The Connection Between Jobs and Transit in Tampa Bay by Tampa Bay Partnership

The Connection Between Jobs and Transit in Tampa Bay Prepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership Foundation by the

Accessibility Observatory at the University of Minnesota

Authors Brendan Murphy Lead Researcher, Accessibility Observatory University of Minnesota Andrew Owen Director, Accessibility Observatory University of Minnesota

Contents 1 Overview

2 Methodology 11 2.1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1.1 Employment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1.2 Transportation Network Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.1.3 Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.1.4 Scenario I: Premium Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1.5 Scenario IIa: “10-Year Transit Needs Network” . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1.6 Scenario IIb: “10-Year Transit Needs Without Regional Rapid Transit” 15 2.1.7 Scenario IIc: “10-Year Transit Needs Without RRT and Premium Transit” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1.8 Scenario III: “10-Year Transit Vision Network” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2 Accessibility Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.1 Origins and Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.2 Travel Time Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.3 Cumulative Opportunities Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.4 Time-Averaged Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.2.5 Person-Weighted Average Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.2.6 Travel Time Threshold-Weighted Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3 Results 3.1 Scenario I vs. Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Scenario IIa vs. Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Scenario IIb vs. Baseline and Scenario IIa . . . . . . . . 3.4 Scenario IIc vs. Baseline, Scenario IIa, and Scenario IIb 3.5 Scenario III vs. Baseline and Scenario IIa . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Vehicle Revenue Miles of Service Analysis . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

19 19 25 31 40 54 64

4 Discussion 64 4.1 Scenario Comparison and 1/2-Mile Transit-shed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.2 Scenario III Access Comparison for Areas Affected by Poverty and COVID19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5 Conclusion

Executive Summary This report presents the results of an Accessibility Alternatives Analysis and considers several regional transit improvement scenarios. The analysis measures access to jobs for all Census blocks in the Tampa Bay-Clearwater-St. Petersburg Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA), hereafter referred to as “Tampa Bay,” and results are summarized at various geographic levels contained therein. Accessibility is evaluated for ve improvement alternative scenarios, as well as the revised Baseline. Scenario I consists of an Baseline network and Premium Transit improvements, which include the SunRunner, the Regional Rapid Transit project, Tampa Historic Streetcar (extended), and Florida Avenue BRT. Scenario IIa consists of the “Transit Needs Network,” which represents the transit needs for multiple transit agencies operating in the region for the next 10 years, and builds upon the network of Scenario I. Scenarios IIb and IIc describe Scenario IIa without Regional Rapid Transit (IIb), and without both Regional Rapid Transit and all Premium Transit improvements (IIc). Scenario III describes the “10-Year Transit Vision Network,” which consists of the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan (RTFP), and builds upon the network of Scenario IIa. The area of study for this investigation is the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) of Tampa-ClearwaterSt. Petersburg, consisting of 55,158 Census blocks, 1,227,356 total workers, and 1,254,396 total jobs. Key ndings: • The Premium Transit investments, in and of themselves, provide modest accessibility increases throughout the region. – Within a 30-minute transit commute, job access increases by 8.3% (an average of 703 more jobs per worker) – Within a 60-minute transit commute, job access increases by 7.7% (an average of 6,870 more jobs per worker) – Within a 90-minute transit commute, job access increases by 7.3% (an average of 7,288 more jobs per worker) • The 10-Year Needs transit network provides signi cant positive impacts on regional job accessibility within a 30- to 60-minute transit commute: – Within a 30-minute transit commute threshold, signi cant gains in accessibility are generally limited to those workers residing in proximity to the proposed improvements: 92,338 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 30-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 31.6% (an average of 2,683 more jobs per worker). – Within a 60-minute transit commute threshold, accessibility gains extend throughout all central regions and into suburban areas: 626,557 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 60-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 35.2% (an average of 31,582 more jobs per worker). – Jobs accessibility within a 90-minute transit commute is only marginally improved versus the 60-minute duration: 645,854 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 90-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 34.6% (an average of 34,479 more jobs per worker).

• The 10-Year Needs network without Regional Rapid Transit provides signi cant, but slightly more modest accessibility gains within a 30- to 60-minute transit commute: – Within a 30-minute transit commute threshold, signi cant gains in accessibility are generally limited to those workers residing in proximity to the proposed improvements: 78,481 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 30-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 27.1% (an average of 2,300 more jobs per worker). – Within a 60-minute transit commute threshold, accessibility gains extend throughout all central regions and into suburban areas: 613,496 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 60-minute commute yields an increase in job access of 30.4% (an average of 27,270 more jobs per worker). – Jobs accessibility within a 90-minute transit commute is only marginally improved versus the 60-minute duration: 633,665 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 90-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 29.9% (an average of 29,805 more jobs per worker). • The 10-Year Needs network without Regional Rapid Transit or all Premium Transit improvements provides modest but still signi cant gains within a 30- to 60-minute transit commute: – Within a 30-minute transit commute threshold, signi cant gains in accessibility are generally limited to those workers residing in proximity to the proposed improvements: 67,260 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 30-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 24.9% (an average of 2,111 more jobs per worker). – Within a 60-minute transit commute threshold, accessibility gains extend throughout all central regions and into surburban areas: 606,256 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 60-minute commute yields an increase in job access of 29.0% (an average of 26,006 more jobs per worker). – Jobs accessibility within a 90-minute transit commute is only marginally improved versus the 60-minute duration: 627,554 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 90-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 28.6% (an average of 28,435 more jobs per worker). • The 10-Year Vision transit network provides the greatest impacts, among all scenarios, on regional job accessibility within a 30- to 60-minute transit commute: – Within a 30-minute transit commute threshold, signi cant gains in accessibility are again generally limited to those workers residing in proximity to the proposed improvements: 161,844 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 30-minute transit commute yields a large increase in job access of 49.7% (an average of 4,216 more jobs per worker). – Within a 60-minute transit commute threshold, accessibility gains extend throughout all central regions and into suburban areas: 701,243 workers gain access to 10,000 or more 2

additional jobs. Overall, a 60-minute commute yields an increase in job access of 57.9% (an average of 52,035 more jobs per worker). – Jobs accessibility within a 90-minute transit commute is only marginally improved versus the 60-minute duration: 724,899 workers gain access to 10,000 or more additional jobs. Overall, a 90-minute transit commute yields an increase in job access of 57.9% (an average of 57,666 more jobs per worker). • Among the Premium Transit investments, the Regional Rapid Transit project provides the majority of accessibility bene t when included in the 10-Year Needs network. – Within a 30-minute transit commute threshold on the 10-Year Needs network, the Premium Transit investments collectively yield an increase in job access of 5.1% (an average of 664 more jobs per worker); the Regional Rapid Transit project alone provides the majority of this bene t, with an increase in job access of 3.6% (an average of 383 more jobs per worker). – Within a 60-minute transit commute threshold on the 10-Year Needs network, the Premium Transit investments collectively yield an increase in job access of 4.6% (an average of 5,576 more jobs per worker); the Regional Rapid Transit project alone alone provides the majority of this bene t, with an increase in job access of 3.7% (an average of 4,312 more jobs per worker). – Within a 90-minute transit commute threshold on the 10-Year Needs network, the Premium Transit investments collectively yield an increase in job access of 4.5% (an average of 6,044 more jobs per worker); the Regional Rapid Transit project alone alone provides the majority of this bene t, with an increase in job access of 3.6% (an average of 4,674 more jobs per worker). • The large geographic areas and network effects of extensive 10-Year transit investments yield signi cant accessibility gains for workers living within a half mile of transit service: – Within a 30-minute transit commute, job access increases by 29.9% and 50.2% (averages of 6,547 and 11,079 more jobs per worker) for the Needs and Vision networks, respectively. – Within a 60-minute transit commute, job access increases by 32.3% and 57.1% (averages of 60,964 and 106,241 more jobs per worker) for the Needs and Vision networks, respectively. – Within a 90-minute transit commute, job access increases by 31.5% and 56.9% (averages of 65,507 and 116,379 more jobs per worker) for the Needs and Vision networks, respectively. • Comparing the regional (all workers in the study area) versus the proximal (workers residing within a half mile of all regional transit service) job access gains highlights the network effects in extensive transit investments; upwards of 60% of workers live within a half mile of transit service in each scenario. 3

