. 2. A great deal of emphasis in the annual update has been placed on the RTO to accomplish the outcomes of eight objectives. These include: • Establish one
system identity www.dot.state.fl.us @RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Don Donaldson and Ms. Beth Ryder September 28, 2011 Page 2 • Develop a communications and marketing program • Conduct a fare policy and transfer analysis for fixed route services
• Develop and implement interconnecting regional transit routes consistent with transfer centers & service areas • Develop and implement regional transit routes serving regional travel
needs, including to and from adjacent counties • Increase the number of inter-county bus routes by 2019 • Develop a performance monitoring program for fixed route, paratransit and commuter
services by 2010 • Develop a bus stop infrastructure plan by 2012 The RTO, in its present form and limited funding, is not tasked to conduct short term implementation of many of these
objectives. It is recommended that the RTDP annual update discuss staff involvement regarding short term implementation of these objectives. 3. Since the RTDP was adopted approximately
two years ago containing a Regional Transit Governance Action Plan and a RTO has been created, staff is encouraged to consider a strategy for expanding the RTO Interlocal Agreement to
include the urbanized area's FTA deSignated funding recipients, Martin & St. Lucie Counties. This will help to make each County's support for the RTO more transparent to funding partners
and the public. 4. Actions that led to an objective not being achieved should be discussed and alternative strategies to achieve the objective should be considered. 5. Information is
needed as to why some objectives were not evaluated in the annual update. For instance, Objectives 3.1 and 3.3 were evaluated and Objective 3.2 was not. 6. Objective 2.1 is to increase
the number of fixed route passenger trips by 50% between 2010 and 2019. Martin County only reported on the Indiantown Route (under 50%) and the St. Lucie County increase is reported
as 46% (assumed this is an average of all routes, with some over-performing and some underperforming). Please provide information as to how the agencies will address under-performing
routes. 7. The revised financial plan indicates major operations funding shortfalls for each agency. Given that the revised implementation program will include service reductions, it
is recommended that the annual update undergo public review specific to the service reductions and include feedback from each County Board.
Mr. Don Donaldson and Ms. Beth Ryder September 28, 2011 Page 3 The Department requests an early coordinated agency response so that we can issue a compliance letter by December 30th
for the agencies to be able to receive their State Transit Block Grant funds. Please contact Larry Hymowitz for technical assistance or any TDP coordination issues at 954-777-4663. -~Prf1-Nancy
A. Ziegler I District Modal Development Administrator NAZ:lh cc: Taryn Kryzda, Martin County Administrator Faye W. Outlaw, MPA, St. Lucie County Administrator Beth Beltran, Martin MPO
Administrator Peter Buchwald, St. Lucie TPO Executive Director Diane Quigley, Central Office FDOT
Martin Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners 2401 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL 34996 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 December 29, 2011 Nancy
A. Ziegler. District Modal Development Administrator Florida Department of Transportation 3400 W. Commercial Blvd Fort Lauderdale. FL 33309 Subject: Regional Transit Development Plan
(RTDP) -2011 Annual Update Progress Report Dear Ms. Ziegler: Martin and St. Lucie Counties have addressed the concems delineated In your letter dated September 28, 2011 regarding the
Regjonal Transit Development Plan. Thank you for your feedback and support In continuing to Improve the plan. The annual update should explain how current planning efforts a,. leading
to progress towards more efficient regional ranslt services that serve customer needs and desired levels of service. This Is ImllOl'fMt gWen the complex transit planlling and operations
environment, with two county transit agencies, two 1I/TPOs, multiple service providers and the TeRTO. We recommend reviSing the annual update to reflect progress achieved relative to
the Regional Transit Governance Action Plans contained in the RTDP. Progress has been made in the continued approach toward regionalized service and is demonstrated through ongoing collaboration
and challenge resolution by the involved entities. After the recent elimination of FOOT grant funds for the US 1 route, Martin County (MC) and st. Lucie County (SLC) partnered to continue
the regional transit service in a manner that was financially feasible for both entitles. Two' primary transfer points were established at Wal-Mart and the Treasure Coast Mall (TCM).
