Commissioners debate route cuts, staffing and on-demand options as Manatee transit faces operator shortage

Manatee County transit staff told commissioners the system faces a persistent operator shortage and presented a service-optimization plan that would shrink or eliminate several lower‑productivity routes and reduce frequency on others. Commissioners asked staff to return with detailed cost-per-route figures, recruitment and retention proposals, and alternative service models that focus on high‑ridership corridors and on-demand last‑mile options.

Chad Butso, Public Works, introduced the presentation and said the board would hear the operational details from Kevin Hoyt, Transit Division manager. "Today's objective is the just to provide you guys the current state of transit itself and the ... challenges we face with, you know, our staffing issues, especially with our operators," Hoyt said.

Why it matters

The transit system has grown ridership in recent years (county staff reported near 2 million annual rides in fiscal 2023–24), but staffing losses are forcing daily service reductions. Commissioners said the county must balance maintaining frequent, reliable service on core corridors with replacing lower‑use fixed routes with on‑demand or contractual alternatives.

What staff presented

- Ridership and service: Staff said the county’s fixed-route network achieved nearly 2 million rides last fiscal year but has seen dips tied to hurricanes and staffing shortages. Officials noted about 62% of ridership is concentrated on core routes (the Route 99 north–south spine, Manatee Avenue, Cortez and the island trolley), a factor driving recommendations to preserve frequency on those corridors.

- Staffing: Hoyt said the agency hired dozens of new operators over the past year but lost a similar number. "We actually hired 28 new operators, of course, this this past year. 20 operators, but we lost 28. So the retention is an issue," he said. Staff attributed turnover to industrywide pressures and competition from nearby systems with higher wages and step programs.

- Proposed optimization: To match service to current staffing, staff proposed eliminating some low‑productivity routes (highlighted in their analysis) and cutting service on routes that run multiple buses to reduce the number of operators needed. Several routes were proposed for elimination or frequency reduction; staff said the intent was to minimize rider disruption by prioritizing core corridors.

Board response and alternatives

Commissioners pressed staff for more granular data and for a plan to recruit and retain operators rather than implement immediate cuts. Commissioner Cruz urged a strategic re‑visioning: "If you're gonna cut half of these, you might as well just reinvent the entirety of the process," he said, arguing for concentrating resources on a small number of high‑frequency spine routes and investing saved resources in last‑mile/on‑demand connections.

Several commissioners proposed alternatives or additional steps:

- Prepare route-level cost figures (cost per revenue hour, cost per rider) so the board can evaluate tradeoffs between frequency and coverage.

- Test or expand on‑demand microtransit (county veterans on‑demand pilot has ~1,000 riders) and consider contracting some last‑mile service to third parties if that reduces cost and improves access.

- Explore recruitment and retention measures including career ladders, targeted hiring (recent veterans), step-pay programs, and coordination with school-district and neighboring agencies to reduce turnover.

- Consider longer-term governance changes, such as evaluating the formation of a stand‑alone transit authority, to secure dedicated funding and regional bargaining power — a proposal several commissioners discussed but did not pursue for immediate action.

Board direction and next steps

Staff said they will return with more detailed modeling, including cost-per-route figures, staffing/recruitment proposals and scenarios showing the county’s projected budgetary impacts for several restructuring options. Commissioners signaled consensus that staff should provide those analyses before approving route eliminations or frequency reductions; no formal vote was taken at the work session.

Ending

County transit staff left the board with a request for policy direction and additional data. Commissioners asked for follow-up work sessions and a clearer staffing plan before the board considers implementation of service reductions or a formal shift toward a hub-and-spoke core with microtransit last‑mile services.