The following tables provide an overview of the performance of the alternative scenarios, in terms of the percentage of jobs both within the CBSA as a whole, and within 1/2 mile travelsheds of the scenario alignments, accessible by transit. Percent of total jobs within the Tampa Bay CBSA reachable under each of the alternatives scenarios, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario I Scenario IIa Scenario IIb Scenario IIc Scenario III

30 min 60 min 90 min 0.7% 7.2% 7.9% 0.7% 7.7% 8.5% 0.9% 9.7% 10.7% 0.9% 9.3% 10.3% 0.8% 9.2% 10.2% 1.0% 11.3% 12.5%

Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario I, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario I

30 min 2.2% 2.4%

60 min 90 min 19.0% 20.9% 20.6% 22.6%

Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario IIa, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario 30 min 60 min 90 min 18.4% 20.2% Base 2.1% Scenario IIa 2.8% 24.3% 26.5% Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario IIb, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario IIb

30 min 60 min 90 min 18.2% 20.0% 2.1% 2.6% 23.3% 25.5%

Accessibility, also referred to as “connectivity,” measures the potential for interactions between people and destinations in different locations. The speci c accessibility metrics employed in this analysis are the number of jobs that can be reached by transit within 30, 60, and 90 minutes of travel beginning during the 7-9 AM period, and a travel time threshold-weighted sum of the jobs that can be reached by transit in the same period. 4

Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario IIc, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario IIc

30 min 60 min 90 min 2.1% 18.1% 19.9% 2.6% 22.8% 25.0%

Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario III, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario III

30 min 60 min 2.1% 17.4% 3.1% 27.4%

90 min 19.2% 30.1%

The maps on the following pages show the changes in access to jobs by transit within a 60-minute transit commute, for Census blocks in the Tampa Bay area, comparing the ve Alternative Scenarios to the Baseline conditions. The results of this study highlight the locational nature of accessibility—that is, residents of areas near improvements experience the greatest bene ts in access to jobs.

6 Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario I, 60 minute threshold.

7 Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIa, 60-minute threshold.

8 Accessibility change between existing conditions and Scenario IIb, 60-minute threshold.

9 Accessibility change between existing conditions and Scenario IIc, 60-minute threshold.

10 Accessibility change between existing conditions and Scenario III, 60-minute threshold.

Overview

This report analyzes and compares ve different regional transport improvement scenarios in the Tampa Bay area to a Baseline scenario re ecting existing conditions, within the context of measuring access to job opportunities. Accessibility refers to the measure of the potential for interactions between people and destinations in different locations. The speci c accessibility metrics employed in this analysis are the number of jobs that can be reached by transit within 30, 60, and 90 minutes of travel during the 7-9 AM period, and a travel time threshold-weighted sum of the jobs that can be reached by transit in the same period. Accessibility is evaluated for ve possible improved scenarios, plus a Baseline condition. Scenario I consists of an Baseline network and Premium Transit improvements, which include the SunRunner, Regional Rapid Transit, Tampa Historic Streetcar (extended), and Florida Avenue BRT. Scenario IIa consists of the “10-Year Transit Needs Network,” which represents the transit needs for each regional transit agency for the next 10 years as re ected in their respective adopted Transit Development Plans, and builds upon the network of Scenario I. Scenarios IIb and IIc describe Scenario IIa without Regional Rapid Transit (IIb), and without both Regional Rapid Transit and all Premium Transit improvements (IIc). Scenario III describes the “10-Year Transit Vision Network,” which consists of the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan (RTFP), and builds upon the network of Scenario IIa. The area of study for this investigation is the core-based statistical area (CBSA) of Tampa-Clearwater-St. Petersburg, consisting of 55,158 census blocks. Accessibility evaluation relies on detailed travel time calculations and demographic data. Section 2 details the data sources and methodology employed in calculating job accessibility. Analysis results are presented in Section 3.

Methodology

This analysis leverages the software tools and methodology employed in the Access Across America series of reports, speci cally those pertaining to the transit mode. The following sections provide a brief overview of the datasources and methodology used in the this study; full discussions of the relevant methodology are available in Access Across America: Transit 2017 Methodology Owen and Murphy (2018); Owen et al. (2017).

2.1 2.1.1

Data Employment Data

Employment data for both home and workplace locations for workers in the Tampa Bay area, at the Census block level, are provided by the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data program. Data from LEHD 2015 are used in this study; block-level job counts form the basis of the job accessibility calculations, and block-level resident worker counts allow worker-weighted accessibility aggregation, as outlined in Section 2.2.5.

2.1.2

Transportation Network Data

Network data describing the pedestrian network in the Tampa Bay Area were obtained from the opensource map and network database OpenStreetMap. The data employed in this study were retrieved in June, 2018 via the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team’s export tool.1 All features with pedestrianspeci c tag information, including “footway,” “pedestrian,” and “residential” features, are included in the network along with all sidewalks associated with city streets. The existing transit service conditions are described by schedules listed in Table 1 with their service date ranges, if available. Table 1: Transit schedule feeds included in the set of existing conditions. Agency Hernando Express Bus Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) Manatee County Area Transit Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) University of South Florida Bull Runner The Jolley Trolley

Dates January 1, 2015–January 1, 2019 February 22, 2019–September 20, 2019 April 15, 2017–anuary 1, 2020 May 5, 2018–September 20, 2019 May 24, 2019–September 20, 2019 January 01, 2015–December 31, 2020

A target date of August 28, 2019 was chosen as the date of analysis for all scenarios to re ect regular weekday service, and any GTFS les with service date ranges not covering this date were shifted appropriately to include the date of analysis. The following scenarios were analyzed, and the proposed alternative scenarios compared to the Baseline. 2.1.3

Baseline

The Baseline network includes a few minor changes from existing, published GTFS for the region: • HART Route 16–Waters Avenue: minor adjustments • HART Route 39–Busch Boulevard: minor adjustments • USF Bull Runner headways modi ed to 20 minutes per CUTR • Jolley Trolley schedules updated by PSTA to re ect current headways 1

https://export.hotosm.org/en/v3/

2.1.4

Scenario I: Premium Transit

Scenario I includes a variety of regional transit improvements upon an optimized base network, including the following projects: • SunRunner • Regional Rapid Transit • Tampa Historic Streetcar (extended) • Florida Avenue BRT Detailed operating characteristics are available in the accompanying Task 1 memorandum. 2.1.5

Scenario IIa: “10-Year Transit Needs Network”

This scenario represents the predicted transit needs for select transit agency across the next 10 years, and builds upon the optimized base network and premium transit improvements of Scenario I. Detailed operating characteristics are available in the accompanying Task 2 memorandum. Tables 2 to 4 list all modi ed or newly created transit routes under this scenario, for HART, PSTA, and PCPT, respectively: Table 2: New and Modi ed HART Routes in Scenario IIa Route Type of Service Change # New Stops New route 20 11 Main to International Plaza 33 Fletcher Avenue Route extension 23 36 Dale Mabry–Himes Avenue Route extension 23 49 West Park to East Tampa New route 24 53 on US 301/SR 674 connecting to Brandon New route 31 Cross Bay Water Ferry New route 3