These points allow for continuation of the service across county lines with minimal interruption for riders. Riders transition from one provider to the other
, . Nancy A. Ziegler Florida Department of Transportation December 29, 2011 Page 2 with no charges for the transfer. This allowed for a seamless transition between systems, without penalty
to riders. Each transit system's LOS performance experienced some changes in the volume of ridership, . particularly between Wal-Mart -PSL and TCM -Jensen Beach. While there was a decrease
for SLC at the TCM because of the service overlap at the two transfer points, MC has shown an associated increase. The overlapping of systems at the two transfer paints allows for more
efficient service, without duplication. Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization (RTO) On October 21, 2010, St. Lucie and Martin TIMPO staff submitted the interlocal agreement to
the Joint TIMPO Board. The agreement was signed on January 13, 2011 by the Joint TIMPO Board, which led to the formation of the Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization board. The
first meeting of the RTO was on August 18, 2011 for an initial vision development and planning session. A great deal ofemphasis In the annual update has been placed on the RTO to accomplish
the outcomes ofeight objectives. These include: Establish one system Identity Develop a communications and marketing program Conduct a fare policy and transfer analysiS for fixed route
setVlces Develop and Implement Interconnecting regional transit routes consistent with transfer center & service areas Develop a performance monitoring program for fixed route, paratranslt
and commuter services by 2010 Develop a bus stop Infrastructure plan by 2012 The RTO, in Its present form and limited funding, Is not tasked to conduct short-term implementation ofmany
of these objflctlves. It Is recommended that the RTDP annual update discuss staffInvolvement regarding short-term Implementation ofthese objectives. Since the RTO is early in its development,
it has only just begun to focus on implementation. The RTO has provided initial direction to the Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TT AC) to address the prioritization of of the
bus infrastructure plan on a subcommittee level. The TTAC is made up of representatives from MC and SLC transit staff. transit providers, and representatives from the local city planning
and engineering departments to ensure a true regional perspective. The development of the bus stop infrastructure plan of the subcommittee is in process, with 17 sites identified out
of the 47 total stops. These will be ·signature stops" that increase the visibility of the transit system and continue the establishment of a system identity. The report on
Nancy A. Ziegler Florida Department of Transportation December 29. 2011 Page 3 these locations will be given to the TTAC at the January 2012 meeting and then presented to the RTO In
February 2012 for their approval. A quarterly Treasure Coast Transit Meeting (TCTM) group provides neighboring partners with project updates. as well as obtaining information on regional
technical opportunities of the TOP. The TCTM is represented by Indian River, Martin County and St. Lucie County service providers, County Staff and MlTPO staff, as well as FOOT representation.
Martin and St. Lucie County have been working together toward the outcomes identified in the RTDP. The jOint bid process and utilization of the JARC/NF funds regionally is a success
and has maximized the use of those resources across the region. The successful continuation of the Treasure Coast Route 1 demonstrates the ongoing progress for interconnected routes
and transfer points. This success has also included fare and transfer coordination in both Counties. The Counties have worked together in marketing efforts across the region to promote
transit to the local colleges. St. Lucie County is developing and piloting an outreach event plan that will be fine-tuned and replicated regionally as part of goal two. They have also
taken on the pilot role of a marketing and advertising plan that can be expanded to the region onoe the RTO Is prepared to provide that direction. St. Lucie has created a travel training
video as pa·rt of the marketing plan and it will be used regionally to assist new riders with navigating the transit systems. Both Counties have worked to identify gaps In transport
services and are pilot testing different approaches to addreSSing the needs found. Joint discussions and collaboration will allow the different strategies to be developed and tested
and then replicated or revised to serve the region. MC has formed a Steering Committee and is developing a Volunteer Driver Program and SLC Is In the initial stages of the creation of
a Transportation Coordination Network that will assist coordination contractors In providing assistance to those whose needs cannot be served with existing programs. The TCN will connect
those seeking services. those who can provide the service, and the potential funding sources (Community Based Organizations, Workforce, etc.). Both County approaches can be pivotal In
bridging the gaps across the region. Other directives are pending contingent upon the RTO identified priorities and funding opportunities. With the beginning momentum of the RTO and
the progress of the TTAC on its assigned task, it is expected that completion of the other objectives will follow smoothly. Since the RTDP was adopted approximately two yeatS ago containing
a Regional Transit Governance Action Plan and a RTO has been created, staff Is encouraged to consider a strategy for expanding the RTO Interlocal Agreement to Include the urbanized area's
FTA designated funding recipients, Martin & St. Lucie Counties. This will help to make each County's support for the RTO more transparent to funding partners and the public.
Nancy A. Ziegler Florida Department of Transportation December 29, 2011 Page 4 SLC and MC have worked together for many years to utilize the Section 5307 grant funds. An interiocal agreement
established the percentage split and this partnership has been a great success. In September 2010, St. Lucie County was selected as the designated recipient of FTA funds for the PSL
UZA. This allowed for a joint bId process and regional determination of use of the JARC/NF fund use. As progress toward this transparency and the further development of the single system
identify, a formal recommendation to modify the interiocal will be generated by RTO administrative staff for the RTO board and the St. LUCie and Martin Counties' BOCC's direction. Actions
that led to an objective not being achieved should be discussed and alternative strategies to achieve the objective should be considered. Please see response to question number two.