Table 3: New and Modi ed PSTA Routes in Scenario IIa Route 4th St LX 5 St. Petersburg / Tyrone Square Mall 7 St. Petersburg / Tyrone Square Mall 9 St. Petersburg / Tyrone Square Mall 11 South St. Pete / PSTA 34th St 14 St. Petersburg / Pasadena 15 St. Petersburg / Gulfport Casino 16 Gateway Mall / 3rd ave N & 4th St N 18 St. Petersburg / Clearwater 23 St. Petersburg / Tyrone Square Mall 49th St–LX 58 Gateway Mall / Seminole Mall 65 Park Street Terminal / Seminole Mall 67 Clearwater / Downtown Oldsmar 68 Tyrone Mall / Johns Pass Village 73 Tyrone Square Mall / Clearwater 74 Gateway Mall / Seminole Mall 75 Gateway Mall / Tyrone Square 76 Clearwater / Westﬁeld Shopping 78 Clearwater / Westﬁeld Shopping 79 St. Petersburg / Largo Transit Center 100 Commuter Service / Saint Petersburg / Downtown Tampa 300 Express Service / Airport / Downtown Tampa / Pinellas 1600 / Alt 19 North LOPER Looper OTC Oldsmar / Tampa Connector Roosevelt / E Bay SHC Safety Harbor Connector SR 60 SR 580 US 19 North (19) US 19 South (34) Jolley Trolley Coastal Jolley Trolley North Beach Jolley Trolley South Beach

Type of Service Change New route Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan New Route Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan New route Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan New route Frequency and/or service timespan New route New route New route New route Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan Frequency and/or service timespan

Table 4: New and Modi ed PCPT Routes in Scenario IIa Route 14 Madison/Ridge/New Port Richey 16 Moon Lake Road 18 Grand Boulevard 21 Hudson 23 Little Road 25 Rowan Road 54 County Connector Wiregrass Hopper Shady Hills Connector SR-52 Peak-hour Express St. Leo University Service

2.1.6

Type of Service Change Add evening and Sunday service Double peak frequency, add evening and Sunday service Add evening and Sunday service Double peak frequency, add evening and Sunday service Double peak frequency Add evening and Sunday service Double peak frequency, add evening and Sunday service New route New route New route New route

Scenario IIb: “10-Year Transit Needs Without Regional Rapid Transit”

This scenario represents a modi cation to Scenario IIa – the removal of the Regional Rapid Transit project. Two bus stops on route SR 54 associated with the Regional Rapid Transit (RRT) route were removed, and two additional bus stops for the Wiregrass Hopper route were created at SR 54 and Willow Oak Drive. The remainder of route changes and modi cations over Baseline are outlined in Section 2.1.5. Detailed operating characteristics are available in the accompanying Task 2b memorandum. 2.1.7

Scenario IIc: “10-Year Transit Needs Without RRT and Premium Transit”

This scenario represents a further modi cation to Scenario IIb – the removal of the following Premium Transit projects: • SunRunner • Tampa Historic Streetcar (extension) • Florida Avenue BRT Several stops associated with the Tampa Historic Streetcar extension were removed, and the base conditions Tampa Historic Streetcar from the Baseline network was used. Detailed operating characteristics are available in the accompanying Task 2c memorandum.

2.1.8

Scenario III: “10-Year Transit Vision Network”

This scenario represents the extended transit visions for each regional transit agency for the next 10 years, includes the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan, and builds upon the network outlined in Section 2.1.5. Table 5 lists the routes included in the RTFP; detailed operating characteristics are available in the accompanying Task 3 memorandum. Table 5: New and Modi ed Routes in Scenario III Route Regional Rapid Transit SunRunner Cross Bay Water Ferry US 19 BRT S Downtown to Downtown Express via Gandy Clearwater to St. Pete Rail Downtown St. Pete to I-275 Rail TPA to USF Pinellas Pasco County Line to DTSP via US 19 SR 54 to Gateway via US 19 TPA CLW via I-275 and SR 60 Veterans Expressway Express Bus US 19 Emerald to Tarpon Plant City to TPA via I-4 E Hills Park and Ride to MacDill AFB Rail - Port TPA to TPA New Port Richey to BBD SR 52 to Apex via I-75 I-75 Kings Point - MacDill Brandon to Westshore Clearwater to Gateway Kennedy BRT TPA Westshore

Mode BRT BRT Ferry BRT Express Bus Light Rail Commuter Rail Light Rail BRT BRT Express Bus Express Bus Express Bus Express Bus Express Bus Light Rail BRT Express Bus Express Bus BRT BRT BRT BRT Light Rail

2.2

Accessibility Calculation

The accessibility results detailed in this report were calculated using a cumulative opportunities accessibility metric. In this approach, the accessibility level of a given origin location is determined by the number of opportunities that can be reached within a given travel time threshold. Travel time thresholds of every 10 minutes from 10 to 60, with the additions of 15 minutes, 45 minutes, and 90 minutes, were included in the analysis for each scenario. Comparisons made between the respective scenarios and the base existing conditions are reported for the travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes, as well as for a time-weighted average of the accessibility gures at each 10-minute threshold (see below explanation in Section 2.2.6). 2.2.1

Origins and Destinations

Census blocks, de ned in 2010 by the U.S. Census Bureau, were used as origin and destination points for this analysis. In urban areas, census blocks typically correspond to city blocks enclosed by roads. The origin set was composed of the centroid points of all land-containing census blocks within the core-based statistical area (CBSA) of Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, for a total of 55,158 origin points. The destination set consisted of the centroids of all land-containing census blocks within the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL CBSA and a 60-kilometer buffer surrounding it, for a total of 140,704 destination points. 2.2.2

Travel Time Calculation

Travel time calculations included all components of a transit trip: time spent walking to a stop or station, waiting for a trip departure, traveling on a transit vehicle, walking to and waiting for transfers (if any), and walking to a destination after alighting. An unlimited number of transfers was allowed. This analysis used the assumption that all walking portions of a trip take place at a speed of 5 kilometers per hour (3.1 miles per hour). On-vehicle travel time was calculated directly from the transit timetables outlined above in Section 2.1.2. Jobs that can be accessed by walking only are included by default in the accessibility totals; a trip is not strictly required to include a transit component. This allows the most consistent application and interpretation of the travel time calculation methodology. The shortest walking path from an origin to a transit stop/station in some cases passes through potential destinations where job opportunities exist, and these destinations are included even though transit is not required to access them. In other cases, the travel time for walking between two nearby origin and destination points may be shorter than the travel time required to wait for an appropriate transit trip. 2.2.3

Cumulative Opportunities Calculation

Using the travel time calculations destribed above, sets of destinations reachable within 10, 20, …, 60 minutes were identi ed for each origin and departure time, and the jobs located at the reachable destinations were aggregated to arrive at a single accessibility data point for that origin, travel time threshold, and departure time. For each origin and each travel time threshold, the accessibility data for all 120 departure times were then averaged to provide a single accessibility value indicating the average 17

number of jobs that can be reached from that origin within the given travel time threshold, between 7 and 9 AM. 2.2.4

Time-Averaged Accessibility

Accessibility by transit is strongly dependent on departure time because of the scheduled nature of transit service. For example, if a transit route’s service frequency is 20 minutes, then immediately after a vehicle departs, all destinations become 20 minutes “farther away.” To address this and to re ect the in uence of transit service frequency on accessibility (particularly important if frequencies are to be changed in proposed system improvements), travel times were calculated repeatedly for each origindestination pair using each minute between 7:00 AM and 8:59 AM as the departure time. 2.2.5

Person-Weighted Average Accessibility

The cumulative opportunities accessibility metric presented here is a locational metric rather than an individual metric Horner (2004)—it describes properties of places within the Tampa Bay area, rather than properites of their residents. The value of accessibility, however, is only realized when it is experienced by people. To re ect this fact, when accessibility is averaged across multiple blocks in a larger area, each block’s contribution is weighted by the number of workers in that block. The result is a single metric that represents the accessibility value experienced by an average worker in that area. This is the primary metric by which accessibility is measured and compared in this report. 2.2.6

Travel Time Threshold-Weighted Accessibility

In addition to the 30-minute, 60-minute, and 90-minute threshold accessibility metrics, a metric of person-weighted job accessibility averaged over the six 10-minute travel time thresholds (10, 20, etc.) is also presented. In the threshold-weighted average of accessibility, destinations reachable in shorter travel times are given more weight, as they constitute more attractive destinations. A negative exponential weighting factor is used, following Kumar (1994). Here time is differenced by thresholds to get a series of “donuts” (e.g. jobs reachable from 0 to 10 minutes, from 10 to 20 minutes, etc.). This is an auxiliary metric, meant to complement the person-weighted metrics described in Section 2.2.5. ∑ (at − at−10 ) × eβt aw = t

aw = Weighted accessibility ranking metric for a single metropolitan area at = Worker-weighted accessibility for threshold t β = −0.08

Results

The following sections discuss the accessibility results in each scenario, as well as the changes between each of the improvement scenarios and the base existing conditions. A variety of geographic boundaries are employed for summarization, including the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater CBSA, the counties of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas, and the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg. Tables 6 to 9, 12 to 15, 18 to 25, 28 to 39 and 42 to 49 provide the accessibility results for 30-, 60-, and 90-minute travel times and threshold-weighted travel times, and the maps in gs. 1 to 27 illustrate accessibility changes for each scenario at the block level for the three travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes.

3.1

Scenario I vs. Baseline

Tables 6 to 9 show the accessibility changes between the Baseline conditions and Scenario I for the 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, and threshold-weighted metrics, respectively. Table 10 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario I, for different geographies and select travel time thresholds; Table 11 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10% more jobs under Scenario I. Figures 1 to 3 map the accessibility changes at the U.S. Census block level, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes, respectively. Scenario I consists of several Premium Transit investments on top of the existing Baseline transit service in the Tampa Bay area, which include the SunRunner, Regional Rapid Transit, Tampa Historic Streetcar (extended), and Florida Avenue BRT. Positive changes were seen in each geographic organization of Census blocks, with the smallest changes occurring in Pasco County, and the largest in the city of Tampa, across all three reported travel time thresholds. There is no travel time threshold which clearly yields signi cantly higher accessibility increases than other thresholds, indicating that the Premium Transit improvements provide additional accessibility for a range of commute trip lengths. In terms of the number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs, or at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario I, the greatest gains in worker access to jobs were realized in relaxing travel times from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Marginal gains exist from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, but travelshed saturation leads to capping accessibility at an effective maximum for realistic travel times. For a travel time of 60 minutes, Scenario I allows 247,365 Tampa Bay workers to reach 10,000 additional jobs, or 116,722 Tampa Bay workers to reach an additional 10% of jobs compared to the Baseline. Table 6: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario I vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change 8,481 9,184 +703 +8.3% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 9,168 10,248 +1,080 +11.8% Pasco County 1,330 1,332 +2 +0.2% Pinellas County 11,852 12,440 +588 +5.0% St. Petersburg 18,530 20,017 +1,487 +8.0% Tampa 23,878 27,499 +3,621 +15.2%

Table 7: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario I vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change Tampa Bay 89,800 96,670 +6,870 +7.7% Hillsborough County 95,859 104,812 +8,953 +9.3% Pasco County 8,976 9,118 +142 +1.6% Pinellas County 130,146 138,084 +7,938 +6.1% St. Petersburg 201,397 217,923 +16,526 +8.2% Tampa 219,432 242,703 +23,271 +10.6% Table 8: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario I vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change 99,534 106,822 +7,288 +7.3% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 106,327 115,715 +9,388 +8.8% Pasco County 10,282 10,471 +189 +1.8% Pinellas County 143,997 152,559 +8,562 +5.9% St. Petersburg 221,576 239,217 +17,641 +8.0% Tampa 240,172 264,424 +24,252 +10.1% Table 9: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario I vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change 2,506 2,704 +198 +7.9% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 2,700 2,986 +286 +10.6% Pasco County 343 345 +2 +0.6% Pinellas County 3,544 3,734 +190 +5.4% St. Petersburg 5,555 5,980 +425 +7.7% Tampa 6,689 7,554 +865 +12.9% Table 10: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario I, for different geographies and travel time thresholds. Location 30 min 60 min 90 min Tampa Bay 19,932 247,365 258,446 Hillsborough County 18,130 142,453 148,096 Pasco County 0 509 509 Pinellas County 1,802 104,403 109,841 St. Petersburg 1,402 69,343 71,738 Tampa 18,046 96,945 98,082

Table 11: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario I, for different geographies and traveltime thresholds. Location 30 min 60 min 90 minsd Tampa Bay 76,229 116,722 111,026 Hillsborough County 38,245 70,518 63,984 Pasco County 19 2,540 2,821 Pinellas County 37,965 43,664 44,221 St. Petersburg 28,765 27,622 27,199 Tampa 36,448 51,007 46,019

22 Figure 1: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario I, 30 minute threshold.

23 Figure 2: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario I, 60-minute threshold.

24 Figure 3: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario I, 90-minute threshold.

3.2

Scenario IIa vs. Baseline

Tables 12 to 15 show the accessibility changes between the Baseline conditions and Scenario IIa for the 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, and threshold-weighted metrics, respectively. Table 16 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario IIa, for different geographies and select travel time thresholds; Table 17 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10% more jobs under Scenario IIa. Figures 4 to 6 map the accessibility changes at the U.S. Census block level, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes, respectively. Scenario IIa consists of the 10-Year Needs transit network, outlined in Section 2.1.5. This broader set of transit investments and improvements provides a signi cant increase in access to employment across the various geographies analyzed, with percent increases of 25% and above, with the exception of Pasco County, which is less densely populated and located further from the Central Business District of Tampa. Across all, a small saturation effect can be seen between the 60-minute and 90-minute accessibility gures—the percentage increase at 90 minutes is slightly lower than that at 60 minutes— indicating lower marginal gains for commute trips in excess of 60 minutes. Given that the three reported travel time thresholds, as well as the threshold-weighted metrics (which more heavily weight shorter travel times of 10 and 20 minutes), all show similar percentage increases comparing Scenario IIa to Baseline, this suggests the Scenario IIa network improvements provide substantial accessibility increases for workers with a variety of commute lengths. In terms of the number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs, or at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario IIa, the greatest gains in worker access to jobs were realized in relaxing travel times from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Marginal gains exist from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, but travelshed saturation leads to capping accessibility at an effective maximum for realistic travel times. For a travel time of 60 minutes, Scenario IIa allows 626,557 Tampa Bay workers to reach 10,000 additional jobs, or 831,359 Tampa Bay workers to reach an additional 10% of jobs compared to the Baseline. Table 12: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIa Change % Change Tampa Bay 8,481 11,164 +2,683 +31.6% Hillsborough County 9,168 11,891 +2,723 +29.7% Pasco County 1,330 1,582 +252 +18.9% Pinellas County 11,852 15,957 +4,105 +34.6% St. Petersburg 18,530 25,436 +6,906 +37.3% Tampa 23,878 31,528 +6,958 +32.0%