A great deal of emphasis In the annual update has been placed on the RTO to accomplish the outcomes of eight objectives. These Include: Establish one system Identity Develop a communications
and marketing program Conduct a fare policy and transfer analysis for fixed route services Develop and Implement Interconnecting regional transit routes conSistent with transfer center
& service areas Develop a performance monitoring program for fixed route, paratTansit and commuter sfllVlces by 2010 Develop a bus stop Infrastructure plan by 2012 The RTO, In its present
form and limited funding, is not tasked to conduct short term Implementation of many of these objectives. It Is recommended that the RTDP annual update discuss staffinvolvement regarding
short·term Imp/ementetJon of these objectives. Since the RTO has been formed, objectives are contingent upon the RTO's list of priorities and funding opportunities. There are several
coordination efforts with regional emphasis that have been undertaken by both counties and that already have had positive impacts on the region. A Quarterly Treasure Coast Transit Meeting
(TCTM) group provides neighboring partners with project updates. as well as obtaining information on technical regional opportunities of the TOP. The Martin County CTC has developed
a Steering Committee and St. Lucie has created a Transportation Coordination Network that have similar objectives In Identifying resources in the community to help Identify and possibly
bridge gaps In transportation.
Nancy A. Ziegler Florida Department of Transportation December 29, 2011 Page 5 Since the recent establishment of the RTO and the TTAC committee; a TTAC subcommittee was created. This
subcommittee Is tasked to identify and prioritize a list of potential transit stops for consideration by the TTAC and RTO. Information Is needed as to why some objectives were not evaluated
In the annual update. For, Instance, Ob}ectJves 3.1 and 3.3 were evaluated and ObJective 3.2 was not Objective 3.2 A quarterly Treasure Coast Transit Meeting (TCTM) group provides neighboring
partners with project updates, as well as obtaining Information on regional technical opportunities of the TOP. Each County has clearly established performance indicators for their individual
system. However, in order to develop a uniform monitoring program, the RTO must identify how transit will be served In both Counties. Objective 2.1 Is to Increase the number of fixed
route passenger trips by 50% between 2010 and 2019. Martin County only reported Indiantown Route (under SOO.4) and the St. Lucie County Increases Is reported as 46% (assumed this is
an average of all routes, with some over..".,-formlng and some under-performing). Please provide Information as to how the agencies will address under-performing routes. Martin County
Increased urbanized routes by 275%. This increase is due to Martin County operating a portion of the TCC beginning July 2010. Indiantown is a rural area and is an accurate reflection
of the 38% non-urban increase. All TCC+ routes are reviewed on a monthly basis. In FY11, modifications were made to the US 1 route, resulting in a decrease in St. Lucie trips. Despite
this decrease, there was an overall increase in trips. In the case of underperformlng routes based on data collected by staff. modifications are made. Input from the public is also considered.
The revised financial plan Indicates major operations funding shortfalls for service reductions, it Is recommended that the annual update undergo public review specific to the service
reductions and Include feedback from each County Board. Annually, the St. LUCie County BOCC conducts a series of strategic budget planning workshops. Martin and st. Lucie have public
hearings that are open to the public for comment and Input. In FY10, st. Lucie County BOCC approved the following actions for transit to offset an anticipated budget shortfall:
Nancy A. Ziegler Florida Department of Transportation December 29, 2011 Page 6 • Increased the Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit • Increased transit fares by 100% • Reduced operation
hours by 5 hours weekly to maintain sufficient funding for the new budget year. A separate public hearing specific to these modifications was conducted by the transit provider. Martin
County also participates in a similar annual budget review which is presented to the BOCC and is open for public comment and input Summary Martin and St. Lucie Counties have made significant
strides toward regionalizing transit services. Collaboration and joint decision-making have been steps toward achieving the RTDP identified goals. The creation of the RTO and ongoing
efforts by the TCTM and TTAC, joint evaluation of the 511 system and the development of a marketing effort to promote transit at local community college across the region are examples
of these steps. Should you have any additional comments or recommendations, feel free to contact Corine C. Williams, St. Lucie County Housing and Community Services at 772-462-1777 or
Claudette Mahan, Martin County Engineering Department at n2-416-4081. Thank you, ~cfaL Beth Ryder St Lucie County C: Faye W. Outlaw, M.P.A. St. Lucie County Administrator Taryn Kryzda,
Acting Martin County Administrator Lee Ann Lowery, St. Lucie Assistant County Administrator
Peter Buchwald, St. Lucie TPO Director Beth Beltran, Martin MPO Larry Hymowitz. FDOT Amie Goddeau, FOOT Darrell J. Drummond, COASL Stefanie Myers, SLC Community Services Manager
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board/Committee: RTO Board Meeting Date: April 19, 2012 Item Number: 10 Item Title: US 1 Corridor Capital Improvement Program Update Item Origination: Transit staff
Background: The US 1 Corridor Capital Improvement Program was presented to the RTO Board at its February meeting. The RTO approved a conceptual bus shelter design and the locations.
A program update will be provided. Requested Action: Discuss and provide comments to staff Attachments None City of Fort Pierce City of Port St. Lucie Town of Sewall’s Point City of
Stuart Martin County St. Lucie County Economic Council of Martin County Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County, Inc. Treasure Coast Regional Transit Organization RTO