Table 13: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIa Change % Change Tampa Bay 89,800 121,382 +31,582 +35.2% Hillsborough County 95,859 124,207 +28,648 +29.6% Pasco County 8,976 12,863 +3,887 +43.3% Pinellas County 130,146 183,286 +53,140 +40.8% St. Petersburg 201,397 273,332 +71,935 +35.7% Tampa 219,432 279,168 +59,736 +27.2% Table 14: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIa 99,534 134,013 Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 106,327 137,322 Pasco County 10,282 14,917 Pinellas County 143,997 201,768 St. Petersburg 221,576 299,507 Tampa 240,172 304,903

Change % Change +34,479 +34.6% +30,995 +29.2% +4,635 +45.1% +57,771 +40.1% +77,931 +35.2% +64,731 +27.0%

Table 15: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIa Change % Change 2,506 3,327 +821 +32.8% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 2,700 3,472 +772 +28.6% Pasco County 343 428 +85 +24.8% Pinellas County 3,544 4,883 +1,339 +37.8% St. Petersburg 5,555 7,548 +1,993 +35.9% Tampa 6,689 8,618 +1,929 +28.8% Table 16: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario IIa, for different geographies and travel time thresholds. Location 30 min Tampa Bay 92,338 Hillsborough County 46,798 Pasco County 2 Pinellas County 45,538 St. Petersburg 28,616 Tampa 38,028

60 min 626,557 248,440 12,943 365,174 108,641 123,195

90 min 645,854 259,437 16,766 369,651 109,010 124,026

Table 17: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario IIa, for different geographies and traveltime thresholds. Location 30 min 60 min 90 min Tampa Bay 544,358 831,359 845,584 Hillsborough County 181,555 330,971 339,622 Pasco County 67,352 116,962 122,092 Pinellas County 295,451 383,426 383,623 St. Petersburg 97,142 105,685 105,027 Tampa 88,466 130,539 131,408

28 Figure 4: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIa, 30 minute threshold.

29 Figure 5: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIa, 60 minute threshold.

30 Figure 6: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIa, 90 minute threshold.

3.3

Scenario IIb vs. Baseline and Scenario IIa

Tables 18 to 21 show the accessibility changes between the Baseline conditions and Scenario IIb, and tables 22 to 25 show changes between Scenario IIb and Scenario IIa, for the 30-minute, 60-minute, 90minute, and threshold-weighted metrics. Table 26 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario IIb compared to Baseline, for different geographies and select travel time thresholds; Table 27 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10% more jobs under Scenario IIb. Figures 4 to 6 map the accessibility changes between Scenario IIb and Baseline, and gs. 10 to 12 map changes between Scenario IIa and Scenario IIb, at the U.S. Census block level, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario IIb consists of the 10-Year Needs transit network without the Regional Rapid Transit project, as outlined in . Comparing Scenario IIb to the Baseline shows the accessibility bene ts achieved through the 10-Year Needs transit network without the RRT, and comparing Scenario IIb to Scenario IIa shows the impact of adding the RRT project to the 10-Year Needs network. In terms of the number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs over Baseline, or at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario IIb, the greatest gains in worker access to jobs were realized in relaxing travel times from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Marginal gains exist from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, but travelshed saturation leads to capping accessibility at an effective maximum for realistic travel times. For a travel time of 60 minutes, Scenario IIb allows 613,496 Tampa Bay workers to reach 10,000 additional jobs (compared to 626,557 under Scenario IIa), or 796,650 Tampa Bay workers to reach an additional 10% of jobs (compared to 831,359 under Scenario IIa) compared to the Baseline. Table 18: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIb Change % Change Tampa Bay 8,481 10,781 +2,300 +27.1% Hillsborough County 9,168 11,207 +2,039 +22.2% Pasco County 1,330 1,578 +248 +18.6% Pinellas County 11,852 15,772 +3,920 +33.1% St. Petersburg 18,530 25,061 +6,531 +35.2% Tampa 23,878 29,373 +5,495 +23.0% Table 19: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIb Tampa Bay 89,800 117,070 Hillsborough County 95,859 118,120 Pasco County 8,976 12,669 Pinellas County 130,146 179,010 St. Petersburg 201,397 263,952 Tampa 219,432 264,626

Change % Change +27,270 +30.4% +22,261 +23.2% +3,693 +41.1% +48,864 +37.5% +62,555 +33.1% +45,194 +20.6%

Table 20: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIb Tampa Bay 99,534 129,339 Hillsborough County 106,327 130,779 Pasco County 10,282 14,647 Pinellas County 143,997 197,084 St. Petersburg 221,576 289,443 Tampa 240,172 289,483

Change % Change +29,805 +29.9% +24,452 +23.0% +4,365 +42.5% +53,087 +36.9% +67,867 +30.6% +49,311 +20.5%

Table 21: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIb Change % Change Tampa Bay 2,506 3,214 +708 +28.3% Hillsborough County 2,700 3,297 +597 +22.1% Pasco County 343 426 +83 +24.2% Pinellas County 3,544 4,792 +1,248 +35.2% St. Petersburg 5,555 7,347 +1,792 +32.3% Tampa 6,689 8,125 +1,436 +21.5%

Table 22: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIb. Location Scenario IIb Scenario IIa Change % Change 10,781 11,164 +383 +3.6% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 11,207 11,891 +684 +6.1% Pasco County 1,578 1,582 +4 +0.3% Pinellas County 15,772 15,957 +185 +1.2% St. Petersburg 25,061 25,436 +375 +1.5% Tampa 29,373 31,528 +2,155 +7.3%

Table 23: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIb. Location Scenario IIb Scenario IIa Tampa Bay 117,070 121,382 Hillsborough County 118,120 124,207 Pasco County 12,669 12,863 Pinellas County 179,010 183,286 St. Petersburg 263,952 273,332 Tampa 264,626 279,168

Change % Change +4,312 +3.7% +6,087 +5.2% +194 +1.5% +4,276 +2.4% +9,380 +3.6% +14,542 +5.5%

Table 24: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIb. Location Scenario IIb Scenario IIa Tampa Bay 129,339 134,013 Hillsborough County 130,779 137,322 Pasco County 14,647 14,917 Pinellas County 197,084 201,768 St. Petersburg 289,443 299,507 Tampa 289,483 304,903

Change % Change +4,674 +3.6% +6,543 +5.0% +270 +1.8% +4,684 +2.4% +10,064 +3.5% +15,420 +5.3%

Table 25: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIb. Location Scenario IIb Scenario IIa Change % Change 3,214 3,327 +133 +3.5% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 3,297 3,472 +175 +5.3% Pasco County 426 428 +2 +0.5% Pinellas County 4,792 4,883 +91 +1.9% St. Petersburg 7,347 7,548 +201 +2.7% Tampa 8,125 8,618 +493 +6.1% Table 26: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario IIb over Baseline, for different geographies and travel time thresholds. Location 30 min Tampa Bay 78,481 Hillsborough County 38,507 Pasco County 2 Pinellas County 39,972 St. Petersburg 25,226 Tampa 30,149

60 min 613,496 237,694 12,248 363,554 107,688 121,913

90 min 633,665 248,705 15,949 369,011 108,412 123,303

Table 27: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario IIb over Baseline, for different geographies and traveltime thresholds. Location 30 min 60 min 90 min Tampa Bay 515,467 796,650 810,924 Hillsborough County 157,314 303,055 311,369 Pasco County 67,352 116,526 121,843 Pinellas County 290,801 377,069 377,465 St. Petersburg 94,907 99,931 99,327 Tampa 80,654 122,558 124,408 33

34 Figure 7: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIb, 30 minute threshold.

35 Figure 8: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIb, 60 minute threshold.

36 Figure 9: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIb, 90 minute threshold.

37 Figure 10: Accessibility change between Scenario IIb and Scenario IIa, 30 minute threshold.

38 Figure 11: Accessibility change between Scenario IIb and Scenario IIa, 60 minute threshold.

39 Figure 12: Accessibility change between Scenario IIb and Scenario IIa, 90 minute threshold.

3.4

Scenario IIc vs. Baseline, Scenario IIa, and Scenario IIb

Tables 28 to 31 show the accessibility changes between the Baseline conditions and Scenario IIc, tables 32 to 35 show changes between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIb, and tables 36 to 39 show changes between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIa, for the 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, and threshold-weighted metrics. Table 40 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario IIc over the Baseline, for different geographies and select travel time thresholds; Table 41 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10% more jobs under Scenario I. Figures 13 to 15 map the accessibility changes between Scenario IIc and Baseline, gs. 16 to 18 show the changes between Scenario IIb and IIc, and gs. 19 to 21 map the changes between Scenario IIa and Scenario IIc at the U.S. Census block level, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario IIc consists of the 10-Year Needs transit network without the Regional Rapid Transit project or other Premium Transit investments, as outlined in . Comparing Scenario IIc to the Baseline shows the accessibility bene ts achieved through the 10-Year Needs transit network without the RRT or other Premium Transit investments; comparing Scenario IIc to Scenario IIb shows the impact of adding the Premium Transit investments other than the RRT to the 10-Year Needs network; and comparing Scenario IIc to Scenario IIa shows the impact of adding all Premium Transit investments, including the RRT, to the 10-Year Needs Network. In terms of the number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs, or at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario IIc over Baseline, the greatest gains in worker access to jobs were realized in relaxing travel times from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Marginal gains exist from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, but travelshed saturation leads to capping accessibility at an effective maximum for realistic travel times. For a travel time of 60 minutes, Scenario IIc allows 606,256 Tampa Bay workers to reach 10,000 additional jobs (compared to 626,557 under Scenario IIa), or 783,086 Tampa Bay workers to reach an additional 10% of jobs (compared to 831,359 under Scenario IIa) compared to the Baseline. Table 28: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIc vs. Baseline. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Existing Conditions Scenario IIc Change % Change 8,481 10,592 +2,111 +24.9% 9,168 10,959 +1,791 +19.5% 1,330 1,577 +247 +18.6% 11,852 15,555 +3,703 +31.2% 18,530 24,392 +5,862 +31.6% 23,878 28,629 +4,751 +19.9%

Table 29: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIc vs. Baseline. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Existing Conditions Scenario IIc 89,800 115,806 95,859 116,556 8,976 12,660 130,146 177,425 201,397 260,299 219,432 262,088

Change % Change +26,006 +29.0% +20,697 +21.6% +3,684 +41.0% +47,279 +36.3% +58,902 +29.2% +42,656 +19.4%

Table 30: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIc vs. Baseline. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Existing Conditions Scenario IIc 99,534 127,969 106,327 129,037 10,282 14,635 143,997 195,432 221,576 285,679 240,172 286,777

Change % Change +28,435 +28.6% +22,710 +21.4% +4,353 +42.3% +51,435 +35.7% +64,103 +28.9% +46,605 +19.4%

Table 31: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIc vs. Baseline. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Existing Conditions Scenario IIc Change % Change 2,506 3,170 +664 +26.5% 2,700 3,241 +541 +20.0% 343 425 +82 +23.9% 3,544 4,738 +1,194 +33.7% 5,555 7,208 +1,653 +29.8% 6,689 7,976 +1,287 +19.2%

Table 32: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. IIc. Location Scenario IIc Scenario IIb Change % Change Tampa Bay 10,592 10,781 +189 +1.8% Hillsborough County 10,959 11,207 +248 +2.3% Pasco County 1,577 1,578 +1 +0.1% Pinellas County 15,555 15,772 +217 +1.4% St. Petersburg 24,392 25,061 +669 +2.7% Tampa 28,629 29,373 +744 +2.6%

Table 33: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. IIc. Location Scenario IIc Scenario IIb Change % Change Tampa Bay 115,806 117,070 +1,264 +1.1% Hillsborough County 116,556 118,120 +1,564 +1.3% Pasco County 12,660 12,669 +9 +0.1% Pinellas County 177,425 179,010 +1,585 +0.9% St. Petersburg 260,299 263,952 +3,653 +1.4% Tampa 262,088 264,626 +2,538 +1.0%

Table 34: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. IIc. Location Scenario IIc Scenario IIb Change % Change Tampa Bay 127,969 129,339 +1,370 +1.1% Hillsborough County 129,037 130,779 +1,742 +1.4% Pasco County 14,635 14,647 +12 +0.1% Pinellas County 195,432 197,084 +1,652 +0.8% St. Petersburg 285,679 289,443 +3,764 +1.3% Tampa 286,777 289,483 +2,706 +0.9%

Table 35: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. IIc. Location Scenario IIc Scenario IIb Change % Change 3,170 3,214 +44 +1.4% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 3,241 3,297 +56 +1.7% Pasco County 425 426 +11 +0.2% Pinellas County 4,738 4,792 +54 +1.1% St. Petersburg 7,208 7,347 +139 +1.9% Tampa 7,976 8,125 +149 +1.9%

Table 36: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIc. Location Scenario IIc Scenario IIa Change % Change Tampa Bay 10,592 11,164 +572 +5.1% Hillsborough County 10,959 11,891 +932 +7.8% Pasco County 1,577 1,582 +5 +0.3% Pinellas County 15,555 15,957 +402 +2.5% St. Petersburg 24,392 25,436 +1044 +4.1% Tampa 28,629 31,528 +2,899 +9.2%

Table 37: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIc. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Scenario IIc Scenario IIa Change 115,806 121,382 +5,576 116,556 124,207 +7,651 12,660 12,863 +203 177,425 183,286 +5,861 260,299 273,332 +13,033 262,088 279,168 +17,080

% Change +4.6% +6.2% +1.6% +3.2% +4.8% +6.1%

Table 38: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIc. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Scenario IIc Scenario IIa Change 127,969 134,013 +6,044 129,037 137,322 +8,285 14,635 14,917 +282 195,432 201,768 +6,336 285,679 299,507 +13,828 286,777 304,903 +18,126

% Change +4.5% +6.0% +1.9% +3.1% +4.6% +5.9%

Table 39: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Scenario IIc. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIb Change % Change 3,170 3,327 +157 +5.0% Tampa Bay Hillsborough County 3,241 3,472 +231 +7.1% Pasco County 425 428 +3 +0.7% Pinellas County 4,738 4,883 +145 +3.1% St. Petersburg 7,208 7,548 +340 +4.7% Tampa 7,976 8,618 +642 +8.0% Table 40: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario IIc over the Baseline, for different geographies and travel time thresholds. Location 30 min Tampa Bay 67,260 Hillsborough County 32,317 Pasco County 2 Pinellas County 34,941 St. Petersburg 20,347 Tampa 24,547

60 min 606,256 232,190 12,248 361,818 106,567 121,396

90 min 627,554 243,743 15,949 367,862 107,597 123,097

Table 41: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario IIc over the Baseline, for different geographies and traveltime thresholds. Location 30 min 60 min 90 min Tampa Bay 497,746 783,086 796,919 Hillsborough County 145,803 293,477 300,691 Pasco County 67,352 116,526 121,835 Pinellas County 284,591 373,083 374,146 St. Petersburg 90,764 96,543 96,496 Tampa 71,385 119,004 120,702

45 Figure 13: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIc, 30 minute threshold.

46 Figure 14: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIc, 60 minute threshold.

47 Figure 15: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario IIc, 90 minute threshold.

48 Figure 16: Accessibility change between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIb, 30 minute threshold.

49 Figure 17: Accessibility change between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIb, 60 minute threshold.

50 Figure 18: Accessibility change between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIb, 90 minute threshold.

51 Figure 19: Accessibility change between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIa, 30 minute threshold.

52 Figure 20: Accessibility change between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIa, 60 minute threshold.

53 Figure 21: Accessibility change between Scenario IIc and Scenario IIa, 90 minute threshold.

3.5

Scenario III vs. Baseline and Scenario IIa

Tables 42 to 45 show the accessibility changes between the Baseline conditions and Scenario III, and tables 46 to 49 show changes between Scenario IIa and Scenario III, for the 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, and threshold-weighted metrics. Table 50 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario III over the Baseline, for different geographies and select travel time thresholds; Table 51 shows the number of Tampa Bay workers who can reach at least 10% more jobs under Scenario III than the Baseline. Figures 22 to 24 map the accessibility changes between Baseline conditions and Scenario III, and gs. 25 to 27 map the changes between Scenario II and Scenario III, at the U.S. Census block level, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario III consists of the 10-Year Vision network, outlined in Section 2.1.8. This set of broad transit investments and improvements provides substantial increases in access to employment throughout the Tampa Bay area over the Baseline conditions, and provides additional access beyond Scenario IIa. At the CBSA level, the accessibility available under Scenario III exceeds that of Scenario IIa across all travel time thresholds. Overall, the percent changes over Baseline in the above tables all fall within the range of approximately 40-50% improvement for Scenario III, with the exception of gures for Pasco County. Across the various aggregation geometries, no clear travel time threshold yields substantially larger accessibility gains than other thresholds; the accessibility bene ts provided by the extensive transit investments are network-wide, and serve a variety of commute trips. The comparison between Scenario III and the Baseline describes the accessibility bene ts of the full 10-Year Vision network; the comparison between Scenario III and Scenario IIa describes how much additional accessibility bene t is associated with investing in the more expansive 10-Year Vision network over the 10-Year Needs network. Table 42: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario III Change Tampa Bay 8,481 12,697 +4,216 Hillsborough County 9,168 13,884 +4,716 Pasco County 1,330 1,721 +391 Pinellas County 11,852 17,686 +5,834 St. Petersburg 18,530 28,033 +9,503 Tampa 23,878 37,253 +13,375

% Change +49.7% +51.4% +29.4% +49.2% +51.3% +56.0%

Table 43: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario III Change Tampa Bay 89,800 141,835 +52,035 Hillsborough County 95,859 141,495 +45,636 Pasco County 8,976 15,063 +6,087 Pinellas County 130,146 219,355 +89,209 St. Petersburg 201,397 312,589 +111,192 Tampa 219,432 321,042 +101,610

% Change +57.9% +47.6% +67.8% +68.5% +55.2% +46.3%

Table 44: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Baseline. Location Existing Conditions Scenario IIa Change % Change Tampa Bay 99,534 157,200 57,666 +57.9% Hillsborough County 106,327 157,047 +50,720 +47.7% Pasco County 10,282 17,620 +7,338 +71.4% Pinellas County 143,997 242,385 +98,388 +68.3% St. Petersburg 221,576 343,492 +121,916 +55.0% Tampa 240,172 352,074 +111,902 +46.6%

Table 45: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Baseline. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Existing Conditions Scenario III Change % Change 2,506 3,816 +1,310 +52.3% 2,700 3,980 +1,280 +47.4% 343 472 +129 +37.6% 3,544 5,615 +2,071 +58.4% 5,555 8,415 +2,860 +51.5% 6,689 9,995 +3,306 +49.4%

Table 46: 30-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Scenario IIa. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Scenario IIa Scenario III Change % Change 11,164 12,697 +1,533 +13.7% 11,891 13,884 +1,993 +16.8% 1,582 1,721 +139 +8.8% 15,957 17,686 +1,729 +10.8% 25,436 28,033 +2,597 +10.2% 31,528 37,253 +5,725 +18.2%

Table 47: 60-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Scenario IIa. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Scenario IIa Scenario III 124,207 141,495 12,863 15,063 12,863 15,063 183,286 219,355 273,332 312,589 279,168 321,042

Change +17,288 +2,200 +2,200 +36,069 +39,257 +41,874

% Change +13.9% +17.1% +17.1% +19.7% +14.4% +15.0%

Table 48: 90-minute worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Scenario IIa. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Scenario IIa Scenario III 134,013 157,200 137,322 157,047 14,917 17,620 201,768 242,385 299,507 343,492 304,903 352,074

Change +23,187 +19,725 +2,703 +40,617 +43,985 +47,171

% Change +17.3% +14.4% +18.1% +20.1% +14.7% +15.5%

Table 49: Threshold-weighted, worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Scenario IIa. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

Scenario IIa Scenario III Change % Change 3,327 3,816 +489 +14.7% 3,472 3,980 +508 +14.6% 428 472 +44 +10.3% 4,883 5,615 +732 +15.0% 7,548 8,415 +867 +11.5% 8,618 9,995 +1,377 +16.0%

Table 50: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10,000 additional jobs under Scenario III over Baseline, for different geographies and travel time thresholds. Location 30 min 60 min 90 min Tampa Bay 161,844 701,243 724,899 Hillsborough County 75,614 297,446 312,504 Pasco County 2 31,780 36,883 Pinellas County 68,117 355,987 360,903 St. Petersburg 44,836 108,772 109,427 Tampa 58,487 135,389 135,722

Table 51: Total number of workers able to reach at least 10% additional jobs under Scenario III over Baseline, for different geographies and travel time thresholds. Location Tampa Bay Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County St. Petersburg Tampa

30 min 584,197 201,910 69,175 284,235 101,781 106,506

60 min 883,842 372,421 120,666 369,499 112,780 136,312

90 min 904,226 385,173 126,177 374,722 113,103 136,490

58 Figure 22: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario III, 30 minute threshold.

59 Figure 23: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario III, 60 minute threshold.

60 Figure 24: Accessibility change between Baseline and Scenario III, 90 minute threshold.

61 Figure 25: Accessibility change between Scenario IIa and Scenario III, 30 minute threshold.

62 Figure 26: Accessibility change between Scenario IIa and Scenario III, 60 minute threshold.

63 Figure 27: Accessibility change between Scenario IIa and Scenario III, 90 minute threshold.

3.6

Vehicle Revenue Miles of Service Analysis

Revenue Miles of Service (RMoS) calculations give the number of operating miles for which farebox revenue is available for a given set of transit schedules. These calculations can help planners make nancial decisions in the transit investment planning process. Table 52 gives the RMoS gures for the Baseline existing conditions, as well as each of the ve alternative scenarios. Table 52: Vehicle Revenue Miles of Service for each of the six scenarios analyzed. Scenario Revenue Miles Difference vs. Baseline 65,727 71,846 Scenario I Scenario IIa 110,982 Scenario IIb 109,185 Scenario IIc 105,548 Scenario III 150,042

Baseline Percent vs. +6,119 +45,255 +43,458 +39,821 +84,315

Baseline +9.3% +68.9% +66.1% +60.6% +128.3%

Discussion

As shown in the above scenarios, diminishing returns in number of residents able to reach 10,000 additional or 10% additional jobs are realized when extending travel times from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, relative to the additional accessibility afforded to workers when relaxing travel times from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. For geographically spread-out areas, travel times greater than 30 minutes are often necessary to reach job centers, and accessibility gains will re ect these geographic considerations.

4.1

Scenario Comparison and 1/2-Mile Transit-shed Analysis

The ve scenarios analyzed consist of separate sets of extensive transit network improvements; Scenario IIa builds upon Scenario I, and Scenario III builds upon scenario IIa; Scenarios IIb and IIc are modi cations to Scenario IIa, with certain transit projects not included. It is guaranteed that Scenarios IIa and III will each provide higher job accessibility than Scenario I, and that Scenario III will provide higher job accessibility than Scenario IIa; Scenario IIb will provide lower accesssibility than Scenario IIa, and Scenario IIc will provide lower accessibility than Scenario IIb. This evaluation aims to quantify the job accessibility bene ts to residents of the Tampa area, if the funding and other driving factors are available to bring each alternative scenario to fruition. Tables 53 to 57 show the worker-weighted accessibility gures, and improvements over the Baseline conditions, for workers within a 1/2 mile travelshed of all transit facility alignments (stops, stations, and vehicle travel paths between them) in each respective scenario, as transit service is most relevant to the people adjacent to the alignments of new projects or improvements. The associated change numbers are all quite similar to the percent changes aggregated at the full CBSA level, for each scenario. These sets of network improvements and investments are network-wide, and a majority of the area’s workers live within 1/2 mile of transit service in each of these alternative 64

scenarios—757,118 (61.7%) under Scenario I, 774,810 (63.2%) under Scenario IIa, 772,347 (63.0%) under Scenarios IIb and IIc, and 809,262 (66.0%) under Scenario III. Across the travel time thresholds, residents within 1/2 mile of transit service can reach approximately 8% additional employment opportunities under Scenario I, 30% additional jobs under Scenario IIa, 25-27% additional jobs under Scenario IIb, 23-26% additional jobs under Scenario IIc, and 50-57% additional jobs under Scenario III. The ve improvement scenarios can be compared in terms of the percent of the total jobs within the Tampa Bay area to which they each respectively allow access, for the typical Tampa Bay worker. The Tampa Bay area CBSA includes 1,253,640 total jobs, based on the 2015 LEHD data used in this study; Table 58 shows the percentage of total jobs within the CBSA accessible under each of the alternatives scenarios, for three travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Tables 59 to 63 show the percentage of jobs located within 1/2 mile of transit service accessible by workers also within 1/2 mile, under each of the ve alternative scenarios, respectively. Table 53: Worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario I vs. Baseline, for workers within a 1/2 mile travelshed of all facility alignments. Threshold Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change 30 minutes 22,438 24,514 +2,076 +9.3% 60 minutes 192,739 208,587 +15,848 +8.2% 90 minutes 211,897 228,616 +16,719 +7.9% Weighted 6,126 6,645 +519 +8.5% Table 54: Worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIa vs. Baseline, for workers within a 1/2 mile travelshed of all facility alignments. Threshold Existing Conditions Scenario IIa Change % Change 21,863 28,410 +6,547 +29.9% 30 minutes 60 minutes 188,894 249,858 +60,964 +32.3% 90 minutes 207,707 273,214 +65,507 +31.5% Weighted 5,985 7,780 +1,795 +30.0% Table 55: Worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIb vs. Baseline, for workers within a 1/2 mile travelshed of all facility alignments. Threshold Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change 21,710 27,207 +5,497 +25.3% 30 minutes 60 minutes 187,612 239,335 +51,723 +27.6% 90 minutes 206,306 261,940 +55,634 +27.0% Weighted 5,943 7,464 +1,521 +25.6%

Table 56: Worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario IIc vs. Baseline, for workers within a 1/2 mile travelshed of all facility alignments. Threshold Existing Conditions Scenario I Change % Change 30 minutes 21,402 26,320 +4,918 +23.0% 60 minutes 185,874 234,856 +48,982 +26.4% 90 minutes 204,422 257,216 +52,794 +25.8% Weighted 5,868 7,269 +1,401 +23.9% Table 57: Worker-weighted accessibility, Scenario III vs. Baseline, for workers within a 1/2 mile travelshed of all facility alignments. Threshold Existing Conditions Scenario III Change % Change 22,065 33,144 +11,079 +50.2% 30 minutes 60 minutes 186,065 292,306 +106,241 +57.1% 90 minutes 204,595 320,974 +116,379 +56.9% Weighted 5,988 9,018 +3,030 +50.6% Table 58: Percent of total jobs within the Tampa Bay CBSA reachable under each of the alternatives scenarios, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario I Scenario IIa Scenario IIb Scenario IIc Scenario III

30 min 60 min 90 min 7.2% 7.9% 0.7% 0.7% 7.7% 8.5% 0.9% 9.7% 10.7% 0.9% 9.3% 10.3% 0.8% 9.2% 10.2% 1.0% 11.3% 12.5%

Table 59: Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario I, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario I

30 min 2.2% 2.4%

60 min 90 min 19.0% 20.9% 20.6% 22.6%

Table 60: Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario IIa, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario 30 min 60 min 90 min Base 2.1% 18.4% 20.2% Scenario IIa 2.8% 24.3% 26.5% 66

Table 61: Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario IIb, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario IIb

30 min 60 min 90 min 2.1% 18.2% 20.0% 2.6% 23.3% 25.5%

Table 62: Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario IIc, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario IIc

30 min 60 min 90 min 2.1% 18.1% 19.9% 2.6% 22.8% 25.0%

Table 63: Percent of total jobs within 1/2 mile travelshed of transit service reachable under Scenario III, for workers within 1/2 mile of transit service, for travel time thresholds of 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Scenario Base Scenario III

30 min 60 min 17.4% 2.1% 3.1% 27.4%

90 min 19.2% 30.1%

While the percentage of jobs accessible by transit throughout the Tampa Bay CBSA is low overall, the Scenario IIa and III transit networks allow Tampa Bay workers to reach approximately 2.5% and 4% more, respectively, of the overall job pool in the region; the Scenario IIb and IIc transit networks allow Tampa Bay workers to reach approximately 2% more of the overall regional job pool.

4.2

Scenario III Access Comparison for Areas Affected by Poverty and COVID-19

Vulnerable populations often stand the most to gain from transportation investments, and accessibility bene ts should be equitably distributed. Following are two maps showing the accessibility bene ts associated with Scenario III over the Baseline, for Census blocks with signi cant populations of people affected by either poverty or COVID-19.

68 Figure 28: Accessibility change between Scenario III and Baseline for areas affected by poverty, 60-minute threshold.

69 Figure 29: Accessibility change between Scenario III and Baseline for areas affected by COVID-19, 60-minute threshold.

Conclusion

This additional research conducted to date has provided a broad estimate of likely contributions to job access via transit, based on the networked effects of ve proposed transit network alternative scenarios, and the data tables created through the modeling process provide an opportunity to conduct further analysis for smaller geographies in the aggregate and along industry, wages, educational attainment, and other characteristics included in the LODES data. This evaluation included contributions due to some network optimization within the Baseline existing conditions, as well as analysis of longer-ranging regional transit vision plans, and gives a broader picture of how regional transit accessibility would be improved if the long-range plans of the region’s transit operators were successfully implemented.

References Horner, M. W. (2004). Spatial dimensions of urban commuting: A review of major issues and their implciations for future geographic research. e Professional Geographer, 56(2):160–173. Kumar, A. (1994). The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(3):319–332. Owen, A. and Murphy, B. (2018). Access Across America: Transit 2017. Technical Report CTS 18-13, University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies. Owen, A., Murphy, B., and Levinson, D. (2017). Access Across America: Transit 2016 Methodology. Technical Report CTS 17-08, University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies.