USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1993 performance evaluation of Florida Transit System : part I : trend analysis, 1984-1993 final report, March 1995


PAGE 136

4 The total number of employees incr eased 17 percent due to increasing employee FTEs in each of 1he three primary employee c.ategories, as shown in the table below. Please explain the changes in each of the employee categories. Olreet!y..()perated Motorbus FY 1992 FY 1993 %Chonge Operating Employees 232.2 275.2 18.5% M3intenance Empk>yees 79 0 87 5 10 8% Adminislr.ltlve Employees 44 5 52.8 1 8 .7% Tota l E mploy ees 355.7 415 5 16. 8% System Response: ln the category of opera ting employees, a policy change regarding workman's compensation claims which limited th e length of time an employee's job would be held whi le that employee was on such leave impac1cd the total number of employees in this ca t egory For the maintenance employee category,lhe number of approved positions for mechanics and route. maintcnam;.: employees inc;:rcase-d. The policy change for workman's compensation C laims also affec tedlhis category Finally in the category of administtativeemployee s .positions were added in the Planning and Financedepartmen tsto more efficien tly and effectively handle federal and state grants as well as increasing demands in other areas of the transi t authori ty. Additionally improvements in the Human Resources Department impact ed the total number of ffEs in all categories. The depanment became much more effi ci en t in 1993 (when compared wi t h 1992) and filled positions in a more timely manner. S The number of vehicles available for maximum service decreased from 182 vehicles in 1 992 t o 160 vehicles in 1993, while the number of v eh i cles operated in maximum service remained stable at 133 vehicles during this time. Please explain the decline in active fleet vehicles. System RespOnse: During fiscal year 1993, five vehicles were leased to LYNX in Orlando, five vehic les were made a part of the emergency contingen c y fleet and t he remaining 12 vehicles reached the end of t h eir useful l ife and were disposed of. 6. The number of incidents decreased sig n ificanlly f rom 315 in 1992 to 250 in 1992. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for t his decline? System Response: 1'his dccre.ase can be attributed to a more stable system and a decline in labor conflic1s. In addition. increased emphasis has been placed on customer service sensitivity t raining, and the sc-reening of bus operators 7 The number of revenue interruptions (previously referred to as roadcalls") decreased from 2,889 in I 9?2 to I ,796 in I 993, a decline of 38 percent. To whal can this significant reduc-tion be attributed? System Response: Revenue service interrup tions have decreased due to a n incre a sed emphas i s on preventive maintenance Also, a major retrofit project has reduced some vehicle reliabi l ity problems. I I I

PAGE 137

112 HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Figure county/Servl +-1-. :\: . i A -----' -) 1 1 rrrL-=. 8,000 SlO,OOO 6,000 $15.000 4,000 $10 ,000 ss.ooo 2,000 0 so Ptrformantt Indicators 1'1.000 I 9.000 .. Figure 111.02 Passenger Trips {000) ----.. v -1-\ I l I 6,000 .. .. -f------i----.... 3 ,000 I-----0 .. 19M 19tS 19U 1M1 19M IMt tHO IHI t m lH) Figure IU-04 Total Operating Expense r---f. V' ----.. ""-'-_ ,_ -.... ---.. r: --'-,_ j 1-\._ $5,000 $4,000 n.ooo Figure 111-115 Passenger Fare Revenue (000) ---r--. -S2.000 -f -u -S1.000 so I'N4 I,.S 1H4 191 1 19U I M t tHO 1 9PI ttU Itt) 1"4 t M S ttU tH11"t "" tm IHI 1HZ 1ttl 1Mf 1,.S 1916 1 917 19U "" 1990 199l 1Hl1HJ 500 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 11106 Total Employees __ T _ T ___ --1 .. . ""' 'V 1--. ----. -... r M -.... ... ---.. .. ---I.. -1--1914 IMS 19" 19f1 19U 1M' 19'90 1991 lttll'"l 200 160 120 .. 40 0 Figu r e 111-07 Vehides in Maximum Service .. Tl. :----l -r: *'' _, ......... __ -. ---+ .. -'-. I -i--r:--.. rL 1 tn. 19$S "*' t9&7 1981 1tt9 1MO 1991 1992 1HJ

PAGE 138

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Effecti ve ness M e asures Figu r e 111 F igure 11108 Vehkle Miles Per Capita Passenger T rips Per Revenue Mile 1 0 .0 ':......J..I I 8 .0 ... I i 6 0 1 .. 1 j 4.0-j 2 0 ---1---p-1--t--1-0 0 L --L-11 i 1.6 i I 1.2 I I I .. I I 0.4 I I I o.o 2 0 l ; 1 -----' i -. --. --I -. ---.... " I --1 --.. p ... / .... __ .... 1--.... -,,... t9U '"' '"*'''" ,,., '"o '"' tnl ttn ,,... 190: ,,., "" ,, .. "" "" ,,.,, 199:l ,,, 2.0 Figure m-o10 Ave rage Age of Flee t (years) 0 0--J, .. 19&S ,,_. tttl 19tt1Mt 1MO 1tt119tl1tt:t Figure 111.011 Revenue M i les Between Acdde nts/ln
PAGE 139

114 HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT $30.00 $20 .00 510.00 $0.00 Figure I II-D13 Operating Expense Per CCI pita -r-,-... ---" -. 1 ---1------. -.. -f-. -11* IHS '916 1 917 1981 1919 1990 1991 1,2 199J Figure 111.016 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile $0.80 r -T = ---r--,;;; $0 60 -+----1--v .... .... $0.40 --$0 .20 ---$0.00 -------... ttt4 tNS ttu U;81tt .. ttH tttO 1ttt 1tU tfll figure llt D19 Revenue Hours Per Employee ::: h!l1 :1J 900 1.. I -!"' -I f-r 1.... 600 1 300 l i ___ 0 1tt&t 111S 1M.1f81 1Mt lMt tMO 1191 1tN 1tfl Efficiency Measures Figure 11114 Operating Expense Per Passenger Tr ip $3.00 51.00 1 --l1-+ 50.00 1--1--1 1 1984 ttlS 1 986 1987 It&t tttt ttto 1tf1 1992: 19, F iguh! 111.017 Farebox Re
PAGE 140

HART SUMMARY Despi te a decline in the amount of service provided by HART, r i dership, in te-rms of passenger trips and passenger miles increased significantly between 1992 and 1993. HART attributed this increase in ridership to a stabilized sy-Stem with fewer schedule changes, and an i ncrease in passenger confidence i n the systecn. Between 1992 and 1993, deadhead mileage declined approximately 18 percent This decrease was, according to HART, a result of the over all streamlining and interlining of several routes. However. during t his same time, t h e number of deadhead hours incr eased nearly 31 percent HART reported that the increase in deadhead hours was d u e t o more time spent a t the e.nd of the line as well as an increase in cransfer centers. The total number of employees increased 17 percent from 355.7 FTEs in 1992 to 4 1 5.5 FTEs i n 1993, due to increasing FTE s i n all t hree primal}' employee categories. A policy change regarding workman's compen sation claims affected the number of fTEs in the category of opera! ing maintenance employees. Additionally, in the main t enance employee category. there was an increase in rhe number of approved positions for mechan ics and route maintenance employees. In the administrative employee categ ory, positions were added in the Planning and Finan ce departments. The numb<:r of vehicles available for maximum service decrease-d from J82 vehicles i n 1992 to 160 in 1993, whi le the number of vehicles operated in maximum 5-<..:rvi c e remained c-Onstant at 133 vehicle-s. This change resulted from HART leasing five vehicles to LYNX in Orlando. transferring five vehicles to the emergency contingency fleet. and d iSposing of 12 older vehicles. The number of incidents dec lined from 315 incidents in 1992 to 250 incidents in 1993. HARr cited a more stable system and a reduction in labor oonnicts as contributing to this decrease. Additionally. the system has placed increased emphasis on c ustomer service, sens itivi ty t raining and bus operator screening 115

PAGE 141

E PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY S Y STE M P ROFI L E Oruniutionol S true ture -Pinellas Suncoasl Tnlns i l Authority is an independent auth ority ueated by specia l act of the Florid a Legi.slarure(Chapter 70 House Bill No. 5465). Coytrojne Body and Composition -PSTA is governed by a Board of Direcrors comprised of appointees from th e member muni c ipalities who are either elecled officials or privace citizens. Servis< Area PSTA ge n erally serves Pinellas County with th e exce ption of Kenneth City, Bella ir Beach, B c llair Shores, T reas u re Islan d and St. Pet ersburg Beac h The service urea includes 24 m u n i cipalities and a ll unincorpora 1 c d areas with no ma j o r Central Bus:inc$S District Modn .. PSTA provides (i)(ed-route motorbus services dcmandre.sponse services.. and purchased demand-response: services 1 16

PAGE 142

PEIIFORMANCE INDIC ATORS SeMce Area Popur.ation (000) Servioe Area Size (square miles) Passe nge r Trips (00 0 ) Panenget Mile$ ( 000) Vehicle M;tes (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle Hou,. (000) Revenue Hours (000) Rotllft Miss TOial Operalg Expense (000) Totol Operalg Expense (000 of 1984 S ) Total Momonanco Expense (000) TOial ...-nance Expense (000 ol 1984 $ ) T ota1 capUJ Expense (000) Total lO
PAGE 143

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPlY Vehicle Mile$ Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Pef Passen ge r Trips Per Reven u e Mile Passen get TJips Pe.r Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Avera90 Speed (R.M.IR.H. ) Average Age of Fteet (in years) Num ber o f I ncidents Revenue Service lnlefi'Uptions Revenue Mies Between Incident$ (000) Revenuo Miles Between Interruptions {000) AVAILABILITY Revenu e Miles Per Roule Mie (000) --------118 TABLE lii-E2 Pinellas Suncoas:t Tn1n.sit Aulhority Efftcfivcness Measures 1988 1989 1990 6 .14 6 .14 6 .75 9 .90 1 0 08 1 0 .60 1 .74 1.77 1 .68 24.33 24 14 23.74 14 .01 13.67 14 13 8 .00 7 .51 7.40 216.00 243 00 169. 00 1991 7.23 12 .63 1.89 26.97 14.27 9 .63 103.00 968.00 1.on.oo 1 ,363. 00 1 ,4 23 00 22.16 20. 09 31.79 55.50 4 .94 4 .53 3 .94 4 .02 4 .65 4 .74 5 07 3 .36 1992 1993 %ChanfJ 1988-19 3 14, 32 16.04 16 1.48% 21.55 20.15 103 57% 1 .63 1 .36 .79% 22 6 1 19.80 18.61% 13.87 14.58 4 06% 8 .99 7.73 -3.38% 168.00 139.00 -35.65% .. 1,871 00 2,578. 00 186.32% 34.38 48.62 1 1 0 37% 3 .09 2.51 -49 .17% 3 ,39 3 .80 1 8.09%

PAGE 144

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operati'lg Expense Pe r Capb O p e rating Expense P e r Peak Vehi:l e (000) Ope-rating Expense P et Pas:>enger Trip Operating Expense Pe( M ile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Opera ting Expense P e r Revenue Hour Maintenance Expense Per Revenue M ile Maintenance Expense Pef Operating Exp. OPERAnNG RATIOS Farebox Recovery Local R evenue Opetali n g Expenw Oper&ting Revenue Operating f)C'pense VEHICLE UTLLIZA nON Vehicle M ile & Per Peak Veh i cle (000 ) Vehk:le Hours Per Peak Ve hlcie (000) Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Miles Revenue MiSes Per Total Vehicles (000) Revenue Ho u rs Pa r Total Ve hicles (000) LABOR P RODUCTMTY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000 ) Pas.senger TrC>s Per Emp.toyee (000) ENERGY UnUZATION Vehicle Miles Per Ga\IQn FARE Ave,.ge TABLE 111E3 Pine-llas S unc:oa.st Tnmsit Authority Efficiency Measttn!S 1988 198 9 1990 $16 .86 $18.49 S2o.62 $144 .54 $141 25 $ 15 2 .69 $1.70 $1.83 $1.94 $0.3 2 $0.35 $0.38 $2.96 $3.24 $3. 2 7 $41.46 $44.28 $46. 17 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 2 1.65% 19. 79% 19.69% 18.92% 17 .18% 17 12% 86.04% 82 70'4 88. 72% 20 76% 1 8 33% 17.46% 52.58 46.87 49 .99 3 7 1 3 .37 3 .48 0 .93 0.93 0.93 37.39 35.38 42.64 2.67 2.59 3.02 0.95 0 .88 1 07 23.00 21.1 9 25.42 3.73 3 .64 3.59 $0.32 $0.32 $0.3 3 1991 1992 1993 %Change 1988 $22 .53 S46 .35 $52.15 209 19% $ 1 83 .61 $194 .71 $225.55 56 .05% $1.78 $2.15 $2.59 51. 88% $0.33 $0.4 0 $0.53 66.89% $3.37 $3. 5 1 $3. 5 2 18.79% $48. 1 3 S48 .64 $51 25 23.61% $0.68 $0.77 $0.7 5 1 6 .5 9% 20 .15% 2 1.9 1 % 21. 25% 1. 85% 18.75% 19.41% 18. 37% 90% 90.94% 9 1.13 % 83.43% 04% 20.90% 20.80% 21.67% 4 .35'.4 5 8 .95 60.16 69.39 31.97% 4 .05 4.22 4 .71 26. 83% 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 .0.46% 43.3t 38.76 42.6 3 14. 00% 3.03 2.79 2 .92 9.56% 1 1 0 1.06 1.15 21.28% 29 .62 24 05 22.7 1 30% 3 .65 3 .66 3.71 -0.64% $0.33 $0.42 $0.48 4 7 .49% 119

PAGE 145

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made du r ing fisc.:al year 1993'? If so. please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare strucrure and indica t e whe n the changes were implement ed Effective 10/1/91 Effective 10/4/92 C h ildren (five years and under} free Free Full Cash Fare $0.80 $0.90 Elder l y and Handicapped Cash fare $0.40 $0.45 Full Transfer $0 .10 $0.10 Elderly/Bandicapped/Stud<:nt Transfer $0.05 $0.05 Weekly Unlimited Pass $10.00 $11.00 Monthly Unlimited Pass $ 35.00 $38.00 10-Ride Punch T i cke t $7.20 $8.10 20-R ide Half -Fare Punch Ticke t $8.00 $9.00 20-Ride Student Punch Ticket nla $8.00 Rout e JOOX Cash Fare $1.50 nla Route IOOX 20-Ride Punch Ticket $27.00 n/a Premium Cash fare nla $1.50 Premium 20-R ide Punch Ticket n/a $27.00 2 Were there any significant changes in service /serv ice area during fiscal year 1993? During fiscal year 1993. PSTA i mplemented the second phase of route service modifications and enhancements based on its comprehensive operations analysis. 3. Have there been any recent changes or sign i ficant events tha t may help explain the performance of the transit system'? 120 Significant changes and e\'ents that may have impacted PSTA s perfo n nance in fiscal year 1993 include rhe following: rhe implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Plan neared comp l etion; the purchaseof21 new buses; the installa tion of 60 new b u s shelt ers; and employee development workshops and training programs.

PAGE 146

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION I S DATA I The number of passenger decreased at a cn:ater rate f rom 1 992 to 1993 than did the numbe r of p>sSenger tripo (se<: table below ). Th is resu lted i n a deere.,., in average trip length. I$ then: an explanation for these changes? l>lrtdly.Opon
MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1993 performance evaluation of Florida Transit System : part I : trend analysis, 1984-1993 final report, March 1995
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit --Florida-- Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Transportation--Florida--Planning   ( lcsh )
Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00038
usfldc handle - c1.38
System ID:
SFS0032161:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00038
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
0 245
1993 performance evaluation of Florida Transit System : part I : trend analysis, 1984-1993 final report, March 1995
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1995 March
650
Local transit --Florida-- Evaluation
Transportation--Florida--Planning
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.38



PAGE 1

"' .... .c:: ..... C'Cc:: ..... t' 0 c:: "' r:c: i!: IU ,C: li:

PAGE 2

1993 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART I Trend Analysis, 1984-1993 Prepared for The Office of Public Transportation Operations Department of Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Final Report, March 1995

PAGE 3

This is a blank page

PAGE 4

1993 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 01' FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS I'AR T I TREND ANALYSIS, 1984-1993 T ABLE 01' CONTENTS SECTION TABLE O F CONTENTS ...... . ... . . .... ... ... . ........ . . ... ......... . .......... . . ..... . . LISTOFTAOLES ........... . ......... ....... ..... ...... ....... . . ..... . ..... .... . .... ...... ....... LIST OF FIGURES .... ........... ....... . ......... . . ............. .... ................ ... .... FOREWORD . . . .... ... ....... ...................... .... ........... ...... . .............. .......... (. II. Ill. INTRODUCTIO N .......... . . .................... . . ............. . . . ... .. ..... . .... A me Purpose of :!Onnance R e view ...... . . ... . . .... ... . ...... . ................ . . B. Perforntancc K1." c w Data Base ...................... . . ...... .......................... . .... C. The Role of Privatization ...... . . ............. ... ......... ..... . . . ... ... . ..... ....... STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS ..................... ............ ..... .......... .. ............ , A Statewide Directional Trends ................. ......... ....... ................... ............. B Florida FixedRoute Total Trend ......... . ... ................ ......... ........... . .......... SYSTEMBYSYSTEM TREND ANAL. YSIS ... . .............. ....... ........................ . .... . A. Metro--Dade Transit Agency ......... ....... . . . . ... ... ............ . ............. ........ B Broward Transit Division . ....... . ... . .... .......................... .... .... ...... .... . C. Jacksonville Tran.'iportation Authority ................ ... .... ........ .. .. ... ................... . . D. Hillsborough Area Regional Transi t .......... ... ...... ... ... ....... ........ ...... E P inellas Suncoast Transit Authority . ............. . ...... . . .......... ................... ...... F Lynx (Orlando) ..................................... .... ........ . ........... ... G. Palm Beach C ounty Transportation Authority ...... . ..... ............ . ...... ... ....... .. H. I. J. Tallahassee Transit .................. . .... ...... ................. . .... .. .............. Regional Transit Sys
PAGE 5

T A BL E OF CONTENTS S ECTION PAGE S Spa c e Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 T. Tri.Counly Commuter R ail Aut h orit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 IV. SUMMARY 335 APPENDIX A list of Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 36 APPENDIX B -Review of Da ta Sou rces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 APPENDIX C-Contact listin g for florida Transit Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 iv

PAGE 6

TABLE INTRODUCriON 1-1 1 2 LIST OF TABLE S P erfonnan c c Review Indicators and Measures, Directly-Operated Transi t Services ...... . ...... ....... .... ... Perf(>nnance Review Indicators and Measures. Purc-hased Motorbus Transit Services .... . .... .... ..... ....... . STATeWIDe TRND ANALYSIS PAGE 9 10 IIA l Statewide Directional Trends in Key Indicators and Measures, 1992-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11-B I S tatew ide Total Perfo rmance Indicators (Excluding Purchased Motort>us) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 1182 Statewide Total Effec tiveness Measures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11-83 Statew ide T o tal efficien cy M e a sures (Excluding Purcltas e d Mot orbus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 11-84 Statewide T ota l Perfonnance Indicators ( Including Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11-BS Statewid e Total Measures (Including Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11-86 Sta t ewide T o tal Efficiency Measures (Includ i ng Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 SYSTEM-BY-SYSTEM TR.END ANALYSIS 111-1 Organizational Structures of Florida Transit Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 lll-2 Modes Operated by F lorida Trans it Systems ( 199 3 ) . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. 31 1113 Abbreviations for Florida nansit Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 M etro-Dade Tra nsit Agency Ill-A I fii-A2 III-A3 111-A4 Ill -AS III-A6 111-A7 Ill-A S lll-A9 Ill-A 10 IIIA II IIIAI2 III-AI3 lil-A 14 111-AIS Ill-A 16 111A 17 111-AIS Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators . ......... . . ..... . ...... ......... ... . ....... Purchased Motorbus Perfonnance.fndicators ..................... . . . .... . . . . . .......... . . . Dir ect ly-Operated and Purchased Motorbus P erformance. Indicators . . .... . .............. . ............ . Heavy Rail Perfonnanc c 1ndicators ... . .... .... ............ .... . ....... .................. .. Automated Guideway Perfonnance lndi.cators: ...................... .... . . . . .... . ............. . System Total Perfonnanee Indicators (Exclud i ng Purchased Motorbus) .... ........ ....... ......... .. System T otal Performance Indicators . .... ........ ....... . .... . ....... . ...... . ......... . . . Dir<.."Ctly -Opcrated Motorbus Effec.tivenes:.s Measures ................. . . . . .... ....... ....... .... . . Purchased Motorbus E ffectiveness Measures ... ........... . . .... ..................... . . . ...... . Directly-Operated and Purchased Motorbus Eff ectiveness Measures .... ............. .... ........ .... .... . Heavy Rail Effect iveness Measures . .......... .................. . . .... . .... ....... . ....... Automated Guideway Effectiveness Measures .... .............. ............. . ........... .... ...... System Tota l Effect iveness Measures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) .... ........... ... ............. .... . System Total Eff ectiveness M easures . . .......... ........ . . . . ...................... . . .... . Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures ............ . . ........ ........ . ..... .... . . . Purchased Motorbus Efficiency M easures .......... ........ .... . . . . ..... ..... .... ..... . Direct l y Operated and Purchased Motorbus e fficien c y M easures ...... ........ ..... . ......... . . ...... Heavy R ail Efficiency Measures ....... . . . .......... ..... .... . . ....... . ............ . . . 34 35 36 3 7 38 39 40 4 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5 1 v

PAGE 7

v i TABLE lii A 19 IU A 20 111 A21 L IST OF TABLES AuiOO\ated Ciuidewa y Efficiency M casui'C3 .............. ..................................... .... S ystem T olll l Efft
PAGE 8

T ABLE Lynx (Orlando} II HI 111-Fl 111-F3 IIIF 4 111-FS III-F6 111-F7 111-F8 lii-F9 L I S T O F T ABLES OirectlyOp erated Motorbus PerFonnance Indicators ......... .......... . . . ... .... . . ..... Purchased Motorbus Perfonnance Indicators ........... ... ... ... . . . ............................. System Total Perfonnance I ndicators .............. . ..... . ................. ....... .... . . . .... Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ................. ...... .............. ... . .... . . Purchased Motorbus Effet:1ivene. ss M easures ..... . ...... ............ .......... ...... ........ ....... Syst em T otal Effectiveness Measures .... ............. .... ........ . . . . ........ . .... . . . . . OirectlyOpc.:rated Motorbus Efficiency Measures ....... ... .... ............. .... ................... Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures . .... ... . ... ... ..... ... . ....... ..... . . . Systern Total Efficiency Measures ............... ..... .... .... ..... ......... . .... . ....... . .... Palm Be a c h Count y Transp o n a tion Authority 111-G I 111-G2 lll-G3 III-G4 111-GS lll-G6 III-G7 III-G8 III-G9 Dir ectly -Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators . ....... . . .... ... ... . __ .... . . . ..... . . . Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators .... .............................. ............... . ...... Sy stem T otal Performance Indicator s ... .......... . . .... . . ............. ........ ........... . . Directly-Operated Motorbus Effec tiveness Measures ..... . ...... .... . .... . ...... .... . ........... Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ........... .............................................. System Tota1 Effectiveness ... ................ . ........ ....... . . ... ...... ............ . Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures .. ... .... ............. .......... . .... .... ..... . . . Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures .......... ......... ...... .... ....... ............ ......... . System Total Efficiency Measures .............. ........ ......... ............ ......... . . .... . Tallahassee Transit PAGE 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 147 148 149 ISO lSI 152 IS3 154 ISS 111-H 1 Pufo""an c e I ndic ators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 111-H2 Effecti v e n ess ..... . .......... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 111-H3 Efficiency Measures .... .... ....... . . ..... .. .... . .......... . ...... .. . .. . 165 R e gio n al Tr a nsit Sys tem (Gainesville} 111-11 Per fonnance Indicators ......... . . .. ...... ........ ...... .... . . . . . . . . . 174 111-!2 Effectiveness Measures ...... . .. .... ........ ... ..... ....... ... . . . . . . . . . 17S 111-13 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 76 Eas t Vol usia Transit Authority lll -JI Pcr fonnance Indi cators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 IIIJ2 Effectiveness Mea sures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 85 111-JJ E-ffici ency Measu res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 86 vii

PAGE 9

TABLE LIST OF TABLES PAGE E5cambi a Cou nry A ...a Transit UIK I Performance lndicatOB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 III K2 Effectiveness Mea sures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 III K 3 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Lee Coo nry Trwi t UILI DirectlyOperated Motoltus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 IIIL2 Purchased Motorbus Perfonnanoe Indi cators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 IIILJ System Total Performance Indicat ors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 III L4 Directly-Opera ted Motorbus Effectiveness Mea s ures ...... ..... ... ..... . . . . . . . . . . 209 1111.5 Purchased Motorbus Effectivene ss M e asure s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 IIIL6 System Tot a l Effectiveness Measure s .............. . ...... .... .. .... . . . . . . . 211 IIIL7 Directly-Operated Motorl>us Efficiency M easures . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . 2 1 2 III L8 Pun;hosed Metorous Effociency Meas ures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 IIIL9 System Total Efficiency Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Sarasota Coun
PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Smyrna Transit System 111-P I P erformance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-P2 Effectiveness Measures 111-PJ Efficiency M easures ........... ........ . . . ....... ... . ... ..... ...... ... .. . Pasco County Public Transportation SeJVice IU-QI Performance Indicators ......................... . ........ . . ...... . .... .... .... ... III-Q2 Effec tiveness Measures . . . . .......... ......... .... . ..... . ...... . ... ... III Q3 Efficiency Measure s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Key West Department of Transportation 111R I n irec tly -Qpera ted M o torbus Performance Indicators ... .... . ..... . .... . ............. ....... 111-Rl Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators ....... . .... ....... .... ......... ....... ..... . ..... .... 111-RJ System T ota l Pe r formance Indica t ors .... .... . .... .... . .................. .... . ... III-R4 Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness M easures ..... .... . . . . . ...... .... ......... ....... ... 111-RS Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures .. ........................... .... .... ... ... . ..... .... . IIIR6 System Total Effectiveness Measures ................ . ...... ....... ....... ........... ...... III-R7 Directly-Operated Motorbus Bfficiency Measures ............ . ......... .... ......... .... . ....... Jli-R8 Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures .... . ...... .... ...... .............. .... . . . . ...... .. 111-R9 System To tal Effi ciency Measures . . . .......... .... . .... . ..... .......... ... ........... Space C oast Area Transit (Brevar d Counay) Ill-S I 111-52 111-SJ 111-S4 1115 5 111-86 111-S7 11158 11159 111-SJO Ill-S II III-SI2 111SI3 111-514 Ill SIS Directly-Operated Demand-Response Service Performance Indicators ...... .. ... . ... ...... .... . . .... . . . Purchased Demand-Response Service Perfonnancc Indicators .... ....... . ........ . . .............. ... .. Vanpool Perfonnance Indicators . ........ ...................... . ....... ... ... ..... .... . ... .. Oirecrly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators ................ ........ . . . .... ..... . .... . . . System Total Perfonnancclndicators ... . ............................ . ............... .... ...... Directly-Operated Demand-Response Servic e Effectiveness Measure-S ..... .... ...... ...... ....... . ...... . . Purchased Demand-Response Service Effective-ness Measures . . . . ........ . . . ......... . . . ... .... Vanpool Effectiveness Measures ....... ...... ......... .... ..... .... ...... .... ........ .......... Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ..... ............ .... ....................... .... S ystem Total E ffectiveness Measures .... .... . .... . ...... .... .... ...... ............... ... . Directly-Operated DemandResponse Service Efficienc y Measures ... .... . . . . ....... . . ........... ... Purchased Demand-Response Service Efficie n cy Measures .... .... .... .... ........ . ........ .... . .... Vanpool Efficiency Measures .. ... .... .................. ....... .................. . . .... . . . Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures ....... .... ............. ... .... ...... . ..... ....... System Total Efficiency Measure s . ......... ............. ..... . ... ............. . .... ... PAGE 261 262 263 272 273 274 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 298 299 300 30 1 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 ix

PAGE 11

TABLE LIST OF TABLES PAGE TrlCounty Commuter Rail Authority IIITl Perfonnancc Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 lllT2 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 lllT3 Efficiency Measure s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 X

PAGE 12

FIGUR E INTRODUCTION l l 1 13 LI S T OF FIGU RES Perromuanee Evaluation Statutes ... . .......... . .......... ........ , ... ..... .. . . Florida's Transit Systems .................... . .............. ............................. Factors Affecting Transit Perfonnance ... ... ............. .................. .. . ..... ......... STATEWID E TREND ANALYSIS Statewide To t al Excluding Pun:hased M o torbus PAG E 3 5 6 11 An:a Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11 9 2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11 Vehicle M iles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11-84 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 1195 Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 11 Tot>l Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 11-,87 Vc:hiclcs in Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1188 Vehicle Mile s Per C ap i ta ..... ...... .......... ........ ... ................ ... o . . 19 11-89 Pwenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ........ ................................. o . . . 19 11910 Aver& Age or F l eet .............. . ... . .. o .......... .. .... . . ..... . .. 19 1 1 811 Revenue Mile s Belwecn Incidents ........ ....... -.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11 Revenue Miles Between Interruptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1lo913 Operating Expense Per Capi t a .... . ............. . 0 20 11 8 1 4 Operating J;xpense Per Passenger Trip ....... o ....... ... 0 .. 0......................... ........ . . .. 20 IIB 1 5 Opera tin& E xpense Per Revenue M ile ....... ....... .................................. o 20 11 8 16 Maintenance Expense P er Revenue M i l e ....... . . .... ... . .... . .. ...... .... ........ 20 IIB 17 Farebox Recovery R a tio . . . ........ ... . ......... .... ................ o 2 0 11 V ehicle Miles Per Peak Veh ic l e ........... .. ....... ... ...... ...... .. .......... 0 o 20 11o 8 1 9 Revenue llours Per Employee .... o .... ..... . ... . 0 o 20 11 Pass e n ge r Trips Per Employ e e ... . o . . ... ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 11-821 Averagefo'are ... ........... . ....... ... ... . ............ ............................... 2 0 S t a t ewide Tot al Inc l uding Purchased Motorb u s 11 8 22 Co unty/ Se rvice Area Popula tion ... ... ... . ..... ................................. ... o 24 11823 P asse n ger Tdps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 118 2 4 Vehicl e Mile s and Revenue-Miles ....... ................ .... .. ...... ... . . . . . . 2 4 11 825 Total Operating Expense ..... ............. . 0 o ........ .... o . . . 24 11-826 Vehic les i n Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1127 Vehicle M i les Per Ca pit a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ..

PAGE 13

FIGUR E 11-828 11-829 118 30 11-83 I 11-832 LIST OF FIGURES Passenger Trips Per Revenu e M ile .......... ................................................ Openuing Expens< Per C api la ............ ...................................................... O pe nlling Expense Per Passenger Trip ........ ....................................... .... Operating Expense Per R evenue M ile ......................... . ... ........................... . . . Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicl e ...................... ... ......... ................................ PAGE 25 26 26 26 26 S Y STil M -OYSYSTE M TREND ANALYSIS M ctroDilde 1'ransit Agency Sys t e m Total Excluding Purchased Motorbus III-AI County!Se rvice Area Population . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . 63 III-A2 Passenger Tri ps .......................... .......... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 111-A 3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Mil e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 III-A4 Tot.11 Operating Expen se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Ill-AS Passenger Fare Reve nues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 I IIA6 To tal Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 111-A 7 Vehicles in Maximu m Servke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Ill-AS Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 IIIA9 Passenge r Trips Per Revenue M ile . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. 64 111-A 1 0 Revenue Miles Betw een Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 lil-A I I Reven u e Mi le s Between Int erruption s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 IllA 1 2 Operating Expense Pe"" Capita .......... .................. .................. . . . . . .. . . . . 65 IIIAI3 Oper ating Expense Per Pa sse n ger T r i p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S 111-A 14 Operating Ex pense Per Revenu e Mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S III A t S Maintenance E x pense Per Revenue M i l e ..... ...... . ...... .... . .. I I 6S III A 1 6 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S III-AI ? Vehicle Miles Per Peak V eh i c l e .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S IIIAI8 Revenue Hours Per ..... o., . . o ,.... .............. ....... . 6S IJI-AI9 Passe nger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 S IIIA20 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S S y s tem To tal Including Purchased Moto rbus III-A21 Co unt y/Se rv ice Area P opulatio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 III A22 Passenge r T r i ps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 IJI-A23 Vehicle Miles an d Revenue Mi les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 III-A24 Toul Opeming Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 IJI-A2S Passenger Fare Revenues ......................... .......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

PAGE 14

FIGURE 111-A26 IIIA27 III-A28 JIIA29 111-AJO IIIA31 III A32 111-AJJ IIIA34 LIST OF FIGURES Vehicles in Maximum Service ............. ........... . .... ....... . ..... ... .... Vehi cle Miles Per Capita ................... ........ ................. ............... ....... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .... .... ......... .... ..... . . .... . .......................... Operating !;xpense Per Capita ................ .. ..... ......... .......... ... ....... Opera t ing Expense Per Passenger Trip . ..... ........ ... ... .................. ... : .... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ..... ....... .... .... ... ... . ....... ......... ... . . .... .. farebox Recover y Rari o .................... .......... .......... . ................ ..... .... . Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ...... ... ... . ... ......... . . ........ ............... Average F'are Broward Transit Division PAGE 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 111-B I County/Service Area Populatio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 11182 Passenger T r ips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 111-BJ Vehic l e M i les and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 111-84 To ta l Opera ti ng Expcnso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 111-BS Passenger Fare-Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 111-86 Total Emp l oyees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 111 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 111-88 Veh icle Miles Pe r Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 H I -B9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 IIIB 10 Average Age of Fleet . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 5 111-B ll Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 IIIB12 Revenue Miles Between Jntem1ptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 IIIBI3 Operating E xpens e Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 III-Bl4 Operating Expense Per P a ssenger T rip............. ... . . ........ ........... .................... .. 86 111815 Operat i ng ExpeMe Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 IIIBI6 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . 86 IIIB 17 Fareoox R ecov ery Rat i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 IIIBI8 Vehicle M i les Per Pea k Veh i c l e .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . 86 111 19 Revenue Hour s Per Employee .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . 86 fiiB20 Passenger Trips P e r Empl oyee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 111 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Jack sonville Transportat io n A uthority 111-CI County/Service Area P opu l a t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 III-C2 Passenger Trips . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . 101 111-CJ Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 XIII

PAGE 15

x.iv FIGURE 111-C4 lii-C5 III-C6 IIJ-C7 111-CS 111-C9 111-CIO 111-CII III-CI2 111-C13 111CI4 IllC I S 111CI6 IIJ-CI7 111-CI8 lll-CI9 III-C20 111-C21 LIST OF FIGURES Tota l Operiuing Expense ......................... . . . .... .. ... ...... ....... ... Passenger Fare Revenues ........ . . . . ....... . ........ . ................ ... .... ........ Total Employees ........... ........ .... . .... ......... ... ... ...... . . .... ..... Vehicles in Maximum Service . .... ........ ............. . . ......... ..... ........ . . Vehi cle M iles Per Capit a ............... . ....... . ... .. ... ........ . . .... ................ . P assenger Trips Per Revcnu( Mile ........... ..... .... . . ..... ........... ....... . . . .... . A veragc Age of Fleet ...... ............ ... ... .......... ...... .... , .................. ..... Revenue Miles Between Incidents .... ..... . . . . . ............ . ............ .... .... ....... Revenue Miles Becween Interruptions . . ............. .... ......... . .... . . ................ . Operating Expense P e r Capita . . ............ .. .... .... ........... ................ .. Operating Expense Per Passenge r Trip ...... . .... . .... ..... . . ....... . . ...... . . . Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . ........... . . ...... ... .. ......... . .... .... ........ . Maintenance Expense Per Rt'Venue Mile ..... . ...... .............. ........ ..... .............. . . . Fare:box Recovery Ratio .... ......... ..... . .... . . ....... . ....... . ...... ......... .... Vehicle Miles J>er Peak Vehi cle ........ ... ... .......... . .... . ..... .... . ........ . .... .... . Re.venue Hours Per Employee ..... ....... . .... . . .... ............... . .... . .... ......... . Passenger Trips Per Employee ...... ...... .................... . .... . ................ ....... . Average Fare . .......... . . ... ............... ... ... .......... ..................... ..... HiJlsbotough A r ea Regional Transit PAGE 101 10 I 101 101 102 102 102 102 102 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 111-01 County /Service Population .................. .. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 111-02 Passenger Trips .............. .... ... . . . . ....... . . . .... .... .... . . . . . . 112 111-03 Vehicle Miles and Revenue M iles . . ..... ... .... ..... ........ . . . .... ....... .. 112 111-04 Total Operating Expense ........ ........... ... ... ...... ........... , . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. 112 111-05 Passen ger fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 111-06 Total Empl oyees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 111 -07 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 111-08 Vehicle M i les Per Capita ..... .... ............................ ..... ............ .... .. . . .. .. 113 111-09 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mil e ..... . ...... ...... ....... ..... . . . ...... .... 113 111-010 Average Age of Fleet ................. .... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 111-011 Revenue Miles Betwe en I ncidents ... ... ... .... ......... .... . ..... .. . . . , . . . . . 113 111012 Revenue Miles Becween lnccrruptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 111-013 Operating Expense Per Capita .......... . . ..... . .................. ......... .... . , 114 111-014 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ......... . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 111-015 Operating Expense P er Revenue Mile .... . . .... . . .... .... . . . . . . . . . 114 111016 MainteMnce Expense Per Revenue Mile ....... . . . .... .... , .. .. , ..... . . . 114 111017 Farebox Recovery Ratio ... . .... . .... ...... . . ....... ............ ....... .... . . . . 114

PAGE 16

FIGURE 111-018 111-019 111-020 111021 LIST OF' FIGURES Vehicle M iles Per Pe.ak Vehicle .. ... ..... .............. ... . .... ........ ................. Revenue 1-lours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .... Passenger T rips Per Employe e ...... .... . ..... . .... . . ......... . ...... .... . ... .. Average Fare ... . .... ................. ..... ............ ........ . ..................... Pinellas Suncoast Transit A uthority 111-E I County/Service Area P opulation ........ ........ ................... ........... .... .. . IIIE2 Passenger Trips ... .............. . . . ........... ........ ... .. ..... ... ..... ..... ... 111-E3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles .......................................... ................ .. III-E4 Total Operating Expense . ... ................. .... ...... .... ...... . . . .. .... 111Passenger Fare Revenues .............. .... .... . .... . ............ . .......... . ...... 111-E6 Total Employees ....... ... ...................... ......... . ...... .............. ..... III-E7 Ill -E S III-E9 111-EIO III-Ell 111E 12 111-E13 IIIE l4 111IIIEl6 111-E17 111-E 18 III-EI9 III-E20 111-E21 Lynx (Orlando) 111-Fl 111-F2 111-F3 111-F4 111-FS III-F6 111-F7 111-FS Vehicles in Maxin1um Service ............. .. . .... ....... . ......... ..... ... . . Vehicle Miles Per C apita ... ......... . ......... ....... ......... .......... .... . ..... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ................. . . ............. ... ................. .... ..... Average Age of Fleet ... . ....... ........... . . . ... .. .. .. ..... . ............. Revenue Miles Bct'h ecn Incidents .......... ... ..... .... . . .... ....... . . .... ....... ....... . Revenue Miles Bet\Neen Interruptions ................. ...... ........ ....... ........ . ... Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ............... . . . Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . .. .... .... ................ . Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . ........ .... ........ ... .... . Maintenance Expense-Per Revenue. Mile ...... .......... ............... .... .................. .... Farebox Recovery Ratio ......... ....... ...... ............ ...... ...................... ....... Vehicle M iles Per Peak Vehicle ............. . .... .... ... . .... . ... ............. Revenue Hours Per Employee ............................... ....... .... . ............. . .... . Passenger Trips Per Employee ........ .......... ....... .............. . .......... . Average Fare ................. ...... .... ...... . ..... ....... . ................ Counry/Service Area Population ..... ...... ... . ...... ...... . . ... . . ...... . . . . . . Passenger l 'rips ....... . ....... .... . .......... .... .................... ............... Vehicle M iles and Revenue Miles ...... .. ... . . ...... . . . ....... . ....... ... ..... ... ....... Total Operating Expe.nse .......... .... . ....... .... ............. . ..... . ........ . Passenger Fare Revenues ........... . ........ . ......... ............... .... .. ...... Total Empl oyees .... ........... ... .. . . ... . .... ... ... ......... .... ........ . Vehicle-s in Maximum Service ...... . ... .. ... ..... .... . ........... Vehicle Miles Per Capita ............ ...... ... ...... .. ... . . PAGE 114 114 114 114 124 124 1 2 4 124 124 1 2 4 124 125 1 25 125 125 125 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 1 4 3 XV

PAGE 17

xv i f'IGURE III-F9 Ill-flO 111-FII III-FI2 111-F13 111-F14 111-FIS 111FI6 111-FI? 111-f 18 IIIFI9 III-F2 0 III-F21 LIST OF FIGURES Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .... . . .... . ......... .... ............. ... . . ........... . . A vcrage Age of Fleer ................ ........ ................. .... .... . ............... Revenue Miles Between lnc idenrs ..... . . ................................ ..... . ......... .... . Revenue Miles Between lntefT\Jptions ..... .... . . ..... ........ . .... . . ........... . . . . ... Operating Expense Per Capita ....... . . ................ ............. ...... ... . ........... . Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ...... .......................... ....... . . .... ... .... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ..... ... .... . . .... . . . .... ... ....... . ...... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ... . ............ ... ................ ... . . , . . .... . Farebox Recovery Ratio . .... ... .. ..... ........ .......... . . .............. . ...... .... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . ... ............ ....... . . ....... . .... ... ............ Re-venue Hours Per Employee ............ . ... . .... . . . . . ........ . ...... .. Passenger Trips Per Employee . ..... . .... . ..... . . . . .... . ..... ... ... ............ ...... Average Fare ......... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Palm Beach County Transportation Authority PA<;E 143 143 143 143 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 111-
PAGE 18

LIST OF FIGUR ES FIGURE Tallahassee Transit IJI-H I County/ Service Area Population ......... .... ........ ..... ... . ... . ... .... . .......... III-H2 Passenger Tri p s ........... ..... ....... . . .... . .... .... ...... . ... . . . . . . 111-1-13 111H4 lll H5 III-H6 111-H7 111-fl8 lll-H9 111H 10 111-H II lliHI2 111H 13 IIIH14 111H I 5 111-H 16 III H 17 111H 18 111-HI9 III H20 III-H2J Vehi c l e Miles and Revenue M iles ... . ...... . .............. .... ..... ..... ......... To t al Operating Expense . ....... ............. ............... .... . . ......... .... Passenger Fare Revenues . ..... . ..... . .............. ...... ... .. ........ . ......... ...... Tota l Employees ....... .... . . .................... ......... . .... ...... ............... Vehicles in Maximum Service ....... ................................. ... ................... Vehicle M i les Per C apita ......... . ................. . . . . . . . . ........... ... ..... P a ssenger Tri p s Per Revenue Mi1e .... .............. .... ......... . ...... . . .. . ... . Average Ag e of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . ......... Revenue M iles Belween lncidcnls . ........ .... ......... ............ . ..... . . ..... ........ . Revenue Miles Between lnletrUplions ......... .... ........ . ............... ........ . ...... ... Operating Expense Per C apita .......... . .......... ............. ....... . . . ........ ..... Operat ing Expense Per Passenger Trip .............. .... ... .................... . . ... Operating E;l(pnse Per Reven u e Mile . .... ......... ................. .... .... . . ..... ......... . Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile. ...... . . ..................... .............. ....... . . . Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... .......... ...... ...... ... . ....... ........ ..... ..... Vehic)e M i les Per Peak Vehicle ... ......... ............ .. .. . . .. . . . ... ......... Revenue Hours Per Employee ....... ... ....... . ............ . . .... ...... ......... ...... Passen ger Trips Per Employee . .... .......... ......... . ...... .......... . ............... Average Fare ...... ........... .... .... ................ . ... . ............... . .... . Regional Transit System (Gainesvi lle) III-II County/Service Are a Population ..... ....... ... ......... ........... .. ............ .............. 111 Passenge r Trips . ..... ........... .............. .... ...... ..... . . . . .... 111-13 Vehicle M i les and Revenue Miles .... ............ . .... ..... ... ..... . .................. 111-1 4 Total Operating Expense ..... . ........ . ........... ..... ... ... . ............. . . . . 11115 Passenger Fare Revenues .. ............. ... ...... ................ . . . . ..... ..... .... 111-16 Total Empl oyees . ...... ....... . ............. . .................. ........... . . 111-17 Vehicles i n Maximum S ervice ... . . . . . . ......... ....... ...... . .... ... ... 111-18 Vehic l e Miles Per Capita . ....... ............ . . .............. . . ... ....... . ... ....... .. IU-19 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .... . .... ........ .............. .... ... ......... . .... .... 111110 Average Age of F leet ............. . ............ .... ................. ..... ...... .. ......... .. Ill-I l l Revenue Miles Between Incidents .. ... .... ... ... ........... .............. . . . . . ...... . . . 111-112 Revenue. Miles Between I nterruptions ..... .... ............. . . ...... .... . ................ 11113 Oper ating Expense Per Capita .... . . ...................... .......... . ....... . .... ....... PAGE 169 169 169 169 1 69 169 169 170 170 170 170 170 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 17 1 171 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 180 180 180 180 180 181 xvi i

PAGE 19

FICUR 111114 11111 s 111 111-117 111 111119 111 120 111 1 2 1 LIST OF FIC U R S Operating Expense Pu Passeng u Tri p ....................................................... Operaling EX-pense Pc:, r Revenue Mi.le ....................................................... Maintenance Per Revenue M i le ... ...... . ................................. ...... ... Farebox Recovery Ratio ..................................... . .... . ...................... Vehicle Miles J>cr Peak Veb.ic-le ............. ..... .. .................. . ... . ...... . ... Revenue Hours Per Employee .. ............ . .............. . .... , ............ . .... Passe-nger T rips Per Employee ........... . . . . . ......... ... ........ ......... ... . .... Avera. geFare ............ ...... 0, 0 0 0 PAC 181 181 181 181 181 181 1 8 1 181 East Volusin Tran sit Authority III..JI County/Sendee Are Popul atio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 111 Passenger T rips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 lll l3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles .......... . . ............. . ... . .... 190 JIJ.J4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 IIIJS Possenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 III..J6 Total Employees ..... o .............. o o................. .......... ....... 190 111-n Vehicles in Maximum ................... ... ................................. _.. . . 190 lll l8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 III J9 Passeng Trips Pet Revenue Mile ........... . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 IIIJIO Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 lll lll Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 III JI2 Revenue Miles Between Interrupt i ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 III JI3 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 192 lll l 14 Operating Expense Per Pa<:nger Trip . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . 192 111JI S Operating Expense Per R evenue Mile . . ......... ........... ....... . . . ........ .. 192 lll ll6 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ........ ....... . .... .................. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 192 lll ll7 Farebox Recovery Ratio ............. .... ..... .... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 liiJIS Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle .......... ............. . . . ...................... 192 IIIJI9 Revenue H our s Per Employee .............. ...... ........ ..... ..... . . . . 192 lll l20 Passenger Trips Per Employe e ........... ... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 III -J'2l Average Fare ...... .................... ........ .............. 0 192 E.scamb i a Counly Area Transit IU K I C ount y /Service Area Population ...... . ........... ................... .... .. _.. 201 Ill K 2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 I III K 3 Vehicle !
PAGE 20

FIGURE 111-KS III-K6 111-K7 111-KS III-K9 111-KIO 111-K I I IIIK 12 111-K 13 111-K I 4 111K I 5 III-K16 111-KI7 111-K 18 111-KI9 111-K20 111-K21 LIST OF F I GURES Passenger Fare Revenues .... ...... .. ........ ....... ......... ..... . ...... . . . ... Total Employees .... .... . ..... ......... ......... . .... ... ... . ............ ........ Vehicte. s in Maximum Sel'\'ice . .... . . ............. .... .... ...... ............. . .. Vehicle Miles Per Capita ................ . . .... . .... . .... ........... ...... . .... . Passenger Trip s Per Revenu e Mil e ....... .... .... . ...... ....... ............ .............. . Average Age of F l eet ................ ... ..... ................. .... ... ... . . .... . Revenue Miles Bct,vecn lncidenls ........... . . . .... . ...... . . . . ............. ..... . . ... Revenue Miles Between lnlerruplions . . . ...... .............. . ........ . .... . ............. Operating Expense Per Capita ...... ............. . . ................. .... .... . . . .... .... Operating Expense Per P assenger Trip ....... ........ . . .... ... ... . ............................ Operating Expense Per R evenue .Mile ..... ..... . . ......... . ...... ......... . . ......... . . . Maint enance Expense Per Revenue Mile ..... .... . . ....... . ....... .... .... . ............. . . Farcbox Recovery Ratio ... .... ..... ...... . ...... . .... ....... . ..... .... ..... . .... ...... . Vehicle Miles Per Peak V ehicl e .......... ... ............. . . .... ..... ........... ..... . . Revenue Hours Per Employee ..... . . ............ ..................... .... . .... .... . .... . Pas.enger T rips Per Employee ........... ... ... . . ........... . ..................... Average Fare ................. . ..... . . . ....... ......... ...... . . ..... ...... ... . . . Lee County Transit 111-Ll County / Service Area Population ... ........ . . . . .......... ......... . ............. ..... . JII-L2 Passenger Trips . ...... ..... ........... ..... . . . ...... ... ................. III L3 III-L4 JII-L5 li i L6 III-L7 Jli-L8 IIIL9 lii-LIO IIILI I 111.L12 III L13 111L 14 Ill-LIS 111L 1 6 111LI7 111-L 18 Vehi cle Miles and Revenue M ile.s . ....... . .... .......... . ........... .... .... . . . ... ..... Total Operat ing Expense ....... .... ... . ...... . ..... ..... ....... ...... . ...... . . Passenger Fare Revenues .... ............ . ..... ...... . . ................ ... . ...... . . . Total Employees ........... .............. .... .......... . .... .... . . . ..... ..... V eh icl es in Maximum Service .. ...... . ..... ...... ...... . . . ........................ . . . Vehicle Miles Per Capita ................. . .. ....... .... ... ........ .................. Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .... .... . . . ................... ....... . . . ....... . . . . . Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..... . ....... .... ... Revenue Miles Ber.vecn Incidents . .... . .... . . ......... ........ . .... ....... . . .......... Revenue Miles Bet,veen lntcrTUpt io n s ....... .... ....... . ........ . ...... .... .... . .... ....... Operating Expense Per Capita .... ....... . . ..... .................. .......... ...... .. ...... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ....... .... ..... . ......................... ... .. ... .... . . . Operating Expense Per Revenue ..... ...... ... ..... . . . ..... ......... . ...... ... ....... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .... .... .... . ....... ........... . . .......... ....... ...... Farebox R ecovery Ratio ........ ........ . . . .......... ......... . . ....... .... . . . . . . . Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . ...... . . . . . ........ . . .... ............... . . .......... PACE 201 201 201 202 202 202 202 202 203 203 203 203 203 203 2 0 3 203 203 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 219 219 219 219 219 220 220 220 220 220 220 XIX

PAGE 21

XX FIGURE 111-Ll9 lliL20 UI-L21 Revenue HOurs P e r Employee Passenger Trips Per Employee U S T OF FIGURES Average Fare ........... . ......... . .... ..... . . . ........ . . ...... ... .... Sarasota Councy Area Transit PAGE 220 220 220 llfMl County/Service Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 111M2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 111-M3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 111-M 4 T otal Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 IIIM5 Passenger Fare Re venu es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 111-M6 Tot al Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 lliM7 11lM8 111-M9 lllMIO lli M II lii-M l2 lliMl3 111-Ml4 111-M 15 111-Ml6 lll-Ml 7 lliMl8 Ill -Ml9 lll M20 lll-M21 Vehicles in Maximum Service ... . ..... ...... ...... ... . . .... ...... ....... .... ......... . . Vehicle Miles Per Capi1a ..... ........ .... . .... ................. ....... . .... ........... Passenger rrips Per Revenue Mile ........ : ........... ............ ...... ...... ....... ....... . . Average Age of Fleet ........ ... ... . . .. .... . . .... ........ . .... . . . ...... .... . Revenue Miles Between Incidents ....... . ......... ........ . ... ... . . .... .... .... . . . . ... Revenue Miles Between Intcrruprions ............. ....... ........ ..... . ....... .... . ........... Operating Expense Per Capi t a ..... . ......... . . . ...... ..... . .... . ................ Opera t ing l:lxpense Per Passenger Trip ..... ......... ............ . .. . .... . . .. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ........ ............. . ..................... ...... . ......... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . ........ ................................ . ....... ....... F'arebox Recovery Ratio .... ..... . ....... ............ .... . ...... . ........... .... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ....... .......... ...... ....... ....... ..... ..... . .... ... ... Revenue liours Per Employee . . ... . .... ....................... . .... . . .... . Passenger Trips Per Employee ............ . . . . . . ..... . . . ...... ... . .... .... . ....... . Average fare .... .... ....... ..... ............. . .......................... .... . ..... ... Lakeland Area Mass Transit District 228 229 229 229 229 229 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 111-Nl County / Service Area Population . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. 239 III-N2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 lllN3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ....... ... .... ......... . . . . ... . .... .. , 239 lll N4 T o tal Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 lll N5 Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 III-N6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 111-N7 Vehicles in Maximum Serv i ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 lll-N8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 lfl -N9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

PAGE 22

FIGURE 111-NIO II I -NII 111-NI2 111-NIJ 111-NI4 111-N 15 lll-NI6 III-NI7 111-N 18 III-N19 IIJ-N20 IIIN21 LIST OF F IGURES Average Age of fleet ............... ....... . . . ............... . ......... ........ ... Revenue Miles Belween Incidents .............. . .... ......... ...... ...... ........ .... ......... Revenue Miles Between Interruptions ...... ..... .... .. .... .... . . .. ..... ............. . Operating Expense P er Capita . . . ... ... ..... . . .. ... .......... . .... ........... ... Operating Expense Per Passenger T rip ... .. .......... ... ..... .. ........... .................. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ......... .............. .... . ....... . .......... ......... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mil e ..... . ........... . .... ............ ...................... F'arebox Recovery Ratio ............ .... ........ ...... ......... . ... ....... . ... .... ... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ... . .... . .... ........ .... ........... . ....... . .... . . . .... Revenue Hours Per Employee .. ... ........... . . ... ....... . ..... .... . ... ......... . Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . ..... ....... ..... ...... .......... ................ ..... A \ erage Fare ........ .......... . . ... ............ . ..... ..... ......... ... ...... . . Manatee County Area Transir PACE 240 2 4 0 240 241 241 2 4 1 241 241 241 241 241 241 111 I Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . 256 111-02 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 111-03 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 11104 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 111 -05 Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 111-06 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 lll-07 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 111-08 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 111 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 111-010 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 111-011 Revenue Miles Between lneidenrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 1 1 1 012 Revenue Miles Between Interrupt ions ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 111-013 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 111014 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 258 111-015 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 111 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 111-017 Farcbox Recovery Rati o . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 258 111-018 Vehicle Miles Per Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 111-019 Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 111-020 Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 111-021 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . 258 xxi

PAGE 23

FICURE LIST OF FICURES PACE Smyrna Tnnsit System IIIPI City/Service Area POpUlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 111-P2 Passenger T r ips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 IIIP3 Vehic l e Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 IIIP4 Tc>tal Operoting Expense ................... ...... ...... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . 267 III PS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 IIIP6 Tc>tal Emp l oyees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 111-P7 Vehicles in Maximum Service ........ .......... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 lii -P8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita .................... .... . . .... .... .. ..... ... ......... . .... 268 III P9 P assenger Trips Per Revenue Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 III P I 0 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 111-Pll Revenue Miles Between Incidents ........ .... .... . .... . .... , .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 268 III PI2 Revenue Miles Between Interrupti ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 IIIPI ) Operat ing Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 IU PI4 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ......................... ..... . . . . . . 269 IIIPIS Operoting Expense Per R evenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 IUPI6 Maintenance Expense Per Rev enue M ile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 IIIP11 F""'box Recovcrr Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Ill-PI& Vehicle M iles Per Peal< Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 IIIPI9 Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 IIIP20 Passenge r Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 lllP2 1 Average Fare ............. ....... ......... .... ......... ....... ........ ... . . . . 269 Pns.co County Public TranspOrtalion Service IIIQI County/S ervice Area Populat ion .................... ... ............ . . . . . . . 276 III Q2 Passenger Trips ......................... .. .. .. ...... .......... .. . . . . . . . . . 276 IIIQ3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Mile s ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 IIIQ4 To tal Operat ing Expense ...... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 111-QS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 IIIQ6 Vehicles i.n Maximum S4:rvicc: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 IIIQ7 Vehicle Miles Per Capi t a ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 IIIQS Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 111..()9 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . 277 111 QIO Operating Expense Per C apito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8 IIIQII Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. 278 111..()12 Operoting Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 111..()13 Maintenance Expense Per R evenue M i le . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. 27 8 xxii

PAGE 24

F I GU R E IIIQ I 4 III QIS III Q16 LIST O F FIGURES Farebox Recovery Ratio ........ . ..... ........ ................... .... ....... . . . ... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicl e ..... . ..... .... .............. . ..... ............ .... . Average Fare .......... ...... ..... . .. .................... ........... .... . . ......... Key West Department of Transportal ion PAGE 278 278 278 llfR 1 County/Service Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 liiR2 Passenge r Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 111-RJ Veh i cle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 93 fliR4 Total Opera ting Expens e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 llf RS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 II I R6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 IIIR7 Vehicles in Maximum Service ............ . ....... ... .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 IIIR8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 III-R9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 IIIRIO Average Age ofFlee.t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 111-Ril Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 III-RI2 Revenue Miles Between lnterTUptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 IIIR13 O per a t ing Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 IIIR14 Operating Expense Per Passe nger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 IIIRI5 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 liiRI6 Maintenance Expense l'er Reve n ue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 III-R I7 Farebox Recov ery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29S ll lR I8 V e hicle Mil es Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 III-Rl9 Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 IIIR20 Passenger Tri ps Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 lllR21 Average Fare . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. 295 Spa ce Coas t Area Transit (Brevard County) Ill S I County/Service Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 111 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 11183 Veh ic l e Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 III -S4 Total Ope ratin g Expe n se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 III-S5 Passenger Fare Revenues ..................... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 III -S6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 III-S7 Vehicles in Maximum Servi ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Ill 58 Vehicle M i les Pe r Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 IIIS9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 XXIII

PAGE 25

FIGURE 111-SlO IIJ-Sll lll-Sl2 111-SIJ lllS14 Ill-SIS III-Sl6 Ill-S 17 lll$18 Ill-S 19 lll-S20 lliS21 LIST OF FIGURES Average Age of Fleet ................. . ........ .. ............ ....... ........... Revenue Miles Incidents .... .... . ........... ............................ .. .... , . Revenue Mile-s Between lnlerruptions ........... . ................................................ Oper4i.ting Expense Per Capita ......... . .... ...... ....... .......................... .. . ..... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .............. ..... .... ................... ...... .. .. , Operating Expense J,er Revenue Mile ... .......... ............. . ..... . .. . ..... . ..... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . .... ... ... ..... . .... .................... ........ . Farebox Recovery Ratio ......... ...... . ... ... .... ..... ...................................... V eh i c l e Miles Per Peak Vehicle ....... ........... ....... ............ ........ ...... Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . 1 1 1 PasS
PAGE 26

FOREWORD Under contract with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida's fixed-route transit systems. This report is based on data from federally-required Section I 5 reports, which are submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for each fiscal year by systems receiving Section 9 funding. FTA, which has required these data since 1979, provides extensive documentation on how the data are to be collected and reported and requires auditor certification of the submitted data. Section 15 reports are the best single source of data for reviewing transit system performance because the data are standardized undergo extensive review, and arc the result of a substantial data collection and reporting process by the transit systems. Some Section I 5 data are used by FT A and by states and localities for calculating formu l ae for the allocation of funding to transit systems. As a result, the data are extremely important to transit agencies. This report is one of two documents prepared as part of the performance evaluat ion project. In addition to this technical memorandum (Part I, Trend Analysis, I 984-1993), a second technical memorandum was prepared (Part II, Peer Review Analysis, 1 993). T his is the sixth statewide transit evaluation conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) and CUTR. CUTR would like to thank FOOT and each of the individual transit systems for their cooperation and assi>1ance in the preparat ion of the memoranda. Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Telephtm<: (811) 974-3120 Project Dircclor : Stewm ,. Pol:in Project Managers: Joel R. Rey Victoria A. Perle Staff Support: David Gillett Florida Department of Transportation Office of Public TransponaJion Operations Public Transit Office 605 Suwannee Strc N Mail Station 26 Tallahte: (904) 488-7774

PAGE 27

This is a blank page

PAGE 28

199 3 PERFO RMANCE EVALUATION Of FLOR I DA TRANSIT SYST E MS PART I TREND ANALY S IS, 1984-1993 I. I NTRODUCTIO N Rapid growth i n Florida has resulted in increased auention to pub l ic transit as a p o temial solution t o ever i ncrea sing transportation problems in t he sta t e . Along with the increased emphasis on public transit c omes the necessity to assess I he effectivene-ss and efficiency of transit systems Florida legislation requi r es the F l orida Department of Transponation a n d florida's t r ansit systems t o de\'elop and report pertOnnance measures The relevant Florida sta t utes are noted in Figure J .J. FLORIDA STATUTE 341 041 FLORIDA STATUTE 34 1 .071 FLOR I DA STATUTE 341 .052 F IG U RE I I __ contall 'l l:>g .ystom managarnent, pe rfonnance, produc tiYity, dis t ribution. and sal& t y ot goverrwnentally ( owned p u b lic ttansit systems .. : ,/' (1) .. eac h pub li c lfansi1 provide r shall establish / publ i c t ranspOTtation OGvelopn"'ent plans co n s i stenl with l apptoved IOCaJ govemmen t comprehens ive plans (2) each pubtic transit provider sl\aQ establish prod u ctivijy and performance moasures, whiCh mUSI b e app r oved by t h e department and Yltli c h must be sel oc !ed from measvr es developed to s. 34t .04t (3)." {3) Each pub li c uansi t provider shall p u b lish i n t h e l oca l newspaper of its area tfla prOduc tivi t y and performance measure$ established fOf t h e year . : --1 (4) 'To remain elig ible t o rece i ve f u nding .. efjg i b l e public transit ptovlders must comply 'Nil h ... s.341.071 (1} by Jul y 1 .1991. and . s. 341 071(2) by July I, 1992 ... r1 ---..../ v --.. ......,...... .... J

PAGE 29

Consistent with the legislatjon, this repon provides an overview of the individual and collective perfonnance of Florida's fixed-route transit systems There are 20 systems included in this repOrt_ 18 of which provide fixed-route motorbus services. Of these I 8 systems, 16 also ofter some type of demand-respOnse service either directly or through a contract with an outside vendor (this report does not address demand-re sponse services) Two of the systems (Metro-Dade Transit Agent)' and Jacksonville Transportation Authority) operate automated guideway systems (peoplemover) while a single system (Metro-Dade) operates a heavy rail system In addition a commuter rail system is curre ntly operating in South Florida (Tri-County Commuter Rail) Two systems (Space Coast Area Transit in Brevard County and Pasco County Public Transportation Service) are unique when compared to other systems around the state. Space -Coast provides demand-response and vanpool based transit services primarily; however, in O<:tober 1991, the system began using some of its demand response fleet to operate fixedroute motorbus services. Pasco County Public Transportation Service discontinued fixed route motorbus service in 1990 and now only provides demand-response service. The report is presented in two parts. Pan 1. Trend Analysis. begins with a summary of statewide trends followed by a consideration of the Florida fixed-route total trend. Pan I also presents the performanc-e trend for each of Florida's fixed-route transit systems over a 10-year time period (1984-1993). A variety of tabular and graphical data are included which ponray the changes in several performance. effectiveness, and efficiency measures from the years 1984 to 1993. Appendix A provides a list of definitions of the tenns used in the report. Appendix 8 presents a review of the specific sources for data used throughout the analysis. Appendix C provides an address listing of the Florida transit systems. including the name.s of the director and Section IS contact person for each system. Pan II, Peer Review Analysis (separately bound), presents tabular and graphical data contrasting the performance of Florida s transit systems with each other and with similar systems from around the country for 1993. Appendix A provides a list of definitions for terms used in Part nand is identical to Appendix A of Pan l. Appendix B presents a review of the specific sources for data used throughout the analys is and is identical to Appendix B of P art L Appendices C and D provide address listings for the Florida ttansit systems and the non florida peer systems included in the respectively, aod are both similar in fonnat to Appendix C of Part I. T1le Florida tran sit systems included in this re-port are provided in figure l-2. 4

PAGE 30

FIGUR E 1 Florfda's Tran.$U Sy s tem s greater than 200 buses .. n:nt .. -:.. 50-200 buses 10-49 buses 1-9 buses other systems e ..... nt e ....... nt Escambto Goinonllle H;!lsbooough Joc:luonwill K.,. West Leo MOIIO'I .. Spooe Coast lwo Trons l t Broword Tronait Division Ucombia County .AI.o T ronslt Regiono l T I'Ot'l41t Syst.m Hillsborough Ateo Regional Tromft Jodcsomilt. Transportation ....,.,ority K oy West Do. of T ,..,.ponotlon Lablotld Area Moss Obtrlct Leo CountyT .... -..CountyluwT-Mlornl NewSmymo Orlando Palm Beach PGtcO PlneUos Sarasota Ta Uahosse. Tri-Roil V.w.la Metro-Docie Transit Ag4ncy Smymo T ronslt S ystem L ynx T rom it PoLn s-:h Coun4y T.onsponotlon ...,thority Pasco C.OU,ty PtlbUc Trompot'totlon Pinellos SWt
PAGE 31

A. THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW Since performanceanai)(Sis is only one means of evaluating performance and is limited to those aspects included in the analysis. the reader should exercise conside -rable caution in interpreting the results. It i s particularly strong in reviewing cost effectiveness and efficiency ; however it does not r eport on the extent to which other objectives of the transit authority are being attained. For example. theperfonnance evaluation will not directl y measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfac tion with regard to levels of service. taxpayer and public attitudes toward the agencY.. employee morale success in anaining minority hiring or contracting goals. quality of planning conrributions to e.conomic developmenl air quality improvements, or other goals that may be important to the agency. In addition, several aspects of quality of service are not measured in performance reviews. These include vehicle cleanlines-s and comfort, operator counesy, on-time performance, quality of marketing and passenger information support, and level of satisfaction with hours of operations frequency of service, and geographic coverage of t he service. In addition to understanding the limits of this analysis the reader should use caution in interpreting the meaning of the various measures. The performance review does not necessarily provide information regarding which aspects of pertOnnance are within control of the agency and which measures are not. Figure 1-3 is a schematic of the factors that ultimately affect 1ransit agency performance. Perfom1ance r eview s are a useful and important tool in monitoring and improving transit system performance. However, it should be recognized that the results of trend and peer analyses areonly a slarting pOint for fuJiy understanding the -pcrfonnance of rransit systems. The issues identified as a result of theanalyses provide the basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced unders.tanding of the "bows'" and "whys"' of system performance. 6 IIANAGEMENr/STAFF trokllng /
PAGE 32

B. PERFORMANCE REVIEW DATA BASE The major source of data for the performantc review is Section I S r eports To receiv e -federal funds, transit properties a re required to report a variety of data in a standardized format, resulting in wha t is known as a Section 15 report. These reports provide standardi7..ed measures of reporting that enable a more acc-urat e comparison of information between properties Since 1979, when this reporting requirement \vas instituted, additi onal refinements in data collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and comparability of t he data. The data are for the fiscal year used by each transit authority For Florida properties the fiscal year runs from October I through Sep tember 30. For other properties, the fiscal ye ar may be different. for clarificatio n of any discrepancies, it is recommended that t h e app ropriat e transit system be contacted to verify data and identify any unique characteristics of significance. Data Reliability All Section 15 data submitted to FTA are subje c t to considerab l e review and validation through manua l and automated methods. Each repon is thoroughly examined to identify errors, questions. and inconsistencies. FTA identifies problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to the-se problems before the -final re. port is accepted. The quality of the data published in FTA s "National Urt>an Transportation Statist ics Section 15 Annual Report'' improves each year as transit systems become more familiar w i th collecting and re-porting data and as definit i ons and procedures become more standardize d Despite t h e fact that the data are becoming more reliable over time. there still remain problems with the quality of the data for som e transit sys tems. For this study data were taken from published summary reports of Section I S filings and from individual Section IS reports provi ded by the transit agencies for fisc-al year 1993 With the exception of data on the inflation rate all information was provided by the t ransit systems CUTR. did not collect an y original data or conduct any audits or on-site analyses of the data or data collection procedur es CUTR did. however. review t he da t a in deta i l and corre-spond with thetransit systems concerning questions or inconsistencies This re -view i nvolved identifying irregularities in trends and numbers that were believed to require additional r eview and verification such as reviewing selected ratios and data trends to identify changes that were atypical given the overall trends. Additionally. a completed system data file was provided to each property for review and verification. In many instances, data were changed or significant modifications were made. In several cases data p revious l y submitted to FT A w ere changed t o reflect new inf onnation or refinements in definitions and da ta collection. Jn some instances, tran.scriptJon or other errors were discove red in the data. In other instances. erroneous data from previous years which could not be corrected were e xtrapolated or est i mated to provide the most accurate infomlation possible. The level of attention to data review was considerably greate r for Florida properties than for peer properties from outside the state. The data usc::d for peer compar ison in Part II of this report consisted of data reported for 1993. Since lhese data are more recent, they are expected to be of h i ghe r qua l i ty The absence of trend data for n on-Florida systems precluded applying many of the reasonableness tests to the peer data chac were applied ro the data of Floridas trans i t systems. Data Definitions To fully understand t he d;na presented in this report, it is important to understand the definitions of the t enns used in Sec tion 15 documents. In many instances these definitions differ from initial pcf(:eptions and may be subject to interpretation. Appendix A provides a detailed lisr of definitions for tcnns used by FTA. The data collcc,ion procedure-s furthe-r s pecify exactly what is being referre d to by a given tern\. For example. "'passenger trip" refers 10 an individual boarding a transit vehicle. 7

PAGE 33

A person riding a bus f rom the co m er 10 r hc: office takes one passenger trip to work and a second passenger lrip to retum home Likewise a person who t akes a bus, rran;Srcrs 10 MetrOJail. and then transfetS to Metromover would be: counted as taking three passenger trips ln spite of these definitions and continued refi n ements i n cbta collec:lion proccduRS, remain some discrepancies betwee n systems as to how terms are defined and how information is eoiJe<:ted. Accordingly. caution should be used in i n terpreting findings. especially for those variables lhat are more li k ely 1 0 be subjeet to variation in definitions An example is some variation in the pccific definition or "incideniS" used by the various propenics I n 1990, t he defi n iti o n for "incide nl$" (originally "aceideniS") was modified to r eflect a change in the classifica tion of repon able u n f oreseen ocx:urrences. Other agencies d iffe r in how emp loyees are categoriud among admi nistra ti ve. transporta lion, and mainte n ance task s Sti l l ocher disc re-p ancies c-.an result from differences in the o r gan iza ti ona l stru c t ure of the agency and 1he al l oca tion of responsib i l it ies among t he various &0\'tmmen t a l e nt icies. Fo r exam p le some t ra n si l sys l ems estab l ish t hei r own transit polic e/secu r ity forces, while o th ers rel y o n the munic ipal or coun t y law e n forcement agcncies 1 o pr o vid e 1he necessary services Differences wch as thi s can result in a sig.nificanl varia tion i n opera lin g expenses. Numero us o th e r more s u bt l e cos t alloca tion diff erences can impact lhe d a ta Fo r exa m p l e, s tr ee t sweeping and garbage pickup at p ark-a nd-ride and oth e r tran sit facilities may be p ro v ided at n o cos t by a giv e n juri s diclion or may be a c;.ontrae t or i n -ho u se cos r o f ahe lransi t system. Legal s ervices. compute r service s engineering and desig n support, admini s uat i v e s upport and other cos t s are often shue d cos t s tha t may or may not be accurately allocated betwee n the 1ransi1 system and a parent governmental body. f h e n atio n a l i n n a tion rat e, as defined by the percent age c h ange In the Consumer Price Inde x ( CPI) f o r a ll itc:ms (in cluding c ommoditie s and s ervi c e s ) from y ea r t o ye ar, was u se d t o d eflate co st indi cators so that the y cou l d be presen t e d i n real terms. Fro m l984 thr o u g h 1 993, service a n d labor c osts to increase a t a f a ster ra t e tha n did commod ity prices. T heref or e transi t operating expenses. which a r e predomi n antly c.ompri.sed or service and l abor costs, may be e xpected to increase somewhat faster than inflatio n e v e n i f t h e amount of service provided were not incr eased P e rformancs l n diur o ..s and Measurn 1be evaluation measures that are used throughout the perfonnance rev i ew are divided into three major perfonna.nce indicators, efftivcness measures. and efficiency measures. Perfonnance indicators re-port the data in the selected eategorle$thit are required by Settion IS reporting,. These tend t o be key ind i cators of overall transit sysrem perfonna nce Effectiveness measures typically refine t he da ta further and i n dicate the extent to which v arious service-re l ated goals arc being achieved For examp l e. p ass en ger trips per capita is an indicator of t h e effectiven ess of the agency in mc:c.tin& t ransponation n eeds Effi ci en cy measurei invo l ve reviewing the leve l of resources: (labor o r cos t ) required t o achieve a given level o f output. It is possible to have very efficient se rvi ce that i s n ot effective or to ha\lc highl y effec-tive service tha t is n ot effi c i ent. I n addition. the sc rvice can be bot h effici ent and e ffec live o r inefficient and ine ffec:. tiv e in atta ini ng a g iven objective The s u bs t antia l a m ount of data availablelhrough Sec tion I S reporti n g provides an oppOrtunity to develop a l a rge n u mber of measures. S.:ts of performan ce indica t ors, effect i v e n ess rneasures, and efficiency measures have b ee n se l ected tha t are believed to provide a good re pre-senta tion of overall transit syste m performanc e. Other m e a s ures and ca t egori zations may be developed with t h e .sam e d a ta Table I I lists the indicator s and m e a sures prov i d e d in this report for directlyoperated t ra n sit services a n d a l so provides s ub categorie.s where appropria te. The ex t e n sive lis t of indicato rs and measures provides a v o luminous amount of data all of whic h are required t o fully unde r s tan d the performanc e o f a transit sys t em. 8

PAGE 34

PerfQI'TN.nee indicators Setvic:e Area Population SGI'ViC.e Area Size Passenger T r1>s Passenger Miles. Vehicle Mile s Reve nue Miles Vehide Hours Revenve Hours Route MJes Total Operating Expens e Total Operating EYpense (19&4 $, Total Maintenance El(penM Total Maintenance ExpenM (tN-t$) T ""'' Capital Expense Tocattoc:at Rftenue ()pera1ing: Revenue Passetlget Fare Revenue T ota l EmplOyeeS Transportation Operating Employees M aintenance Employees Adminis.trativ e Employees Vehicles Available for M axi mum Sflrvlc:;e Veh icles to MaKimum Strvbt $pate Ratio Total GallOns Con sumed Total Energy COnsumed (kWohoul'l) -----------TABLE I I Performance Review 1ndieators nd M e asu m Transit Servica Effectiveness Me.uures Ellleiency lle .. OJU Suppty Coot Elfoeltncy Vehicle Miles Per Capita Operating EJ(pen.se Per Capita Operatklg Expense Per Peak Vehicle Servic e Operating Expense Per Passenge r Trip PMSenger Per Capita OpetCllfng Expense Per Passenger Mile Passenge r Trip$ Per Revenue Mile Opcfating E.Jcpense Per Revenue M ile Pa$$en ger Per Revenue Hour Opereling Expense Per Revenue Hour Mainten a nce Expense Per Revenue Mn& Quality of Service M alnt Expense Per Expense Aver;,ge Speed Average Age of Fleet (in Ratios Number of Incidents FarebOx Reco.,.ery Revenue Se-rvice lntcfi'Uptions Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Revenue Mile$ Between Jnclaents Operating Revenue Per Operating Expense Revenue Miles Betwee. n lnterruptlonl VthleltUtillzat;on Avallablllty Vthdo Miles Pe< Velllcle ... Pe< Route -Vohocle Hours Per Pool< Vehicle Rtownue Mile$ Per VehiCle Mile Rewnue Miles P6t Total Vetides Revenue Hoors Per Total Vehicles Labor Produellvity Revenue Hou" Per Employee Passenger T(ips Per Employee Energy Utilization Vehicle Miles Per Gallon Vchlcb Mlle-.s Per Kilowatt Hour Fare Aver ag.e F are 9

PAGE 35

C. THE ROLE OF PR I VATIZAT I ON Privatization is becoming incrC"dSingly important in the transit industry across t he U nited States and in Florida. In 1984 no Florida transit systems contr a c ted for the provision of fixed-route motorbus service However, in 1990, six Florida trans i t systems contracted with the private sector to provide some fixed-route service. In 1993, the number of Florida systems contracting for tlxed--route service has de clined to only two. The importance of ptivatiZ1.tion as it relates to this report concerns the availability of data for these contractua l services Many of the measures that can be easily calculated for services that are d irectlyoperated cannot be calculated tOr purchased motorbus since many perfonnante indicator s are unavailable. "fable 1-2 indicates generally whaJ perfonnance indicators are ava i lable for fixed-rouce, privatized transit as well as tl\ose measures that can be calc u la ted with these indicators. P e tfonnanee JndiU.OI$ Strvtce Area Population SeMo& Area Slte Passen ger Trips Passen ger M i les Vehicte Miles RevenlHI! Miles Vehicle Hour'$ Revenu e Hours T otal Ope ratin g Expense Total Ope r ating Expense <'984 S} VehiCles Operated in Maximum Service 10 TABLE 1 Performance Review Jndkators and Measures Purc:hased Motorbus Tran si t Services Effectiveness M ea&ute$ Eff'.c:ienc y Measures Serviu Supply COSt Efficiency V&hide Miles Pe r Cap ita Operating E)lpense Per tapb; Operating Expensl) Per Peak Vehicle Serv ice Consumption Ope rati ng Expe nse Per Pa$$4!:nger Trip Passenger Trips Per Ca p it a Opetaling Expe nse Per Passenger Mile Passeoger Trtps Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Reve n ue Mile Pas.seC)gtr Trip s Per Revenue Hou r Ope r ating Expe nse Per Reve nue Hour Quality of ServH: e Operating Ratios Ave.rage Speed n o n 6 Availability V e hicle Utilization no n e Vehicle M i les Per Peak Vehicle Vehicte Hours Pe-r Peak Vehicle Revenue Miles Pe-r Vehicle Mile Labor Productivity none Energy Utmz.ation no n e Fare none

PAGE 36

II. STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS The statewide t rend analysis provides a summa r y oft he combined performance of Florida's transh systems. The analysis is comprised of two sections; (I) statewide directiona l trends in key indicators and measures. and (2) Florida fixed -r oute total trend. The statew ide trend analysis provides an aggregate measure of trans it perfonnance in Florida. A STATEWIDE DIRECTIONAL TRENDS Table II-A I provides a summary of statewide directional t rends in key indicators and measures for t he time period from 1992 to 1993. Based on (he percent changes in data for these years. the directional trends illustrate t he current di r ection in which Florida) s transit systems are moving i n various areas of performance. The table establishes how many systems are experie ncing an inc r easing tren d decreasing trend, or n o change for selected indicators and measures. Performance Indicator$ A majority of Floridas transit systems arc exp erienc::ing incre. asing trends in most of the selected perfom1ance indicators. However. Qnly six of 19 systems show an increasing trend in the number of vehicles operated in maximum service In addition a large number of systems are showing no change in service area population or in the number of vehicles available for maximum service. Effecth eness Measures Ten Florida systems indicate a positive trend in the number of vehicle mile s per capita This represents the ability of Florida's transit systems to provide transit sen1iees within their service area. The magnitude of service consumption can be measured by the ratio of trips t o revenue miles. Only n ine of 19 systems indicate a positive trend in this effectiveness measure. A majority of Florida's transit systems are experienc ing positive. trends in safety and reliabili(y Thirteen of 19 systems show an increasing trend in the number of revenue miles bttwcen incidents (safety}. Fifteen systems show an increasing trend in the number of revenue miles between inteiTUptions ( r e l ia bility}. Efficiency Measures A majority of Flori da's transit systems show an increasing trend in the follo wing cost ratios: operating expense per capita and operating c:.xpensc pc:r revenue mile. However most Flori da transit systems are experiencing increased efficiencie s in the operating expense per passenger trip and maintenance expense per revenue mile cost ratios, as evidenced by their decreasing trends in these measures. Farebox recovery (passenger fare revenues divided by operating expense) has increased in nine of the 19 systems between 1992 and J 993. The average far e per passenger lrip has increased i n 10 of lhe 19 syslems. Vehicle utilization ( vehicle miles per peak vehicle) and emp loyee produe. tivity (revenue hours per employee) show increasing trends for 12 and six S)'Stems, respe<:tively. Anothe. r measure of employee productivity, passenger trips per shows a posit ive. trend for e ight systems. II

PAGE 37

12 TABLE IIAI Stattwide Oiree:tional Trends in Key Indicators and Measures, Florida Systems Wlth: Increasing Trend I Decreasing Trend I No Change PERFORMANCE IN DICATORS County/SeMoe Area Population 10 1 8 Passenger Trips 16 3 0 Vehicie Miles 14 5 0 Revtnue Miles 14 5 0 Total Operating Expen.s& 16 3 0 ; Tota l Operating Ex pense (1984 $) 11 8 0 Passenger Fare Revenue 14 5 0 Total EmplOyees 16 2 1' Vehicles Available for Maximum Service 1 0 2 7 VehiCles in Ma;ximum Service 6 4 9 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles Per Capita 10 9 0 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mie 9 10 0 Average .AQe of fleet 9 1 0 0 Revenue Miles Between l nc ide nls 1 3 5 1' Revenue Miles Between Interruptions 15 3 1 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Operating Expense Per Capita 13 6 0 OpGtating Expense Per Pa$$enger Trip 8 11 0 Operat ing Expense Revenue Mile 11 8 0 Maintenance Expense Per Reven ue Mile 7 1 2 0 Farebox Rea:very Ratio 9 10 0 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle 1 2 7 0 Revenue Hours Per Employee 6 1 2 1' Passenge-r Trips Per EmplOyee 8 1 0 1' Average Fare 10 9 0 'Th is table reRects System T otal trets f o r each agency In those cases where the system total trenc:t i$ {i.e nla), the t r end for operatec:t motoro us, or for system tota l excluding pu rcha sed motorbus, is used. Trends for PPTS ace not inelueled due to missing trend data. 2-fri-Rall trend data are unavailable fw these measures

PAGE 38

B. FLORIDA FIXED ROUTE TOTAL TREND Tables 11-B I through 1183 and Figures 11B I throug h 11-821 represent t he F l orida fixed-rout e to tal trend in various indicators and measures exclud ing purchased motorbus ( p r ivat ization). Sim i larly, Tables 11-B4through 11-86 and Figures ll 822through 11832 provide the tot al trend including purchased mo t orbus. As indicated in the introdu<:tion. indicators and measures that inc:Jude privatized services have less data availab le. For that reason, many indicators and meas-ures cannot be re.ported. The tables provide the Florida fixed-route roraltrend from 1988 t o 1993 a l ong wit h t h e percent change from t he beginning ro the end of the rime period Selec t ed indicators and measures are also presented graphically for t h e trend period from 1984 to 1993. II should be noted t hat data for the years 1987 through 1989 may not be consistent w ith the indicators and measures presented in versions p rior to t he April 1992 version of this report This is due to the inclusion or Key West Transit Amhority beginning \Yith lhe April 1992 version. It sho uld a l so be noted t hat. in some instances, a system may not be included in the statewide total for a particular indicator in a particular year due to the unavailabilit)' of data for that syst em. For example, if a sys t em's purchased motorbus passenger trip dat a for 1987 is not available, t hen the statewide total (i nclud ing purchased motorbus) figure for 1987 passenger trips only includes the motorbus data for t hat system. Below is a listing of the systems with u n available data and t he indicators and years for which they arc missing the data. Metro-Dade Transit Agency In the Statewide Total Excl uding Purchased Motorbus table, MOTA i s missing incident and revenue service interruption data for various modes from 1987 through 1993. For these years, only d i rectl y-ope rated motorbus data is avai l able for number of revenue service interruptions. The number of incidents i n 1988 includes only direct ly-operate d motorbus and heavy rail data; in 1990 includes only direc t ly-operated motorbus data ; and in 1991 through 1993 incJudes motorbus, heavy rail and automat ed guideway data In the Statewide Total Includin g Purchased Motorbus table. MOTA include s only directly operated motorb us, heavy rail, and automated guideway data for 1987 \chicles operated in maximum se rvice since purchased motorbus data are unava ilable for this year Lynx (Orlando)-In the Statewide Total Including l'ur chased Motor bus table, LYNX includes only directly opera t e d mo t orbus data for 1986 and 1987 passenger miles since purc.hased. motorbus data are unavailable for these years Ltt County TransitIn t he Sta te wide To ta l Including Purchased Motorbus table LceTran i ncludes onl y direc tl y operated motorbus data for 1990 passe n ger mi1es since purchased motorbus data are unavailable. Smyrna Transit System-STS data are unava i lable for 1 990 miles so it is not include-d in the statewide total figure for this ind icator in either table. P asco Cou n ty J,ublic Transportation PPTS discontinued its route motorbus se r vice in June I m and has operated only demand response service since that time As a result, the. statew ide totals between 1991 and 1993 do not include any PPTS data Fo r previous years during which mo t orbus service was operated the data were included only in the State wide Total Includin g Purch a sed Motorbus tab l e since the system purchased this service 13

PAGE 39

14 Key West Department of Transportation In the Statewi d e Tolal Including IJ.urchased Motorbus table, K WDOT includes only directly operated motorbus data for 198? revenue miles and revenue hours.sincc purthased motorbus data are onavailable. S paee Coast Area Transit SCAT (Brevard) beg an operating fixed-route mo10rbus service in October 1991. As a result SCAT fixed-route motorbus data have been included i n the statewide totals for 1992 and 1993. Prior years do not reflect any SCAT data since only demand response and van pool-based transit services were operated previously Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority In the Statewide lotal Excluding Purchased Motorbus table TriRail fuel consumption, incidcnl, and revenue service interruption data for the years betwee-n 1989 and 1993 are not available and are therefore not included. In addition. e-mployee data for 1993 are not available and as a result, are not included either.

PAGE 40

TABLE 11 F'lodda Tnnsil System Tolals Stat .twidt Total Ptrformantt lndlt:ators Euludin& Purchased Motorbus PERfORMANCE INDICA TORS 1981 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 %C= 198&-1 SeMc:e Area Populalion (000) 9 400 55 9 .900.00 10,051. 14 9 .944.6S 8 .639.84 9 ,125.53 2 .93% P01ssenger Trip$ (000) 1:211.006.00 136.695 .54 143,414 .50 148,817. $1 148.no. 29 162.180 .32 28.112" Passenger Miles (000} 569,233.36 623.315.85 708.204 82 737,.,7.00 776.221 57 809.934.37 4 2 .29% Vehicle Miles (000} 70,976.76 72.199.22 75,468 .70 7$.652 .63 79,078 86 83.449.61 17.57% Rewnue Mi les (000) 64.770 .08 65.98 2 .02 69.265.81 69,885.64 72,138.95 76,176.12 17.61% Vehicle Hours (000) 4.920.48 5.022 .57 5.309.72 5 .304.38 5.501.28 5,709.38 18.00% Revenue Hour$ (000) 4,630 .40 4 .754.90 4 .973.92 4.1163.45 4 989.33 5.259 48 13.59% Miles 7,944.85 8 .6n.OS 8 .772.:211 U59.EO 10,016.40 10,173.20 29.68% T olal Operallng Expe.,.., (0001 $243,420 .94 $265.192.03 $290.501 .09 S306.21U5 $319.532 .01 $341,069 .15 40. 11% Tolal ()peradng Expense (000 of 1984 $ ) $212.369.90 $221,877 .92 $231 .386.67 $230.735.83 $230, 6S4.32 $238,814.88 12.-15% Total _,...,. Expense (0001 S6S.t75 74 568.57 9 .18 $79,069.80 $83,420.96 $84.600.19 $86,600.99 32.26% Toal -.nee Expense (000 ol1864 $) $57. 123 58 $57,378.06 $62.979 .79 $6 2.857.47 $61.066.68 500.637.57 8.15% Toto! Expense (OOOj $71 874.50 $123. 182.87 185.1&4.01 $11 382 _S1 S144. 46S.20 $98.887.39 37.58% TaiBI l.ocol Rewrtg .........., COOOI $74,859. 52 $77,457.22 --34 s95, n .33 $99.86() .30 $111.865.88 4943% Paosenger Fare Revenue (0001 set.556.n $70,718 .92 $78.411 .59 $&8\281. 41 $91.6116. 09 $102 ,37 8 .75 $1 .84% To
PAGE 41

TABLE IIBZ Florida T ransit System Totals Statewide Total Effedi\ 'eness Measures Excluding Purchased Moto r b u s EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 992 1993 1988-1 S ERVICE S U P PLY Vehicle Miles PM Capita 7 ,ss 7.27 7.51 7 71 9.15 9.14 S ERVICE CONSU M PTIOH Pass
PAGE 42

T ABLE 11 8 3 Florida T ransi t Sy$tem T ol.sls SlaCewide Tota l Effie:it.nty Mt.aSures E x duding Purcbaud Motorbus MEASURES 19N 1939 19SO 1991 199 2 1993 11D-1 3 COST EFFICIENCY O perating Expense Per Cap;ta $25 ,89 $26.71 $28.90 $30.79 $36.98 $37.34 44 .3-4% Operating Expense Per Peal< Vehicle (000) $191.75 $207 20 $210 80 $209.53 $222 .48 24,87% Operating Expense Per Pa:s.senger Trip $1. 93 $1.94 $2.03 $2 .06 $2. 15 $2.10 $.94 % Operating Expense Per Passenger Mite $0.43 $0. 4 3 $0.41 $0.42 $0 41 $0.42 -1.$3% Operating Expense Pei' Revenue Mile $3 76 $4 .02 $4. 1 9 $436 $4. 43 $4.48 1 9 .14% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $52 .57 sss. n $58.40 $02 .116 $64.04 $64.85 23.36'4 Malnle....,. ExJ>e0$0 Per --Mit $1,01 $1.04 $1.14 $1, 19 $1.17 $1.1<4 t2.4 G 4 MPltenaooe E xpense Per Opefatlng Exp. 2 1UIO% 25.86% 27 22% 27.24% 26. 48% 25.39% .60 % OPERATING RAllOS FareboxRecovery 27. 75% 2&. 67% 26.99% 28.83% 28.69% 30.02% 8.111% Local ReYenue Per Operafing Ex91. 04% 87.46'% 85 98 % U$4% 85.51 % 82. 4 2% -9 47% ()peralW1g Rew!roo -30.75% 29.21% 2912% 31.181!. 31.25% 32.80% US% VEHICLE UTIUZAllON Vehicle Miles Per -VehEie (000) 52. 04 52.20 53.83 52.79 51. 85 54. 44 4 .&1% Vehicle Hours Pet Peak Vehicle (000) 3 .61 3.63 3 79 3 85 3.61 3.72 124' 4 Rtv&tlut Miles Vetlide Miles 0 .91 0.91 0.92 0 .91 0.91 0 .91 0.00' 4 Rovenue Mites Per Total Vehicles (000) 37. 8 1 3&.62 34 18 36 .17 37.40 38.61 2 .11% Revenue Hours Per Total V ehlciM (000) 2 70 2.64 2 7 4 2 85 2.59 2 .67 .38'4 LABOR PRODUCTMTY R..,.,nuo Hour> Per Employee (000) 0 .9& 0 95 1.02 0 95 0.99 0 .96 .0.66% Pusongcr Trip$ Per E,..,oyee (000) 26.72 27.26 29.45 29 .16 29.53 30.09 12.Gt% E NER G Y UTILIZATION Vollicle Miles Per Gallon nla nla nla nla nla nta nle Vehic)e Mile$ Pet nla o/a nlo o/a nla o/a nle FARE Average Fare $llSol $0.52 $0$5 $0.59 $0.62 S0.&3 1 7.13% 17

PAGE 44

STAT EWIDE T OTA L EXCL UD I N G PURCHASED M O TORBU S 10.0 I 1.0 6.0 .. 4.0 2 0 1-0.0 -Figure 1188 Vehide M i les Per Gapit:a . ---1.1. -.. ---.. ... 1-. -. -.. -----. -M" Effectivene u M easures f''91're 11-89 Pssenger Trips Per Revenu e M ife -2 5 2.0 . r1r ,-"l 1 5 -. . ------. 1 1 0 -... --I t----J= --0 5 0 0 '""' IMS '* 1911 l t N IN' ,,. 1991 1 M2 1Hl t tl4 titS IMi t')IJ '"' tttt ttto ltfl 1m I H) Figure 11 811 l!tO .. 0 ... 2.0 0 0 Figure lt-81 0 Average Age of Fleet ( y ears) r T. TJ...-.. -. I t--11-t-t--1 -I. 1-f-1( :=: "'= ':-\--N)tf ( ... ..., -=--=l-=1 =t= 1M4 1NS '"' 1H119N 19Q lt!IO 1!t1 IMJ IHJ Figure 11-812 Revenue Miles Between Accidents/Incidents Revenue Mile s Between Interruptions 40,000 30,000 . ---, i I ----lJK I -. --1 I I I r---. -1 1--. . -I I J I 20,000 10,000 0 .... 3.000 2,000 1 ,000 ---. c ----.... '1--1.--' .... -. '---___ t----.. .. _j_L .... . 0 tiM ttl$ ltN IMJ ttN tttt tt'll ttt1 tm ftt) IN' t NS ,,.. tt11"""" ttto 1tt1 ttn '"'I 1 9

PAGE 45

20 STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDIN G PUR CHAS ED MOTORBUS Figure U B 13 Operating Expense Per Capita $40.00 1 ---.-----, ,--. S30.00 t ... .. . .. .... S20.00 ---1--.. .. ... 1-I ---1-f--. -. --'--...... 1 ------------1--S10 .00 so.oo 1964 198S 1tt4 1M7 19 .. 19tt IHO 19ft I ttl ltU Ftgure Maintenance Expe nse Per Revenue Mile $1 .10 so.to ... . ... ... . I I' ., ..... -!---- S0. 60 -c-... -...... ---S0.30 --1-..... -. ----so.oo -. ----+--.-.. 1914 1"S 19t1 un 19ft ttto 1t91 1tt2 t9U Figure 11 Revenue Hours Per Employee 1..200 . T ..... 1 900 k:-r-ti f 600 300. Ol 1 1--1 11 .. 1-t-191M T9U IN' 19t119" 19t9 1990 lttl 1992 I H J Efficie ncy Measures Figure lf.814 Operating Expense P e r P ass enger Trip $2.50 00 ... .. _[T T. .. -S:LOO $1.50 ,. ---... ---$1.00 .. -... ----so. so ... -.... -.. 0<40 --so.oo .... ..... ... ---1984 IUS 1916 19t1 19lt "*' 1990 1 99\ 1992 Itt) -30l4 20% 10% II% F igure Farebo x Recovery Rat io -,-----..... ... ... f---r--" " --.... j -. .. -, -i -... : 1"4 19ts 19U IH7 19 .. 19., IHO tnl 1991199) 40 000 I 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Figure Passenger T rips Per Employe& .. . -' ... .. .. .. ) . I I . . --, I IMA I MS 19&4 1987 19 U ,,.., IMO 19,_ 1991: Itt, figure 11-815 Operating Expense Per Revenue MiJe s s .oo 1---------...... S<.OO --S3.00 --1 -..... S:LOO 1-------1---$ 1.00 ------.. so.oo I-----1----1t$4 1tts 1M6 1tl11ta8 19M tttO tM11M2 1t9l Fi gure 11 Vehl d e MHes Per Peak Vehide 60.000 : 1 l -Tr-rrr-= 40,000 1 -l-l--1 + + 20,000 1 t----t -+-1--j j j -f--0 1 1 1 1 .... 1 1----1 1--j-... IMA tHS 198& tt87 19M 1919 1990 199t 19t2 199) Ftgure 11-82 1 Av erage Far& so.eo f-J_1 __ 1 _ 1 ..... -] -T .. $0.60 ... .. ... I $0.40 "'1----1-. $0.20--1 --J-I -I... 1--r r l--1so.oo I 1--+ +--+--1--l--,-,. 1914 19ts 19U 1917 U U IMt lttO 19tl ltfl lttJ

PAGE 46

TABLE 11-84 Florida Tra n sit Sysfem Totals Statewide Tota l Perfo rman<::t lndic-at ors I n cluding Purchased M otorbus PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1988 1 9 89 1990 1991 1992 1993 %Change 1 988-1993 SQIVice Area Population (000) 9.930 00 1 0 0S1 ,1 4 9.944 65 8 639 64 9 1 25.53 2.93% Pa&senger Trips (000) 126. 754.54 141),798. 39 1 48,768.95 150,394.91 150, 1 67.77 172 903 .61 36.41% Miles (000) 576 ,296.22 639,886 72 7 1 7,75 9 37 743 097.69 780 .755.40 838 088.34 45.43% Vehicle !.tiles (000) 72, 203 62 75 836 .70 79.762 .30 78,347.26 81, 233 00 94 806 .94 31.3 1 % Revenue M iles (000) 65, 7 60.03 68, 864 32 72,564 58 7 1 446 29 73 927 38 86 135.63 30.96% Veh icle Hours (000) 4,981. 94 5 261.08 5 .599.56 5 ,4 26 64 5,668-16 6,752 .10 35.53% Revenue Houcs (000) 4 681 22 4 957 6 9 :.; 4,966 95 5 ,131. 43 6 210 62 32 67% Route MAes. nla nta nta nta n/8 n/a n la Total Opera t ing Exi)Cil$C (000) $245 ,153.46 $ 270, 663 .10 $298, 689 07 $309 864 .97 S324,775.42 $374,001.7 9 52 56% TOtal Opetating ecpense (000 o f 1984 S) $213.381.41 $226.455.40 $237,908 46 $233,462.42 $234,43927 $261,874 .15 22 .44% Total Main tenance E xpense {000) nta n/a nla nla nla nla 0/a Total Maintenan ce Expense {000 of 1984 $) nta nta nta nta nta nla nta Tolal Capkal Expense (000) nta nla nta nla nla nla nla Tol>l l.o
    l Employees nla nta nla nla nla nla nla Operating Employees nla n/a nla nla nla nla .,. Maintenance Employees nla nla nta nta nta nla nla Actrrllnistrati\'e Empfoyees nla nta nto nla nla nla n/a Vehicles Available for Maxim.m Service nla nla nla nla nla n/a n/a Vehicles Operate
    PAGE 47

    TA B LE II BS Flo rida T ransit System Totals Statewide Total Effective n ess Me3sures Jnduding Purchased Motorbus EFFECTIV E NESS MEASURES 1988 1989 1 990 1991 1992 1993 %C:: 1988 3 SERVICE SUPPLY Vehide M i les P&' Capita 7 68 7.64 7 94 7.88 9.40 10.39 35. 27% SERVICE CONSUMPTIO N Passenger Per C.JHia 13.48 14.18 14 .80 1 5 12 17.38 18 95 40, 52% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 1.93 2 .04 2 05 2 .11 2.03 2 .01 4.14% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 27.08 28.40 28.49 30.28 29.28 27.84 2 82% QUAUTY O F S ERVICE Aworage Speed (fUolJR.H.) 14.05 13.89 13 .90 1 4 .38 14.H 13.87 .:p% Average Age o f Fleet (in years) nta nla nto nla nta nla nta Nurrber of Accidents nta n/a nla nla nlo nla nla Revenue SeMce IRtetrup(ions nla nla nla nta n/a n/a nla Revenue M;jes Between Accidents (000) n/a n/a nlo nta "'" n/a n/a. Revenue Miles Between I nterruptions (000) nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AVAILAB IUlY Revenue Mile$ Per Route Mile (000) n/a nla n/a nta n/a n/a nla 22

    PAGE 48

    TABLE 11-86 F l o r i d a Transit System Totals Sta t ewide Total Efficiency Measures Inc l uding Purchastd Motorbus EFFlCIENCY MEA S URES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 993 1988-1 3 COST EFFICIENCY Oper.ting Expense Pe r capita $26.08 5 2 7 26 $29.72 $31.16 537.59 $40.98 57.16% Opet'ating Expense Pe r Peak Vehicle (000) 5 1 76.1 2 $163.67 $198 73 $207 .68 $179.43 $205 .83 16. 87% Opetatng Expense Per Poosenger Trip $1 .93 $1.92 $2. 01 $2 .06 $2.16 $2.16 11.&4% Opcta\W\g Expense Pe r M i le $0.43 $0.42 $0.42 $0. 4 2 $0.42 $0. 4 5 4 90% ()pet'3ting Expense Pe r Revenue Me $3.73 $3.93 $4.12 $4.34 $4.39 $4.34 16.47% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $52.37 $54.59 $57. 21 $62 .39 $63.29 $60 2 2 14. 99% Maart&f\anott EXpense Per Revenue M ile nto nla nta n/a nto nta nla MalnteNn<:e Expen se Pe r Ope.rating Exp. n/a n/a nla nta n/a n/a nla OPERATI N G RATIOS Fsrebox Recovery nta nla n/a n/a nto nto nla Local Revenue Pet Operating Expen se n/o n/a nta nla n l o nt a nla Opersti'lg P er Operatw.g Expe n w nla nla nla nlo nta nla n/a VEHI CLE UTIL IZAT ION Vehicle Miles Per Peal< Ve h icle (000) 51 .87 51.52 53.07 52.51 44.66 52.16 0.59% Vehicle Hours Pe r Peak Ve h ide (000 ) 3 .56 3 5 7 3 .73 3 .64 3.13 3.72 3 .83% Reve n ue Mites Vehicle MileS 0 91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0 91 0 91 -0.25% Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) nlo n/a nla nla n/a nia nta Revenue Hours Pe r Total Vehides (000) nta n/a n/a n/a 'nia n/a nto LABOR PRODUCTMTY I Revenue Houts Per (000) nla nla niO nla nla nla nl a Passenger Tt1:1s Pet e.rv.,loyee {000) nla nlo nla nla nla nta n/a E N E RGY UTI UZATION V ehicle Miles Per Gallon nla nia n/a nla nla nta nla Vehicle Miles P e r Kilowatt-Hour nl a n/a n/a nla nla n/a n/a FARE Ave1age Fare n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a 23

    PAGE 49

    2 4 STATEWIDE TOTAL INC LUDIN G PURCHASED MOTO R BUS F igure 11-82.2: County/Serv ice Area Pop u lat ion (000) rl 9.ooo 1 -1& .ooot-1 1--i + +-1-f -l,OOO-f-1-1--1 ---1 --l--+__,_ o+-+--1 1 1 --t ,,.s '"' ltl7 " "" 1990 , ''" P erformance I n dicators F igure 11824 Figure 11-82 3 Passenger T r ips (000) 200,000 ... 120,000 t60 000 ---1-I .. 1--+ 1---t-l-r 40.ooo+-l--f-1 J __ + W 1-,,... 1 915 '"" ,,.? ,,... ,,., '* '"" lttl ''" Vehide M iles and Re ve-nue Mites 100.000 ---I -----l -80.000 . ... 60,000 r ",.---' -.. f ---I t--__ J _ 40.000 20.000 0 19M 19tS IJM 1'JU 1N:t 1m I'M 1tt11ttZ lttl figure 11-825 Total Ope r ating Expense $400,000"1" --.. l Sloo.oooj------------t ,. . -$200,000 -'T t t -f_.w t >XI) $ 100,000 1 '' I<>I
    PAGE 50

    STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS 12. 0 Effeclive nes.." Mea sures Figure 11-827 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . .. 9.0 I I ... --I l/ H I 6.0 --.. . .. ... t. . ... I . -... -.. -. J 1--3.0 0 0 '"s "" ,,., '"" u n ttto ,.,, ''" '", Figure 11-828 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 2 5 r --,--1 -' ''"1- -r, . I I 1.5 I I,_., 1 1 O j . l. . 051-h--1 0 0 I i 1"4 1M5 191U "" 19 U 19tt IHO \991 1912 199) 25

    PAGE 51

    26 STAT E WIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBU S $50.00 $40 .00 $:10.00 $ 20 00 $10.00 $0.00 F igure Operating Expense Per Capita ----. I I) ._. .,.. .. ... ... --. .. ----. .. --. ----... ... . . -... tH4 tUS 1986 1M71tU 1989 tHO 1991 tst2 1Ml Figure Operating E x pense Per Reve nue M ile $ 5 .00 .. . . ' !'[' $4.00 . .. -.. -S3 00 . ---. -. $2.00 .. . . I I I $1.00 $0. 00 19U IUS 1986 19&1 t9 .. 19*' IMO 1991 1 992 199 1 Efficiency Measures Figure U-8 30 Ope rating Expense Per Passeng e r Trip 5 2 5 0 $2.00 $ 1 .5 0 $1.00 $0.50 _-_[ -'l ___ .-, ... --I --I --1--I -.. ---1----I --------.. ------! $0.00 ... ,___ ----1 ,,.... IHS 1986 1tl7 lnt 19U tHO 1,1 1992 1993 figure IJ-8 3 2 Vt!h lde M ile s Per P eak Vehicle 60 .000 r T i ---T 40,000 ------. 20,000 -. . ---. I -. j I 0 1984 1985 198 6 1M1 l9U I'Jtt 1990 I I 1"2 19U

    PAGE 52

    STATEWIDE TREND SUMMARY It is impOrtant to note lhat statewide trends are significantly impacted by dte perfonnance of Metro-Dade Transit s i nc e in 1993_ this system comprised approximately 43 percent of statewid e servic e mi l es and 53 perc ent of r idership. In 1991 and prior years county population was used as a proxy for service are a population However, since 1992, service area popul at ion data have been provided by eac h of the systems in their Section 1 5 reports. so these data are now used instead. Service area population increased approximately six percent from 1992 to 1 993. The number of passenger trips on Florida's transit sys te ms (all modes) i ncrcastd 15 percent from 1992 t o 1993. Sixteen of the 19 FJorida transit systems exper i enced varying increases in r idership dur i ng thi s time. including a 26 percent increase in MerroDade Transit's system total ride rship The number of service miles provided increased nea rly 17 percent from 1992 to 1993. Statewide operating expense increased IS percen t from 1992 to 1993. Inflation was 3 0 percent during this time period The number of revenue miles between intem1ptions (rcliabjlity) decreased se ven percent from 1 992 to J 993, The number of revenue miles between incidents (safety) increased one percent from 1992 to 1993. Operating expense per passenger trip remained stable at $2. t6 in both 1992 and 199). Operating expense per revenue mi l e decreased from S4.39 in 1992 to $4 34 in 1993, a decrease of on e pcrt"ent T h e average far e per passenger trip for Florida transit systems increased from 62 cen t s i n 1992 to 63 cents in 1993, an increase of two percent. 27

    PAGE 53

    "' .. This is a blank page

    PAGE 54

    Ill. S Y S TEM -BY -SYST EM TREND ANALYSIS There are three basic o r ganizational structures under which Florida tran.sit sys tems currently operate: six independent authorities, ten county-affiliated systems ) and four city-affil i ated systems. A l l of the sys t ems are governed by some-type-of Board of Directors or Commiss ion. The Board of Directors f o r indepe-ndent authorities are typ ically comprised of appointed me.mbers representing different local entities within the service area. Alternatively the governing bodies for t ounty affiliated syste m s and city affiliated systems are compr i sed of members from t he count y comm issions and city councils respectively. A summary of organizalional s tructures by sy.tem i< prov i ded i n Tab l e IIII. Table 111 summarizes the modes operated by e a ch Florida system. A majority of the systems offer fixe-d-route motorbu s ser\'ice as well a s some type of demand rtsponse service I n addi tion, Metro-Dade Transit Agency provides heavy ra i l and au tomatedgu ideway tran sit services .101cksonville Tra nsponation Authori t y began operating its guideway transir system in Ju n e 1 989 Tri-County Commurer Rail began operating in Jan u ary 1989, as well. fl should a l so be noted that LYNX in Orlando. Lakel and Area Mass Transit District. and Space Coast Area Transit all purchase vanpool services t o supplement their orher modes. Eac h florida tran sit system that provides fixed-route se r vice is included i n the system-by -sy stem trend analysis. A brief system profile is provided for each system prior to the presentation o f t he trend data. Tables are then provided w h ich include performance indica t ors effe ct i v e n ess measures and efficiency measures. Specific comments about t he data or modific ations that were made to the data are a l so provided. Key indicators and measures are then illustrated graphically. At the conclusion of eac h system scc:tion, summary comments are provided to i den tify and explain major changes in the perfonnanc-c i n dica t ors. A major change is a ten percent (10%) increa se or decrease in a performanceindicator f rom 1992 to 1993. Abbrevia tio ns for transit systems used r h roughout the system-by-system trend analysis are provided in Table 111-3. U nlike prior Trend Ana lysis reports, this report utili zes the conven t ional abbreviations of the transit sys t ems instead of the four .. Jener designations tha t had been used previously Several system name cha ng es that have occurred since the last s t udy should be no ted. Escambia County Transit Sy ste-m has changed its name to tscambi a County Area T ran sit; Manatee County t ran sit has becomeManatee County Area Transit; Lee County Transit Author ity has d roppe-d "Au t h ority" from its name; and Pasco Area Transp ortation Service i s now known as Pasco C o unty Public T r ansponation Service. I t sho uld also be noted that there was a c;;hange in the definition of the service area popul ation indicator beginning in 1992. In 1991 and prior years county population was use
    PAGE 55

    TABLE Ill I Organizational Struetures of Florida Transit Systems SYSTEM I COUNTY I CITY I I AUTHORITY I Meln>Dade Transn Agency .J Broward. TransH Division 4 J aeksonvillt TraMportation Aulhorlty 4 Hiltsbotough Area Regional Transit 4 Pinellas Suncoas.t Transit Authority 4 Lynx (OrlandO) 4 Palm Beach County Transportation Authority .J Tallahassee Transit 4 RegH>nal Transit System (Gainesvi lle) .J East Votuola Transll Authotity .J Escambia County Area Transit 4 Lee County Transit .J Sarasota County Area Transit 4 Lakeland Area Mass Tratl$it District 4 Manatee County Area Transit 4 Smyrna TraMit System 4 Pasco County Publ i c Transportation Setvice .J Key West Deparlmeflt of Transportallon 4 Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) .J Tri-County Commuter Rai1 Authority .J 30

    PAGE 56

    T A B L E 111-2 Modos Oporated by Florida Transit Systrms (1993) SYSTEM 11m OR HR Transit AttnCY Broward DMslo41 Jacksonville Transportltk>n Authority HiHsborough Aree Regional Transit Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Lynx (Orlando) P al m Be.ach Transportation Authority T aUihattet Trai"Stt Regional Transit Syse.m (GIInesviUe) East Volosia T.-.nslt AI.Choofty Esc.ombio County AI'N TnMlt 1M CouroCy T-Sarasota Cou"ty Area Transat Lakeland ArM MIM l 'ransh Dfttrlc:t Ma natee Cotny Area Ti'ansh Smyrna Syslom Pasco C ounty Public Service Key Wett of Tramponadon Spau Coest Area Transit (8ffttrd County) Commuttt Rill Authority KEY: MB lxed-rOIAe motorbus OR-e< flli raJ .( .( .( />/3-............ DR--se AG DR ; I 3 1

    PAGE 57

    TABLE 111-3 for Florida Transit Syst fmS ----ABBREVIA nON SYSTEM MOTA Metro-Dade TraMit Agency BCT Broward Transit Division JTA Jacksonville Transporlation Authority HART Hlnslloro"'Jh Area Reg!Gnal Transn PSTA PinellaS Suncoast Ttan$lt Authority LYNX Lynx Transit (Orlando) CoT ran Palm Beach COtmty Transportation Authority TALTRAN Tallahassee Transit RTS Regional Transit Sys.tem (Gainesville) VOTRAN East Volusia TransitAuthority ECAT Escambia County Area Transit L .. Tran Lee County Transit SCAT (Sarasota) Sarasota County Area Tranllt LAMTD Lakeland A,.a Mas& Transit District MCAT Manatee County Area Translt STS SRlYma Transit System PPTS Pasco County Public Trans.po rtaUon Service I
    PAGE 58

    A. METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM PROFILE Organizational StructureMetro-Dade Transit Age ncy is a departmen t of Dade County which is charged with the operation of a unified public transit system The agency was created on October 28 1986, as a r esult of the restructuring of rhe fonner Metropolitan Oade County Transportation Admini stration MOTA is managed by a Director appointed by and directly responsible 10 the County Manager. The Director is responsible for the management construction, and operation of Metrorail Metrobus, Metromover and paratransit operations. Conrn ing Body and Composit ion -MOTA is governed by Dade County which is a two-tier system of government that provides coun t ywide services 10 a l l residents and visitors of Dade County and municipal to those 'hO live in the unincorporated an::a of t h e coun t y Dade County has a commission-manager ty p e of government. The Board of County Commissioners is comprised of 13 commissioners, one of whom is elected by the Board to serve as t he Chainnan. The Commissioners are e l ected to a four-year term, with service limited to two C-Onsecutive tenns of office by state -law. In 1996, the Executive Mayor will be e l e cted> replacing the Chainnan. The powers of t he Exe.cutive Mayor will include appointment of the County Manager. Senlce Are a -MOTA oper at es within the geograp h ic boundaries of Dade County; howe-ver> portions of three bus routes extend into B r oward County, Modes .. Fixed-route motorbus services, purchased motorbus services, purchased demand-responsive services heavy rail transi t services, and automated guideway lransit services. During the 1989 fiscal year MOTA began the design phase of the construction of a 2 5 mile extension of the ex iS-ting downtown Metromover system > which opened to revenu e service in May 1994. 33

    PAGE 59

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Population (000) Service A r ea Size (square miles) Passenger Trips (000) Mile& (000} Vthk:ie (000) Re-venue Mies (000) Vehide Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Rout e Mii&S TOlal ()peense (000) Total Operating Expense (00 0 $) Total Maint enance Expense (000) Total &:pense {000 of 1984 $) Total Capital Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000 ) Operating Revenue (000) Passe-nger fare Revenue (000) TO!al Employees Transportation EmpiOy&es Maintenance Employees Administtatlve Emptoyees Vehides Available tor Maximum Setvlce Vehicles Operaled in Maximu m SeiVice Spare Ratio Total Gallons Consumed (000) Total E nergy Consumed (000 of kW h o urs) 34 TABLE IIIAI Metro-Dade Transil Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance -Indicators 1988 198 9 1990 1991 1.838.20 1.873 08 1 .937.09 1,961 .69 nla "' nla nla 53, 199.22 56,391 .83 55,662.83 55,131 .39 19 8,493.55 214,932.95 232,121.99 223,851 .59 2 1,373.44 20,886.02 2 1 ,863.2 8 22,778.40 18,508 24 18,473 46 19,319.56 20,023.62 1,610.95 1 ,617.91 1,775 59 1 7 34.27 1,498.62 1,519 .68 1,671 .70 1,559 48 1 341.00 1 347.90 1,350 .90 1,372.70 $92.342.76 $93, 507.48 $98. 119.09 $ 1 0 1,854.38 $80,563 .<1 $78,234.80 $78,152 .72 $76, 747.00 $23,960.29 $25,764.24 $27,630.34 $25,477.84 $20, 903.88 $21 556.13 $22,007.81 '$19, 197.48 $15,194.62 $6,855.37 $23,660.48 $1, 085.23 $88, 4 33.42 $86,774.19 $82,811,76 $ 85,724 .89 $34,860 .32 $36,128 .32 $37, 08 4 .27 $41 032 51 $32,746.23 $34, 477.11 $35,808.72 $39, 357 07 1.552 .60 1,654 .70 1 ,634 1 0 1,661.60 1 034 .80 1 096.40 1,078.20 1,113 .90 354.80 376.20 371 .50 3 7 4 .40 163.00 182.10 184.40 173.30 502.00 504.00 503. 00 547 .00 401. 00 413.00 412.00 458 00 25.19% 22 03% 22.09% 19.43% 5.960 22 6.044 .67 6 023.46 6 325.82 nla nfa nla n/a 1992 1993 % Cl\81190 1988-1993 1 ,735 .00 1,735.00 -5 .61% 285. 00 265.00 n la 55,125.22 63,806 51 19 94% 233, 415.67 246,260 51 24 .06% 23. 382.57 25. 038.42 17 .15% 20,435.34 22,037 45 19 .07% 1 ,8 55.95 1,946.07 20.80% 1.612 .69 1,785 .32 1 9 .13% 1.443.30 1,470. 10 9 .63% $104,560 .93 $113,371 .57 22 77% $75 477.35 $79, 382.20 -1.47% $25,905.83 $27 002 .61 12.70% $ 1 8 ,700.13 $18,907.09 -9.55% $8, 965.63 $24.564.48 61.67% $85.194 .82 $92, 958.50 5.11% I $40.735.02 $46, 964.44 34.72% $39, 802.95 $46, 123.70 40 .85% 1 ,673.90 1 ,841 .90 1 8 .63% 1,124.40 1,244 .90 20.30% 382.80 393. 00 10.77% 186.70 204 00 2$.15% 574.00 612. 00 21 .91% 505. 00 501 .00 24.94% 13.66% 22 .16% -12 .04% 6,552 .68 7 ,145.63 19 89% nla nla nla

    PAGE 60

    Service Area Popul alion (000) Service Area Site (a.quate miles) -"9 (000) P...e119e M llet (000) Vehiole-s(OOO) Revenue M oles (000) Vehlde Houra (000) Reven u e HoutS (000) Route M llea Total Operallng Expense (000) Tolal Operoll119 E>cpan (000 of 1984 S ) Total MaWitenaf)Qt Expen.se (000) Tota l M lin1e"iU,'t".e Expe nse (000 of 1984 $ ) Total CIPU I nse (000) ToQI l.octl R....,uo (000) Opereling Rewnue (000) PU.senger Fate Revenue (000) Total TraMQortition Operating EmplOyees Mttinten.ance Employees Administrative Employees Vehicles AvJi labl& f o r MaJCimu m Service Vehicles OperJted in M uimum Service Spare Rallo Tolal Gatons Conoumed (000) Total Enetgy Consumed (000 of kW..to=ours) TABLE III-A2 Metro--Dade Transil Agc.ncy J>urcha.sed Motorbus Ptrf ormance I ndicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 1,838. 2 0 1,873 .08 1 937 .09 1, 961.69 nla nla n l 1 nla --537.57 3,932 18 4 {\,")4'; f. 1,148.34 6.305 .94 15,589.90 1'7,28) 87 333. 16 1 118.36 3 ,160.17 3,085 .41 1 .329.20 919.82 2 ,547. 71 2.508.23 ,214.67 58.14 :ro6 .68 194 .82 8 3.25 4 8 .61 174.96 168 .20 66.36 232.90 301.20 413.20 140 .90 $1,84 3 73 $4, 281.43 $ 5 ,14 6 .60 $2. 154 .42 S1, 3 4 6 61 $3,582.14 $ 4,099. 3 1 $1 623.35 nla nla nf l n!u 1 nla nle nla f'll t nla nla nlo NO $1 543.73 $4.28 1.43 $ 5,146.60 .. 2 $374.56 52.061.82 $2,332.3V S5n.98 S3T 4 .58 $2, 061.82 $2,332.39 ssn.98 nla nla ola nla n/a nla ola nla nla nla ola nla nlo nle nla nla 24.00 noo 98.00 26.00 24.00 67.00 58.00 21.00 0 00% 7 .46% 68. 91 23. 81% nlo nla nlo .,. nlo nla nil ole 1992 1993 1988-19 3 1,73 5 .00 1,735 .00 -5.61 % 285 .00 285 .00 "'' 867 31 10.315 89 1818 .911% 3,167 .01 27,030 .!>4 328 .65% 1 ,687.04 10,9$4. 78 831.211% 9 ,607.73 944.52% 135. 12 1,00 1 .82 1684 .50% 113 .03 9 1 5 .57 1868 .54% 153 -AO 13.70 -94.12 % I 53,914 .95 S 3 1,499.44 1940 4 7% $2,826. 0 1 $22.055 75 1537 .63% I nlo nla n /a "'' n/a nfl "'' rJo "'' $3 914.95 $2,029.39 31..C. R $344 58 $348.98 -6 .83% $344.66 $348.93 -6.83% nla rJa nla nla n/a n l a nla nle nla ola nla nla znoo 312.00 1200 00'14 265.00 266.00 1008 .33% 2 .64% 17 .29'14 nla "'' .,. "'' nlo oJo "'' JS

    PAGE 61

    36 TABLE 111-AJ 1'\tcrro-Oadc Transit Agency Oir eclly-Operared aod Purthased M otorbus Performance Indicators PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Setvice Area Population (000) 1 ,83 8.20 1 873.08 1 937.09 1, 961.69 1,735.00 S ervi ce Area Size (square m iles) nla nla nla nla 285.00 Passeng4t Trips (000) 53,736.79 60.324.01 60,26 7 .02 56,279.73 55,992.52 Passenger Mile-s (000} 204 .799 .49 230, 522 .85 249,405 .86 228, 189 .76 236 ,562.68 Veb;cJe M iles (000) 22,489.80 24, 046 1 9 24. 948.68 24, 107.60 25, 049.61 Revenue Miles (000) 1 9 4 28.06 2 1 0 21. 17 21 827.78 21 ,238.29 21,817.64 VehicJe Hours (000) 1,667.09 1 823.59 1,970. 21 1,817.52 1,99 1 .07 Revenue Hour'S (000) 1 .545. 13 1,694 .64 1,839.90 1 ,625.83 1 .725.12 Mites 1 ,573.90 1,649. 1 0 1,764.10 1 ,513.60 1.596.70 Total Operating Expense (0 00) $93 886.49 $97, 788.90 $ 103, 265.69 $104,008.80 $108,4 75.87 Total Operaling EXpense (000 of 1984 $) $81,910.22 $81.816.93 $82 .252.Q3 $78,37Q.35 $78.303 .35 Total Maintenance f)Cpense {000) nlo nta nla nta nta Total Maintenance Expense 1984 $) nla nta nta nta nfa Tolal Expen .. (000) nla n/a nla 11/a nl a Total Local (000) $89,977.16 $91,055. 61 $87,95 8 .36 $87 ,879.31 $89 109.76 Operating Revenue (000) $35,234.88 $38, 190 14 $39 ,41 6.66 $41,610 .47 $41 079.56 Passenger Fare Revenue (000) $33 ,120.7 9 $36, 538.93 $38,141.11 $39 ,935.03 $40, 147 51 Total Employees nla n/a nla 11/a nla Transe>ortatlon Operating Employees .,. nla nla nla nla M*intenanoe Employees nla .,. nlo 11/a n l a Administrative Employees nla nl a nla 11/a nla Vehicles AvaitabJe fot Maximum Service 526.00 576.00 601.00 5 7 3 .00 846.00 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Setvioe 425.00 480.00 470 .00 479.00 770.00 Spare Ratio 23.76% 20.0 0% 27. 87% 19. 6 2 % 9 .87% Total GallOns Consumed {000} n/a 11/a nla nla nl a Total Energy Consumed (000 o f k W h ou,s) nla 11/a nla nla 11/a 1993 1988-19 3 1 735.00 -5.6 1% 285.00 .,. 7 4 122.4Q 37. 94% 273 291 .04 33.44% 35. 993.20 60.0 .4% 31,645.18 62.88% 2 ,947.89 76.83% 2 700.S9 74.80% 1 ,483.80 -5.72 % $14 4 871.01 54.30% $101, 4 37 . 94 23.84% nla nla nta nla nlo 11/a $94.985.90 5.57% $47, 313.42 34.28% $46, 472.68 40.31% nla nla 11/a nla nla nla nla nla 924.00 75.67 % 767,00 80.47% 20. 47% 13.87% nla "' nla n lo

    PAGE 62

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Ares Population (000) Service Area Size (square miles) Pa"enger (000) Passenger Mites (000) VGhide Miles {000) Miles {000) Veh;cle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route Miles Total Operoting Expense (000) Total Opelating Expense (000 of 1984 S) Total Ma .-.tenance &pe.n$e (000) TOial Maillenance Expense (000 oll984 S ) T olal Capiol Expense (000) Total local Revetlue (000) Ope..aMg Rrlenue (000) Paenger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees Tfansportation Operattng Employees Mailtenance EmplOyees Adminis.lratNe Employees V e hicle& Available for Maximum Service Vel'lk:les Operated in Maximum ServloO Spare Ratio Total Gallono Consumed (000) TotOJI Energy Consumed (000 of kW -houtl) --TABLE III A4 Metro-Dad e Tra nsit Agency Hea' Y Rail l ndle at ors 1181 1989 1990 1111 1 ,838.2(1 1.873.08 1 937 .09 1.961.69 nla nl a n/a nla 10,406 .22 12,127 .90 13 621 .92 1 3 900 .!5-4 81,$84 .65 95,449.87 109 ,692.67 114,331 3 1 6,1 49.01 4,7 .. 5 91 5 575 13 M97.92 5,070.77 4 656.48 5 .444. 4 1 5,452.23 183 .75 207 .70 241 .46 242 .27 171 .82 194 .55 178 .91 178 .85 .. 2.40 42.20 4 2 .2<1 42.20 $37,463.10 S38,161.a. $41 ,960 .62 $44, 152 .68 $32 ,684.27 $31,928 .82 $33, 422.00 $33,288.93 $14 $82.79 $12,004.95 $ 18,443 .99 $20. 105 12 $12 ,705. 14 $10,044.16 $14, 690.80 sts. .tt .ts SIO .i62. 3 1 $14.259.68 $2,650 61 $5,836.65 $37.463.10 $ 33,161 .84 $41 ,960.62 $44 1$2 .68 $9, 355 .24 $10,245.00 $11 202 93 S13 663 .78 $8,616.6 5 $8, 981.21 $10.012 .24 $12,885. 01 487 .00 487.90 452.20 4 58 4 0 79 .60 111,40 108 .20 102. 70 236 .40 250.70 264.80 264 .60 171.00 12 5 .80 79.20 91.10 130 .00 134.00 136 .00 136.00 74 .00 70.00 82.00 88.00 75. 68% 91.43% 65.85% $8. 14% nla nls nla nla 35.739.10 43, 187.00 44. 911 .93 44,4e2,.71 1992 1993 1911 3 1,135 .00 1 735 .00 5 .81% 285.00 285.00 n/a 13.701 61 14 811 .89 109.689 .01 117 .329.02 43 .81% 5,382.88 5 ,515.00 7 .11% 5,2:K>.82 5 350 .79 5 .52% 235.46 237 .30 29.14% 172A7 176.36 2 .64% .. 220 42.20 .() ,47% i $43,195.39 $42, 745 .96 14 ,10% ; ' $31.180 61 $29, 93() .50 .... 43% $20 041 .66 $19,270 .74 32.33% $ 1 4 ... 67.08 $ 13,493.28 8.20% $5, 595.94 $5.510.30 -41.73% $43, 195.39 $42,745.96 1 .. 10% $1 4 ,400_40 $15, 539 .11 66.10 % $13.830 .71 $14. 999.67 7 4 .08% 426.40 431.10 91.60 92.70 16 .46% 261.50 267 .60 1 3 20% 73.30 70.80 $8.60% 136.00 136 .00 4 .62% 82.00 76.00 2 .70% 65.85% 78.95% 4 .32% nlo nla nil 42,850.73 43,37 5 .38 21.37% 37

    PAGE 63

    PERFORMA NCE INDICATORS Servi ce Area Population ( 0 00) Service Area S iz e (square miles) Passenger Trips (000) P assenger MJ&s (00 0 ) Vehicle Mile$ (000) Re.,.nue M iles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Reve nu e Hours (000) Route Miles Total Operating Expell$e (000) Total Operating Expense (000 of 1 984 $ ) Total M aintenance Expense (000) Total Mai n tenanoe Expense (000 o f 1984 $) Tota l Capita l E xpen s e (000) Tota l loca l R e v e nue (000) Operating Revenu e (000) Pa-enger Fare Revenu e (000) Total Employees Tra n spof1atio n Operatin g M ai'ltenance EmplOyees Administrative Employe" V ehicles AvJil able for Maximu m Service Vehicles Operated in Maximu m Service Spare Ratio Total Gallons Consu me d (000} Total Energy Consu med (000 of kW-ho uts) 38 TA B LE III A S Metr o -Dade Transit Agency Automated Guideway Performance I n dicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 1,838. 2 0 1,873 08 1 937 .09 1 961.69 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,161 2 0 3 30$.00 3 23-4.72 3,2 2 9.03 2, 4 02 70 2.827 17 2 723 96 2 ,771.35 399.85 359. 4 8 371 .53 419.49 385.15 358.80 360. 24 399. 66 39. 2 7 33.04 34.50 38.65 38.13 32.98 33. 1 8 36. 66 3.90 3.90 3 90 3 90 $4,607.20 56, 3 2 7.99 $6,450 24 $7,134 68 $4 0 1 9.50 $5,.294 .43 $5,137 .68 $ 5 ,375 96 $3,192 66 $4 ,485 23 $3 204.00 $3 778 69 $2,785.58 $3,752 66 $2,552 .01 $2 .847.23 $11 347.28 $883.7 0 $22, 8 1 3 .2 2 841 ,3 55.33 $4,607 20 $6 327.99 $6 ,450.24 $7 134.68 $379. 20 $422.10 $383 97 $379. 96 $379.20 S4n.10 $383 97 $379. 96 57.60 57. 0 0 72 .50 87. 20 6. 00 5 .50 6.50 1 0 00 27 20 4 4 20 55.80 68 10 24 40 7.30 10.20 9 .10 12 00 12.00 12 .00 12 00 11 00 11.00 9 .00 9.00 9 .09% 9 09% 33. 33% 33.33% nla n / a nla nla 2 477 .90 2,290 00 2,197 .58 2 482 01 1992 1993 %Cha'm 1988-19 3 1,735 00 1,735.00 -5. 6 1 % 285 00 285 00 n/a 2,6 8 2.48 2 343.57 86% 2 589.96 2 522 1 2 4 97% 408 73 .. 387. 14 -3.18% 369.54 355. 65 66% 37.50 35.45 -9.74% 3 3 9 0 32.50 1-4.75% 3 90 3.90 0 00% $7,046 06 $7,639 2 4 65. 81% $5 066 .2 0 $5,348.96 .. 33. 08% $4,115 .32 $4 744.40 48. 59% $2, 970 65 $3,322. 00 19. 26% $95, 653 .53 $23,6 3 0.79 108.2 5 % $7 046 06 $7, 639.2 4 65.81% 5320.28 $282.75 25. 43% $320.28 3282.75 -25. 43% 78 70 77.60 34. 72% 10.20 1 1 .00 83. 33% 56.30 55. 20 102. 94% 12. 20 11.40 .28% 12.00 16 00 33.33% 9.00 8 00 27% 33 33% 1 00 00% 1000 00% n /a n/a nla 2.407 40 2, 280 .2 7 98%

    PAGE 64

    TABLE IIIA6 Metro--Dade Transit Age. n ey SyJtem Tot'al Pe.rrormance l ndlcarors ( Excluding Purchastd Molorbus ) PERFORMANCE IIIDICA TO R S 1111 1989 199 0 1111 1992 Servic:e Alea Population (000) 1,8311.20 1.873.08 1 ,937. 09 1.961.69 1 ,735.00 Service Atea Size (square mites) ro/a nJ n/a nla 285.00 Passeng&r Tnps {000) 66,766 .64 71.824 .7 3 72,519. 47 72.268.96 71, 509.28 Passenger Miles {000) 282. 480 .90 3 1 3.209.99 344 ,538.63 340.95 4 26 345. 694.6 4 veo;coe Miles (000) 26. 9 22.3 0 25,991.41 27 ,809.93 28 .795. 81 29. 154.18 Revenue Miles {000) 23.964.16 23,488.74 25 124 .21 25,875 51 26, 035.70 Vehicle Hours (000) 1,833 .97 1.858 .65 2 ,051.58 2.015. 1 9 2.128.90 Revenue Hour'$ (000) 1,708 .57 1,747.21 1 .883.80 1,775 .01 1,819 .06 RovDe Miles 1 ,387.30 1,394.00 1,397 00 1 ,4 1 8.80 1,489 .40 Total Operating Ex;pense (000) $134,413. 06 $137,997.30 $140 ,529.96 S153 141.75 $154,802.38 ToCaJ Opetamg El
    PAGE 65

    PERFORMAN C E INDICA TORS Service Afea Pop ulation (000) Servi ce A r ea Site (squat e miles) Trips (000) Passenger Miles (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Revenue Miles {000) Vehicle Ho urs (000) A:evenue Hours (000 } Route Miles Total Operating Expense ( 000) Totat Operaling E.11pense (000 ot 1984 $) Total MalntenJnce Expense (000) Total Mainl&nance Expen se (000 of 1984 $) Total Capital Expense (000) Total local Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) Passe n ger Fare Revenu e {000) Tota l EmplOyee$ Transponation Operating Employees Mai ntenenoe Employees Admilistralive Employees Vehicles AvaiJable for M aximum Service Vehicles Ope rated in Maximum Service Spare Ratio T04al GallOns Consumeo (0 00 ) T oll Energy Conwmed {000 of k.W-hours} 40 TABLE III A 7 Melro-Oade Transit Agency S)'Sttm Tocal Performanct Indicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 1,838 .20 1 ,873. 08 1,937.09 1 ,96 1.69 nla nla n/a nla 67,304.21 75,756.91 77, 123.66 73,415 .30 288,786 .84 328 799 .89 361.822.49 345 292.42 28.036.66 29.151 .58 30, 895.34 30.125.01 24 883.98 26, 036.45 27 ,632.4 4 27 .090. 18 1,890.11 2 064 .33 2,246.17 2 ,098.44 1 755 .08 1 922 .17 2 051.99 1 841 .36 1,620 .20 1 ,695. 20 1 ,810.2 0 1.S59 .70 $ 1 35,956.79 $142,278.73 $151 ,676.55 $155,296.17 $ 118,613.99 $119,040 18 $ 120 ,811.71 $117,015.24 nla nla nla nla n/a n/a nla nla nla nla nla n la $132,047.46 $135.545.44 $136, 369.22 $139,186 .67 $44,969 .32 $48,857 .23 $51 ,003.56 $55,654. 20 $42,116 .63 $45 942.24 $48, 537 .33 $53,200 00 n/a nla nla n la nla n1a nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla 668.00 722 00 749.00 721. 00 510.00 561.00 561 .00 574 00 30. 96% 28.70% 33 51% 25.61% n/a n/a n la n/a 38, 2 1 7 .00 45 ,4 77 .00 47,109 .51 4&,944.72 1992 1993 1988 3 1,735 .00 1,735.00 -5.61% 265. 00 285 00 nla 72,376.5 9 9 1,283 .87 35. 63% 348 861 .65 393.142.19 36. 14% 30, 841.22 41,895.35 49 .42% 27 ,418.00 37,351.62 50.10% 2 ,264.03 3,220.63 70.39.4 1, 932.09 2,909 .7 5 65. 79% 1 642.80 1.529.90 5 57% $158 ,717.32 $195,256 .2 0 43.62% $1 14 570.17 $138,717 40 15.26% nla nla nla n/a nla nla n/a nla nla $139,351.21 $145 371.09 10 .09% $55.800 .26 $63 135 29 40.40% $54,298 .50 $61 ,755.10 46.63% n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a n/a 994.0 0 1076. 00 6t.08% 861.00 851 .00 66.86% 1 5 45% 26.44% -14.61)% nla nla n/a 4 5 ,258. 13 45 655 65 1 9 46%

    PAGE 66

    EF FECTlVENE S S M EASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Veh icle Miles Pel Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per P8.$$en ger Trips Pe r Revenue Mile Passenger Trip$ Per Revenue Hour OUAL1TY OF SERVICE Ave
    PAGE 67

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per Ca_ph SERVICE CONSIJMPTION Trips Pet Capita Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips Pet Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Average Speed (R.M .IR.tl.) AVflrage Age of Fleet (in years) Number of tncide:nts Revenue Service Interruptions Rev-enu e Miles lncklenls (OC!O) Revenue Miles Between Interrup tions (000) AVAILABILITY Revenu e Miles Pet Roule Mile (000) 42 TABLE III-A9 MttroDadt Transit Agency Purchased Motorbus ffec:liventss l\1easurtS 1988 1989 1990 1991 0.61 1 .69 1 59 0.68 0 .29 2 1 0 2.38 0.59 0.58 1 .54 1.84 0 95 11.56 22 4 7 27.37 17.31 19.78 14.56 1 4 .9 1 18.3 1 nia n /a nia 5 15 n /a n/a n/a nt a n /a n /a n/e nta nia nia n/a nl a n /a n/a n/a nta 3 .9 5 8 .48 6.07 8.62 1992 1993 1988-19 3 0 97 6.31 939.66% 0,50 5 ,95 . 1933.13% 0 .63 1.0 7 83.72 % 7.67 11.27 ; .. 12, 23 10-49 -46.94% 5 .63 6 .6 5 n /a nfa . nla nla nfa n/a n/a n/a nta n /a n/a n/a n/a 9.01 701. 29 17656 88%

    PAGE 68

    TABLE 111-AIO Transit Agency O i rtclly...()ptra fcd and Purc:ha$cd MotorbUs Effccfi\'encss Mtasures EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 SERVICE. SUPPLY Vehicle Mles Per Capha 12.23 12 84 12 .88 1 2 .29 SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Capita 29 .23 32. 2 1 31.11 28 .69 32.27 Passenger Trips Per Revenu e MiSe 2 77 2 87 2 76 2 .65 2 57 Pas:senget Trips Per Revenue Hour 34. 78 35.60 32. 76 34.62 32.45 QUALITY Of SERVICE Average Speed (R M.IR H ) 1 2.57 1 2. 40 11 86 13.06 12.64 Aver age Age o f Fleel C1n yeats) n/a nta nta nta nta Numbef of I n cidents n/o n/a n/a nla n/a Revenue Service I nterruptions n /a n /a n/a n/a nta R eYenue Miles Between lnc:iSents (000) nra n/a n/a nta nla Revenue Between lnterruptions (000) n/a n/a n/a n/a n l a AVAllA6 1 llTY Revenue Mites Per R oute Mile (000) 12 34 12. 7 5 12.37 14 .03 13.86 1993 1988 19 3 20 75 69.56% 42. 7 2 2.34 15 .32% 27.44 -21.09% 11.72 -6.82% nta n/a n/a nto n/a n /a n/a nta n /a n/a 21.33 72. 77% 43

    PAGE 69

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERV ICE SUPPLY V4!:hide Miles Pe-t Capita SERV ICE CONSUMP'TlON Passenget Trips Per C8pite Passenger Trips Per Reven u e MiJe Passenger Trips Per Revenue Houc QUA L ITY OF S ERVICE Average Speed (R. M IR.H.) Average Age of FJeet (in ye atS) NtHMef of Incidents Revenue SeMoe lntemAptions Revenue M i les I ncident$ (000) Rewnue M iles Betwee-n lnlerruptlon.s (000) AVAILABILITY Revenu e Miles Per Route M ile (000) 44 TABl..E Ill-All Metro-Oade Transit Agency Heavy Rail Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 2 .80 2 .53 2.88 5 .66 6 47 7 .03 2 05 2 60 2 .50 60.56 62.34 76.14 29 .51 23.93 30,43 6 .00 7 .00 8 .00 156 .00 152.00 n/a n/a n /a n /a 32.50 30.83 nta nfa nta "'" 119.59 110.34 129 .01 1991 1992 1993 1988-19 3 2.85 3.10 3 .18 13 48% 7 .09 7 90 8.54 50. 86% 2 .55 2 62 2.77 34. 94% 77.76 79 44 84 .02 38. 73% 30.49 30.33 30.34 2 81% 9 .00 10 .00 11. 00 83. 33% 42.00 105 00 1<5 .00 -7 05% n/a nra n/a nta 129.81 49 .82 36. 90 13 53% nta nta n/a nta 129 .20 123 95 126 .80 6 .02%

    PAGE 70

    EFFECTIVENESS M EASURES SERVICE SUI'PL Y Vehkle Miles Per CapO SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pass.nger Tfl:ls Per C apita P usenge r Trips Per Revenve Mile Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hou r QUAliTY OF SERVICE Average Speed (R. MJR.H.) Average Age of Fleet (In ye.rs) Number of lnei:lents Revenue SeMu Interruptions R
    PAGE 71

    46 TABLE 111AJ3 Metro-Dade Transit Agency System Total Me.asures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1938 1989 1990 1991 1992 SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehide Miles Per Capita 1 4 65 13 .88 14.36 14.6 8 1 6.80 SERVICE CONSUMPTlON Passenger Trips Per C8pita 36 32 38.35 37. 44 36.84 41. 22 Psssenger Trip$ Per Revenue Mile 2.79 3 .06 2.89 2 .7 9 2.75 Passenger Ttl>s Per ReYenue Hour 39 .08 41.11 38.50 40.71 39.31 QUALITY OF SERV ICE Average Speed (R.MJR.H ) 14.03 13 44 13.34 14. 58 14 .3 1 Average AQe of FIHt (in years) nla nla nla nla nla Number of Incidents nla 1,460.00 n/a 1.278.00 1,253.00 Revenue Service Interruptions nla nla n/a nla n/a Revenue Miles S.tween lntidflnl& (000) nla 16 09 nla 20 .25 20 .7 8 Revenue MileS Berween Interruptions (000) nla nla n/a n /a n/a AVAILABiliTY Revenue Miles Per Rou1e MJe (000) 17.27 16.85 17 98 18.24 17. 4 8 1993 % chanra 1988-19 3 17.83 21.76% 46.6 7 28.48% 2.92 4.75% 40.60 3.90% 13 .91 -0.8 1 % nla nla 1,527 .00 nla nla n/a 18.17 n/a n/a n /a 18 .30 5.93%

    PAGE 72

    EFFB:TIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPI>L Y Vehicle M iles Pe r Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trip$ Per Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Paneng e r Trips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Av<>rage Speed (RM.IR H ) Average Age o f F lee t (i n years) Num ber of fncidents: Revenue Service Interruption s Revenu e Miles Between I ncidents (000 } Reve n u e M iles eerween lnterruptioM (000) AVAILAB ILITY Revenue Miles Per Route M'lle (000) TABLE III -A14 Metr6-Dade Transit Agency System Total Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 15.25 15.56 1 5 95 15 .36 36.61 40.45 39.81 37.42 2 .70 2 .91 2 .79 2.71 38.35 39. 4 1 37.58 39 .87 14 .18 13.55 13 .47 14.71 nla n /a n/a n/a n/a n/a n la n/a nla n/a nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla n/a nJa nla 15.36 15.36 15. 26 1 7 .37 1 992 1993 % 1988 3 17.78 24.15 58 .31% 41.72 52.61 43.70'.4 2 64 2 44 .64% 37.48 31. 37 18 .19% f'-19 12.84 -9 .46% n/a nla n/a nra "'' n/a n/a n la n/a n/a nra nla nJa nla n/a 1 6.69 24..41 58.96% 47

    PAGE 73

    EffiC IE NCY MEA S URES COST EfFICI ENC Y Expense Per C.:.pite Operating EXPense Per Peak Vehic:te {000) Operatilg Expense Per P assenger Til> O p erating Expe nse Pe r Paswn ger Mile Operating Expens.e Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hou r .. Mainlenance Expense Per Rpvenue Mile M ainten a nce Expens.e Per Operatin g E:lq). OPERAT ING RATIOS Fatebox Reoovery LocaJ Revenu e P e r Ope rating Expense Operatit\g Revenue Per Ope.ratlng Expense VE HICLE UTI LIZATION Ve hk::le Mile s Pe r Peak V e h ide ( 0 00 ) Ve hicle Ho u rs P e r Peak Ve hict& (000) R.evenu e Per Vehicle Mikt-s Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles ( 000) Revenu e Hours Per Total VehiCles (000) LABO R P R O D UCTl\IITY Revenue HOUl$ Per EmplOyee (000) Passenge r T rips P e r Employee (000} ENERGY UTI LIZATION Vehicle Miles Per G3to n Vehicl e Mies Per Kilowatt-Hou r FARE Average Fa r e 48 TABLE IllA I S M e t r o-Dade Transit Agency Directly-Opera ted Motorbu s Efficiency Measures 1988 1989 1 9 9 0 1991 $50. 24 $49 92 $50.65 $51 92 $230. 28 $ 2 26.41 $ 238. 15 $222 .39 $1. 74 $1.88 $ 1. 78 $1. 8 5 $0.47 $0.4 4 $0 .42 $0. 48 $4. 99 $5 08 $5 .08 $5. 09 $61.62 $61.53 $58. 69 $ 6 5 .31 $ 1.2 9 $1.39 $1.43 $1.27 25 95% 27 55% 28 16% 25.01% 35.46% 36. 87% 36. 50% 38.64% 95.77% 9 2 .80% 84.40% 84. 16% 37.75% 38.64% 37.80% 40.29% 53.30 50.57 5 3 .07 49.73 4 02 3 9 2 4.31 3 79 0 .87 0 .88 0.88 0 .88 36.87 36. 6 5 38.41 36. 6 1 2 99 3 .02 3 .32 2 .85 0 97 0 92 1 .02 0 94 34. 26 34. 08 34.06 33.18 3 .59 3 46 3.63 3 .60 n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.62 50. 6 1 $0 64 $0.7 1 1992 1993 1988 3 $60.27 $65.34 30.08% $207 .05 $228. 29 1 73% $ 1.90 $1.78 2.36% $0 .4 5 $0.46 .04% $5.12 $5. 14 3.11% $64 .84 $63.50 3.06% $1.27 $).23 -5 .35% 24 78% 23. 82% -l!.21% 38.07% 40.68% 14 73% 81.48% 81. 99% 38% 38. 96% 41.43% 9 73% 4 6 .2 6 4 9 98 -6. 2 4 % 3.68 3 .88 -3.31% 0 .87 0 .88 1.84% 35.60 38. 0 1 33% 2 .81 2.92 2 .28% 0.96 0.97 0.4 2 % 32.93 34. 64 1.10% 3 .57 3 .50 .29% n/a n/a n/a $0. 72 $0.72 17 44%

    PAGE 74

    EFFIC I E N CY M EASUR ES COST EFF I C I E NCY Operating Expense Per Capita Expense Pe r Peak Vehicle (000} Ol>erttin9 ExponH Per Pa,..nger Clpet3tln9 ElcpoOH Per Pasoenger M ile Operatin9 Expense Pet Revenue Mie Operamg Expense Per Hout Mlintentnce Per Revenue Mile Mainte nance Per Opecatin g Ex p. OPERAT I N G RATIOS Farebox Recov ery Revenue Per Operating Expense Operating Revenue Per Operating Expensa VEHICLE UT I LIZATION Velllele Miloo Pet Po .. Vehicle (0(10) Vehicle Hours Per P.,.k Vel>cle (0(10) Revenue M ilts Vehide Miles MIMs Per Total Vehicle$ (000) Revenue Hours Per Total Vehi<:Je$ (000) LABOR PRO Dllr,Tl VITY Revenue tll):1r$ Per (000) Puscnoer Tripa Pef Employee ( 000) E NERGY UTIL I ZATION Vohlde Milot Per Gillon Vehk:Se MBa Ptr FARE Aw:rage Ftre TABl-E 111-A16 Metro--Dade T ransit P ur chased Motorbu s Erfidency 1988 1989 1890 1991 so.a4 $229 $ 2 66 $1.10 $64.32 $63.90 $88 73 $102 .59 $ 2.87 $1.09 $1. 12 $ 1 .88 S024 $027 $0.30 $0 .50 $ 1 .68 $ 1.68 $2.0S $ 1 .77 $33. 19 524.47 $30 .GO $32.A7 nla nla n/a n/a nlo nla n/o nla 24 26% 4lU6% 45 32% 26. 83% 100.00% 100.00% 100 .00% 10 0 0 0 % 24.26% 48.16% 4 5 .32% 26. 83% 48.52 4 7.17 5320 63.30 2.34 3.07 3.36 3 .96 082 0 81 0 .81 0 .91 38.33 35.38 25.59 <46.72 2.43 1 72 2 .55 nla nla nil nlo n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n/a nta n/a nla nJa nil nla $0 70 $0 .52 $0 .51 $0.50 1992 1993 %Chanje 1988 1 9 3 $226 $18. 16 2061 84% $14 ,71 $118. 42 64 10% $4.51 $3.0S 6 .33% $124 $ 1.17 376.02% $ 2.83 $328 95.35% $34 .64 $34 .'4 3.65% nla n/a n/a nla nla n/a 8 80% 1 .11% -95.43% 100. 00% 6.44% -93.56% 8.80% 1 .11% .43% 6 .37 41.18 -11 .48% 0.51 3 .71 61 .01% D.82 0 68 6.% 5 08 30. 79 nla 0.42 2.93 nla nto n/a nla n/o nla n/a n/a nlo ""' nia ,.,. ""' $0_'4 $0. 03 -95 14% 49

    PAGE 75

    50 TABLE IIIAl1 Mcfro Oadc Transit Agency Directly-Operated and Purchased Motorbus Erfic:iency Measures EFFICIENCY MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Pe-r $51 08 S52 2 1 $53.31 $53. 02 $62 .52 Operallng Expense Pet Peak. Vehicle {000) $220.91 $203.73 $219 7 1 $217. 14 $140.88 Operating Expense Per Passenger T..., $1.75 $1.62 $1.71 $1.85 $1.94 Operating Expense Pe r Passenge r Mile $0 46 $0.42 $0 .41 $0 46 $0.46 Operating expena.e Per Revenue MiSe $4 .83 $4 .85 $4.73 $4.90 $4 97 Operating Expense Pef Revenue Hour $60.76 $57.70 $56. 1 3 $63. 97 $82 .86 Mainlenance Expense Per Revenue Mie n lo n lo nlo nla nla M.ainlenanca Expense Per Ope rating Exp nla nla nla nlo n/a OI'ERATlNG RAT!OS Recovery 35. 28% 37. 37% 38.93% 38.40% 37.01% Loc.aJ Reve n ue Per Ope rating Exp&nse 95.84% 93.11% 85.18% 84.49% 82.15% Reven ue Per Operating Expense 37. 53% 39.05% 38.17% 40.01% 37.87% UTlLIZATION Vehicle Miles Per Pesk Vehic le (000) 52. 92 50. 10 53. 08 50.33 32.53 Ve hicle Hours Pe r Pea k VGhide (000) 3 92 3 .80 4 .19 3 79 2 .59 Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Miles 0.86 0 .87 0 .87 0.88 0 .87 Revenue Mile$ Pe r Total Vehicles (000) 36. 94 36.50 36.32 37 07 25.79 Revenu e Hours Pe r Tota l Veh icles (000) 2 94 2.94 3.08 2 .84 2 04 LABOR PRODUCTMTY Revenue Hours Per EmplOyee (000) nla nla nla nla nlo Passenger TrC>s Per Employee (000) nla nla nla nla n la ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle M i les Per Gallon nla nla nla nla n la Ve hic6e M i les Pe r KilowattHo u r nla nla nla nla nla FARE Average Fare $0 62 $0 .61 $0.83 $0 7 1 $0.72 1993 %Change 1 988-1993 $63.50 63 48% $ 1 88.88 -14.50% $1.95 11.87% $0.53 15.63% $4 .58 5 27% $53.64 -11 .73% nla nla "' "' 32.08% -9.07% 85.57% 31.59% 32.86% .98% .. 46 .93 11.32% 3.84 .02% 0 .88 1 78% 34.25 nla 2 .92 nla nlo nla nla nla nla nla nla nla $0.63 1.72% I

    PAGE 76

    EFFICIE N C Y M EASURES 1988 COST EFFI C I E N C Y Operating E xpense Per Capfla $20. 3 8 Opef eting E x penso P e r Peak V ehicle (000) $506.26 Ope r ating Expente Per P a55enger Trip $3.60 Opetaling Elcpe n 10 Po< P assenger Mile $0.46 Opeoallng ElenM Po< Rov
    PAGE 77

    EF FICIENCY MEASURES COST EFACIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita ()petaJing Expense Pe< Peak Vollicle (000) Expense Per Passenger Trip Operatin g Expense Pe r Passenger Mile Operating Par Mile. Opetatlng Expense Per Revenue Hour Maintenanoe Expense Per Revenu e Mie M a i ntenance Per EXp. OPERATING RATIOS Fa(ebox Recovery local Reve n ue Per Operating Revenue Per Operating Expense VEHICLE UTILIZATION Veh.Qe M il&s Per Peak Vehicle (000) Ve hicle Hours Per Peak VehiCle (000) Revenue Miles Pel Vehicle Miles Revenue M iles Per Total Vehicles (000) Revenu e Hours Per Total Vehicles (000) LABOR P RODUCT I VllY Rovonue Hours Per fmi>IOyee (000) Passenger Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vetlicle M iles Per Gallon Vehicle M iles Per Kilowatt-Hour FARE Averag e Fare 52 TABLE III-AI9 MetroDade Transit Agency Aulomated Guideway ffic..iency Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 $2. 51 $3.38 $3.33 $3.64 $418 .84 $575 .27 $716.69 $792.74 $1 .46 $1 91 $1.99 $2.21 $1 .92 $2.24 $2 .37 $2. 57 $11.96 $17.64 $17 91 $17.85 $120.83 $191.87 $194.40 $194.52 $8.29 $12.50 $8.89 $9.45 69. 30% 70.88% 49. 67% 52.96% 8.23% 6 67% 5.95% 5 .33% 1 00.00% 100 00% 100 00% 100 00% 6.23% 6.67% 5 95% 5.33% 36. 3 5 32.68 41.28 46.61 3.57 3.00 3 .63 4 .29 0 .96 1 ,00 0 .97 0 .95 32. 10 29.90 30.02 33.30 3 16 2 75 2 .77 3 .06 0 .66 0 56 0.46 0 .42 54.88 57.98 44.62 37.03 n ra n ra nra n la 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 $0.1 2 $0.13 $0. 12 $0.12 1992 1993 1 988 3 $4 .06 $ ... 0 75.67% $782 .90 $954.90 127 99% $ 2 .63 $3.26 123.66% $2.72 $3.03 57.96% $19.07 $21-.48 79. 56% $207 .83 $235.02 94. 51% $11.14 $ 13.34 6o.92% 58.41% 62. 11% -10.38% 4.55% 3 70% .S5 03% 100 00% 100 .00% 0.00% 4.55')4 3 70% -55.03% 45.41 46.39 33.1,3% 4 17 4 .43 24. 11% 0 .90 0.92 30.80 22. 2 3 -30.74% 2 .83 2 .03 -36.07% 0.43 0.42 -36 73% 34.08 30.20 -44 97% nla nla nla 0 17 0 17 5 .21% $0. 12 $0.12 0 56%

    PAGE 78

    TABI..E 111-AlO M etro--Oadt: Tran s il Sys ctm Tolal Efficie:ncy MH:Sures (E x d u dl n & Purchast'd M olo rbu.s) EFRCIEHCY MEASURES 11118 1989 1990 119 1 1992 COST EFFICIENCY OpeJating Expense Per cap b $73. 1 2 $13.61 $ 75.64 S78.o7 $89.22 Operating Expense Per Peilk Vehiole (000) $ 2 7 6 57 $279.35 $291. 3 1 $276.93 $259.74 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $2.01 $1.92 $ 2 0 2 $ 2 1 2 $2. 16 Operating Expense Per Passenger Mil\& $0.48 $0.44 $0.43 $ 0 4 5 $0. 45 Operating E xpense Per Revenue Mile $5.61 $5.88 $5.83 $5.9 2 $5.95 Operating Expen.se Per Reventte Hou r $ 7&.67 $78.98 $77.78 $86. 28 $85. 10 Mai'ltenance Expense Per Revenue M -$1.74 $1.80 $1.96 $1. 9 1 $1 .92 Maintenance Expense Pt:r Operatjng E)l;p, 3 1 04 % 30. 62% 33.63 32. 23% 32. 34% OPERATING RATIOS FarftloJc Recovery 31 06% 3 1.80% 31 .53% 34. 36% 3 4 85 % l ocal R_,ue Per Operating Elcpeft .. 97.(19% 95. 12% 89.S5% 89A7% 87. 49% ()pera5ng Revenue Po 1 ()pefaio9 ElcpeftM 3318% 33. 91% 33.22% 35.96% 3 5 82% V!;HICLE UTUZATIO N v e'""' Mies Per "" VehO:Ie (000) SS A O 52.61 55.29 52. 07 -48.92 Ve h
    PAGE 79

    EFFICIE NCY MEASURES COST EFFI C IENCY Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Pe r Pct$Sen ger Trip Operating Expense Per Pass&nget Mile Expense Per Revenue Mile Operatin g Expen se Pe r Reven u e Hour Ma,inle nanoe Expe n se Mile Maintenance Expense Per Ope-rating Exp. OPAATING RATIOS Farebox Recovery Local Operating Expense Operating Revenue PeJ Operatin g Expens-e VEHICLE UTiliZAT I ON Miles Per Pea k Vehid& (000) Ve hicle Houts Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Per Total Ve hictes (000) Reven u e Hours Per Total Vehk::Jes (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Rev e nue Hours Per Em pk>yee (000} Pa$seng e r Trips Per Employee ( 000) ENERGY UTIL IZATION Vehicle Miles Pe r Gallon Ve hicle M iles P4r KiiOwatt.ttou t FARE Fau l 54 TABLE III-A2 1 Metro-Dade Transi t Agency Syste m Total Efficiency Measures 1988 1 989 1 990 $73.96 $75.96 $78.30 $266 .58 $ 25 3 6 2 $270.37 $2 02 $1.88 $1 97 $0.47 S0 4 3 $0. 4 2 $5 .46 $5 ,46 $5. 49 $77. 46 $74.02 $73. 92 n/a n/a nla nla nla nla 30.98% 32.29% 32.00% 97. 12% 95. 27% 69 91% 33. 08% 34.34% 33. 63% 54.96 51.96 55.07 3 .71 3 .66 4 00 0.89 0 .69 0 69 37. 25 36.06 36.89 2.63 2 .66 2.74 n/a n/a nla nla n /a nla n/a n /a nla n/a nta nla $0. 6 3 $0 .61 $0.63 1991 199 2 1993 % chao;ra 1988 19 3 $79. 1 6 $91 48 $11 2.54 5 2 16% $270. 5 5 $184 .34 $229.44 -13 93% $2 12 $2 .19 $2.14 5.89% $0.45 $0 .45 $0.50 5.49% $5 .7 3 $5 79 $5. 23 -4 32% $84.34 $82. 1 5 $67.10 -13.37% nla nla nla nla nla n /a n/a n /a 34.26% 34.21% 31. 63% 2.10% 89.61% 87.80% 74 .45% -23 34% 35. 84% 35. 16% 32.33% -2.24% 52.46 35. 62 49 23 -10. 45% 3 66 2.63 3 76 2.12% 0 90 0 .89 0 69 0 .46% 37.57 27 58 34.71 .&1% 2 .55 1 94 2.70 2.93% nla n /a nla n /a nla n/a nla n/a nla n/a nta nla nla nla nla n1a $0 72 $0 75 $0.68 8 .11%

    PAGE 80

    GENERAL QUEST I ONS 1. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented No changes were made. The last fare increase occurred in December 1990. 2. W ere thcrt any significant changes in service/service area during fisc.al year 1993? S ervice changes are outlined in question #3 below. There were no significant changes in se-rvice area during fiscal year 1993. 3 Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the perfonnance of the transit system? On September6 1992. through September 3, 1993, fixed-route Emergency Transportation Services were provided in South Dade to aid in the hurric -ane recovery effortS and funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). T1leservice consisted of a dditional se-rvice on directly-operated motorbus routes which was tenninated on August 24, 1993 and contracted service pr ovid ed by four purchased transponation contractors: Mayflower Contracted Strvices,lnc.; Handi-Van, Inc.; Airooear Express, Inc.; and Red Top Tr a n sport ation, Inc. 55

    PAGE 81

    QUI!STIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA Oireclly-Operate
    PAGE 82

    3. Please e -xplain the sign ificant increase in capital expense from $8,965.6 3 0 in 1992 to $24.564,480 in 1993. What capital purchases were made in 1993? System Response: Capital expenditures in fLScal year 1993 included bus pur c-hases amounring to S 16.1 million; facility renovations of $0 7 million ; capitalized extraordinary expenses related to Hurricane A n drew equaling $2.3 mil l ion; and capitalized engine and t ransmission rebuilding cosrs and other capital equipment amounting to $5. 4 million. 4. Operating revenue increased 15 percent from $40,735,020 in 1992 t o $46 964,440 in 1993. All of this increase was due to a 16 percent increase in passenger fare revenue during this time ($39,802,950 in 1992; $46,123 ,700 in 1993). Is t he increase in passenger fare revenue sole l y attributable to the increase in ridership mentioned previously? System Response: MOTA indicated that the increase in fare revenue is auributable exclusi\'ely to the increase in the number of unlinked passe -nger trips. 5. Despite the i ncrease in operating revenue, total local revenue decreased 31 percen t from $85,194,820 in 1992 to $58,826,930 in 1993. Please explain chis significant decline. System Response: It was determined that S35. 9 million received in FY 1993 from FEMA as reimbursement for Hurricane Andrew Emergen c y Transportat ion Services was inc.orreclly ca t egorized under direct l y operated motorbus service. This : <:::. : Jited in an incorrect distribut i on of local funds as well. After the dis t ribution of $29.5 millio n and $4. 7 million i n FEMA funds to purchased motorbus st:r ... ices and purchased demandresponsive services.. respeclively. the directly-<>perated motorbus l o c al revenue should have t otalled $92,956,500. 6 As shown in the following table, the t otal number of employees increased 10 percent due to increasing emp loyee ITEs in each of the t hree primary employee categories. Please explain t he changes in each of lhe employee categorie s. Direetly..Operated Motorb u s FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Oporatlng ... 1 124,4 t,244.9 10.7% Maintenanoe Employees 362. 8 393.0 8.3% Administrative EmplOyees 186.7 204.0 9 .3% Total Employee$ 1. 673 9 1 841 9 10.0% System Responie : The increase in the operating employee category is due. to the increase in directlyoperated service which was imp l emented as a r esult of the hurricane recovery efforts (see also lhe response to quesrion # 1). In t he category of maintenance employees, in FY 1993, 36 percent of the acrhe. fleet were 1980 model buses which required additional employee hours. Also. there was a large m1mber of vacancies in maintenance personnel in FY 1993. Finally, the inc-rease in administrative employee FTEs i s primarily due to the tilling of vacancies in ticketing and fare collection, and additional overtime to compensate for absences resulting from injuries. med ical conditions, and disciplinary actions 57

    PAGE 83

    7 The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from 574 vehicles i n 1992 to 612 vehicles in 1993, w hile the number of vehicles opera t ed in maximum service decreased f rom 505 to 50 I vehicles durin g this time. These changes resulted in a 62 percent increase in spare ratio (13.7 percent in 22.2 percent in 1993) be tween 1992 and 1993. P l e ase explain this increase. System Response: In fiscal year 1992, MOTA added a number of buses in the peak to meet public demand dur ing a period of suict enforcemen t of the jitney regulations The peak vehicles were reduced in fisca l year 1993 t o the level required at that time. In addition. i n 1993 MOTA r eceived 73 new buses which increased the spare ratio to an acceptable opera tional level (FTA has authorized MDTA to have a 50 pe:r<:ent spare ra tio on the 20 alternative fuel buses instead of the standard 20 percent. Therefore, the 20 buses only count as 10 and the 1993 spare ratio did not exceed the 20 percent maximum all o w a ble). 8 The number of inciden t s increased more than 20 percen t from 1.140 in 1992 10 1,373 in 1993. Given the unpredictability of these even t s. can t his significant increase: be explained? System Response: This increase in the total number of incidents can be attributed to an increase in the number of new bus ope r a t o r s. and the effec t of Hurricane And rew on t he roadway infraslructure and traffic congestion. Although t he operators received t rainingprior to opera ting the their inexperience contributed to several incident s Additiona lly, signalization and street signs were damaged during t he h urric-ane and rep lac.ement was ongoing t hroughout the fisc a l year (1993). The condition oflhe infrastruc t ure exacerbated the potential for incidents on the congested roadways t hroughout Dade County. 9 The number of revenue service i n tenup tions (prev iously referred to as "roadcalls") increased significantly from 9, II? in 1992 to 13,919 in 1993. To wha t can this signiJicant increase be attributed? System Response: As indicated i n the re-sponse t o question 116 conceming maintenance employees, in fiscal year 1993, 36 percen t o f the active fleet were 1980 model buses and there was a large number of vacancies in main t enance personnel. These factors co ntribured t o t he incr e ase in service interruptions. P urc h ased Motorbus Ques tions J. As indicated in t he following table. significant increases occurred between 1992 and 1993 lOr bolh passen&cr trips and passenger miles. as well as for veh icle miles. revenue miles vehicl e hours. and revenue hours. Please explain these significant changes in t he amoun t of purchased motorbus servi ce provided. Pur chased Mo tOtbus FY 1992 FY 1993 '!.Change P assenger 867 3 t 0 t 0,315 ,890 1 ,089 .4% Paenget Miles 3 167,010 27,030,540 753. 5% Ve hide M i leS t .687 040 t 0 954,780 549.4% Reven ue M ile s t.382 ,300 9,607 730 595. 1% Vehicle Houts t35,120 1,00t 820 641.4% Revenue Hours 113 030 9t5,57 0 7 1 0 0% -----------------------58

    PAGE 84

    System Response: From September 6 1992, through September 3, 1993 fixed route Emergency Transportation Services were provided in Soulh Dade to aid in hurritane recovery efforts and were funded by FEMA. In add i t ion to auxiliary service on directlyoperatcd motorbus routes, c ontracted services supplied by four purchased transportation contractors were included : Mayflower Contracted Services. Inc.; Airocar Express Inc.; and Red Top Transporeation, Inc. (s.ee also t he response to question #3 in the General Ques-tions section). 2. Despite the aforementioned increase in the amount of purchased motorbus service provide-d. the number of directional route miles deueased from 153.4 miles in 1992 co 13.7 miles in 1993, a decline of more chan 91 per<:enl. Please explain. System Response: Jn fiscal year 1992, t he directional route mile-age inc.luded the fixedroute service operated by Mayflower Contracted Services, Inc., and Emergency T ran s portation Services operated by Mayflower Contracted Service .s, Airocar Express, I nc .; a.nd HandiVan. Inc. Since the Emergency Transportation Services were phased out during 1993 .and were not operated on September 30, the directional route miles for these service s are not contained in Form 403PT of the Section 15 repOrt. If the South Dade service was to be reported, it would equal70.7 directional rou1e m i les. 3. T otal operating expense increased 702 percent from $3, 914,950 in 1992 to $31, 391,170 in 1993. Carl all of this increa .se be attributed to the significant increase in the amount of purchased motorbus service provided? System Reiponse: T his increase in operating expense is solely due to the increased level of service discussed previously. Emergency Transportation Services were provided under contract from September 6. 1992, through Se. ptember 3, 1993. to aid in hurricane. recovery efforts. The cost of che service pai d to contractors amounted to $2.7 m illion in 1m versus $29 5 milli
    PAGE 85

    System Response: Funded by FEMA, purchased Emergency Transportation Services operated in South Dade from September 6 1992, to September 3 1993 {as discussed previously). to aid in meeting the mobility needs of the areas hardest hit b y Hurricane Andrew. Since th ese services were not in oper.uion on September 30, 1993, the Ill vehicles used to operate these services are not i ncluded on Form 408 -MB-PT of the FY 1993 Section I S rcpon Heavy Rail Questions I. As in the. table below. t he number of passenger tri p s incre-ased more than eight percent between 1992 and 1993 despite only modest increases in the amount of heavy rail service provided To what can this increase be auributcd? Heavy FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Passenger Trips 13,701,6 1 0 14,8 17,890 8 .2% Revenve Miles 5 230,820 5 350,790 2 .3% Revenue HOUts 172,47 0 176.360 2 .3% System Response: The increase in Metrorail boarding.s in fistal year 1993 is partia l l y attributable to normal growth panems and partially due to effects of limited transportation alternatives and increased traffic congestion after HuiTicaoe Andrew. This can be by comparing f'Y 1993 to FY 1992 boardings for stations north of Government Center station to those south of the station. The relative growth in boardings was greater after the hurricane at stations nonh of Government Center whic h is consistent with the fact that residents were displaced from South Dade to Nonh Dade. 2. The number of vehicles operated in maximum serv i ce decreased from 82 vehicles in 1992 to 76 vehicles in 1993. Since the number of vehicles available for maximum service did not change during this time, the spare ratio i ncreased almost 20 peroent (65.9 percent in 1992; 79. 0 percent in 1993). Ple.ase explain the decline in peak vehicles. System Response: In order to meet demand for Metrorail scrvice dur ing the afternoon peak. MOTA adjusted the headway from five to six: minutes and eliminated one six-car train. thus decreasing the number of vehicles operated in maximum service by six. 3 T he number of incidents increased 38 percent from 105 in 1992 to 145 in 1993. Given the unpredictability of these events, can this sign i ficant incre-dse be explained? 60 System Response: This increase i n incidenlS is due to an increase in derailments., personal casualtie s. fires. and suicides. The number of yard derailments is attributable to procedural violations and equipment failure. The incre ase in personal casualties is due to patron negligence on escalators inside the stations and carelessness i nside the vehicles. The increased number of tires inside trash cans is also attributed t o the. carelessness of patrons. In addition a successful s.uicide attempt occurred in 1993.

    PAGE 86

    Automated Guidewa y Q u e s t i ons I The number o f passenger t r ips decreased al a greater rnle from 1992 t o 1993 than did rhe number of passenger miles (see tab l e below). T1li s resulred in an i ncrease i n average. trip length. Is t h ere an e): planation for the .sc changes? AutomMod Guideway FY 1992 FY 1 9 93 Y. Change Pa-ssenger 2 68 2 460 2 .343 570 f2.6% Passenger Miles 2 589.96 0 2 522 120 2 .&% Aver a ge Tri p Lengt h 0 .97 m ile s 1.08 miles 11. 5 /o ----Syslem Response: Met romover boardings in both FY 1992 and FY 1993 were affected by service intem.tptions wirh construction of t h e Omni and Brick ell ex t ensions of the Metromovcr. The riders hip which bc;gan to decl ine in 1992 was nnt !:.:lly r egained in l99 3 ; fnicc interruptions primarily consisted of1he closing of t he Outer Loop lllerefore, r iden; w i shing to connect from Metror:1i l ' : h e Metromove r and t ravci t: more stations for work in the morning h a d a longer t rip on the Inner Loop t han they would have had on the Oute r Loop. Th i s led 10 an in rhe average rrip length. 2. Maint enanc e expe n se increased more than 15 percent from $ 4,115 ,320 in 1992 t o $4 744 400 in 1993. Please explain. Sys tem Response: The increase in 1993 reflec t s the correspondi ng increase i n rep o ned labor hours associated with repairs of the communication syS1e.ms withi n the exist i ng loop and extensions. In addition. in fiscal year 1992, maintenance expense was incorrectly alloca(ed between heavy rai l (HR) and automat ed guideway (AG). The cor r ection of this alloca tion error in 1993 resulted in a n additional $480,000 charge t o automated g uideway. 3 Please exp lain the significan t d ecline in capita l expense from $95,653,530 in 1992 to $23,630,790 in 1 993. Capita l expenditures in 1992 were for the Me t romover Extension project. What capital pur<::ha ses were made in 1993? System Resp onse: The de crease is anribu t able to the winding down" of construction activi t y for the Metromove.r Extension project. In 1992. conslruction was concentrat ed on physical construct i o n which was completed in 1993. Activity dur ing fiscal yc.ar I 993 focused on system cesting. 4. Passenger fare revenue d e creased approxima t ely 12 perce n t f rom S320.280 i n 1992 to S282, 750 in 1993. Is t his decline solely attributable to the d ecrease in ridership mentione d previo u s l y? System Response: The decline in passenger far e revenue is due to the prev i o u s l y d i-scussed d e creas e in ridership. 5. The number of vehi cles avai lable for m aximum service incrcaSf!d from 1 2 vehicle' s in !);: ro 16 in J 993, whi le the number of vehicles operated i n maximum service dropped from nine to e i ght vehi c les during t his time. In addi tio n the average age of the; vehicle neet f ell more than 12 perc-ent f r o m 7 00 year s in 1992 t o 6.13 years i n 1993. II is appar ent that new vehicles have been purchased; however. the number of peak vehicles s till has decline-d. Please explain 61

    PAGE 87

    62 System Response: New vehicles were purchase d in 1993 for usc on t he Omrli and Brickell exten sions of the. Metromover, which opened for r evenue se. rvice in 1994. These vehicles were avai l able for use in maximum ser\'iCe in 1993. and were counted in the total 1993 tleet. The. refore, the average age of the fleet was reduced Doring both 1992 and 1993, the Outer and Inner Loop< of the Me t romover were affected by the construction of the Omni a n d Brickell extensions At different time s during each of the years. depending upon the l ocation and type of cons truction, t he number of vehicles was altered in addition to the number of cars in the consist To accunuely reflec t these variations. the number of peak vehicles is calcu l ated by laking a weighted average oft he number of peak vehicles used during the various construction periods. Utilizing this method. it was d et ermined that the number of vehic.Jes operated in maximum service d ecreased by one between 1992 and 1993.

    PAGE 88

    ... ooo 30,000 20,000 1 0,000 0 METRO-DADE TRANSIT A G EN C Y SYSTEM TO TAL EXC L U D I NG P URCH ASED M OTOR BUS Ptrrorm ance I ndicators Figure fii A 1 County/Servi c e Ar e a Population (000) 2.000 : .. l"" j M ..... ' I I I : j I' ... -. -[ ------ --.. _. J 1.600 1,200 800 400 0 '"" nu ., .. ,,.719N ''" t no ''" ,,., ttn Figu r e III A3 Figure 111-AA 1 00,000 80.000 60 ,000 ... ooo 2 0,000 0 . I Figure IIIA2 Passenge r Trips (000) . . --. --.. -. . ---r --. r ""' ... .... .. --,-r--=. --. ; ;:::-,,.. 19&5 1916 nn .. "" "" " '"2 '"l Vehide Miles and Revenue M iles Total Oper a ting Expense Fjgu r e lnAS Passenger Fare Revenue (000) ---,l ,;.. -.. 1 + IQO.lt --MIII!IfXIOI I r i -----L U 5200,000 $160,000 $120 .000 580 .000 $40,000 ----r- ;; --.LJ -lco: .. $1 I .-so $80,000 rr--r--! -.J' ,. .I 1-1 l-; 1-.--l .-J S 60,000 540,000 $20,000 so 19 M 198S 1 M 6 I W UU 1919 1990 lttl I Z IMJ '"" 19U 19S6 191., 19U 19" "90 1991 '"l'"J t9N 19lS 19$6 1H7 19ft t9U 1910 1991 lttl I ttl 2 500 :!.000 1,500 1,000 soo 0 F i gure 111-A6 T o t a l Employees V I 1--..T:: T-1 -::i i--1-+-_ r i --1-.. -. ---1--H---i ------< 1 -J--J --......-__ tte4 ttl$ ttu 1 m 1988 1tt9 1990 1991 tHlt J 800 600 400 200 0 Figu r e 111-A7 V ehicle s in M a xi m u m S ervke -. uu s '"' '"''"" ,,., '"o ,,. 2 utJ 63

    PAGE 89

    64 ME T RO-DADE TRANSIT AGEN C Y SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHA SE D MOTORBUS Effective ness Measures 20 0 1 6.0 12.0 a.o 4.0 Figure IIIA8 Vehicle Mi les Per C apita II -r .. --1-r--1-0.0 1--1M4 1MS 1tll IM7 1 M 1ttt 1 990 1t9l lttl 1 99 3 Figure 111-A10 Revenue M iles Betwee n Acddents/lnddents ,--20,000+ + -Jt -l+-1 1s.ooot -10,000 : ---1 -1-1--1s.ooo I : ... j .. 1 .;: I' ___ ,,. .!1!)1( 11>3 I 0 ( .. -. r-'''!' J .... I* "tS 1916 IH11'*l It*' 1 990 19tf 1 992 19t) Figure IIIA9 Passe nger Tri p s Per Revenu e Mile 4.0 3.0 . 2.0 1.0 -0.0 1 -,,... nts nH 1 N7 " " 1990 '"' ttn '"l Figure III-A11 R eve nue Between I nterrupti o ns 2.500 r---r ----2.000 1--.Lt_ 1.500 000-l-+ j--r l ---r [ 'SOOI.. -1-. - ( 0 I I .. F -./ -' T j .. -f--j 1M4 tHS 19M IM7 1 918 ln:t 1 990 1 99 1 ttn 199 1

    PAGE 90

    METR O-DADE TRAN SIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAl, EXCI.,UOING PUR CHASED M OTORBUS Efficiency Measures $100.00 Figure IIIA12 Operating ExpeMe Per capjta 1rr; $80 .00 .. ... .. . . ... _I .. I 54
    PAGE 91

    66 M ETRO-DADE TRAN SI T AGENCY SYSTE M TOTAL I N CLU DING PUR CHASED MOTORBU S Per rormanct tndkators figure IIIA21 County/ Servi
    PAGE 92

    M E TR ODADE TRAN SIT AGEN C Y S Y S T EM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Effectiveness Measure. $ 25.0 20 0 15.0 10. 0 s o 0.0 F i gure 111A27 Vehicle Mites Per Capita T .. I I -.Y I I I I I -... 1 -tl.l.-1 . 1984 1N.S ttUt,U '"' '"' 1990 ,,, '"l ,,, figure llt.A28 Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile --_ --. :_I __ 'J l:-:1 I I 2.01 ----. ... --+I' 1 01 '""t-------j--l+J ] 0 0 ---------l .... J 1t&
    PAGE 93

    68 METRO-DADE TRAN SIT A G ENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLU D ING PURC HASED MOTORBUS Effic i e ncy M easures $120.00 $ 90.00 $ 60.00 $ 3 0 .00 50.00 Figure lllA29 Operati n g Ex,ans e Per Cap i ta ---:/ /. I v t--------] _J_ 1H4 tttS 1M4 1 M 7 ltia tMt 1t90 1tt1 ttt! ttU Figure IIIA3 1 O p e rati n g Expense Pa r Reve n u e M iJe $6.00 --:r---,I" ....... $4.00 1---... ... $ 2.00 $ 0.00 1914 1 985 " 191 1 19U 19h 1990 "" 199 :t 199 3 Figure IIIA33 Vehide Miles Pe r Peak Vehicle -r rT' i rr--t-40,000 i--t---1 ...-.. I --, ... ooo lriJ ... 5 .. i' J ... ... --... r +--t-O-f1 -, .... ,,.. IMS IM6 1.,_, 1918 IMt 1t10 1tt1 \992 19tJ Figure Operating Expense Per Passenger Tri p $ 2 .50 --1 ---.,------T i J J_ f-' k 1 ---$2.00 $1.50 $1. 00 +... so.so -so.oo ,,.. u.s 1tu '"' '"' ''" '"" ,,.,, 1m ,,.,, 40% 30% -10% 0% F ig ur e 111-A32 Farebox Recovery Ratio J . --!. ---I --I .. ..:: I i _ j 1984 1 98S ,,_ 1M7 IMI 1989 1 990 1991 1 991 19tl $0.80 S0.6 0 $0.40 $0. 20 so.oo Figure III-A3 4 A vera ge Far e f -..... -17-+-1-. ... _ t 1----. -,,.. 191a$ 1986 ,.,._., 1 918 1 989 1990 U9'1 1 992 I H )

    PAGE 94

    MOTA SUMMARY A significant event 1hat affected MOTA during the 1993 fiscal year was the implementation of fixed route Emergency Transportation Services which opcr.dted between September6, 1992, and September 3, 1 993, as a result of Hurrican e Andrew, which struck Dade County on August 24, 1992. These services which were funded by FEMA. were provided in Sout'h Dade to aid in hurricane recovery efforts. No fares were collected from passengers for this scrviee. System Total passenger trips increased from 72 376 590 t rips in 1992 to 91,2 83 870 trips in 1993. This increase was mainly a r esult of t h e significant increase in purchased motorbus trips (867,310 in 1992; 10,315, 890 in 1993). These trips resulted from the provision of fixed route EmergeneyTransponation Services after the hurricane, whic h were primarily supplied by four purchased transportation contractors. In addirion, the anennath of t he hurricane contributed to a 16 percent increase in directly-operated motorbus passenger trips and an eight percent increase in heavy rail passenger trips. MOTA's System Total revenue miles and hours increased significantly between 1992 and I 993. The number of System Total revenue miles increased 36 percent(27 418,000 in 1992; 37,351,620 i n 1993), while System Total revenue hours increased more than 50 percent (I ,932 ,090 in 1992; 2,909,750 in 1993). This increase in service was primarily due to the provision of post-hurricane Emergency Transportation Services. which were mainly supplied by four purchased motorbus contractors( 1,382,300 purchased motorbus revenuemiles in 1992; 9 607 ,730 in 1993). Additionally, directlyoperatedmotorbus r evenue miles and hours increased more than seven percent while heavy rail revenue miles and hours increased more than two percent. Total operating expense (pure.hased motorbus only) increased more than 700 percen t from S3,9J 4 950 in 1992 to $31,391,170 in 1993. This was due to the large amount of service provided by the Emergency Transportation Services. These service s were funded through f"EMA. 69

    PAGE 95

    B BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISI O N S YSTEM PROF'IL E Oa.aniutional S tructure The Browa!'d County Mass Transi t Division is a division of lhe Sroward County Public Services Depanment. Govc:rnjng Body end Comp;osition -The Transit Division is governed by the Board of County Commissioners of B roward Co unty. which is comprlsed of seve n elected di.stricc representa tives. Service Ar ea Tile servioe area cover ed by the sys tem includes Broward County Connections are mad e to Co1'ran In Boca Raton. and to MOTA in North Miami Beac h and Carol City. Modn The system c urrently p rovides motorbus servi ce as well as contra ctin g for some services s u c h as Tri -Rail Commuter Rail feeder bus service, the fOrt Lauderdale Downtown Development Authorily downt own circulator, and Cooper C ity community service. In addition. con tra cted paratransit service is offered 70

    PAGE 96

    ?'tO.CATORS --.---SeM:e Area Pop..:?.! :OOO) Setvice Area Size tsqua.r o mile$) Panenger Trips ( 000) Passenger Miles (000 } Ve hicle MJes (000) Revenue M i u: (000) V e hicle Hours (000) Reve n ue HOUt$ (000) Route MJts T ota l Opera ting Expense (000) T ola l ()peroting Expense (000 of 1984 $ ) Total MU.tena.nc:e Expense (000) TOial Ma
    PAGE 97

    P E RFOR MANC E INDICA TORS Service Area PopulatiOn {000} Sef\1100 Area Slz.e (square miles) Tnps (000 ) Passenger Miles (000} Vehicle Mies (000) R even u e Mies {000) Vohicle HO
    PAGE 98

    PERFORM A NCE IND I CATORS Service Area Populalion (000) Service A r ea Size (square miles} Pa.s.sen ger Trips (000) Passenger Miles (000) M iles (000) Revenue Mife:s (000) Veh icle Hours (000) Reven u e Hours (000} Route Miles Total Ope111ting Expense (000) Total Operating Expen.se '(OOO of 198 4 $) Total Mainteoance Expense (000) Total Maintenance Expen$e (000 o f 1 984 $) Total Capital Expe n se (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Operatng Revenue (000} Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Total E mployees Tran$portation Operating E mployee-s Maintenance Employees AdminiStrati ve Employees Veh icles Available for M aximum Service Vehicles Opetated fl Maximum Service Spare RJtio Total Gallon s Consumed (OOD} TABLE 11183 Broward Transit Division System T o t a l Perrormanc e Indicators 198 8 1989 19i0 1991 1 213 .70 1, 242 .45 1.255.49 1.278.38 n/a nla n/a n/a 13.797 .65 14 .413.2 5 17,094 .76 19,537.27 75,028 .48 67.589. 5 7 81,845.84 81,118 .03 9 618.71 9 .682.57 9.764 .76 9 865.37 8,910 7 5 8.973.21 8,947 .34 9.120.85 638.30 649. 76 726 .80 756.79 611 .93 638.70 699.24 723 .32 609.25 609.25 816.25 724 .80 $31 943 .00 $32,865.40 $35 725. 1 5 $37,480 .85 $27 868 .32 $27,497.46 $28 ,455.39 $28,241 .72 $7, 028 .35 $7,6 1 5 .03 nla n/ a $6,131. 81 $6, 3 7 1.26 nla n/a $7,066.20 $3,945 51 nla n/a $26.9$4 .92 $29,534.20 nla n/a $7,147.3 1 $6,533. 3 1 nla n/a $5.5 81 .75 $5, 751 .70 n/a nla 623.20 646.80 nla nlo 440.10 448 10 n/a n/a 143 .60 1$4.60 nla n/a 39.50 43.90 n/3 n/a 209.00 209.00 221 0 0 213.00 207.00 150.00 176.00 174.00 0 .97% 39.33% 25. 57% 22. 41% 3 585 10 2.887 .20 n/a n/a 1992 1993 1988 3 1.337.00 1.293.52 6 .58% 4 1 0 .00 4 I 0 .00 nla 20.551.8 1 2 1,726 1 1 57.46% 97,622.37 96,753.75 2 8 .96% 9,890 .91 9 ,915.52 3.09% 9 .134.27 9,111.23 2 .25% 687.85 702.00 9 .98% 658.62 669.49 9.-41% 724 .80 720.00 18 .18% $37,481.20 $38.326.27 19 .98% $27,055 .82 $26,835.86 43,7 0 % n/a n/a n/a n/a .,. n/a n/a n /a n/a ""' n/a n/a n/a nla n/3 n/a nla nla n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n/3 n/a n/3 n/a 214.00 2 11.00 0 .96% 1 7 5 .00 164.00 -ft.11% 2 2.29% 14.6 7 % 1 418 .75% nla nla n/a 7 3

    PAGE 99

    EFFECTIVENESS M EASURES S ERVICE SUPP L Y Vehdo Miles Per Capita SERV ICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Pe( Capita P1ssenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips Per Reve nue Ho u r QUALI7Y O F SERVICE AW!rage Speed (R.MJR.H ) Average Age of (in years) Number of I n cidents ReWtnue ServiO& Interruptions Revenue Between Incidents (000) Revenue Mi\es Betwee n l nten uptions (000) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Per Route M ile (000) 74 TA8L 111 Broward Transit Division OirecUy-OptratOO Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 7 .93 7 .79 7 .55 7.43 11.37 11.60 13.43 14.95 1 .5 5 1 .61 1 .93 2 .18 22.55 22 .57 25 .39 27 .85 14 .56 1 4.05 13 18 12.79 6 .80 7 .11 7 .97 6.57 485.00 458.00 689.00 755.00 4 ,897.00 4,195.00 2,611 00 3,597.00 1 8 .37 19.59 12.69 11 .62 1.82 2 .14 3 .35 2 4 4 14 .63 14.73 14 .36 14.15 1992 1993 1988-19 3 7 .05 7 .35 -7.22% 14.94 16.48 44. 98% 2 .29 2 .43 57.18% 31.72 33.63 49. 15% 13.86 13.82 6 .42 6.48 -4 71% 695.00 689.00 42. 06% 2 382 00 1,691 .00 -65 47% 12.56 12.71 -30 .80% 3 .66 5 .18 194.67% 14.07 14.01 4 22%

    PAGE 100

    EFFECTIVE N ESS MEASURE S SERVIC E SUPPI. Y Vehicle Miles Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pass&nger Per Capila Pn$enger Tr\?s Per Reven u e Mile Passe-n ge r Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Average Speed (R.M.IR H.) Average Age of Fleet (in ye-ars) Number of Incidents Revenue Service l nlerruption_, Reven u e Miles Between l ncii.1ents (000} Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000 ) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Per Route Mie (000 ) TABLE 111-BS Broward Transit Oi\'ision Purehased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 nla nlo 0 .23 0 29 n l a n/3 0 19 0 34 n/3 nlo 1. 1 8 1 24 nla n/a 6.71 11.55 nla n/a 5.68 9 31 nlo n/o nla 8 23 nla n/a 1.00 n la nla n/a nla nla n/3 n/a nla nla nla n / a n/a n l a n/a n/a 3 31 1992 1993 % 1990 3 0 .35 0.31 0.43 0.31 66.46% 1.43 1 .16 -2.02% 19.95 11.45 7o.68% 13 .9 7 9 .89 74. 20% 8.36 6 6 4 n /a n/a nla n la n/a nia n/ a nla nia nl a nla n/a nla 3 .89 3 7 1 282.60% 75

    PAGE 101

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPlY Vehicle Miles Pe r Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passeogar Trips P e r Ca pita Pasu-nger Trips Per Revenue Mile Pa.uenger Tells Per Revenue Hour QUALilY OF SERVICE Average Speed (R.MJR.H.) Average A1Je of Fleet {ln years) Number o f Incidents Revenue Service I n terruptions R e'lenue Miles l nciclents (000) Reve nue Miles Between lnlerruptions {000) AVAI LABI L ITY Revenu e Miles Per Rout& Mile (000) 76 T ABI..E 111-86 Broward Tran$it l>ivision System T otal Effecti v eness Measures 1988 198 9 1990 1991 7 .93 7 .79 7 7 8 7.72 11.37 1 1 .60 13.6 2 15.28 1 .55 1 6-1 1 .91 2.14 22.55 22.57 24.45 27.01 14 ,05 12.80 12.6 1 6.80 7.11 nla n/a 485.00 458.00 690.00 n / a 4 ,897 .00 4,195.00 n/a n/a 1 8.37 19.59 12 .97 nla 1.82 2 14 nJa n/a 1 4 6 3 14 .73 10.96 12.58 1992 1993 1 988 -19 3 7.40 7.67 -3.28 % 1 5 37 16.80 47. 75% 2.25 2 .38 54. 00% 31.20 32.45 13.87 13_61 -6 .54% n /a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nta n/a nta nJa nla nla nla 12. 60 1 2 .65 -13.48%

    PAGE 102

    Efl'1CIE N CY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Opersling Expense P er capita Operating Expense Pet Peak Vehicle {000) Operating Expense Per PasHnger T,., Operating Expenie Pe-r Passenge r Mile OpenJiing Expense Per R e venue Mile Operatin g Expense Pe-r Revenue Hour Malnt&nance Expense Per Revenue Mile Malntenanc.e Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATI N G RA TIO S Farebox Recovery local Revenue Per Oc>ero1g .,_ ... ()pero1g R...,nue Per Operating .,_... VEHICLE UTUZATION VehO:Io Mies Per Peale Vehicle (000) varlicSe HoutS Per Pen Vehicle: (000) Miles Per V eh.ic:le Mites Revenue Miles Per Total Vehkfes (000) Rtvtnue Hours Per Total Vehicle$ (000) LABOR PROOUCTMTY Reven ue H ours Pe r Employee (000) P3$senger Trips Per Employee (000 E NERGY UTILIZATI ON Vehicle Miles Per Gsllon FARE TABU: 111-87 Broward Transit Oi\ ision OirtttlyOperated Motorbus Effitie. ney Measures 1988 1989 1990 199 1 $26 .32 526.45 $27.37 $28.15 $154.31 $219.10 $218 .86 $232.19 $2. 3 2 $ 2.2 8 $ 2.0 4 $1.88 $0.43 $0.49 $0.42 $0. 4 5 $3.58 $3.66 $3.93 $4. 10 $52.20 $51.46 $51.76 $52.45 $0.79 $0.85 $0.85 $0.96 22. 00% 23. 17% 2 1 .71% 23. 33% 17.47% 17 50% 22. 13% 24.50% 84.38% 89.86% 9a.87% !14.02% 22.38% 19.88% 23.29% 24.85% 48.47 64.55 60.36 8129 3 .08 4 .33 4 .36 4 .83 0 .93 0 .93 0 .92 0 .92 42 .64 42.93 43.30 46.67 2 .93 3 .06 3 .29 3 .66 0 .98 0 .99 1.03 1 .00 22. 14 22.29 26. 1 0 27.77 2.68 3.35 3.19 3.-15 $0. 4 0 $0.40 $0.45 $0A6 1992 1993 "'c""m 19881 9 3 $27 .a. $28.52 8 .37'14 $23324 $222.25 44.02'11 $1.81 $1.73 -25.25'14 $0.38 $0. 39 9 .39% $4 .14 $4.21 17A9% $57 A 3 $58.20 11 A9'14 $1.03 $1.02 29.62/o 24.96% 2 4 27% 10 .32% 2626% 2 7 64% 58 .15'14. 98.01% 99. 56% 17.99'14 28.10% 31 38% 4024 % 60.80 57. 30 2330% 423 3 .98 29.15'14 0 .93 0.92 -0 .58% 46.t8 46.35 8 .70% 3.33 3.35 1 4 .56% 1.12 0 .98 -0.66% 35 .67 32.80 4 8 1 4 % 3.05 2 99 11.42% $0.48 $0.48 18 .22'14 77

    PAGE 103

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operatng Expense Per Capita Operatilg Expense Per Pea k Vehicle (00 0 } Operating EXpense PGr Passeng6r Tf1l Operating Expense Pet Passenger Mile OperaOOg Expense Per Reve.nue Mile Operating Expense Per Reve n ue Hoor Mainten a n ce Expen se Pe-r RG'rl!lnu e Mil& Maintenance Expense Per OperaOOg Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Re,covery Local Revenu e Ptr Operating Expense Operating Revenue Per Operatin g Expense VEHICLE UTIL.IZATION Ve hicle M i les Per Peak Ve h ide (000) Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle {000) Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile$ Reven u e M i les Per Tota l Vehicles (000) Reven u e Hours Per Total Vthides (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000) Passenger Trips Pee Empjoyee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles Per Galton FARE Average Fare 78 TA BI..E 111 Broward Transit Division P urchased Mot orbus Erficiency Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 nla nla $1.09 $1.1 7 nla nla $71.62 $76.46 nla nlo .$5 74 $3.47 nla nla $1.74 $1.14 nla nla $6.79 $4.31 nla nla $38.55 $40.13 nla nla nla nla nla nla n la nta nla nta nla n/a n/a n/a nla nla nta n/a n/a nla n /a nta 15. 19 19. 2 3 n /a n/a 2 23 2 06 nta n/a 0 .70 0 95 n/a n/a 10.56 13. 84 n /a nla 1 66 1.49 n/a n /a nla n/a n1a n/a n/a n /a nla nta n/a n/a nta nla n /a n/a 1992 1993 V Change 1990 .. 1993 $0. 99 $1. 1 1 1 95% $66. 42 $79 .62 10. 67% $2.29 $3 .52 -38.75% $0.97 $1.26 26.69% $3.27 $4 07 '39. 99% $45. 69 $40. 29 4.53% nla nla nla nla nla n/a n/a n/a nlo nla nla nla nla nla nla 23.35 22.47 47.97% 1 .59 2 27 1.72% 0 .67 .. 0 67 24 .66% 16.25 1 5.99 51. 17% 1 16 1.62 13 22% n/a n/a nta nla nla n/a n/a n/a n /a n/a n/a n/a

    PAGE 104

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICI ENCY Expense Per Capita Operating Exs>ense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Operating Expen$e Pe r Passenger Trip Operating Expense P e r Passertger Mile Expense Per Mae Operating Expense Per Revenue Hovr Maintenan ce Expense Per Revenue Mile Maintenance Expense Par Operating Exp. OPERAnNG RATIOS Farebox Recovery Local Reven u e Per O pe rating Expe nse Operallng Revenue Per Expense VEHICLE unLtZAnON Veh
    PAGE 105

    GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes during fiscal year l993? If so, please provide the prev ious fare st ruct ure as well as the u pdated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemen1ed. No changes were made. 2 Were there any significant changes in service/service an.:a during fiscal year 1993? A t t he end of fiscal year 1993. additional service was added along Broward Boulevard At t he same time, service into Broward Mall was moved to the nearby West Tenninal resulting in additional transfers and a reduction in ridership on Route 75. However.lhe effcx:ts of these changes will be reflected in Section IS data for fiscal year 1994. since the changes were made very close t o the end of fiscal year 1993. There have been no significant changes in service -area. 3. Have the-re been any recent changes or significant events that may help exp lain the performance of the transit system? See response t o q u estion #2 80

    PAGE 106

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION 15 DATA Directly-Operated Motorbus Questions I. As indicated in the table below. the number of passenger trips increased between 1992 and 1993, while the number of passenger miles decreased slightly. This resulred in a decline in ave-rage trip length. Is there an e xplanation for these changes? Directly-Operated llotorbu$ FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Passenger Trips 19,971,630 21,318 ,710 6.7% I Passe11ger Miles 96,255,550 95,630,310 -0.6% I I Average Trip Length 4 .82 miles 4 ,48 miles System Response: The avera_ge trip length is calculated using passenger trips and miles, which are statistical estimations chat must meet 95 perc-ent confidence and 10 percent accuracy levels. BCT noted that the changes in passenger trips and miles between 1992 and 1993 fall within these but could not provide any other explanation. 2. Please explain the decrease i n capital expense from $7,670 ,150 in 1992 to $5,722 ,140 in 1993. In FY 1992 BCT's capital expenditures i ncluded six motorbuses and eight service vehicles. What capital purchases were made in 1993? S ystem Response: In FY 1993, capital purchases included seven minibuses, 27 motorbuses, tire lea sing. eng ines and office equipment Also approximately $2 million of planned motorbus purchases were not able to be made. 3. Opera ting revenue increased 12 percent from $10,376,190 in 1992 ro $11,576,700 in 1993. More than half of this increase was due to a -Seven percent increase in passenger fare revenue during this time ($9 494,970 in 1992; $10,195,820 in 1 993 ) To what can t he remainder of d>is increase be attributed? Systern Response: The remainder can be auributed to increases in weekly and monthly pass sales as well as increased advertising revenue. 4. The total number of employees increased 16 percent due to increa sing employee FTEs in each of lhe three primary employee categories as shown in the table on the next page. Please explain the changes i n each of the employee categories. 81

    PAGE 107

    OlrectlyOperated Motortlus FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Opera1ing EmPloyees 376.6 440 0 16 2% Mainte n ance 133.0 151. 0 13.5% Administtative Empk)yees 48. 1 59.0 22. 7% Tota l Employees 559 9 650. 0 16.1% System Response: The additio n of operators mechanics, and paratransit employees explain t hese increases 5 The number of revenue service interruptions (previou sly referred to as "roadcalls") decrease d from 2,382 in 1992 to 1,691 in 1993, a decline of 29 percent To what can Ibis significant reduc tio n be a t tributed? System Response: T h e d ecline in service interrup ti ons can be atcributed to increased preventive maintenance efforts (see also lhe response 10 question #4). Pure:ha.std Motorbus Quest ions I The number of passenger tripS decreased at a grea te r rate from 1992 to 1993 than did the number of passe n ger miles (see table below) This resulted in a 17 percent increase in average trip le n gth. Please explain the increase in this measure. Purchased Motorbus FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change P3$$efl9er Trips 580 ,170 4 07.400 .&% Passenger M iles 1 ,366,820 t t23,440 -17 .&% Average Tri p Length 2 .36 mile$ 2 .76 miles 17. 1% System Response: The increase in trip length can be au r ibuted to: a greater increase in Tri-R ai l feeder t rips (which tend to be longer trips) than any other purchased trip ; and the fact t h at on n ewer purcha sed city routes, some passenge r s trea t the bus as a fonn of recre ation. riding for an entire morn ing or afternoon (these long trips t end to drop off, but nonetheless inc r ease the a vera ge lr i p l ength). 2. As indicated in the rable on t he next page, the number of vehicle miles and revenue miles decreased between 1992 and 1993; however, the number of vehicle hours and revenue hours increased. These c hanges resulted in a sig11ificam decline in average speed ( revenue. miles per revenue hour). Is there an explanation for rhesc change. s'? 82

    PAGE 108

    PurchaSOd Motorbus FY 1992 FY 1 993 %Change; Vehicle M;tes 467 090 404 550 1 3.4% Reven u e Miles 406 130 351.780 -13.4% Veh k le Hours 31.760 40. 9 1 0 28.8% Reven u t Hours 29 080 35. 570 22.3% Ave1119e Speed 13 .97 mph 9 .09'""" 29.2% --------System Response: The new purchased city routes go in and out of sma l l shoppin g cen t ers and residential developments, thus operating very s l owly In addition, a change in the train schedule resulted in lengthy wai t times f o r Tri -Rail feede. r routes, which also slowed average speed. 3 The number of vehicles available for maximum service decn::ascd from 25 vehi cles in 1992 to 22 vehicles in 1993, whi le the number of vehicles operated in maximum service dropped from 20 to 18 vehicles during this time. Jn addition, the average ag e of the vehicle fleet fell approxi mately 2 1 percent from 8 .3 6 years in 1992 to 6.64 years in 1993. Please exp lain any change s t h at have occurred in the v eh icle inve-nt ory. System Response: The drop in rhe number of vehicles ava i lable for maximum service is due to theTrolley purc:hased system using one fewer bus than the previous year and t he Tri .. Rail feeder system using two fewer. A lso, the feeder system k ept one l ess bus available as a spare. The newer feeder buses and the new cit y bus caused the d ecrease in the average age of the vehicle fleet. 83

    PAGE 109

    84 10.000 8 000 6,000 4.000 2,000 0 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Figure 111 County/Service Area Population (ODD) r l 1 --1-f mt--1-1 1-tt-mH 600 :100 -1--f-I 1 -0 + ttM IMS Ull 1-,11 "" 19H U'JI 1"2 ISU Figure 111 Vehide Miles and Revenue Miles [ ......: ----- f$40,000 $)0,000 ---f-=r ----r ] -$ 20,000 $10,000 so Performance I ndicato r s F igur e 111-84 Total Operating Expen s e Figure 111 Passenger Trips (000) 25. 000 r.. ---[1 .. -.,'-"" /-.... ..... 20.000 15.000 -10,000 -- 5,000 0 ttM 19tS 1916 1M7 19M 19tt 19M 1tt1 1tn "" Figure ll l-85 Passen9t:r Fare Revenue (000) $12,000-rs9,ooo I I 56 ,000 1--t-1 ..-T""..,_"f S3.000r----=Lw--t;Qft: so -.:;.....j ......... 1914 19tS 19U 1"1 1MI1 9., U90 Uti 1ttl t t U ,,.. ues "'' ''*' '"' ttet 1 utt uu ttn ..,. ues "" ,,.,. ,,.. "" tttO "'' t 992 "n Figure 111-86 Total Employees 800,r -r--rT-. 1 .. -, 60tH --r---+ I 400+ 1 I I I i l I I ... .. .. ') o 1--:r....-::. :i -:-::-::r :.:--:.i : nn 1tU ,..., ,,.. '"' '"o '"' 1n:r 19U 250 200 150 100 50 0 f i gure 111 87 Vehides in Maximum Service -T 'J:l 1 .l I tr-...... t :1 I\ ,--l . r --L ---: --1 1 -:;:--;:.:-c j .. r-,,.. '"s un, ,.,, ,..,,.,'"",., 1ttl1Ml

    PAGE 110

    10, 0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Figure 111-88 Vehlde Miles Per Capita ] ---. I I I I I ,..... I I I . -.. ... ... I -------. . -. -. . I f---. l--... J -... .. f .... . Effectiveness Measures Figure 111-89 Passenger TriJn Per Revenue Mile r . A I 0 0 2.0 [ . I I I ... 1.0 0 5 1 t-___ .. -[-,1 J .. Ll l -1i... --.. 1.5 19M t"S tH.6 "" t9U tNt t f')O ttfl ttU 19U 1 914 ltfS ''*' 19f7 IMf tnt 1"0 I ttl 1tt2 IMl Figure 111-81 1 Figure 111-81 0 Average Age of Fleet {years ) 8 0..-,. .... MOOo . 6.0 !-. 4.0 rr, tdd l .. L _.J .I '-+-! __ L .. -=t_ j _ I MOll. (>!Mitl f\;:Jo l"'d l.'lo:!ol<11 o.o ::-.:r :::r:.::., _ ,,.. 191S ltU IM71'tU ,., 1990 Uti ttU 1993 Figure 111-812 Revenue Miles Between Ac.ddents/ l nc.ident$ Revenue Miles Between Interrup tions 6,000 ., ... 2,000 N')tf ... ..... ---0 j.. --1 -1 -+.. . .... " ,,.s "" ,,., ''" ,,., '"o 1991 tnt '"J ,,... I"S ltl6 1917 lt8S tnt lttO 1991 t992 1M3 85

    PAGE 111

    86 Figure 111 813 Operating ExpeMe Per capita S3000 1 rT [ ]H-pt" --$ 10.00 1 -1-+ .. $0. 00 I H J IK419fS 1 M 6 1tt11Ma 1919 IHO I H I 1992 IHJ Figure 111 M aintenance EKpense Per R evenu e Mile .... :cr:IJ $0. 60 S0.30l i $0.00 M ::r-::r-::r-.. 1-1-U>, O O O 19M 1 M $ 1 M t ltt1 U.tt INJ tHO 1tt1 tMl 1HJ 1. 200 ... 600 300 F igure 111 Reven ue Hours Per E mpJoyee r .. -. T r--c; --... -1---. : : l "'" ............ ..,.,.. ... 0 r ... 1 ..... 1 .--, --F l .. 1 .. 1 "-, __ ---:::(-1 19 t91S ttaf t9t7 1 9 Q191t 1990 t991 ttN t99) BRO WARD TRAN SIT DIVI S ION Efficier,cy Me-asure s F igu re 111-814 Operating Expense Per Passenger T r ip $2.50 :.1 $2.00 $1.50 51.00 ... .. H .. .. ------t---. -1 -. . ... J so. so $0 .00 lttf 1M$ IH4 1911 19 U 1 9tt 1990 1 1 lt9Z 19'tl 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 111 8 1 7 Fa rebox Recovery Rat io r r----r-T I ..J....' ... / ---1---.... 1-. L ---'-tf!!l(: .. tK..w.. ( ): i T "'i" r I ''1'"'1 Uat 1MS 1tu t9U 1988 ttat 1990 1991 1991 1991 40,000 30,000 20 000 f igure 111820 P assenger Trip s Pe r Emplo yee NOit : l .. .f" I I I : ; ; ; .. ,,.. t tts ,.,, ,,.,. ,,..,.,,to, , n ,,, Figur e 111-81 5 Operating Expense Per R e venue Mile ss.oo r r r -----.. - . .. !/ ------54. 00 53.00 j-----... t L --1 sz.oo 51. 00 so.oo 1 t9t S IM6 1"7 '"' 1919 1990 1"1 1tt2 1 ) figure 111-1118 Vehickt Miles Per P e a k V ehicl e 80 000 [ J r -1 _j= -1----t---r 1 . .L 60 000 40,000 20 000 0 19U tteS ttt6 1987 It&& 1Mt 1t90 tttt 1991 1Ml $0. 60 SOAO $0.20 $0. 00 Average Fare IT -----... 1 -,....-.......... .......... . . . -1 ""1 ,. ... -, t r --, .: 2-. 19M t9tS 1M' 198 1 tta8 tNt Uto t ttt 1Ml ttt)

    PAGE 112

    BCT SUMMARY System Total passenger trips increased (20,551,810 in 1992: 21,726 ,110 in 1993) while System Total passenger miles declined during this time (97,622.3 70 in 1992; 96,753,750 in 1993). A result ofthese changes was a seve n percent decline in the directly-operated motorbus average trip length BCT noted that these figures are s tati stical estimation-S which must meet 95 percent confidence and 10 percent accuracy lev els. The change in the directly operated motorbus average trip length falls within these paramete.rs, and the system could pro\ ide no othe r exp l a nation for the change . However. another rcsull was a 17 percent increase in the purchased motorbus average trip le n gth. BCT auributcd t his change primarily to a greater increase in Tri-Rail feeder trips (which tend to be longer trips) than any other purchased trip Operating revenue(directly-operatedmotorbus only) increased from S I 0,376,190 in 1992to $11,576,700 in 1993. A majority of this increase was the result of a seven per<:ent increase in passenger fare revenue during this time ($9,494,970 in 1992; $10 ,195,820 in 1993). BCT attributed the increase to growth in weekly and monthly pass sales and 10 inc-reased advertising revenue. The total number of employees (directly-operated motorbus only) increased approximately 16 percent due to inc-reasing F'TEs in e.aeh of the three primary employee categories. According to BCT. operator positions we r e added in the operating employee category; additional mechanics inc reased FTEs in the maintena n ce employee cate gory; and an increase in paratran.sit employees caused FTEs to increase in the adrnini.strative employee category. The number of revenue service interruptions (previously referred to as "roadcal ls") for directly-operated motorbus services declined 29 percent from 2,382 in 1992 to 1,691 in 1993. BCT indicated that an increase in preventive maintenance efforts contr ib uted to the decrease. 87

    PAGE 113

    C. JACKSONV ILLE TRAN S IT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Onzaniutio nt Structure Jacksonville Transpo11ation Authorit y is an independent authority. Covsrnlng Body and Composit ion The Authority is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of seven members : three arc appointed by the Governor of Florida ; three are appointed by the Mayor of Jacksonville ; and the Florida O
    PAGE 114

    PERFORMANCE INDICATOR$ Serva Area P-lalioo (000 ) Service Size ( square miles) P3ssenger Trips (000) Passenger Mites ( 0 00) V e hicle Mies (000) Reve n u e Miles (00 0 ) Ve h icle H o ur> ( 000) Revenue Hoors (000) Route Miles Tot al Operating Expense (000) T ocaJ Opetaling Expenoe (000 or 1984 S l local Mainleaance Expense (000) Tolol MainleMn
    PAGE 115

    PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS Service Alea Population (000) SeN i ce Acea Size (square miles) Pusengo r Trips (000) Passenge r Miles (000) Vehide Miles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route M iles Total (000) Totaf Operating Expenw (000 of 198" $) Total Mai n tenance Expense (000) Total Maintenance E:xpense (000 ot 1984 $) Total Capital Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) Pas.sellger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees Transportation Operating EmpSoyees Maille o ance Employees Ad.n"'inistrative Vthides Avail able for Maximum Vehlaes Opefated in Maximum Service Spare Ratio Total Gallons Con$umed (000) Total Energy Consumed (000 of 90 TABLE 111-<:2 Jackson\'ille Transp orta l ion Authority Automated Guideway Performance I ndicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 677 00 686 .34 672 97 681.63 0.00 nla nla nla 0 .00 123.65 406.80 305.30 0.00 8 1.32 272 77 213.71 0.00 25 .48 71.72 71.54 0 00 25.21 70.18 68.87 o .oo 1.45 4.66 5 22 0 00 1 .45 4 .56 5.22 0.00 1 .4 0 1.40 1 40 $0. 00 $243 13 $485.78 $508.53 $0 00 $203 42 $386.92 $383 18 $0.00 $89.1 1 $197.4 7 $228.54 $0.00 $74.56 $157.2 8 $172.21 $0 00 nta nta nla $0 .00 nla nla nla $0 .00 n la nla nla $0 .00 $48. 49 $238.48 $211.53 0 .00 8 90 7.80 8.10 0 .00 4 00 3.00 3 .00 0 .00 4 90 4 .80 5 .10 0 .00 0.00 0 00 0 . 00 0 .00 2 00 2 00 2 .00 0 .00 2 00 2 00 2 .00 nta 0.00% 0.00% 0 .00 % 0 .00 nta n/a nla 0 00 138.55 369.61 441.69 1992 1993 1989-1 3 693.55 767 40 11. 81% 840 00 242.00 n/a 283 1 3 301 48 1 43.81% 163 .85 175.09 1 15.31% 74 .35 75.02 194 60% 73 68 74 .35 194.92% 5 .26 5.27 263 59% 5 .26 5.23 260 34% 1.20 : 1.20 -14 29% $609.90 $681.31 180.22% $440 .25 $477 .05 134.52% $270 .09 $287 .89 223.07% $194 .96 $201 .58 170 38% $1,127 3 7 $7,324.46 nla nta nla nla nla nla nla $166 .82 $176 .42 263 82% 9 .30 9 .50 6 74% 4 .00 4.00 0.00% 5 .30 5 .50 12 24% 0.00 0.00 n la 2 .00 2 .00 0 .00% 2 .00 2 00 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 00% nla nla n/a nla 563.57 590.86 326.47%

    PAGE 116

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Popuiatio!l ( 000 ) Service Ar.ea Size (SQuare m iles) Passenger (000) M i le$ {000} ve;cre Mies (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route M Jes Tota l Operating Ell Elq>ense (000) Tota l Loca l Revenue (000) Opera&lg Reve n ue (000) Passenger Fare Revenue (000 ) Total Employees Operating Emp1oyMs Mainlenanoe Empbyees Administrative Employees Vehicle$ Avalable for Ma,:imu m Service VehiCles Operaled in SeMee Spare Ratio Tolal Ga1IOII$ Consumed (000) Total Energy Ccmsumed ( 000 o f kW.hours) -------TABL-E IIICJ Jackso m i lle Tran.sporCation A ulhoril y Sys lr:m T o tal l ndka1 ors 1188 1981 1990 199 1 677.00 686.34 672.97 681 .63 nla nla nl a nl a 8,036.92 8 136.55 9, 211.40 9 ,709. 2 8 41,916 10 46.927.99 45,323. 77 4 5 ,708 . 06 6,0 5 (;.62 6 149.46 6,219 .72 6 168 .08 5,75UI 5 607.42 5,683,09 5,9 7 1 5 5 443.80 417.66 4 31.79 4 39.68 4 2 2 .50 413. 5 0 420.00 26.83 1,117 .60 1 .164.40 1 .16.o 1 1 6 4 .40 $14,642 .50 $16 ,306.8 $17,3653 2 $ 19,5 1 8 .05 $ 12,7 74.69 $13,643.42 $ 13, 847 .56 $14 ,705.29 $3,376.97 $3.949.64 $< ,334.68 sc,e<8. 6 $2.8<16-20 $3,30< .54 $3 52.81 $3, 728,65 $ 16,821.28 $6,784.96 $7, 137 .83 $8,754.03 $ 12,7 5 1.95 $14 .. 754.01 $17, 13$ .97 $ 16.635 .10 S..629 7 5 $<, 799 19 $5,178 ,64 $ 5,080.53 s.o9 .32 s.3n.oo $4.740.88 $4,684,00 390.60 411 .50 404 .50 3 1 3 0 268.20 279.80 275.90 289.30 85.00 90.60 91 .80 104 .30 37. 4 0 41. 10 36.80 37.70 1 7 0 .00 1 7 4 .00 172 .00 155.00 1 3 8 .00 140 .00 13 00 135 .00 2 3 19 % 24.29% 2 8 36 '.4 14 8 1 % 1 6 1 7 1 2 1 700.58 1 74 0. 7 0 1 ,866.89 nlo 138 .55 389 61 44169 1 112 1993 % Cllaty; 19111-19 3 693.55 767 4 0 1 3.35% 840 .00 2.2.00 nla 9,868.25 9,923.39 23 7 % I 46,860.79 47, 111. 0 1 1 2.3 9 % 6,518.81 6 822.08 1 2.64% 6.394 .84 6 .590.80 IM7 % I 470.80 8.08% 449.23 457.98 8 0% 1 .164.20 1 16"-20 17% $19. 9 2 5 <6 $20,771.61 us% $ 1 4 383 .20 $14,544. 17 13.85 % $< ,903.06 $< ,866.31 .10% $3.539.2 8 $3. 407.37 1 5.85% $ 3 31 5.33 S 12.r.5 .70 4 .23% $23,351.15 $ 1 6 ,628.02 30.40% $5,369.92 $5,7 8 2.12 $< 621 .28 $< ,650.49 5 47% 444 .80 454.20 16. 28% 298.00 316.30 11.Q3'14 107.40 10 8 .00 27. 0 8 % 39.40 29.90 20.05 % 162 .00 162 .00 -4 7 1 % 136 .00 137 .00 .0. 72% 19 12% 18.25% 30% 1 9&r, 30 2,063 .85 27.62% 563 .57 590.88 nl 91

    PAGE 117

    EFFECT1VE1
    PAGE 118

    EFfE C T IVE N ESS M EASURES SERVICE SUPPlY Vehk:le Mi5es Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pnse.nge r Trips Per Capita Passenger Trips Pe r Reve nuo Mile Passen ger Trip$ Pet Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE A"""'ff& Speed (R. M .IR. H ) Average Age of Fleet (in y e a rs) N u mber of I ncidents Service I nterruptions Revenue Miles Between Incidents (000 ) Revenu e Miles BeiWeen l ntem.tDtlons (000} AVAlLASl LITY Revenue Mi6es Per Route Mile (000) TABL E 111-CS Jackromilfe Transportation Authority Automated Guidt'l\ 3)' Effectivtntss Me-asures 1988 1989 1990 1991 n l a 0.04 0. 1 1 0.10 n la 0 18 0 .60 0.45 nla 4 9 1 5 .80 4.43 nlo 85 .28 89 27 58.53 n la 17 .39 15 .40 13.20 n l a 0 .00 1.00 2.00 nla 6 .00 1 00 nl. "' 0 0 0 0 00 8 00 nla 4 2 0 70.1 8 nla nla nla nlo 8 .61 nla 18.01 50.13 49. 19 199Z 1993 ,-.Change 1989 -1993 0 .11 0.10 163.48% 0 41 0.39 1 18 .06% 3 8 4 4.06 7 .33% 53.79 57 70 -32.34% 1 4 .00 14.23 -18.16% 3 .00 4 00 nla 0.00 0 .00 nla 0 .00 0 .00 nJa nta nla nla nta nl n/a I 6 1.40 81.96 244.08% 93

    PAGE 119

    EFF E CTIVENESS M EASURES SERVICE SUP P L Y Vehicle Miles Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMP TIO N Passenger Trips Per Capita Passen ger Trips Per Reve nue Mile P a sse n ger T rips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF S E RVICE Average Speeo (ltMJRH ) Average Age o f Aeet (in years) N u mber of I ncidents Rtvenue Setvice Interruptions Revenue M iles Bet'w$en 'Incidents (000) Reve nue M iles Between l nteiTUptiOns (000} AVAILAB ILITY Revenue Miles Per Route MJe '(000) --------94 'J:ABLE II I-C6 Jad
    PAGE 120

    EFFICIENCY M EASURES COST EFFICIENCY Expense Per Capita Opena&'lg Ex:Dense Pe-r P11k Vthide COOO) Operatlng Expense Per Trip Opereting Expense Por Pastenger Mi1e Operatin g Expense Per Revenue Mile Expense Per Revenue Hour Maintenance &pense Per Revenue M11e M afttenaooe Expense Per ()peretng Exp OPERATING RATIOS Fttebox RtOOYet)l Logl Revenue Per Operating Expense Operating Rev411u& Per Operating Expenst VEHICL E UTILIZATION V tnlclo Miles Per Peot Vthlelo (000) Velllcle Hours Pe r Pea k V ehlde (000) Mies Pet Vehicle Mils Rewnue Miles Per Total Vthides (000) Rtwnue tioul'$ Per To1at Vthldes (000) LABOR PRODUCTMTY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000) Passenger Trips Pet Employee (00 0) E NERGY UTILIZATION Vehk::le Mies Per Gallon VeNc:ll! Mies EW Ki::MattHour FAR E Average Fare TABLE IIIC7 .Jacksonville Transportal ion Author-ity Motorbu s Erficiency Measures 1981 1989 1990 1991 $ 21.63 $23.<0 $ 25 .11 $27,89 $106.11 $116 4 0 $128.03 $ 1 42 .91 $1.82 $2.00 $1.9 2 $2 0 2 $0 .35 $0.34 $0 .38 $0.42 $ 2.55 $2.78 $2.91 $3 22 $34 66 $38. 98 $4 0 68 $4508 $0 .59 $0. 67 $0 .71 $0.80 2 3 06% 24.03" 2U8% 24.83" 30. 11% 26. 95 % 26.64% 23. 53% 8 7 09% n/a nlo nlo 31. 82% n/a n/a nla 43,8 9 44 .38 4 8 .58 45.84 3.22 3 .0 2 3 2 4 3 27 o .ss 0.!14 0 95 0 97 33.84 33. 62 34.1S 38.58 2 49 2 40 2 .44 2 76 1.08 1.02 1 05 1.00 20 .58 19.90 22 1 9 22 22 3 .75 3 60 3 .53 3 27 nil ,. nfa "' $0.55 $0 .54 $0 5 1 $0.48 1992 1993 %Change t98S..1993 $27 .85 21.04% S111l.C.1S S t-!.:d 1 .C0.25% $2 .02 S l 09 1 4 .60% $0 .41 $0. 4 3 22.53% $3.08 $3 08 21.t2% S43.51 $44.3 7 28.04% $0.73 $ 0 70 19 .69% 23.99% 22 79% 19% 23.06% 22 27% -26. 05% nla nla nla nla nla n/a 48. 09 49.118 13 .88% 3.4 1 3 .45 7 ,23% 0.98 O.t7 1.68% 39. 51 4 0 .13 20.36% 2 n 2 .83 13 .88% 1 02 1 0 2 .88% 22.0 1 21.84 5.16% 3.28 3 .27 12.71'% n1a ,. n1a $0.46 $0. 4 8 -15.25% 9 5

    PAGE 121

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita Operallng Expense Per Peak Ve h yeo (000 ) ENERGY UnLIZATION Vehicle Miles Per Gallon Vehicle Miles Per KilowattHour FARE Average Fare 96 TABLE 111-CS Jacksonv ille Transporta ti o n Aulhori t y Automated Cui deway EffiCiency M easures 1988 1989 1990 1991 nla $0.35 $0.72 $0.75 "' $121 57 $242.89 $254.27 nla $1 .97 $1 19 $1.67 nla $2.99 $1.78 $2.38 nJa $9.6.4 $8.92 $7.38 nla $167 .66 $106.80 $97.49 nlo $3.53 $2.81 $3.32 n/a 36.85% 40.65% 44 .94% nla 1 9 94% 49.09% 4 1.60% n/a n la nJa nla n/a nla nJa nla n/a 12.73 35.66 35.77 n/a 0 .73 2 .33 2.61 n/a 0.99 0.98 0.96 n/a 1 2 .80 35.09 34.43 n/a 0 .73 2 .28 2 61 n / a 0 1 6 0 .58 0 .6. n /a 13.89 52.15 37.69 nla nJa n/a n/a nla 0.18 0 18 0 .16 nla $0.39 $0. 5 9 $0.69 199 2 1993 1 989 3 $0.88 $0.89 150.62% $304.95 $341l.66 180 22% $2.15 '$2.26 14 94% $3.72 $3.89 30.15% $8.2 8 $9.18 $ 1 15.88 $ 130.39 23% $3.67 . $3.87 9.65% 44.28% 42.26% 1 5.29% 27.35% 25.89% 29. 83% n / a n/a n/a nla nla n/a 37.18 37.51 194.60% 2 .63 2.64 263.59% 0.99 0 .99 0.11 % 36.84 37.17 194 92% 2.63 2 61 280 34% 0.57 0 .56 237.59% 30.44 31.73 128.41 % ; nla nJa nla I 0 1 3 0 13 .92% $0.59 $0.59 49.22%

    PAGE 122

    EffiCIENCY MEASURES COST EFF I CIENCY Operaling Expense Per Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Pe-r Passenger ,...., Operalin g Expense P e r Passenger Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operaling Expense Per Revenve Hour M ain1enance Expense Per Revenue Mile Maintenance Expense Per Operating Exp. OPE RATING RATIOS Farobox Reeovery local Revenue Pe.r Operatin g Expense O p erating Revenue Per O p erating expense VEHICLE UTI LIZAT ION Vehicle Mies Per Ven;cle (000) Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle {000} Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile-s Revenu e M i les Per Total Vehicles {000) Revenue Hours Per Vehicles (000} LABOR PROOUCTMlY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000) Passe nger Trip s P e r Employee (000} ENERGY UTILIZA TION Vehicle MUes Per Gallon V e h i cle Miles Per K i lowatt -Hou r FARE Average Fare -TABl-E III C9 Transportarion Authoril)' System Total Efficiency MeuurtS 1988 1989 1990 1991 $21.63 523.76 $25.83 $28.63 $ 106.11 $ 116.48 5129. 7 4 $144.56 $1 .82 $2.00 $1 .89 $2.01 $ 0 .35 $ 0 .35 $0.38 $0.43 $2.55 $2. 8 1 $2.96 $3.27 $34.66 $39.44 $41.39 $45.72 $0.59 $0.68 S 0 7 4 $0.83 23.06% 24. 22% 24 .93% 25.36% 30.11% 26. 84% 27.27% 24.00% 87 .09% 90.48% 98.57% 86.26% 31 .62% 29. 43% 29.79% 26.03% 43.89 43. 92 46.42 4$,69 3.22 2 .98 3 .22 3.26 0 .95 0 94 0 .95 0 .97 33.84 33.3 8 34.20 36.53 2 49 2.38 2.44 2 .75 1 .08 1 .00 1 .04 0 .99 20.58 19. 77 22.77 22. 5 1 nlo n / a n/a nla n /o n/a n/a nla $0.55 $0.54 $0. 51 $0.48 --------1992 1993 %Change 191111-1993 $28.73 $27.07 25.15% $146.51 $1$1 .62 42.89% $2.02 $2.09 14.89% $0.43 $0.44 26.22% $3.12 $3.15 23.82% $44 ,35 $45.36 30.87% $0.77 $0.74 25.76% 24.61% 1 5.a% 23.19% 22 .39% -25.65% 1 17.22% 80.05% 8 .08% 2 7 .05% 27.84% 11.96% 47.93 49.80 13.46% 3 .40 3.4 4 6.86% 0 .98 0.97 1.71% 39.47 40.S8 20.23% 2.77 2.83 13.75% 1.01 1 01 78% 22.19 21.85 6 18% nla nla n/a nlo n/a n/a $0.47 $0,47 -14.58% 97

    PAGE 123

    GENERAL QUESTIONS I Were an y fare changes made. during fiscal year 1993? If so. please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2 Were there any significant changes in servicelse rvice area during fiscal year 1993? None 3 Have there been any recen t changes or significant events that may help explain the perfonnanee of the transit sys t em? 98 There have not been any recent changes or significan t events; however JTA did i ndicate that sevetal arrangements made approximat el y six or seven years ago are still affecting several aspects of the perfonnance of the system. Specifically, at the time that Jacksonville discontinued tolls on 1 and various area bridges in favor of a sales tax, it was also sl i pulated that transit system fares would not be raised for 10 years. In addition to the fare freeze, the fare for handi c apped riders was set at $0 .15 and Senior Cit izens were given free fares. It is aJso important to note that JT A's definition of a "Senior Citizen" is anyone over the age of 60 years.

    PAGE 124

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA Directly-Operattd Mo torbus Questions I. P l ease explain the s i gnificant increase in capital expense from $2,187,960 in 1992 to $5,421 25 0 in 1993. What capital purch3$eS w ere made in 1993? System Response: According to JTA. t he purchase of eight new motorbuses in FY 1993 and the addition of a significant number of new bus s h elters contributed to the 148 percent i ncrease i n capital expense. In a ddition. work was begun on a new terminal station downtown 2. Administrative employees decreased from 39 .4 FTEs in 1992 to 29 9 FTEs in 1993. a decline of24 pe. rcent. Please explain the change in tbis employee category System Response: During the 1993 fiscal year a number of administrative personnel who were previou sly full time employees switched to part-time status JTA believes that this is the primary reason for t he decline in full-time equivalents for this employee c ategory. 3 The average age of rhe vehicle fleet de c reased 10 percent from 7.18 years in 1992 to 6.46 years in 1993. However, the number of vehicJes available for maxim u m service remained stable at 160 ve. hicles during this time. Please explain any changes t h at have occurred in the vehicle i nventory Sys tem Response: As discussed previously JTA added eight J 993-rnodel motorbuses to its fleet. With these new vehi c les, it was then possible for JTA to retire eigh t 1976-model buses. As a result, the average age of rhe fleet declined while the fleet size remained unchanged. 4. The number of incidents decreased from 8S in 1992 to 73 in 1993. Given the unpredic;.tability of these events, arc there any possible reasons for this decline ? System Response: JTA could not provide a response fo r this question. 5. The number of revenue serv ice interruptions (previously referred to as "roadcalls"') decreased from 1,264 in 1992 to 988 in 1993. a decline of approxi mately 22 percen t To what can this significant reduction be attributed? System Response: J T A s fleet includc.s a se r ies of nine 40 foo t Icarus buses. Prior to FY 1993, these buses were being u54:d on some longer routes and ITA found that tlle vehicles were running extremely hot and were experienc ing an increasing number of re-Venue sen icc interruptions. To solve the proble m JTA put bigger radiators into the buses and switched them to shorter routes, thus resulting in a lower occurrence of revenue service interruptions. JTA t hen placed t heir vehicles on the longer routes. J'f A als o believed that the re t irement of several articulated Icarus buses that were experiencing numerous maintenance problems (a couple vehicles actually caught fore) contributed to this decline. Automated Gu l de,. ay Questio ns I Fr()m 1992 to 1993, thenumber of re venue hours d eclined whi le the number of vehicle miles, revenue miles, and vehicle hours all i ndicated slig h t i n c r e ascs(sce the t able on the following page ) Is there an explanatio n for these changes? 99

    PAGE 125

    Automated Guideway FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Vehicle Mies 74,350 75,020 0.9% Reveo u a Mi les 7 3 680 74,350 0.9% Vehicle H
    PAGE 126

    1,000 ,000 2.000 0 J A C K SONV ILL E T RAN S P OR T ATIO N A U T H O R I TY flgurt 111-Ct County / Servke Art:a Popu1ation (000) 100 I I v L I 600 Y j i I I I I l i 400 I 200 0 1--t---1--1-t--t.. -t , ... '915 tn 1M1 tNt IMt lttO 1991 lt9ltt9l Flgurt:IIK3 V t hlde Miles and R e venue MiiH -r..: $ 25.000 no.ooo StS.OOO ___ .,.. sto.ooo . -.... ....... T T l . ss.ooo so Performance I ndicators F igu re Ill Total Operating EJ!pense TT----. I .....,!-"" . ... r :r---r I I _ --Ll l -01__, 12.000 9 ,000 6.000 3, 000 0 Figure lll -<2 Passenger Trips (00 0 ) llil'il ' 1 H----! _. -J---'-------i I .-.... ltM INS ISU tn1 tNt 19ft l'ttO 1991 1,2 I ttl SI,OOO -' $<1.000 i- -SLOOO -so Figure III.CS Pa ssen ger Far t Revenue (000) ----I j __ -J ttf' ttt:S ttl4 ' "" ' ttto tnt ttN tMJ ,,.. tMS ttM ,,., ''" ' ltM "" ttt.l tttJ ,_,.. IHS 1986 "IJ1 lt#ltlt lttO lttlttU IHJ 500 400 -300 200 -100 0 Figure 111<6 Total Emp loyees --. ""' . .... ... -------. -f--.. .. 19M tMS UU 1M1 ttu tNt,,_,,., lt'N ttU 200 160 1ZO 10 .., 0 figure 111 0 V e h i cl es I n Maximum Servic e -r-' oMoo"OO ------ r--r--"" ....... -I. L ., .. ,,., '"' 1117 ,,.. "" 1"1 ,,, 10 I

    PAGE 127

    102 JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Effec:tivene.ss Measures figure III.C9 Figure IIIC8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita Passeng Trips Per Revenue M ile ---. t 2.0 -I 1 ---1... ----... . --..,. 8.0 -----. .. --'---6.ottr-1-+1 + 1 1-+-. 0 + -1 --j-1---+ ___ 2.0 1---11 1---1-----.l. __ ___ 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 ''M 1HS UU 1917 1-ttt ttH 1991 1tt2 1H) ,,..,. 1t&S 1986 1U7 1N:I 1Ht 1tt0 1tf1 1tt:2 1H) Figure 111<10 Average Age of Fleet (years) ... --.,.-r -n r J ,;:. ---t I F + J 6.0 1 -1.. o+--+-1--1--+--1--+ 1 --1-: 1-j;-t t .::.::1::":::1-lil)ft (:o('._,l)eO!W v,....,.. &lol o o +--'l .. "U t91S 1916 t9U 1918 lttt 1MO 1991 1tt11Ml Figure III.C11 Revenue Mil es Between A
    PAGE 128

    JACKS ONVILL E TRAN S P O RTATI O N AUTH O RITY figure 1 11<13 Operating Expense Per Capita s30.oo I .. ; .. rr r --s2o.ool + T -----1-I-+--S1o.oo 1 -+-1 .. 1 .. J-J r J.._ _ -----1 ... so.oo ltaA "*S 1916 1917 19P 19" 19?0 '"' 1"1 1M) F igure 111<16 Maintenance EXJ)eMe Per Revenue M ile $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0. 20 $0.00 1 9f4 IN-S'"' UU ttll 1989 IMO 199t 1"1 I"J Figure 111<19 Revenue Hours Per Employee 200=-r-ooo+-+ + .. 1-1-+ -1-+--300.J--I-+-+" 1-1-1---l-+-o +-1---l + + .. 1 --1 ... ..., .... 1914 I U S 19&6 1987 ISU 1989 '"' ttU t9U Efficien c y Measures Figure 111.(14 Operating Expense Per Passenger T r ip sz.sol I S2.00 l 1 S1 .50 l $1 .00 I I I $0.50 $0.00 I ] Li. ... -,,.. "s "" "" """"'''tO'"' z ,,, Figure 111<17 Fareb ox Recovery Ratio 50% I "-" l I -I"[-' : ----1._ 20% 1 -+ + 1 f ----1 . j -10% -1--11-1 .. 1 .. 1 + 1--1 ... ''" ''n ,.,, nn un " '"o "" un ttn 30 ,000 20,000 10,000 0 Figure 111.00 Passenger Trips Per Employee " -. ... J ..... j 1 1 I : .. ----. t .... i __ --rn 19U IUS 19U IM719$8 19$9 IHO I H I I H 2 I H) Figure 111.(15 Operating Per Revenue Mile S4.00 1 r $3.00 . ---1 -... L L L $2.00 $1.00 I -i--1---r 1 .. -----$ 0 .00 J ... ,.J_ .. J I-1 j IM-4 l9U 19U 1tt'119 .. 19t9 1"0 1 t't1 19U 19J) Figure 111-<:18 Vehide M i les Per Peiik Vehide SO,OOO r .. T . r.,--=- J ---1--40,000 30,000 .. -" 10,000 1 --] = ... -[------20,000 0 ,,.. ,,.s "" "" ''" ,., 1990 "" ,,1,,) F igure III-C21 Ave r age fare 1 1 SO.OO l i-1 -1 19_. 198 S 19t' 1 987 1nt 19., I n
    PAGE 129

    JTA 104 Capital only) incnast
    PAGE 130

    D. HILLS BOROUGH AR E A REGI ONAL TRANSIT S YSTEM PROFILE Organbationat Structure-Hillsborough Area Regiona l Tra n sit is an independent aut hori t y. (;o,er nlne. B ody and Composit ion HART is governed by a Board of Directors com p r i sed of II members: five rep r esenting Hillsborough Coun ty, rhree representi n g the city of Tampa, one repre-Senting the city of Temple Terrace, and two representing the s t ate of Florida. Service Area -HART S
    PAGE 131

    PER F ORIIIANCE INDICATORS Setvice Atea Population (000) Service Area Size (square m iles) Passenger Trips (000) Pa.ssenger Miles (000 ) Veh;Qe Miles (000) R eve nue M i les (000) VehiCle Hobrs (000) Revenue Houl'$ (000) Route Mile s T ot a l Operat i n g Expens& (000) To!al Operating Expense (000 of 1984 $) Total M aintenanoe Epe n se ( 0 0 0 ) To tal Maintenance Expens.e (000 of $) T otal capita l Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Operating R e ve n u e (000) Pa s se nger F are RevenUa (000) Total Transportation 0peJJting E m ployees Mai nte n a n ce Employe es Administrative Em p loyees V e h icles Available for Maximum Setvice VehiCle$ O p e rated in Maximum SeNioe Spare Ratio Total GaiOns Consumed (000} 106 TABLE 111-0 1 Hillsboro u g h Area Regional Transit Perform a nce Indicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 825.40 840.97 834. 05 843 2 0 n/a n ia n ia n/a 8 ,926 .71 10 .474.49 10,622.45 8,338.54 37,681.02 45, 581.07 5 3 ,992.34 39, 671 07 7 ,647. 0 7 8 2 41 .05 8 1 17.19 6 597 .29 6 ,746.87 7,007 .52 7,159 24 5,668 .36 550 .56 604.77 551 .30 443.70 495 7 7 541 .85 508.66 393.26 796.00 1 515.70 1 471.30 1,476 .70 $15, 182 .05 $16,965 .77 $20,048 .93 $19,341.11 $13,245.41 $14,194.73 $15,969.15 $14, 573.4 7 $ 2,964.85 $3, 12 3 .78 $3,467. 1 3 $3,767.33 $2.586.65 $2.613.57 $2,761 .60 $2,838.68 $ 2 ,443 0 7 $19, 902 .37 $3,3 1 3.10 $980.85 $12 ,773.69 $ 1 3 753. 1 7 $16,0 21.17 $16,098. 8 6 $4, 0 9 7 .45 $4, 394 .89 $4, 666.34 $4,928. 7 4 $3,663.40 $3,813.93 $4,195 .98 $4,243 .27 382 .00 424. 20 355.20 414.50 275.00 307. 1 0 285.50 69.00 74.80 6 7.70 84. 00 38.00 4 2 .30 30. 10 45. 00 175.00 194.00 194 00 182.00 1 40 .00 154.00 1 4 0 00 140. 00 25 00% 25. 97% 38. 57% 30, 00% 2.084.24 2 191 .56 2 .221.98 1,866.95 1992 1993 %Change 1988-1993 834.05 834. 0 5 1.05% 1,058 .00 1 058. 0 0 nla 8,323 7 1 9 42 7 1 3 5 61% 36, 941 .97 40 ,959.64 8.70% 6 490 .69 5.967.06 5.630.68 5 263.67 21. 98% 440.26 4 3 2 21 50% 3 80.80 354.52 28.49% 1,468 .70 1 ,457.50 83. 10% $20,964 .22 $20 662 .32 36.10% $ 15 133 : 03 9.23% $3, 9 2 1.8 1 $4, 078 .72 37.57% $2,830 ,96 $2,855.90 10.41% $1,400 4 1 $1 154.25 -62.75% $ 1 6,760.78 $ 1 6 335.28 27.88% $5, 0 1 3 .97 $4.898.82 1 9 .56% $4,282 .73 $4,403. 20 20.19% 355.70 415.50 8 .77% 232.20 275.20 0,07% 79. 00 87.50 26.81% 44 ,50 52.80 38.95% 182 00 160 .00 8 57% 133 00 133 .00 -5 00% 36.84% 2 0 .30% 18. 80% 1,886 .66 1 946.3 2 -6. 6 2 %

    PAGE 132

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehicle Miles Pe r SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trl>s Per cap ita Passenger Per Reenue Mile Passenger TrtJ.s Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Average Speed (R. M.IR.H ) Average Age of Fleet {In yea.rs) Number of lncidenb Reven ue Serv ice l ntenuptions . Revenue M ile.s Between lnckSents-{000) Revenue Miles Between lntenuptions AVAILASIUTY Revenue Miles Per Rou tit Mile (000) TABi.,E 111-02 Hillsborough Art'a Regional Transit Effecti\eness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 9 26 9 .60 9.73 7 .82 10.S2 12.46 12.74 9 .89 1 .32 1.49 1.46 1. 4 7 16 01 19 .33 20.97 21. 20 13 .61 12 .93 14 ,13 14.41 5 10 5 .4 6 6 .23 7 19 264.0 0 284.00 321 .00 352 00 2 .652.00 2.818 00 2.899.00 2.901 00 25 .56 24 .67 22 .30 16.1 0 2.37 2.49 2.47 1 .95 8 .48 4 .62 4.87 3 .64 1992 1993 1988 3 1 16 7. 1 5 2 .78% 9.96 11 .30 4 .51% 1 .48 1 .79 35.36% 21.66 26.59 47.68% 14.79 14.85 9 10% 7.93 6 .7 7 71 .96% 315. 00 250.00 -5.30% 2.889 00 1 7 96. 00 -37 .03% 17. 88 2 1 05 -17 .61% 1.9 5 2 .93 23 .69% 3.63 3 .61 -57.39% 107

    PAGE 133

    EFF1CIENCY M EASURES COST EFFICIENCY O pe r aling Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Opetating Expe11se Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Ope rating Expense Pe r Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hou r Maintenance Expense Per Revenu e Mile Maintenance Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Fa1ebox Reeovety LocaJ R.evenue Per Operating Expense Operating Revenu e Per Expense VEHIC L E UTI LIZA TlON VehiCle M;loS Per Peal< Vehicle (000) Hours Per Vehicle (000) Revenue Miles Per Vehde Miles Revenu e MJes P l! r Tota l Vehicles (000} Revenue Hour$ Pet TotaJ Vehicles (000} L.AllOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per Empl oyee (000} Passen ger Trips Per E mployee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION V e h i cle Mie& Per Ga\k>n FARE Average Fate 108 TABLE 11103 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Efficiency Measures 1988 1989 19110 $18.39 $20.17 $24.04 $ 108 .44 $110 .17 $143 .21 $1 .70 $1 .62 $1.69 $0.40 $0.37 $0.37 $225 $2.42 $2.80 $3o.62 $31.31 $39.57 SOM $0.45 $0.46 19 53% 18 .41% 17.29% 24.13% 22.48% 2 0 93% 84.14% 81.06% 79.91% 26. 99% 25. 90% 23.36% 64.62 53. 5 1 57.98 3 .93 3.93 3.94 0 .66 0.85 0 .86 36.55 36.12 36.90 2 .83 2 .7 9 2 6 1 1 .30 1.26 1.43 23.3 7 24 .69 29.91 3.67 3 .76 3 .65 S0.41 $0.36 $0.40 19111 1992 1993 %Cha'm 1988 3 $22.94 $25.14 $24.77 34.68% $138.15 $157.63 $ 1 55.36 43.26% $2.32 $2.52 $2. 19 28.87% $0.49 $0.57 $0.50 25.20% $3A1 $3.72 $3.93 74.45% $49. 18 $55 .05 $58.28 90.32% $0.66 $0.70 $0.77 76.33% 19 48% 18 71% 19.74% t.o6% I 21.94% 20. 43% 21.31% .. 11.68% 83.24% 79.95% 79. 06% -6 .04% 25. 48% 23.71% -12.15% 47.12 48.80 44.87 .. 17 .86% 3.17 3 .31 3.25 -17.36% 0 .86 0 .87 0 .86 0 .02% 31 14 30.94 32.90 .. 14.67% 2 16 2.09 2 .22 -21. 79% I 0 .95 1.07 0 .85 -34 .26% 20.12 23AO 22.69 -2.91% 3 .53 3 .44 3 0 7 .44% $0. 51 $0. 51 $0.47 13 61%

    PAGE 134

    GENERAL QUESTI ONS 1. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please p r ovide the previous fare structure as we l l as the updated fare structure and i ndicate when the changes were implemented. Effective August 29. 1993, HART's fare structure changed for the first t ime sinc. e October I, 1990. The fare structure was changed as follows : Effective 10/1190 Effective 8/29/93 Local Fares $0.85 $1.00 Express Fares $1.50 $1.50 Senior/Disabled/Youth-Local $0.40 $0 50 Senior/Disabled/You thExpress $0.75 $1.50 Transfer Local t o Local SO.IO $0.10 T r ansfer Express to Local $0 .10 $0 .10 Transfer Local to Exprtss $0 .75 $0 .50 Senior/Disabled/Youth $0.10 $0.10 Transfer Local to Local Senior/Disabled/Youth$0.10 $0.10 Transfer Express to Local Senior/Disabled/Youth $0.45 $0 .50 Transfer Local to E:>press 2. Were there any significant changes in service/service area during fiscal year 1993? In January 1993, HART began contracting out for p.aratransit services 3 Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit system? None. 109

    PAGE 135

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA I. As indicate d in the ta ble bel?w both passenger trips and passenger miles increased significantly despite dedines in the amou n t of service p r ovided. Is there an explanation for the increase in ridership? Directly .Operated Motorbu$ FY 1992 FY 1993 %Chango Passenger Trips 8 323.710 9 ,427 130 13.3% Miles 36 ,941, 970 40,959.640 10.9% Reve nue Miles 5,630,680 5.263 ,&70 Revenue Hours 380 800 354,520 Sys tem Response: The ridership increase c.an be attributed to the stabi l ization of the fixed-rou t e system and t o a reduction in the number of mark-ups (i.e ., S<:hedule changes). This has led to an inc-rease. of custome r confidence in the system. 2. Given t he changes in revenue miles and hours shown in the previous table, and abe changes in vehicle miles and hours ill ustrated in the t able below. it is evident that deadhe-ad mileage de cr eased approximately 18 pc.:rccnt while deadhead hours increased a lmost 31 percent Please explain the changes that have resulted in this apparent inconsistency. Ol..e11y.Optfl110<1 MoiOrbus FY 1992 FY 1993 %Cha nge Vehicle Mile$ 6,490,690 5 967 .0&0 8 .1% 06adhead Miles 860,010 703 .390 1 8 .2% Vehicle Hours 440.260 432, 2 1 0 1 .8% Oea
Ys FY 1992 FY 199) %Change Tripi 9,413,740 8,802 810 P assengeJ Milts 50. 856 .350 .918 320 .6% Average Tri p length 5.40 miles 4 .8& miles .8% ------L__ __ -------------S y s(em Response: The decrease in pas.scn gcr miles c3n be attributed to increased efficien cy re.sulring fro m route changes throughout fiscal y ear 1 993 2 A s shown in the table below tht; n u mber or vehic l e miles, r e venue miles., vehicl e hou rs, a n d rev enue h ours all i ncreased between 1992 a n d 1 993. P l ease expl ain this increase i n service (se e also q u estion 1#2 in t h e Oen eral Ques tion s secti<>n) -I);ul FY 1992 FY 1tU %Change VOftlclo-6.256.SIIO 7.008 300 12.0% -s .ns.260 &..610 v.,_ Houts 438,960 475.590 8 .3% Revenue Hours 4 1 6 3 1 0 ..... ,480 6 .8% Syst e m Response : The number of buses t o three of the intercounty route s was T hi s res ulted in an increase in mile s an d h o u rs, while hcadw ay s for passengers were s hort e n e d 3. T he dat a in the two previous tables indica t e lh a t the number of passe nger tdps de-clined more tha n s i x percent from 1992 10 1993 de s pite a n increase i n the amount of service prov idtd dur ing thi s t i m e P l ease explai n th i s decline i n rid e r ship. System R esponse: Th e d ecre ase in t h e number or passenger t rips is a result of t he imp l e ment ation of route struct ure chang es throughout fiscal year 1993 w hich were based on PST A s comprehensive opera t ions an:1lysis. 4 Total operating expense increased mo
PAGE 147

System Response: This increase is due mainly to the increase in service as well as union contract increases. In additiOfl, a small portion is attributable to tire cost. which had been c.:harged to the capital grant in 1992. and was charged to operating expense in J993. 5. Passenger fare revenue increased almost seven percent from $3,929,410 in 1992 to $4,185,650 in 1993 despite the decline in the number of passenger trips memioned previously. This resuhed in a 14 percent increase in average fare per passengercrip from $0.42 in 1992 to $0.48 in 1993. Is this lhe resuh of a fare increase (see also question #I in the General Questions sec1ion)., or is there some other explanation? System Response: The increase in passenger fare revenue is a direct result of a fare increase. 6. Operating revenue increased 17 percent from $4,211,200 in 1992 to $4,935,440 in 1993. Approximately one-third of this increase was due to the increase in passenger fare revenue. To what can the remainder of this increase be attributed? System Response: The remainder of the increase in operating revenue results from non-transportation funds of$508,562 which was a subsidy from another PSTA fund in fiscal year 1993. 7. Administrative employees increased from 37.9 FTEs in 1992 to 44.5 FTs in 1993, an increase of 17 percent. Please explain the change in this employee categol)'. System Response: 1'he enhancement of PSTA Planning Department from three to four employees and fewer vacancies throughout the fiscal year contributed to the FTE increase in the category of administrative employees. 8. Total gallons consume. d increased from I ,708,780 gallons in 1992 to 1,888,700 gallons in 1993, an increase of approximately II percent. Can this increase in fuel usage be solely attributed to the increase in service. or i s there some other explanation? System Response: This increase is primarily due to the increase in service previously. 9. The average age of the vehtcle fleet decreased from 8.99 years in 1992 to 7.73 years in 1993. a decrease of 14 percent In addition. the number of vehicles available for ma:ximum s ervice increased from 149 to 152 vehicles during this time. Please explain the changes that have occurred in the vehicle inventory. System Response: PSTA purchased 21 new vehicles during fiscal year 1993 for the purpose of replacement. However, some of the old vehicles were not disposed of until the beginning of fiscal year 1994. 10. The number of incidents decreased from 168 in 1992 to 139 in 1993. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for lhis dedine? System Response: The decrease can be auributed to a more aggressive safety and rraining program for oper.uors which was implemented in fiscal year J993. 122

PAGE 148

II The number of revenue service interruption s (previously ref erred to as "roadcalls") increa sed s ignificantly from 1,871 in 1 992 to 2,57 8 in 1 993 To whit can thi s increase be attributed? System R esponse: The increase i n servic e intenupeions is dut to the age of the fleet at the be-ginning of fiscal year 1993. Fifteen of the new buses were received and put into reve nue service in the $ping. after which service i nterruptions began to decrease.. The orher six new buses were. received i n ea rly summer These replacement vehicles lowered the amount of revenue service interruptions greatly 123

PAGE 149

124 8.000 6,000 4,000 2.000 0 PINELLAS S UNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Figure 111-Et County/Servi c e Are a Population (000) 1,000 800 ---T T I_ J :.lJ ... ; .. + -+--i o .J-I 1--1--1-I --l_j_ __ Perform ance Ind i cat ors 12.000 9.000 6,000 3.000 0 . -figure 111-E2 Passenger T r ips (000 ) r ' . -Tr -r-. -. . . ...... -------. ---1----. 1984 UtS 1916 1'*7 l'Nl 1989 UtO 1991 UU lttl 19M U U lH' 1tt11l t9t9 t990 l t t t ltt21tU F i gure 111-V ehi d e M i l e s an d Revenue M iles Figur e IIIE 4 T o tal Operatin g Expense II -...-: -; -t -----. --$25.000 .,. . --' .-SlO,OOOt -1-+----H -r-r r --e-L --ss.ooo [J; ..... .:l:..:t:-.1:--r-' Opouontl' ss.ooo $4,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 St,OOO so f igur e IIIES Passenger Fare Revenue (000) / -r--1--1---1--------... U ... IMS 1N4 1987 1Ut19H 1tt0 1ttl 19tl1Ml SO 1--l:::r.T ... "' IUH> 1914 1MS 1916 ,;. + I 1-=1 T 1tNl9t9 U90 --t '"' 1"2 1991 19&4 1965 1116 1U1 It&t 1tU tttO 1tt1 1M2 19t) 500 ... 300 Figure III E6 T otal Employees --T-I I ,1 J ---1-. I "'---tr + : I . .. 200l J-l_t._I: __ 100 ---,.--0 __ J __ --LJ.J 19&4 IUS 1M6 ltU ttaa 1ttt 19PO 19911JU ltU F igure III-E7 Veh ides in M a x im u m Service 160-,-y I ......... 40 1--1---l -l ......... o 19&4 ,,.s 1016 .. ,,.. ,,., ttto ,,.,, ttt2 1tt)

PAGE 150

PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTH OR ITY 10.0 16.0 12.0 1.0 4.0 0. 0 Figure 111--EI Vehicle Miles Per Cap ita : I I J l v _j_ I Effective-ness M usu res 1.5 1.0 1 5 1 0 o.s 0.0 Figure 111. Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile I I I -. i f' 1'1 -I -.. I ... _L .. "" s ,,.. ,,., '' tNl "" ' ttN: ,,, : .. ,;, UM 1ti.S JIM t t U IMI ttn tMt"t tttl lHJ Figure lltE11 10.0 1.0 5.0 .. o l O 0.0 Figure 111. Average Age of Ffeet (y11rs) --, !--... I .. -I .. I [---I----: .. . tiM INS 1"-' ,,., IHI tm ttM '"' t"! 1H) Figure IIH12 Revenue Miles Between Acddents/ l ncldents Revenue Miles Between Int erruptions 60,000 -1 ; T --1---. -I s.ooo --.. 40, 000 J.OOO 2.000 1-++-i 1.000 0 0 UM ltiS 1tl6 1tli' lfll IMf tttO '"' lttli"J ''" tMS 1916 1tl1 tt .. tttt 1tto '"' tfll I H) 1 25

PAGE 151

1 2 6 P I N E LLAS SU N COAS T TRAN SI T A UTH O R ITY 160 .00 $40 .00 n o .oo $0.00 figure IIIE1 3 Opera ting PH Capita ,--,... .. r--r .. I J --.. .... ----1---[ ----.. 1f14 IMS I'Ml 19t7 t9U 1919 IMO lttt ltU ttU figure IIIE 16 Ma in t enance E:XpenH r.r Revenue Mil@ $0.10 10.10 SOAO --r -rl /"' T v I 10.10 . -. ... 10.00 .. 1--1--... 1 -tft4 ttU ttU tn tNI t M t 1tto 1 1ttt2 tttJ 1.200 900 100 JOG 0 F igure III E19 R e v e nue Hours Per Employee 1.... -......... -I' I -n -i'.. ------1---1--1-.. -. . .. ---... ... ---I t t H t M i tt!M 1 MJ 1JA '"" 1-.,o t tt1 ltn 1 ttl fficitney Measures figur e IIJ.E14 Ope,.ting Expense Pe r Passenger Tri p SJ.OO Sl.OO -r-r I/ ---' !-"'" S 1 00 ----... .. .. t---rso.oo . -. J .. ----1M4 ttiS 1tl6 1M7 19tl 1919 ltto lt!U IH2 Itt) -101< 0% Figure IIIE17 Fare box Recovery Ratio + __ TTi u .. l.J . ,,_. IllS t916 1U7 1 ... 1Mt ttto tt9ltH2 I"J Figure IIH20 P assenger Trips Per Employee 40,000 1 l .... 3 0 ,000 10.000 I .I I I 10.000 0 tNt tMJ 1fM tHr \fiJI""' ltto '"' '"l tHJ f'ogun 111Ope_rating Expense fW Rtvenu& M i&e so.oo I --SJ.OO ,.; -i--. s z .oo -, -$1.00 -1-1-----10.00 ------ltM I'MS tM6 ttu ttaa Uet tHO I ttl lttl lttJ figure 111. V e hicle-MilltS Per Peak Vehide 10.000 ---10.000 L. v .00,000 -zo.ooo --. 0 -... i--.. --, ... I N S ttU ttU 1 t Q " 1990 lttt n n I H J Figure III-E.21 Average Fare : : :EEEEtffff S o.JO $0..10+-++ I '-1 I tt 10. 1 0 so.oo ..... tM4 I N S " ltU tfU 19n ,,_\HI ttN t"J

PAGE 152

PSTA SUMMARY The number of passenger miles decreased at a greater rate than passenger trips between 1992 and 1993, resulting in a decline in the average trip le-ngth from 5.40 miles in 1992 to 4 .88 miles i n 1993. PSTA attribute d these decline -s, particularly the sharper decrease in passenger miles to increased system efliciency which resulted from route changes throughout fiscal year 1993. PSTA explained that inc. reases in che number of vehicle miles, revenue miles. vehicle hours and revenue hours were due to an increase i n t he number of buses dedicated to three inter-county routes Passenger fare revenue increased nearly seven percent from $.3, 929,410 in 1992 to $4,185.650 in 1993 despite the decline in the numhcr of passenger trips. Thi-S resulted in a 14 percent increase in the average fare per passenger trip and was a direct result of rhe fare increase rhar : u fiscal year 1993. Operating revenue increased 17 percen t from $4,211,200 in 1992 lo $4,935,440 in 1993. W hile approximately one-third of this in
PAGE 153

F LYN X (ORLA NDO) SYSTEM PROF IL Oreaniucional Structure-lYNX. fonnerlyTri Ccunty Transit, i.s an indcpcndcnl authority created by interlocal aarccmcncco provide public tran.sportationservices Covernin&Bq4r and Comoosition -LYNX's Boord of Directors is compri.scd of members appointed by involved in the lntcrlocalagrcemcnt including Orange County, Seminole County, Osceola County. the City of Orlando, the East Central Regional Planning Council, and the Florida Department of Transportation Ser>j
PAGE 154

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SeiVire Alea Populabon (000) SeNice Area Size (square miles) Pa>Senge< Trips (000) Passe n ger M i les (0 0 0) Veh i cle Mjles (000) Reve n ue Mies (000) Velllcle HOUI$ (000) Revenue HOUr$ (000) Route Miles Total Operating Expense ( 000) Total Operating Expen.., (000 of 1984 $) Total Mainlenance Expense {000) Total Maintenance Expense (000 of .1984 $) Capital Expense ( 000 } Tota l Loca l Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) Passe n ger Fare (000) Total Employees Transportation Operating E"'ptoyees Maintenance Employees Admini$tralive EmplOyees Vellic:les Available for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Sctvioe Spa r e Ratio Total Gallons Con,s.umed (000) TABLE 111-FI Lynx (Orl ando) OirectlywOperated Motorbus Performance Indicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 984.50 1 032 .64 1.072.75 1. 113 .76 n/a n/a n/a n/ a 6.226 .34 7,795 .02 8.026.79 9 .641 .66 33. 710.44 37.698.58 36.473.06 37.283 34 4 .395.30 4.438.76 5.132.49 5.092 .52 4 .163.66 4.257.54 4 802.32 4 831.53 305.85 321.04 366.99 371 .39 298.93 305.38 345 .57 350.10 584. 00 5 7 4 .00 574.00 589.00 $8.662. 5 2 $10.237.76 $12 216.32 $13. 507.3 1 $7.557.52 $8.585 .61 $9.730 40 $10. 177 .72 $1.751.92 $2.079 .87 $2.667 02 $3. 121 .91 $1.523.44 $1 .740. 17 $2.124 .30 $2.352 .35 $ 1 .536.73 $1 311 .18 $1 ,335.42 $5.473. 09 $7,244 .4!> $7.979.57 $10. 149 .50 $11 .214.62 $3.625.94 $3. 976 .92 $4.664 .01 $5. 164.59 $3.404.43 $3. 732 .50 $4.183.95 $4.083 1 2 2 43 10 261.80 266. 40 281.90 180.90 199.00 19820 202.80 38.90 37.80 40.20 48 .60 23.30 25. 00 28 .00 30.50 88. 00 9 2 00 102.00 102.00 70. 00 75. 00 64.00 88.00 25 .71% 22 .67% 21.43% 1 5.9 1 % 1.107 .87 1.183.29 1 361 6 7 1.458 .88 1 992 1993 1988 3 768 .43 1,163 .61 18 .19% 379.00 2.700 00 n/a 9 ,726. 16 10,749. 67 72.65% 47.865.86 52, 747.47 56 .47% 6.058 .60 6 878.10 56 .49% 5.486 .26 6.078 13 45 .98% 4-40 .53 498. 03 62.84% 415.35 472.89 58.20% 574.00 609. 00 4.28% $16.626. 17 $ 2 0 .323.89 134.62% $12.001.61 $14.230.68 88.30% $3. 352 .99 $4.Q45.42 130.91% $2.420.36 $2.832 .58 85.32% $ 1. 865.66 $2.443.95 59.04% $12.758.83 $16. 224.19 123 .95% $6.014.08 $7.107 32 96.01% $4.229.66 $4.962 .01 45.75% 330.30 374.30 53.97% 234.20 275.40 52.24%' 58.90 63. 30 62 72% 37.20 35.60 52.79% 122.00 130.00 4 7 73% 108.00 113.00 61.<3% 12. 96% 15 04% -41 49% 1.72124 1.906 .30 72.25% 129

PAGE 155

P E R FORMANCE INDICATORS Service A rea P01>ulalion ( 000) Servioe Area Size (squ are miles) Passenger Trips (000) Passenge r M i les (000) Veh.icle M ikts (000) Revenu& M i les (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenu e Hours (000) Route M i les Total Operatil'lg Expense (000) TOial Operating Expense (000 o/1 984 $) Total Maintenance Expe nse (000) Total Maintenance Expense {000 of 1984 $) Tolal capital Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Oper ating Revenue (000) Fare Revenue (00 0 ) Total EmplOyees Transponation Operating Employees Maintenance EmpJoyees Admi n is.trative Employees Ve hicles Available fOr Maximu m Setvk:e Vt:hides Operated i n Maximum SetviO& Spare Ratio Total GallOns Consumed (000) 130 TABLE 111-1'2 lynx (Or lndo) Purchased Motorbu s Performance Indicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 984 .50 1 032 64 1 072 75 1,113 76 nla nra nta nla 22 .70 13. 16 0.00 0.00 669 .56 386. 63 0 00 0 00 88.83 64.57 0 00 0.00 49.41 35.80 0 .00 0 .00 2 .82 2.91 0 .00 0 .00 1 79 1 .53 0 .00 0 .00 65 .00 115 00 0.00 0 .00 $156.85 $66 78 so.oo $0.00 $136 67 $55.87 $0 .00 $0 .00 nla nla $0 .00 $0 .00 nla nla $0.00 $0.00 nta nla $0.00 $0.00 nla nta $0.00 $0.00 nla nla $0.00 $0.00 nta nla $0. 00 $0.00 nta nla 0 00 0 00 nla nla 0.00 0 00 nla nta 0 00 0 00 nla nla 0 00 0 00 65.00 65. 00 0 00 0.00 3 .00 3.00 o .oo 0 .00 nla n/a nla nla nla nla 0 .00 0.00 ---1992 1993 1988-1 3 768.43 1 163.61 18.19% 379.00 2,700.00 nla 0 .00 0.00 nla 0.00 0 .00 n la o .oo 0 .00. nla 0.00 0 .00 nra 0 00 0 00 nta 0 00 0 00 nla 0 .00 0.00 nla $0.00 $0. 00 nla $0 .00 $0 00 .. nta $0.00 $0.00 nta $0 .00 $0 00 nla $0 .0 0 $0 00 nla so.oo $0 .00 nla $0 .00 $0 .00 nla $0 .00 $0.00 nla 0 .00 0 .00 nla o.oo 0.00 nla 0.00 0 .00 nla 0 .00 0 .00 n l a 0 00 0 .00 n /a 0.00 0 .00 nla nta nra nta 0.00 0.00 nla

PAGE 156

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Aree Pop ulatiOn (000) Service Area Size (square miles) (000) Passenger Miles (000) Vehlc:lo Mfles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehk. HoUrS :. < Revenue Hours (000) . : );-.-.,_ " ROUte-Miles ,, Total Ot>era11ng Expense (000) < ' .,< .._, _., Total Ot>eSi (ooo., 19M SJ .. " '' ,,,,_..,_," .. ... Tollll Capital Expense (000) Toiai'Loc. l 'RtM>nU.;(oOO) ,, ' OperaUng Revenue ( 000) F:ue Revehulf (000) Total Employees ' ,. . Tnonsportation Operalin9 Employees Maint&nance Employees .... . . . . Ad111!nlstri!tNe EmplOyees Vehicies Available for Maximum Service Vithld&s Ope'rated in Maxifnum Service Spare Ratio Total Gallons Consumed (000.) TABLE 111-F3 Lynx (Orlando) System Total Perrormance Indicators 1988 984.50 n/a 34. 380 00 4 464.13 4 213 07 308.66 300.72 ; 649.00 : $8 819 .17 .. $7, 894.19 nta nfa: h nla ''nfa i!:> nla nla n/a n/a nJa nla 153 00 73.00 109.59% n/a 1989 1,032.64 n ta 7,808.17 38 085 .21 4 503 33 4 293.34 323.95 306 .91 < 689.b0 $8,821.49 nta v hla . n/a 1990 1,072 .75 nta 8 026.79 36,473.06 5.132 49 4,802.32 366.99 i' 345.57 574.00 $12,2 1 6.32 1991 1 113.76 nla 9 641.66 37 283 34 . 5 092 52 . ". 4 831 53 371.39 350 .10 569.00 $13,5()7.31 1992 379 .00 1993 1,163.6 1 2,700.00 %Cho-1988 16. 19'4 nla 9 728 1 8 72.02% 47.865 .86 I 52.747.47 I 53 42'4 '10; 749.87 6, 0 58.60 .. 6,8 7 8 .10 53 39% .. 5,486 .26 6 078.13 44.27% 440.53 '' : 6L35'4 415.35 $16,626.17 472.89 't 609.00 $20,323.89 57. 25% -&. 16% 130.45% : s1o. 1 ,11: 72 s12.001 .61 $14,230.88 ; $2,66 7 02 $3, 121.91 $3 352 99 nla 52 124 30 '".'s2;352.35 :s2,!l:,s..; :: :$2, 832 : 58 $1,335 42 $5,473.09 $1, 865.86 $2,443.95 . I ,: '.,_ nta nta n1a 1 : $10 ; 149 50 I su; 2 14.s2 $12.756,83 : j' s 1 s 224.19 $4, 664 0 1 $5,16U9 $6, 014.08 $7 107 .32 .,, n/o n/a nta n/a ilia n/a n/a 157.00 78 .00 101.28% nta $4.183.95 266.40 1 98.20 40.20 28 .0 0 102 0 0 84.00 21.43% 1,361.67 $4,083 .12 281.90 202.80 48. 60 -30. 50 1 02 00 66 00 15. 91% 1,458.88 $4.229.66 330 30 234 .20 58.90 37.29 1 22.00 108 .00 1 2.96% 1,721.24 $4,982.01 374.30 275.40 63.30 35.60 130 00 113 00 15. 04% 1 ,908 .3 0 nta nta n/a nta nta 15.03% 54.79% .27% nta 131

PAGE 157

132 EFfECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per CapO .. SERVICE CONSUMPTION Per papiia Pau&nger Trips Pe-t Revenue Mile ,_, Passenge' Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE A""rage (ltM:IR .Ij .) Average Age of Fleet (In years) . ,_., ><--".- .<' 6.32 . 7 ,55 1 .50 1.83 .. *; 20,.83 25 .53 13.93 ... 13.94 3 20 4 .21 ::<; 129 : 00 92.00 ' < 398.00 I 420.00 45.26 ; 33 00 -. ........ 10 46 I 10.14 I 1990 I 4.78 7.48 1 .67 .. ; 23.23 .... . 13.jj0 6 .17 3S.OP .. 1 337.00 -.,. I 133 .4 0 .. 14 25 1991 I 4 .57 8:66 " ,,. 2 .00 27.54 1HO 5 24 33.00 d 330.00 .. 1992 7 .88 ... 1 '2.11& " > ... '_,. 1 .77 2M2 -'--'-----'-_. \3.2_\ 7 .43 1993 .. 5 91 ' *"' ., 1.77 2P3 12.85 :;, '<--> 7.87 . ,__ . 20!.00 ... _. __ "' 498.00 995 .00 '< 146 .41 L . __ . .. y -<-. "',, ,, "'. 14.64 11.02 6 .11 1988 3 ;_: __ < ',., 46.0 7 % 1 8.27% .. ,. t"-:-. 145.94% l, " 150 .00% . $h .,_l.. 33.18% ,,...,_ ., ", _._.,, ,.''' 7 : 13 7 .42 8 .37 8 49 9 .?6 . 9.98;1'' \

PAGE 158

EFFEC'IlVENESS M EASliRES SERVICE SliPPI. Y Vehicle Milet Ptr Capita SERVICE CONSliMPTION Pa._ T.-,. Per Capita Passengt:r T"-" .,_ M Je p,._ Tr1>o Per Revenue Hour OVAUTY OF SERVICE Average Sj>Md (R. M .IR.II.) A..,.ge AQe ol FIHI (WI yurs) Number of lncldtnta Revenue Service lnl enuplion s Revenu e Milos BelwMn lnc;cj..,ts (000) Revenue Mile.s Between Interruptions (000) AVAIU\BLITY RownuoMits Per Route-(000) TABLE III F S Lynx (Orlando) P urtbaucl Motorbus Effectivenm I\1HJures 1911 1989 1990 1991 0 09 0.06 nil 0.02 0.01 "" 0 37 nll 12.67 8.60 nil 27 57 2HO Na nla nlo n/a n/o nla n/a n/a nla n/a n/o nla nil nlo nla n/o 0 78 0.31 n/1 --------1992 1893 % Cha';r, 1188 3 n/a n/1 nla nil nla nll nil nll nlo nla nil nla nla nil "" nla n/a nil n/1 nll n/a nil nla nla nla n/a nla .. n/a nla n/o nla n/a nla .. n/a nil nla n/a n/a n /a nla nla nil nJa n/a ---------------133

PAGE 159

EFFEC11VENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle MJIOS Per capita SERV ICE CONSUMPTION Puoonger T,.,, f>l>r Ctiplla : P11nenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .. . PaiHngtr Tf1la Per Revenue Hour QUAliTY OF SERVICE 1\YOrlge SI)M eoas Meuurr.s INI lilt 1990 I ttl 4 .55 4 .36 4.78 4 .57 8 .35 7.56 .. .; 1.48 8 .66 .. 1 48 1.82 1 67 2 00 20 78 25.44 .. 23.23 27 .1>1 14.01 U.99 13 .90 13.80 nil nie 6 .17 5.24 nil nil 36.00 33, 00 .. nla ""' 337.00 330. 00 n/a nla 133.40 148.41 n/a n/a 1 4 .25 14. 64 $ ,,9 6 .23 8.37 8.49 ------------. 1tt2 11193 %Cha;t; 19118-19 3 7 .88 5.91 29.'78% 12.66 ' ..., -. 45 .54% . 1 .77 1.77 19 .24% 23 .42 . 22.73 ; . . 9.39% .. 1i.85 .: < -3.26% : 1321 .. 7.43 7 ,87 nil 209.00 201.00 .. nla .. 496 .00 995 00 nio 30.24 n/a .. 11 .02 6.11 n/a .. 8.86 9 .96 53.74 % . --------

PAGE 160

EFRC1aiCY MEASURI!S COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per CapiB Operating Expense Per Peak Vehlde (000) Expense Per P....nger Operating Per Pn,enger Mile Operating &Pense Per.Revenue Mil OperJting Expense PGr R e\lentUt Hour . Expe nse Per Reve!'lue Mite Matn&enanoe Expense Per Operating Exp. OI'ERAT1NG RATIOS Frebox Recovery Local Rewnue Per Operalg -.. Pe< Opere1ing Elcpe-VEHICLE UTIUZATION V e hicle Mies Pef Puk Vehlc:le (000) Veh;c!o Ho
PAGE 161

136 EFFIC IENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Expensa For C. pita Expense For Peok Vehicle (000) .. Elq>enoe Fer p....,n'!IM Tlip. Operating Expense Per Pas.senger Mile Qs>eratng Expense Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour ,Main,tenanc:e P.e! .ROvt_nue "'.ile Maintenance Expense "-r ()pet'atin g Exp. OPERATING RATIOS '> :'-1;; ; '*" F arebo;.; RecoveJY. ' .. __ __,,.,, .. Local Revenue Per Operating Expense ... Operating I VEHICl-E IITILIZATION VehiCle Maos PO< P.o.k Vehicle (000) . .. Vehicle HO _, $57.42 'nla I n/a nta nlo nla 29.61 0 .94 0;$6 0.76 0 .03 ""' nia nla nlo 1989 $0.06 $22.26 $5.06 $0.17 $1 .8 7 . . - . $43.65 '--' n/a nla: nlo nla . : .,, ; 21. 52_. .. ; 0.97 o.S;S 0 .55 0 .02 nla n/a -n/a nla 1990 nla n/a nla nra , nit n/a < rya: n/a :Na nla nla nlo nJa nJa "'' nla nla fila nla :... 1991 '' nla ;...ct. : n/a .. ""'. v nia : ""' n/a -<'-nta n/a ""' nl a -;.; f'II'A nla: .. nla ., nta nla n/a '. hla nla nJa nJa. 1992 nla nl I .-.... nla ; "0' jVa l>t)' nlo ,,, nla 1993 nla' nla :-M'. nl a n/a nla % Chango 1988-1193 !1" nlo ,,. nl ..... n/a ; ;: nia nla .), nl ' a nla $ .. l',nl .< : .;;:. nl : '-..: ';' a <}/. a nla nJa n/a A V ,,. ,-.,_. "'... .. t ,:}' > ... -. nl . ""' ..... a. .-{ .,,-.. -. a wa, nla "'""' ' . : w,. :... nla nla nlo n la "'" n/a ..-.. 7}',_ nla nla ""' '" .... y( n/8 '/ . -... nla S:!'!.. _-,):;, _.,_ ,, ' -.. nJa n/a nra, nla nta nlo n/a < ola n/a n/a

PAGE 162

EfFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Captta Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle ( 000) Operadng Passe.n9er Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile ,_ < ; ---Operating Expe n se Revenue Mie . . Operating )cpense Per Revenue Hour M'ailtentance Per Revenue Mile M8intenaoce Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS F rebo Recio >.-..,. . a x < ; .. .< Local Revenue Per Operating Expense O,...,;tin9 ... cipefa)ing xpen.., VEHICLE UTILIZAT I ON .. '" "' Voh;do Milot Peii 38 .24% 4 .22 0 /95 47.37 3 .43 '-24 34.20 3 .49 $0.42 1992 $21.64 $153 .95 $1.71 $0.35 $3.03 1 $40.03 $o.6i 20.17% 1993 '$17.47 $179.86 . $1.89 $0.39 < $3.34 $42.98 $067 19.90% 25.44;%. 76.73% 79.83% .. '36: 17% '; 34.97% 56.10 4 .08 0 .9i' 44.97 3 4P 1:26 29.45 3.52 $0.43 ,. 60.87 : 4 .41 0.88 46.75 3.&4 1.26 28.72 3.60 ", so:46 %Change 1988 94.98% ..S.88% 33.97% $0.20% 46.55% < nla .,..:Rfa n/a _,.._. _,. ;. n/a :..0. 91% 4.24% -5.95% 69. 79% 85.08% '. n/a n/a n/a n/a 137

PAGE 163

GENERAL QUE S TIONS I. Were any fare changes made during fiSCal 1993? If so, plcU< provide lhe previous fare sttucture as well as t he updated r..-e stJUcture and indicate when lhe changes were implemented Cash FarefSingle-Ride AdvantAge Single Ride Fare (for the handi capped and senior citizens) Special Fare/Singl eRid e (for the handicapped and senior citizens) K.I.S. (Kids In School) Farefgradcs 1-12 (age 18 and under M F until 7 : 30 pm) Transfer Fee 10-Ride Ticket Book (free transfers) 20-Ride Ticket Book (f'" transfers) Passpo
PAGE 164

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA I. The service area population increased 5 I pereent 768,430 in 1992 to 1,163, 610 in 1993, while the servicurea size also increased significant l y during this time (379 square miles in 1992; 2,700 square miles in 1993) Please explain these changes. System Response: The FY 1m Sec tion I 5 report required service area size and populat ion reporting using ADA definitions only. However the FY 1993 report required ADA definitions for motorbus and demand response, and the inc l usion of the vanpool mode in the calculation of the service area size and population 2. The table below indica t es that ridcl"$hip inc reased more than 10 percent between 1992 and 1993. In addition, the number of vehicle miles, re\enue miles, vehic le ho u rs, and revenue. hours all increased during t his tjme Is the growth in ridership solely due t o the increase in service. or is there another explanatjon? D i rectly.Qpended Moloft>tls FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change P.....-.gerTrips 9 726,160 10 .749,670 t0. 5% Puseoger Miles 47.865 860 52,747,470 10. 2% Vehicle Miles 6 058.600 6,878,100 13.5% Revenue Miles 5 693,840 5.766 .830 1 .3% Vehtcle Hou rs 440, 530 498 ,030 13 1% Revenue Hoors 416. 350 472 .890 13.9% System Response: The growth in ridershjp js attributable to both ridership increases on existing service as well as ri dership growth due to new service initiatives (see also the response t o question #12 in the General Questions section). 3 Also evident from the data in the above table is that revenue. miles increased at a significant l y lower rate than either vehicle miles or revenue hours This resulted in an II percent decrease in the average speed from 13.71 mph in 1992 to 12.19 mph in 1993, and a significant increase in deadhead mileage (364,760 miles in 1992; 1.111.270 miles in 1993). Please explain these changes, primarily the small increase in revenue miles. System Response : After a reexamination of the data, it was detennined that the revenue miles for FY 1992 should be corrected from 5,693,840 t o 5,486;256, and the revenue miles for FY 1993 shou l d be corrected from 5,766 830 to 6,078,128 Therefore, the percentage change for revenue miles between the two fiscal years should be 10. 8 percent. and this increase reflec t s the incre a se in service d i scussed previously (see the response to question #2 in the General Questions se<:tion). With this revis ion, the decrease in the average speed becomes insignificant. However LYNX did not provide an explana tion for the increase in deadhead miles which, utilizing tbe revised figures for revenue miles, increased 40 percent between 1992 and 1993. 139

PAGE 165

4. Total operating expense increased from $16,626,170 in 1992 to $20,323,890 in 1993, an increase of approximately 22 percent. This increase was partially due to a 21 percent increase in maintenance expense during this time ($3,352,990 in 1992; $4,045,420 in 1993). Please explain this increase in maintenance expense, as well as the remaining increase in operating expense. System Response: The increase in total operating expense is attributable to LYNX' s continuing service expansion during fisca l year 1993. Also, aside from additional operating employees, the second year of the labor manage.ment agteement included incre,ases in pension rates, health coverage-, and other incentive allowances. It was nol clear what specifically caused the increase in maintenance expense. However, it can be assumed that the above fac tors affected the maintenance COSts as weU. 5. Total capital expense increased by approximately one third from $1, 865,660 in 1992 to $2 ,443,950 in 1993. In J'Y 1992, parts, support equipment and miscellaneous items were the only purchases made. What capital purchases were made in 1993? System Response: In fiscal year 1993, 12 Orion II buses were delivered Additional capital expenses were due to associated capital parts and support equipment 6. Total local revenue increased 27 percent from $12,756,830 in 1992 to $16 224,190 in 1993. About one-third of this increase was due to an 18 percent increase in operating revenue ($6 014 080 in 1992; $7,107 320 in 1993). Please explain the increase in operating revenue as well as the remaining increase in local funding. System Response: LYNX indicated that thc.se figures did not match numbers that were submitted in FY 1992 and 1993 Section 15 reports However, the figures used in this question were oblained from LYNX's Sec tion 1 S data. LYNX did not give a possible explanation for the discrepancy, nor were any updated figures provided. 7. Passenger fare revenue increased 17 percent from $4,229,660 in 1992 to $4 ,962,010 in 1993. Is this increase due solely to the increase in ridership discussed previously, or is there another reason? System Response: The increase in passenger fare revenue i s a result of lhe increase in ridership. 8 The to t al number of employees increased 13 percen t from 330. 3 FTEs in 1992 to 374.3 FTEs in 1993. This increase was primarily due to an 18 percent increase i n transportation operating employees (234.2 FTEs in 1992; 275 4 FTEs in 1993). Please explain the changes in the transportation operating employee category. System Response: With the increase in service and the delivery of the new buses (as noted in the response to question #IS), additional drivers., supervisors. and training staff were hired. Also, with LYNX anticipa t ing the delivery of 47 Orion V buses in early FY 1994, bus operators were hired in late FY 1993 to begin training for service implementation scheduled for early FY 1994. 9. Total gallons consumed increased from 1,721,240 gallons in 1992 to 1,908,300 gallons in 1993, an II percent increase. Can this in fuel usage be solely attributed to the increase in service (noted previously), or is there some other exp lanation? System Response; This increase in fuel usage is attributable excl u sively to the increase in service. 1 4 0

PAGE 166

10. The number of revenue service intemJptions (previously referred to as .. roadcalls'") increased nearly 100 percent from 498 in 1992 to 995 in 1993. ls lhere an explanation for this increase? System Response: LYNX reponed that four factors have resulted in the increase in revenue service interruptions from FY 1992 to FY in FY I 993. reported roadealls included those that did not involve any service interruptions due to mechanical failure of the vehic le; the new Orion 11 buses were involved in many service interruptions due to manufacturer defects (thrown belts, A/C problems, overheating, increased serv i ce hours; and the aging fleet. 141

PAGE 167

142 8,000 6,000 4,000 2.000 0 Figure lu.F1 County/Service Area Population (000) 1,200 900 1---t -600 300 0 ... ''" "" 1 tl11111 ,,., "" ,,, 1ttl ,,, Figure ll l-f 3 Vehicle M iles and Revenue M iles $25.000 --.... -.-520.000 $15,000 L Y N X ( ORLANDO ) P erformance Ind i cators Figure lll.f 4 Total Operating Expense ...... 12.000 9,000 I 6,000 3 ,000 0 Figur e lll..f2 Passenger Trips (000) -' / ...;' IM4 I MS 1Mi 1M1 tMa ,,., lttO lttt lttlltfJ $5,000 / $4,000 s:tooo Figure IIJ.FS Passenger Fare Revenue (000) v !.--' .... $ 1 0 ,000 $2.000 $1,000 -. ""'<'t ... fOOC9 $5,000 --&owOJ,.o ..... __, (_,.. (Ciol 1,.. .. ll(lol(: so so ,,.. IMS IWf 1911 1Mf tMt IMO lftl 1"1 Ut) UU IMS 1914 19 17 1911 Ult ttto 1HIItt2 lttl ,,_. IMS UU 1H11t U ltft IMO 1991 1H2 199) 400 300 200 100 ( 0 Figure IIIF6 Toul Employees -M)"ft :
PAGE 168

LYNX (ORLANDO) a.o 6.0 .. o 2 0 0.0 figure lll.fl Vthide M iles P a r Clpit1 II\ I -. .... ,,.... 1MS tnt "" ltll IM't UtO IU1 ttU ttt) a o 6 0 ... 2.0 0.0 Effectiveness Mea sures figure lllf9 Pus.,ger Trips Per Revenue 2.0 1'. / 1'-1.6 ,. 1.2 o t -. 0 4 I 0 0 ttt UU IUf tttJ 1MI t n t t,.,a Uti U f l 1M) Figure lll.f1 0 Avera ge Age of Fleet (years) ....; I ...... \ v ..... IIOll; be .... ) -19 .. 19t.S ''" tM1 tH IMf lfotO tMI IHI IH) figure III F11 Rewnue Mites Acddents/lnci dents Figure Rev enue Miles Between Interruptions 150,000 1 $,000 120,000 90,000 !.--' t .ooo -) r\ fv 60,000 6, 000 JO.OOO ( ..... ) 0 ) 000 ) 0 ,,.. I 'M$ ttu t M l '"' ''" t_,.tttt tttt l'tU ,,.. I N S ttM IM11 Utt ,_ 19!1 Wtl U'U 143

PAGE 169

144 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5 .00 $0.00 Figure IIIF13 Operatlng Expense Per capita 1 / "' 1984 I U S 1914 1911 1Mt "" 1990 1991 lttl tttl figure lllf16 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile $0.80 $0.60 v $0.60 $0.20 f-( liOK ; Mi:i..-clo'.a ) $0.00 -ttM IUS ttu tti71MI tMt tttO Ut1 ttl11H l 1.500 1.200 900 600 300 0 Figure II 1 9 Revenue Hours Per EmpSoyee ... 110 1 1 ......... ttM INS tH' tN7 U .. UUtttO 1H1 1H2 IHI LYNX {ORLANDO) Efficiency Measures Figure IIIF14 Op4trating Expense Pe r Passenger Trip $2.00 $ 1.60 I $1.20 ;--/ ;I' $0.80 ---------. SOAO $0.00 1M4 IUS UU ttt7 tHe ttH tttO IHI tttt ttt.l Figure 111-1'17 Farebox R.covery Ratio """ ...... r--. I I' r-... ....... i--20% 10% ( I;Qif: ) "" ,,.. ttes n" '"' ,,., ,,., tHO'"' "u ,,, 60.000 30.000 20,000 10,000 Q Figure lllf20 Passenger Trips Per EmpJoyee -t ( -.. lOOft: :=::.( I==F--,, ... 1'ts 1JH 1ft1 ,,.. ,,., 1tto ' tHl IHJ Figure Operating Expense Per Revenue MiSe $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 ,. $ 1.00 -$0.00 ,,.. 1M$, .. ,,,., '"' ... '"' ttta ,,, Figure llf.f18 Vehicle M i les Per Peak Vehide 80,000 60.000 60,000 20.000 0 I UM 1915 1M4 19171981 ,.., IMO IHI 199 2 IHJ $0.60 so ... I""' $0.20 $0.00 Figure lll.f21 Average Fare I ' IIOif: .. t.n-) 1JM IMS 1984 1JIJ ,,_ 1,., IMO tnt 1Hl U9l

PAGE 170

LYNX SU MMARY &tween 1992 and 1993. rider$hip iocrcued mono t1111n 10 percent Additionally, the number of vehicle mile$, revenue mile$. v ehicle hours, and revenue hours all inaeased during this time. LYNX stated that the increase in ridcnhip was due t o both increases in existing service as well as arowth resulting fi"Om new $ei"Yiee initiatives. Total operating expense increased22 percent from $16 ,626,170 in 1992 to $20 ,323, 890 in 1993. The increase is attributable to LYNX's continuing s erv ice expansion in fiscal year 1993. In addition to an increase in operating employees, increased pension rates, health co\'erage, and other i.ncentive allowances (resulting from the Jabor management agreement) also contributed to the increase. Total capital expense increased by approximately onethird from $1,86S,660 in 1992 to S2,443,9SO in 1993. This inc rease was primarily due to the delivery of 12 Orion II buses in fiscal year 1993. Additi onal expenses were for associa t ed capital par1s and suppor1 equi pment A 17 percent increase in passenger fare revenue($4,229,660 in 1992; $4 ,962,010 in 1993) was a direc t result o f an increase in ridership. Total emp l oyees increased 13 percent, prima. rily as a result of an 18 percent increase in transportation operating employees(234 2 FTEs in 1992; 27S. 4 FTEs in 1993). The increase in this employee category was due t o the hiring of addidonal operators, wpervisors, and lr.li_ning staff The new positions were necessary for the implementation of new service in FY 1993 ( as well as FY 1994) and the procurement or new buses .. 14S

PAGE 171

G. PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Oreanlzatlonal Structure Palm Beach County Transportation Authority is owned by Palm Beach County. However, the system management and employment are provided under contract by Florida Transit Management, Jnc. Covernin.e Body and CompositionThe seven-member Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners oversees the transit system and must approve CoTran s budget as well as major projects undertaken by the system. Servi Area-CoTran provides ttansit services to Palm Beach County. ModesDirectly-operated modes include fixed-route mocorbus services and feeder bus services for the Tri-C o unty Commuter Rail system. Originally. the feeder bus service was contracted out to National Transit Services,lnc., however. the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, through majority vote, terminated the contract on September 12, 1990. In addition to these directly-operated modes, CoTran also provides purchased services under contract with Palm Beach County Paratransit. 146

PAGE 172

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Ser;fce lvea P09ulalion (000) Area Size (sq uare m iles) Possenger Trips (000) Passenger Miles (000} V.hicle Milos (000) R""'nue Milos (000) .. Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours ( 000) Total Operating Expense (000) T o1al Operating Expense (000 of 111&4 f ) Total MUrtenance Expense (000) TOll!-Expense (000 ol1984 S ) Tota l Capial Expense (000) Totl f local Revenue (000} -"" ( 000) Pus.nger Fare (000} Total Employee$ . Tran-sportation ,Operating Employees Maintenance Employees Einptoyees Vehieles Available for Maximum Sei'VIce Vhidet Operated in M1ximvm SeMoe Spare Ratio Total Ganons Consun>ed (000) TABLE TII-GI Palm Btach County Tnnrponation Aulhorily Motorbus Performanee Ind icators 1918 1989 1990 tt91 831.10 886.51 883.52 883 ,04 n/a nJa n/a nlo 2 27<.72 2 ,09U6 2 213 1 9 2.712 .88 13 840 .03 13 ,486 .33 15,190 25 17 190 .10 2.480.80 2.473 22 2,529.02 3 147 48 2.189 .90 2.165.47 2 190 17 2 491.77 149 .26 < .. 141.17 153.92 192.51 138.90 137.00 141.98 171 .09 401 .00 .329.00 390.70 390.80 $ 5.791.72 $6 .207 .59 $6 869.68 $8 ,50 9 .01 $5 052 92 $5,193. 70 $ 5 471 76 $8 4 11.51 St,117.34 $1,334 18 $1,483 .88 $1,7118. 17 $1, 027 .16 $ 1 116.27 $1 151.91 $ 1 354.92 $44 .11 $447.A7 $7 042 .84 $727.60 $4 182.82 $4 754 .63 $5 938 .70 $6 47 3 .39 $1.814 .65 $1.718 .50 $1, 796.01 sz,oe3. S6 $1,048.04 $1,045 68 $1, 089 .84 $1, 1 78 .70 128 .00 124 90 128.10 148 .60 83.00 ao.oci 82.10 106 .20 25.70 24 70 25 20 30.20 19 .30 'zo.zo 20.80 10.20 60 .00 59. 00 74,00 7 4 .00 44 .00 44 .00 61.00 58.00 36.36% 34.09% 21.31'.4 27 59% 550.47 553.68 581.52 771.55 1992 199 3 "'cnom t9Utl 3 775.34 775 .34 -6 71% 555.00 555.00 nil 2 712 .88 2,714.62 18.3<0% t7, 190.10 17,380 .37 25 58% 3 1 70.82 . .'3,290.48 32.85% 2 ,545.55 2,817 02 194 14 205.44 37.84% 178.07 188.70 35.86% 434.90 457. 10 13 .99% $8.488 .07 $9, 118.D3 57. 43% $6,127 .11 $6,384..0 M .35% $1 ,851.33 $1,770.17 50.35% $1.336 .38 $ 1.239 .46 20.47% $911.01 9845.20% $6, 148.28 $6 ,892. 14 84. 77% $2.313. 65 $2,259 .33 39.83% $1, 400.58 $ 1 ,376.57 31,35% I 157 70 160.50 26 .39% 118 40 120. 60 4 5.30% 29.30 29.70 1 5 58% 10.00 10. 20 73.0 0 76. 00 26.67% 60. 00 57. 00 29. 55% 21.67% 33.33% -8.33% 780.23 819A3 48 .86% 147

PAGE 173

148 TABLE 111-Gl Pa l m Beach Cou n ty T ra n sport a tion Author i ty P urthased Moto r bus Performance Indicators PERFORMANC E I N DtCATORS 1M8 1989 1990 1991 I 1992 I 1993 I 'foC = 1M9-19 3 Service Area Popul.1tioo (000) Service Alea Size (square miles) 831 .10 nla nla 883.52 nla ;.-' 883.04 I . 775.34 I'' , 775.34 I .21% nla 555.00 555 00 nla "'' -> ,. < ... ,,. 0.00 1 ' '5!1.52 '> I,," .,._0.00 .- <10.00,-: . 1 .,.,_ t y 1-" , ... .. -,,. .. -, ,, > ,_.., ,,-,\. c---.,.v.w., .< :'< ' v>'c ><< Passenger Mile> {000) 0.00 139.03 I 822 .49 I o .oo I o .oo I o.oo I nla hk:fe Mile {000) ,...,. : : '' ,. <" l '<"liflt -.' ........ ). ,. __ )_ . . . : '-;, o :oo '687.<33'-, o :oo o ; w i H f ,,. n1a ''"'''*"";' '" ''"-.. '>" :-v -"'"' R eve nue M ile s (000) Veh""" tlours '(OOO)'" .. )?',, ., __ .'< Reven ue Hours ( 000) ,, .. ,.. < 1 "R ... -Mife "' 1"'''-"'' :: '"'-,.. .. .,.. < ' ... / .... Tolal Operating {000) ,. . .,_ ,,. "' ,.,, Jooal : Tolal M a intenance Expense (000) -total M.;.;.,...;,,.; ... iaoo r.; ,, :-.1 > ;0>-i< _,,,.,, _,,. __ _lfk.' " <-* '' "f _,... Tolal Capilal Expense (000) Total t oca iReven ue (CioO); {, ,_ "<' _._ ,_,. -<).ill -< Operatin g Revenu e (000) . . ' Passenger Fat& (000) '" T Olal EmplOyeeS I Tnonsporoa1ion Os>era1ing:l;mploiees . . . M a intenance Emp6oyees AdminiUratiYe emplOYees. V e h idt.s Avai lable ror M aximum Service Ve hide-s Operated in Maximum. Setvios Spare Rallo I Tolal Galons Consumed (000) 0 .00 152 7 4 364.39 0 00 0 00 o.oo n/a 0.00 ;.-. 19 .2 6 .. 0.00 16.31 ooo T4oo : $0. 00 $749 .50 .. .SQ.O(l : '.$82i.08 $0. 00 $0.00 I;. ,. nla nl,, $0. 00 n/a ' . ..... . 38.63 0 00 0 .00 ' 0.00 . .. n@ '" ;. .... ,,., :<. ; ...... 2 8 .20 0.00 0 00 0 .00 nla < _ -i< _.. ,., .. '" '" :_ .... ___ ,.,.. 83.50 ..... .o.oor -nJa. . ... ... $1,1 1 4.28 I $0. 00 I $0.00 I $0.00 I n1a .;.i .. ,_. ; ...... '>. --... -.. _,.,.... .., ..... -"$0 .00 so.oo: nJa ,,, "_,_ '' ;; '> ,,_ , ,_,,,_ ... ,, .... "' .,,. ., ........ _.,,,. nta so.oo $0.00 $0 .00 nla ' ' >''-"' '<,o,.._ .':, ,._. '"-n/J /'$G-OO>""'-$ 0 .00 ,,_ J'<- ..... ,. -W> , >.., .. .. _,.,_.,. Wf<'<- nla $0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 n/a $0;00 '."" 'nta '<>-,._,. r-;,Jv. ._,..._ .,. ?, . ,., __ .,. <> I;.:,;..' --. :: I .... ... , .,_ wa. $0. 00 nla n/a $0.00 n /a s o .oo .; so.oo ::< ,..; So.oo I ? 'n/a ,-_, n/a 0.00 nla nla 0.00 0 .00 0.00 n/a 0 .00 nla n la .o.oo o .oo,. .. ., 0.00 I > n/a .. . .. o .oo nla nla 0.00 0 .00 0 .0 0 nla 0 .00 rita nla 0 .00 0 .00. 0 0 0 ' nla -0 .00 19. 00 19. 00 0 00 0 .00 0.00 nla 0 .00 1 3 00 15. 00 0 00 0 .00. ., . I . O.O(l : '; ,.,, nla nla 46 .15% 28 67% nla nla nla n la --0 .00 nla nla 0 00 0.00 : o :oo nla

PAGE 174

PERFOR MANCE INOICATORS service Are a PopulaiiOn (000) service ArOl Sizt (squaiO mlleo) Posoenger Trlpt (000) Ptsoenger Mlltt (000) VehlcloMIM(OOO) Vehicle Hourt (000) Revenue HoutS (000) Route Mlea Tot.l Operating Expenoe (000) . Total Operollng Expe-(000 or )98H) Total Mlnt.nnc:e Expense (000) Total Malntenan .. Expense (000 of 1984 $ ) Total Cll>bl Expense (000) Total Loc:a1 IU-( 000 ) Ol>orollng R..,.nuo (000) F 1re Revenue (000) Tccat EmpiO-yee:t Transportation Opt,.1ing EmplOyees Maintenence Empbyeet Mmlnltt!otiYe Employees Vehicles fOf Maxi"num Service Vehicles ep.rl1ed in Service Spare Ratio ToG! a.""'' eom..ned (000) TABLE 111-Cl Polm Bath Couoly A ulhorily Syste m Total Perf o rman tndictOI'$ 1S61 1189 1990 19111 831. 10 865. 5 1 8 83.62 88l.04 nla nla nla n/a 2.274 72 2 ,148.08 2.388.S3 2.71 2 .88 13.840 .03 13.625 .36 18,012 .74 17, 190 .10 2 480.60 2.728.98 3 218.35 3 147 48 2.189 .80 2 318.22 2 .55U8 2 49t. n 1 49.2e 166 43 190.55 192.51 138 .90 153.31 170 .16 171. 09 401 .00 403.00 474 ,20 380.80 $5,781.72 $6,957.09 $7 983 98 $8,509.01 $5,05 2 92 $5,820 78 $6 359.30 $6,411.5 1 $1, 1 77.34 nla nla $1,798 17 $1,027 16 .nla nit $1,354 92 $44.11 nlo nil $ 1 V .60 $4 182.82 nla nil $6, 473.39 $ 1 ,61U5 n/a n/ a $ 2 063.56 $ 1 048 04 nla nit $ 1 .178.70 128.00 nla nil 146 .60 83. 00 ""' n/o 108.20 25. 70 nla nlo 30.20 19.3 0 "' nlo 10.20 60.00 78.00 93 .00 74.00 ... oo 57.00 76 .00 58.0 0 38. 38% 36. 84% 22.37% 27.59% 550.47 nla nil n1.ss 1992 1993 %CN'M 1988-19 3 775 .34 775.34 -l>.71% 555. 00 555. 00 n/a 2 712 .88 2 ,714 .6 2 19 .34% 17, 190 10 1 7.380 .37 25 .58% 3 170.82 3.290 .48 32-65% 2 845.55 2 8 1 7 02 211.84% 194 14 205 ... 37.84% 178 07 188.70 35.86% 434 .80 457 10 13 .99% $8,488 0 7 $9, 118.03 57.43 % $6,127 1 1 $6,384.40 26 .35% $1, 8 5 1 .33 $1.770.11 50.35% $1,336.38 $ 1.239.48 20.67% $ 911.01 $4 .404.4 7 9865.20 % $6,148.28 $ 6.892 14 64.77% $2 ,313 .85 $2.259 .33 39.93% $1, 400.58 $ 1.376 5 7 31.35% 157 70 160 .50 25 .39% 118 40 120 60 4 5 3 0 % 29.30 29 70 15.56% 1 0 00 10.20 ..07.15% 73 00 76. 00 26.67% 60. 00 57.00 29 .55% 21 61'JI 33. 33% -8 .33% 780.23 819.43 48.86 % 149

PAGE 175

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE sUPPlY Ve h icle M ile$ Per C.pitl! SERVICE CONSUMPTION PM$enger Trw Po< COI>illl., ' . Passenger PM R&V$1'1U6 Mile ; OUAI.rTY OF SERVICE Speed (R.Mi!.H.) ' ' Average AQe of Fleet (in years) ' ., .. Number of lnclden.ti _.,..,>-_, -'" -'--r----, .. .. ,-,-... v. ' Revenue Service Interruption s -> Revenue M iles Between lntenuption$ (000) AVAILABILITY .. >" { 'j' Revenue Mile<, Per ,R9111( I,Ue (OQO) ISO T ABLE IIIG4 Pal m Beach County T ran.$portation Au t hori t y DirectlyOperated Motorbus Effectiveness Measu res 1988 1 989 1990 1991 2 .86 2.93 3 .56 .. 1ll9 2 4 .0 9 2 ,56 2 :74 . 2.4 2 : 1; -3 .07 . ;-',; 3.50 < \ .. -1 04 0 9 7 1 0 1 1 .09 1 03 .. -: 1 5.27 i ' 'l.16,38 ... 1 5. 23 -. i>, .. 15.81 -... . 15: 77 : :. !5.43 '14.56 14.86 ' 7 .10 8 1 2 4 .16 5 .16 6 08 ... 102: 10,00 : 2.00 21.00 w 792.00 782.00 753 .00 767.00 830. 00 . _, ' .. 2q7 .. '24.08 ... ,:'-:. .. ... -'. '-' _, .. 2 77 2.77 2.91 3.25 3. 1 9 6 58 .;_A 5 .61 ,. 6 .38' f .' 6 : o8 19513 %Chanfl 1988-1ll 3 4.2.4 .. 42 19% : {!.<'' v 0.96 7 2 3 % .. ... .,., ;.,.:-1 4 .93 .. ): : ,;. ' 6 .63 -6 6 2 % . '\-;81.3?% ;' 739.00 -6.69% ..... ' ''' 3 .81 37.86% :-.y-' ' 12' 85%

PAGE 176

EFFECnvENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vellic;le Miles Per Capia SERVICE CONSUMPTION P.Useng&r Trip$ 'Per Capita Pas.sen ger Trips Per Mile . . Per Revenue Hout OUAI.ITY OF SERVICE 1,,"A.t.<;;9o spe.;.j (R.MJR.I:t) Avetage Age of Fleet (In )'&al'$) NUriih Between tnclcMnts (000) .. < Revenue Miles Between lnterruptio n s (000) AVAILABILITY MJes,.Per Route 'Mia (pciO) TABLE 111-GS Palm Beach County Transportation Authority Pun:. based Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 nla 0 .30 0 .80 "" . nla O.o7 o .io nla nla 0 .37 0 .48 n/a .. nla 3:07 6 .15 n/a nla .. 9 37 12.92 .. nil nla nla n/a nle nla n/a .. 0/a n/a I :-. nla n/a n/o nla nti. nla "'" nla n/a n/a n/a nla .. . , nla ;;.-2 06 '.4 36 n/a 1992 nla nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n la n/i nla nlo 1993 '>:' <" _., ;,; s,;. < ,. ',, '' n/a nla n/a n/a nil n/a ,nla nla nla %Change 1989-1993 .,. nla .n/a n/a m; ... 'ni . _ a nla f:.:.nta n/a .. I .:r ,; nlo n/8 : 1 ) n18.: 151

PAGE 177

EfFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVIC E SUPPLY Vehicle Miles (;aplta SERVICE CONSUMPTION ; : T,_,s Per cti>ila; . "' : ; ;-. '" Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile '1 QUAUTY OF SERVICE ' '(RM./1\:ti: ) : . ; , ' : ,_,,_, '"'' ' .. Aver1ge Age of Fleet (in years} N 'mt.ft: ':. "' :; "' .,, "' ,_ ;' -'<';_:-":: .':: :( c; .. ; c)< Revenue SeMce lntenuptions ; Ro,vonoe ,,' .. 3.07 1 .04 0 .93 0 .93 1.09 14.Q1 .. .. . 14.Q3 :. : : . < 15J7 :. : ' ,. .. . < 7.10 nla nla 5.16 ; $ ".: .. ? . "'" '_., . .. .... :2.00 ,, .,-. -.> -< '-792.00 n la nra 767.00 v- ,... ;y-, ;. <;c.) < ?1.417" .. .' nla : .,. .;. ' ... 2.77 nla nla 3 .25 5 .46 5.75 . : . ;-. . ;6.38' 1992 1993 19881 3 .. : : 42.19% > -... ;' '> ... ... ... '( v .. . 3>50'. A '$ 3.:50 ,., ,.;27: 92% ,. ')C .. ,.,., ':: .. -,._ < ., 1 .03 0 96 -7.23% "' ,; H.39. :- l' ,.. ... .. l.t"'itk-1}' '; ., '\4 : 86 > _,,._ .. ' ,, .:)t:< .. -"' : ..,., > 6 08 6 .63 -6.62% ---. . . _, _ ... _,,, ... . i '21 00 : ,,.._,h -81.37% < / .. ,. .,;;;.: .. _.;. -..,; . .... -.:;... ..... 830 00 739.00 -9.69% ''Ti.if." ._, .'', 90.$8% '<'; .. ... > .... --;. _,_,,"' . ' v ; ' 3.19 3.81 37.86% .. . ?.::.:, r'.: > ... 8 :01!' > 6 16 . ;_,. ..

PAGE 178

EFI'ICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expepse Per Capita Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) . OperaiW>g Pa ... "l!er Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile "-Operalit\g ile ,, Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour > Expe"'se, Mlle Maintenance Expense Pef Operatjng Exp. OPERATING RATIOS : -<.. .. -., '-' ,.--' _,Fare x ecovery< -, ., . . . . . .. Local Revenue Pfl Expense e.pen..i VBiiCLE LITILIZATION M ies Per Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000} Revenue Mles Per Vehide Mile$ Revenue Mies: Pe-r Total Vhicles (000) Revenu Hours PM Total (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Per f>assen9er Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Mltoo Per Gellon FARE Average Fare '' > TABLE 111-G7 Palm Beach County Transportation Authority Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures 1988 $6.97 $131 .63 $2.55 < $0.42 $2.64 $41.70 $0.54 2Q.33% 18.10% , 72.22 % 27.88% 3 39 0 .88 36.50 2 .32 1;09 17 .77 4.51 $0.46 1989 $7.17 $ 141.08 $2.97 $0.46 $2.87 $45.31 2 1. 49% 16.85 % I :. 76.75% . 27.68% .. 56 :21 3.34 36.70 2.32 1 .10 16 .75 4.47 $0.50 1990 $7.96 $112 .62 $3. 10 $0.45 $3.14 $48.39 $0.68 21 .60% : 15.87% 86.45% 26. 14% 41.46 2 .52 0.87 29.60 1 .92 1 1 1 17.28 4 .35 $0.4 9 1991 $9.84 $148.7 1 $3.14 $0.49 .$3.41 $49.73 scm 2 1 13% 13.85% 76 08% 24 .25% 54.27 3 32 33.67 2.31 1,17 18.5 1 4 .08 $0.43 1992 $10.95 5141 .47 $3.13 $0.49 $3.21 : $47.67 $0.70 21 .81% 16 .50% 72.43% I :.' 1993 $11,76 $159 .97 $3.36 $0.52 $3.2( $48.32 $0.63 19.41% is.iri%. 75.59% 2(.78%. 52:85 3.24 0 .83 36.24 ,, 57.73 3 .60 2.44 1.13 17.20 4.06 $0.52 0 .86 37.07 2.48 1.18 16.91 4.02 $0.51 %Change 1988-1993 68. 76% 21.53% 31.92% 25.36% ".-22.38% 15. 88% 18.88% -4.50% -16.57% 4 .86% > .., -11.12% 2.39, % 6.25% -3.02% 1.56% 7.25% 8 .35% : BII'k 10.06% 153

PAGE 179

1 54 EFflCIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Exj)enM Per Operaling Expense Per Peal< Ve h icle (000) I Operating Per Passenger Mile ,. . . _,_ . . Operating Expense Per Revenu e Hour ; \ Mile Main1enance Expense Per Opetatlng Exp. OPERATING RATIOS ,_.,bo ., ,.ff/8 x ''" (, Loc:al Revenue Per Operating ,,, ...... ,t/"> ... .. ()J>e'!'tilg Pe! _:Elq>ense VEHICLE UTILIZATION \i.hicle M iles :Pei PeOk 'Vehicie (000) ... : ... Vehicle Hours Per Peak V4hidt (000 ) R6venue Miles Per Vehicle. f.Qes . . . . Revenue M iles Per Total Vehicles (000 ) HouB (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Rev8nl.MI! Empk)yee (000) .. . Passenger Per Errc>loyeo (000) ENERGY U TILIZATION Vehicle -. Per Gallon FARE Fare ' -' < TABLE 111-GS Palm Beach Cou n ty T ran;gor t a tion Aurborit)' Purchased Motorbus E ac.iency Mtasures 1988 1989 1 990 1991 nla $0.&7 $1.29 nla nla $57.65 $74.29 nla nla S13.2fi . :. $6.42 ?: nla nJa $5 .39 $1.35 nla : .. $3.06 ,_ . nla $45.96 $39.52 nla . ,_ nJa nJa: nJa . n/a ' ., nla nla nla nla nli n/a. : nla "'.. rila nla n/a nla nla nla n/a nla n/8 nla 19.67 45.82 nla 1.48 2.44 nla nla 0.60 p,53 nla nla 8.0< 1 9.18 nla nla 0.&6 1.4a .,. nla nla "'!1 nla n l a nla nla n/a nla n/a nla nla nla n /a nla nla 1992 nla nla 1993 d nla : nJa %Change 1989-1993 I . .. >:-, ....... j nla ; .-;, -,.,' nla ... '' '{, '''"' nJa nJa : n/a nla nJa nJa is!'a' . (l(a .. ,._ ' . nla nJa nla n/a ':, >.'< :, . nla nla nla nla ) .. . nla -'"'' ).. ', e ... --{ -. . .... -. y. nla nla nla Qia .... ,,., . ;' $:, nfa : /'; nla . " :' n/a nla nla nla nla .n(a nla nJa nla .. "' . . . ... ; .. ... nla nla nla .. nla nt:i. nJa nlo nla niB -nJa nla nla -nla nlo --n/a h nJa

PAGE 180

Efl'ICIENCY MEA SURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expe-Pe< Clplta Operating Expense Pe< Vehicle (000) Operating Expen$0 Per P .... nger Trip Operatin g Expense Per P anenger Milo Operati n g Revenue M11e Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour M1trtenlnce Expense Revenue Mile Ml:iRtenance Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATI N G RATIOS Fatlbox Recovef)' local Rrponoe VEHIClE UT1UZA110N Vehklo Miles Per F'eolt Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hou.,;; Per Peak Vflhlcle (000) Revenue MlitS PM vehide Mlkts Rewnue Mlle:s Pet TOOII Vehicles (000) Revenue Houl'$ Per Total Vehicles (000 ) LABOR PROD UCTIVITY RevenUe Hou!'J P er EmpiOyM (000} Passenger Tfi>s Per Enl)loyee (000) ENERGY UTIUZATION Vel'tk:ta MIN Per Gallon FAR E Average Fare TAB L E III-G9 Palm lkacb Counly Transportation Aulh orfly System Total Efficiency Mea sures 1118 1989 111 0 1991 $6.97 SU4 $9.25 $9.64 $131.63 $122 .05 $105 .05 $16 .71 $2.55 $3.2 $3 .35 $3. 14 $0.42 50.51 $0.50 $0.49 $2.64 $3.00 $3.13 $3.41 $41.70 $45.38 $46.92 $49.73 $0.54 nto .,. $0.72 20.33% nla n/a 21.13% 18. 10% n/a nil 13.45% 72.22% n/a ,. 76.08% 27. 88% n/a nfl 24.25% 56.311 47.66 42.32 54..27 3.39 2 92 2 51 3.32 0 .88 0.85 0.79 0.79 36.50 29.72 27A7 33 .87 2.32 1.63 2.31 1 .09 n / a n/a 1.17 17.77 n /a n/o 18 5 1 4.51 nla n/1 4 .08 $0, 4 6 nta nfl $0, 4 3 1992 1993 %CIII'fn 1911-lt 3 $10.95 $ 11.78 58. 78% I St.C1.A7 $ 1 59.97 21.53% $3.13 $3.36 31.92% $ 0. 4 9 50. 52 25.36% $3.21 $3.2 4 22.36',(, $47.67 $48 .32 1 5.86% $0.70 50:63 16.88% 21. 81% 19 .41% ... 50% 18.50% i5.10% -16.57% n 43% 75.59ro .66% 27 .26'l(, 24. 78% .12% 52.65 57.73 2.3G% 3 .24 3 .60 6.25% 0.83 0.88 .02% 36.24 37.07 1 .56% 2 .44 2.48 7..25% 1 1 3 1.18 8.35% 1 7.20 16.91 ..0.83% 4 .06 4.02 10 8Q% $0.52 $0. 51 10 .06% ISS

PAGE 181

GENERAL QUESTION S I. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? Jf so please provide the previous fare structure as weiJ as the updated fare structure and indi cate when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2 Were there any significant changes in service/service area during fiscal year 1993? One route was eliminated (Route 7), and three new routes (Routes 24, 2S, 26) were implemented to replace it There was no significant change in the service area. 3 Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the perfonnance of the transit system? None. 156

PAGE 182

QUESTI O NS ABOUT 1993 SECTION 15 DATA I. To t al capital expense increased significantly from $911,010 in 1992 to $4 404,470 in 1993. What capital purchases were made in 1992? In 1993? System Response: Capital expense i n fiscal year 1993 included a $3.5 million purchase of CSX propeny for CoTran s proposed intennodal facility. No response was provided for cap ital expenses in 1992. 2. The table-below shows that. despite slight declines in operatJng revenue and passenger fare r evenue. total local revenue increased more than 12 percent Please explain this increase in local funding. Ohvctty.Opotatod -Oibus FY 1992 FY 1993 Total Local R$WK'Iue $6,!48. 280 $6, 892,140 1 2 1% Oper8ting Revenue $2,3!3,650 $2, 259,330 2 .4% Pauenger Fare Revenue $1 ,400. 580 $1.376 570 1.7% -------System Response: An increase in advenising revenue during fiscal year 1993 contributed to the overall increase in local revenue. 3. The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from 73 in 1992 to 76 in 1993, while vehicles operated in maximum service decreased from 60 t o 57 v ehicles during this time This resulted in a 54 percent increase in the spare ra tio (21.7 percent in 1992; 33.3 percent in 1993). Please explain any changes that have occurred in the vehicle inventory. System Response: CoTran re-ceived four Orion II vehicles and retired one 1980 TMC coach during fiscal ye a r 1993. resulting in a net increase of three vehicles available. Route 7 (which was discontinued as discussed previously) consisted of six vehicles, and Routes 24, 2 5 and 26 (which were implemented to replace Route 7) are served by one vehicle e ach, for a net decrease of three vehicles operated in maximum service. 4. The number of revenue service in t erruptions (previously referred to as roadcalls")declined from 830 in 1992 to 739 in 1993. Is there a reason for this decrease? System Response: No one factor could be attributed t o the d ecline in service interruptions. 157

PAGE 183

IS S 4.000 :J-000 :1.000 1,000 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPOR T ATION AUTHORITY figure 111-61 COunly/Stl'lic Ar.a Population (000) 1.000 100 I IJJ II tl-I 600 400 200 0 ttMltl$ IHf ttl1 _,M1Ht tHO 1,1 Ut2 tHJ figure IIJ.Gl Vehicle Miles ond Rtvtnuo $10.000 $1.000 ....... ;. 1------u.ooo _......,.,OGO.I $4,000 ........... """. I I I ---$2,000 $0 l'error m ance In d i cator$ Figure 111-Gl Total Operating ex,_,.. T "" - 11100) II L.. _l__LTI_ L L '1.000 :1.000 1,000 0 figure PIW
PAGE 184

5.0 o 3.0 2 0 1.0 0.0 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Figure 1114;;8 Veh ide Miles P e r Capita ---v --J __ .. Effec::livenes:s Me-asure$ 1 2 0 9 0.6 0 3 o.o Figure 111-69 Passenger Trip s Per Revenue Mile r-. -,-/ I"'--1--. .. I -I -19M 191 5 tm 1,.1 ttt 1Ht ttt01ttl 1tt 2 1 M l 191' IMS 1916 ,., 19 .. I M t IMO 1991 1ttl I U Figurelll-611 10.0 8.0 6 0 4.0 2. 0 0 0 Figure 111-61 0 Average Age of Fle-et (years) -, .. -:b .. ,...,.-+-1-f -.J-..l. A""' \ ,.. '1/ I-"' ..... -----T'"-1--1, I j-) 1 I ,... u.s,,., uu ,,., '"' ''" ,.,, ttttn Figure 111{;12 R evenue Miles Betwee n Acddents/l n ddents Revenue Miles Between I nterruptions 1 .500,000 1.200 ,000 900,000 600,000 300,000 0 ( IIOTt. ) 1-4-1--t--i1 . .. ,,.s " ,,., .. ,,., lttO ,,., uu 19tl 0,000 I / 3 ,000 k 2,000 1.000 -... --=r= 0 '"" ue s '"' ttt11,.. ,,., tttO '" '"I uu 159

PAGE 185

160 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY $12.00 so.oo $6.00 $).00 so.oo Figure 111-G 13 Operating Expense Per capita --..,. """ I !' ltiM UIS 1H6 1M7 "" Ult tttO tttl tttltttJ Figun! 111-616 Maintenance Expense Per Rewenue M ile so.ao $0.60 !,.; I""-$0.40 $0.20 -N)yt ) so.oo I I F 1M4 UU It" 1M7 UU l .. t IMO tttt UU ttt3 1.200 ... ... 100 0 Figure 111-619 Revenue Hours Per Employee .. .... -IIOU. ) ,, .. ,,.s ,,.. ''" "" "" ltto ,,., ttflttt:J Efficiency Measures Figu r e 111-614 Operating Expe:nse Per Passenger Trip S4.00 $3.00 1--1--1 $2.00 SI.OO j $0.00 ltM UtS Ut& 1tf7 1 911 lttt IMO 1tt11fl2 ltU 25" 2011 15" 1011 011 Figure 111-617 Firebox Recovery Ratio -110ft ) ltN IUS It" UU 198 1 lttt 1tt0 ltt11tt2 lttJ 20.000 16,000 12,000 8,000 4 ,000 0 Figure 111-620 Passenger Trips Per Employee ...... -1--, --( NOit ) ' 1914 '"" '""' ,,., ''" ,,., l tto '"' 1991 .. ,, Figure 111-615 Operating Expense Pe r Revenue Mile ::.b I l l H tTIJ s1.oo I I I I I I I I I so.oollllll !-,,.,. IUS 1116 IM7 I MIJ 198t tttO 1911 1911 199) Figure 111-618 Vehlde Miles hr PNk Vehkle 60,000 00,000 t l n [j.JI 20,000 0 ltM IMS 1tl6 1M7UU 118t lttO 1tll 1ttl 1ttl $0.60 so.oo $0.20 so.oo Figure Average Fare / -'-..Ott I tt ... UU lHI 1tt7 1tll1Kt 1tt0 1 Jt1 1tU 1ttl

PAGE 186

COTRAN SUMMARY Total capital expense increased significantly from $911,010 in 1992 to $4,404,470 in 1993. Capi1al expenditures in fiscal year 1993 included S3.S million for the purchase of CSX property for Corrao's proposed intennodal facility. Despite slight declines in operating revenue and passenger fare revenue between 1992 and 1993_ total local revenue increased more than 12 percent during this time. According to CoT ran, a significant increase in advertising revenue in fiscal year 1993 contributed to the increase in local revenue. The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased by three. to 76 vehicles in 1993, while vehicles operated in maximum service declined by three to S1 vehicles during lhe same time. This resulted in a 54 percent increase in the spare ratio from 21.7 percent in 1992 to 33.3 percent in 1993. CoTran received four Orion 11 vehicles and retired one 1980 TMC coach in 1993, resulting in a net increase of three vehicles available. Route 7 (which was served by six vehicles) was replaced by three separate routes (Routes 24, 25, and 26) utilizing one vehicle each, for a net decrease in the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. The number of revenue service inteiTIIptions (previously referred to as "roadcalls") decreased from 830 to 739 between 1992 and 1993. CoT ran could not attribute any specific reasons to this decline. 161

PAGE 187

H. TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Oaanizational Struc ture .. TaJiahassee Transit is a department of City government. Gover nine Body and Composilion The City Commission serves as the Board of Directors for TALTRAN and has five elected members. Service Area TAL TRAN provides service to th e City of Tallahassee. Modes The system provides fixed-route motorbus services and demand-responseservicesto the community. In addition, TALTRAN contracts with Big Bend Transit for the provision of evening. weekend, and holiday demand-response services. No fixed-route services are contracted to private operators. 162

PAGE 188

PEIU'ORIIAN C E IN DICATORS SeMoe Population (000) Service Atea Size (square mile-s) PassengerTrtp,(C ) Passenger Miles (000) Vehicl& Miles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle (000) ' Revenu e Hours (000) RoUIO . .., ,..,. Tolal Operat i ng Ex;pense (000) T o tal Operollng Elq>o,.. (000 i>f 1 984 $) Total Maln1enanoe Expense (000) Total Eltperi,e (o0o of $) T ota l Ca p O \ Expense (000) Total Loca l Revenue (000) Ope01Ung Revenue (000) PasMn ger Fare Re. venue (000) T Empbyees Transportat;on MaintenaJK:e E::-,:wye es Admlnlttroli'le Employees Ve.hk:les Avai lable for Marinv m Service Vehicl&s Operated in Maximum Service Spare Ratio Total Galo n s {000) 1988 182. 50 n la 3.541.08 9,385 29 1 ,510. 88 1 ,404.82 : 115.72 110 03 209. 80 $3 486.15 $3,024 00 $803 63 $701.12 $322 79 '" $3 234.84 $1,458. 14 $1,335 .10 98.50 66. 00 21. 50 11.00 42 .00 36.00 16.67% 434;38 TABLE IIIH I Tallahassee Transit rerrormance Jndical ors 1989 1990 192.58 192 .49 nla nJa 3,640 23 3 357 .79 9 549 34 10, 093.34 1 592 .71 1,547.85 1,485 93 1 448 16 122.94 ' 122 .72 117.10 116 91 207 .80 197 .50 $3,895.18 $4,265 .60 $3,258.98 $3 ; 397 59 $830 07 $834.10 $664 37 $694.49 $423 84 $2 481.70 $3 659 .40 $4 ,008.00 $1,549 .08 $1,5 10 .00 $1, 365 96 $1, 502.70 1 03.00 10MO 69.50 69 .50 22.50 22 .50 11, 00 11.00 45 00 45.00 40 .00 40.00 12 50% 12 ,50% 445 95 449 .5 9 1991 1992 1993 %Cham 1 988 1 9 3 198 27 129 .26 132 04 -27.65% nJa 80. 22 80. 26 nla 3 453 08 3 628 .89 . 3,629 .31 10 379.95 10, 880 .66 10 ,887. 19 16.00% 1.558.23 ', 1 576.45 1 ,58HI 5.06% 1,465 37 1,479 .50 !,48M3 5 .77% 124.52 127 .59 < 129 ... 11.88% ' 118.58 121.46 122. 33 11.18% 197.50 195.20 95.20 $4,767 90 $5,15 8 70 $5, 730 .20 65.32% $3,59 2.60 $3,723 .81 $4 012 .26 32. 68% $923 20 $1, 319 .09 $1,308.10 62 77% $695.63 ' $915.92 30.64% i ' $ 1 ,049 .30 $719.00 $2 448. 3 2 658. 49% $5, 200.90 $5 552.70 '$5 879 ;70 81.76% $1, 646 60 $ 1,669 20 $1,777.90 21 93% $1,610.80 $1,647 80 $1,733.80 29.86% 111.00 128 80 131.40 33.40% 73 .50 88 80 91.80 38.79% 26.50 31.00 30 30 40. 93% 11.00 9 .00 "; 1 3 64% 46 00 48.00 48.00 1 4 29% 4t.OO 41.00 41 . 00 13 89% 12.20% 17 07% 17 07% 2 44% 4-46,41 455 22 .. 462 70 6 52% 163

PAGE 189

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 SERVICE SUPPI. Y Per Ci!Pita 8 .28 SERVICE CONSUMPTION A <' ''' ., r r .. p.;, capila <1$$8JIQ&f riP' > ;-;. "' -\ . j9.40'. Passenger Trips Per Rev&nue Mile 2 52 ' . Tr;n Hour .. 32.18 < QUALITY OF S ERVICE . ,. . .. Allraa '" ' , .t; 12.tr ' Average Age of Fleet (h 8 .40 .. ''"'' .... _,, ........ -' Numberoflf\-;' ... Revenue Mites Between lncldent$' (000) .-: -,;-1;'\_-2 7 .02 '> ,,. _, ... ',.._><,;: "''- ' .. -. ,.,. -> >' Revenu e MiSes Between lnlerruptic:ms (000) 1.79 AVAI LABI L ITY :' :. 6 70 164 TABLE 111-Hl T allahasset Tran>it Effectiveness Measures 11189 1990 ., 8.27 8 04 ,, ,,;, ( 18,90 ; 0 00 : .. .. 2.45 0.00 31.09 .o.oo 'i 17.4 2 . " :' :)9.!2 . . 11. 26 .,.,, i1' 1.00 1992 1993 12.20 ,. ' . 12 .02 . '< i" ';. 2H9 2 45 2 .44 29 .86 . 296i l . ,., < .. .. .. 12 :fjl-"i.ii' 12.15 1 2 26 11.20 )' ;-4-30.00 ::r,-,:: 88. 00 .. .. A -; -t,;-$ ,,;., ;; 801.00 960.00 842.00 1 0 2 4 .00 624.00 ""..,. 1,_6 ,{!9 . ; : {';:-_ . >'A ->: . ,, ,, . .-. .. _._, 32 30 ,..., ... 1.86 1 .51 1.74 1.44 2 38 -{ v .,, "' .... '""-' ,-'(-, . .... _.,758 ;: :,.;_ 761 . 7 5 . 7-33 7 : 7 .42' w C ,._. -;-,- % Cha'9fl 1988-19 3 -"' ... . X < -3 10% .> ; 8 1 % . -'.:'-<' -4. 87% c'j:.' 33 33% ' );; 4,1 .64% .. 20.41% ;< ;< , 32. 89% ;-, .. ; 13.68%"

PAGE 190

EFACIEHCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY ()p6ratlng Expense Per C\llpb Opera ting Expense Per Peak Veh icle (000) Expense Per Passenger Trip Opersting Expense Per Passenger Mie Opeiating &pente Pi, Revenue Milt ' Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Expense Per Rev6nu e Mile Ma int.nanc:e Expen se P M Opetatlng )cp OPERATING RATIOS local ReYenue Pot Opola ting Expe nse 0pota10>g -... Pet ()petoting Expenoo VEHIClE UTlliZATlON Ve!>ldo Miles Po< Peolt V e hicle (000) Ve h icle Hours Plf F'>lak V e hicle (000) R6'18nue Miles Pe1 Vehicle M iles Revenu e Miles Per Total Vehicles ( 0 00) RevenUe Per Total Vehleln ( 000 ) lABOR PRODUCTIVITY R ... nue ti"UrS Per (000) Passenger Trips Per E mployee (000) ENERGY UTIUZA TION Vehicle Milos Per G .. on FARE Average F ate 1988 $18.99 $96.28 $0.96 $0. 3 7 $ 2 .47 .. $31.50 $0.57 2 3 19% 36. 5 2 % 113.33% 42.07'11 -. 1.97 3.2 1 D.93 33.A 5 2 62 1.12 ' 35. 9 5 JAB $0, 38 TABLE 111-HJ Tallahassee Tran si t .ffie:iency Measures 1989 19t0 $20.23 $2 2 .16 $97.38 $106.64 $1.07 $1.27 $0.41 $0,42 : '$2. ,62 $2.95 $33.26 $36.49 $0.56 $ 0 .58 2 1 .31% 1 9 .55% 35.07% 35.23% 93.95% 96.07% 39,n% 35.40% 39. 8 2 38.70 3.07 3 0 7 0.93 0 .94 33.02 32.18 2 .60 2 6 0 1 .14 1 .14 35.34 0 .00 3.57 3.44 $0.38 $0. 4 5 1991 1992 1993 %Chi= 198t-1 3 $2 4 0 5 $ 39.91 S.HO 128.50% $11 6 .29 $125.82 $139.76 4 5 .16% $1 3 8 $1.42 $1 .58 6 1.30% $ 0 4 8 SD.47 $0.53 4 2.S1 % $3.25 $3.49: $3.86 86.31 % S.0 2 1 $42.47 546.84 4 8 7 0 % $ 0 8 3 $0.89 $0.88 53.$0% 25.57% 22.83% 1 5 4 % 33.78% 31.94% 30.26% 21.A5% 110. 97% 107.64'11 102.61 % U S % 3A.Sf% 3 2.36% 31 .03% -28.25% 118.01 38 .45 38 72 -7. 75% 3-04 3 .11 3 .16 1.78% 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .87% 3 1 .86 3D.82 30.95 .A5% 2 5 8 2 .53 2.55 -2.72% 1 07 '' 0 .94 . 0.93 18.66% )1. 1 1 28.16 27.62 ,23.17% 3.A9 3.-46 3.43 1 .37' 4 $0.47 $0.45 $ 0 ,48 2 8.7 1 % 16S

PAGE 191

GENERAL QUESTIONS I. Were any fare changes made during fisoal year 1993? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare >trucrure and indica t e when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2. Were there any significanl changes in service/service area during fLSCal year 1993? No significant changes in service or the service area were made in fiscal year 1993 with the exception of the Florida A & M University Free Fare Zone, which was implemented in August 1993. 3. Have there bee n any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the perfonnance of the transit system? None. 166

PAGE 192

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION 15 DATA I The-number of passenger trips and passenger miles increased significantly while the amount of revenue service provided remained relative I)' constant between 1992 and 1993 (see table below). To what can this increase in ridership be anributed? Olroetly.O-ed Motorbus FY 1992 FY 1993 % Change Passenger Trips 3.626,890 3 .944. 230 8.8% Passenger Mile$ 10,880,660 11,837,350 8.8% Revenue Miles 1 ,509,010 1 ,485,830 Revenue Hours 12 1 ,460 122.330 0.7% System Response: A calculation error was discovered on form 406 of the Section IS report Fo r fiseal year 1993, the correct figure for passengertrips should be 3,629,31 0 and the figure for passenger miles should be I 0,887,189. 2 Total operating expense increased II percent from $5,158,700 in 1992 to $5,730,200 in 1993. Is there an explanation for this increase ? System Response: The increase in operating expense can beattributed to pay and fringe benefit increases. the increased use of catastrophic leave benefits, fuel. parts and casualty and liab ili ty expense. 3. Please explain the s ign ificant increase in capilal expense from $7 I 9,000 in 1992 to $2,448,320 in 1993. In FY 1992, TALTRAN s capital expenditures included refurbishment of buses, seat replacement, floor replacement, and electronic destination signs. What capital pUJ'(;hases were made in fY 1993? Is the purchase of I I new motorbuses that were bid in PY 1992, but delivered in FY 1993, included in capital expenditures for 1993? System Response : The purchase of the I I new motorbuses that were delivered in fiscal year 1993 was included i n the 1993 capital expenses Capitol for fiscal year 1993 also included bus shelters and benches, facility improvements, ticket vending machines, and fare collection equipment. 4. According to the table on the next page, the number of transportation operating employees increased 20 percent between 1992 and 1993, while administrative employees declined 56 percent during this time. Please explain the changes in these two employee categories. 167

PAGE 193

Dlroctly-Openoted Molorl>us FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Operaling E""*'yees 76 4 91 6 19 9% M.--.nce 31.0 30.3 .3% Admlnislnlllve 21.4 9.5 -55. 6% 128.8 131.4 2.0% System Response: After examining th e data, TALTRAN determined that, in fiscal year 1992, 12.4 operating employee FTEs were incorrectly class ified as administrative employee FTEs. Therefore, total operating employees in FY 1992 should have equalled 88.8 FTEs; thus the chaog e in this employee category between 1992 and 1993 is only three pereenL S. The number of incidents increased 53 percent from 30 in 1992 to 46 in 1993. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there aoy possible reasons for this increase? System Response: TAL TRAN reiterated the unpredictability of these events stating that increased traffic congestion as well as bad luck may havecontributed to the increase. 6. The number ofrevenue service interTUptions (previously referred to as "roadcalls") decreased from 1,024 in 1992 to 624 in 1993. To what can this decline be attributed? 168 System Re$p0nse: The decrease in service interruptions is the result of the use of newer equipment and a better undel'$tanding of what constitutes a revenue service interruption.

PAGE 194

1.600 1,200 800 -0 TALLAHASSEE TRANS I T Figure III-H1 Cou n ty/ServiCift. ()pot.IO
PAGE 195

' 170 TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT 15.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 l.O o.o Figure IIIH8 Vehide Miles Per capita -----l.L -19M tMS ttM 1911 ,,.. tttt 1MO 19191 tttZ tnJ 15.0 12. 0 9 0 6 0 l.O o.o Eftedivtoes:s Measures Figure III--H10 Avoroge Age of Fleet (years) """' ..... I.-' l.O 2.0 1. 0 0 0 Figure IIIH9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile I r\ I-/ I-11M IHS 1tM 1M71tu tHt tMO 19t1 1ftl 1tt3 1Hol IMS 1,_ IM7 1911 "" 1990 "" 1992 lnl Figure III--H11 Revenue Miles Between Acddentsjln
PAGE 196

$50. 00 140. 00 $)0.00 $ 20 .00 $10 .00 $0 .00 Figure IU H1 3 Ope r ating h p ense Per capita -,) 7 -. H -:---l. I --,,... t!*S ,,., .. ,,. .. tNt 1tt0 ,,, ,,.,l ,, Figure lliH16 Maintenance Ex:pense Pe-r Revenue M ilt $1.00 ---== $0.80 -I $0 60 -$0 .40 $0 .20 $0 .00 -'.. 19M t'lt:S ttM 1911 t9U tm 1t9'0 111 1 tttl 1 M3 1,500 1 ,200 9ClO 600 )00 0 Figure III-H19 Revenue H ours Per Employee I \I I -. r--------------! _j 1964 tttS "" ttf1 nn tm tttO 1991 '"1 ,,, TALLAHASSEE T RANSI T Efficie ncy M easures Figure III-H1 4 Operati n g Expense Pe r Passe nger Trip $1.6 0 $ 1.20 ..... -I/ $0.80 ..... . ----$0AO ----$0.00 -1M4 19U tt" tH719U ttlt tHO tttt tH2 ,,, 50% -20% 1 0% 0% --Figure III-H17 Farebox Reoovery Rat io i\ J I I ,,.. nas ''" ut7 ,,... "" uto " t Httnl .0,000 30,000 20,000 10.000 0 Fig ure II IH 2 0 Passenge r T rips Per Employee l / . --'"" tns ,," ,,.11m uet uto ,,, 1ttt 1tU Figure lflli1 5 Operating Expe nse Per Revenue Mil e 14.00 ..... $3.00 I" $2.00 -$ 1.00 I $0. 00 1N4 tM.S tHi tM.J ... ,,., UIO lttt 1"1 1tU Figure IIIH I 8 V e hicle Miles Per Pea k Vehlde 50, 000 . I 40,000 I'" )0,000 -1-20,000 10,000 -0 1914 THS 19 .. 19U 19U tttt 1tt0 1911 Uf! 1H, $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 "' $0.20 --$0 1 0 $0 00 -Figure Avera g e Fare 1\.. I ..... --1-" U&4UIS 1916 1987 tta 19l't t H O 1991 1992 IHJ 171

PAGE 197

TALTRAN SUMMARY 172 In August 1993, TALTRAN implemented the Florida A & M University Free Fare Zone. Total operating expense increased II percent from $5,158,700 in \992 to $5,730,200 in 1993. TALTRAN cited pay and fringe benetit increases, the increased usc of catastrophic leave benefits, fuel, parts and casualty and liability expense as reasons for the increase. TAL T RAN's capital expense increasedsign ificantly from $719,000 in \992 to $2,448,320 in 1993. Total capital expense for FY 1993 included the purchase of 11 new motorbuses, bus shelters and benches, facili1y improvements, ticket vending machines, and fare collection equipment. The number of revenue service interrupt ions (previously referred to as "roadcalls") decreased from 1,024 in 1992 to 624 in 1993, primarily as a result of the use of newer equipment.

PAGE 198

I. REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) SYSTEM PROFILE Qaaniutlon!l StruetureRegional T r ansit Syste-m is a department of the City of Gainesville. Governing Body nd Composltion The City of Gainesville has an elected commission made up of five m embers all of whom are responsible for policy decisions regarding RTS as weB <\: her city departments In addition. R1"S has an advisory board comprised of citizens from the community which provides input to the commission regarding the transit system and its structure Se.,k:e Area RTS serves the c ity of Gainesville and partS or Alachua County ModesFixed-route motorbus services. RTS also provides all of Alachua County with demand-response services. 173

PAGE 199

174 TABLE 111-11 Regional Transit System ( Gaines llle) Performance lndicaCors PERFORMANCE IHOICATORS 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Serv ice Area Population (000) 182.90 186.77 181.60 183. 77 182. 94 184 ,00 0 60% Service Area Size (square m iles} n/a n/a n/a nfa 90.00 90. 00 nla Passenger T!1>s (000) ,; 1 732 68 2 ,16 7 74 2 569 .58 2,669.58 2,569.58 2,37o ;2l).; ": 3&.i9%. ... < < Passeng01M i les (000) 4 418 32 4 952.23 7 660 04 7 660 .04 7,660 04 7,169.22 62.26% : ,. . .... VehicleMilo\OOO) '' .. .' 1.278 48 1.64<4,. 95 1 289 .62 .c _,1 289 ,62 l q39.10' .{ i'JJ.83%, Revenue Miles (000 ) 1 230.48 1,511 .81 1,275.37 1,275 .37 1,22 3. 49 1,409 58 14.56% Vehic:le Hours COOOt : .. : 9i.27 ... : 91.17 91.1?' :: !'C 74.32.. .... : 2 4 % Revenue Hou rs (000) 93 84 91.38 85 .19 85 .19 82 67 69.87 54% Route-. : 221.00 221.00 266 .60 266 .80 268 .90 ?0:77% Total Operoling Expen$0 (000) $2 897.87 $3.221 07 $2.844 .60 $3,011 .81 $3 081 97 $3 212 73 10. 87% ' ' ' < ._.,." - ...... Total QpeiOting. Expenoe (000 of 1984 $) $2 ,528.21$2,69<.97 $2,265 67 $2 269 .3 9 '"'$2;249.6c4 .02% -.. _, .. '" >.... ; Total Malnlenanoe expen .. (000) $498 .79 $578 97 $473.05 $492 .29 $477 26 $490.11 1 74% _,- .. _,. ''< .,. 'toW Maiolenance Expense (OOO. of;1984 $) ..... < $435'.t6. $482.73. $376.79 ; ; $370 .94. ; $344 .51 ; $343-17 ; : '21.14% ; < ToW Ca paao Expe nse (000) $650 20 $3,879 .18 5507 .69 $535 .64 $29.44 $134.69 -79.28% : TO!al Locai'RevOnu, (OOQ)., .. $2,539.25 $2,98ioo ; $2;865.50 $3 ,011. 81 $3,102.5 1 : 13.69% ,.. ' . ... ,, Operallng (000) $1.030 .16 $1,155. 1 0 $1, 110 84 $1. 292.79 $1, 366.18 $1,405 .95 38 48% Passens., Fare Rexenue .<090> $976 87 $1 084 .83 $1. 023 67 51.225 82 $1,339 90 $ 1,339 .86 37.16% Tolal 73.50 71.25 71.00 71.00 67. 20 66. 00 10.20% Qperating EmplOyees 4 9 25 50.75 SI.QO 51.00 50. 80 ,; 50 50 2 .54 % Maintenanoe Emptoyees 17. 00 1 5 50 15.50 1 5 .50 12.10 1 1. 5 0 -32 .35" Employees 7 25 5 00 4 .60. 4 .50 4 30 4.00 Vehicles Available for Mari'n u m Service 38. 00 49. 00 43. 00 43.00 43.00 43.00 13.16% V eh;cles Qperalod in M"""" u m SeM<:e 34.00 37 00 32. 00 32.00 32 00 30.00 11.16% . Spare Ratio 11.76% 32 43% 34 38% 34 38% 34 38% 43 33% 268.33% T olal Galono Consumed (000) 251 .90 278.86 260 .7 8 289 24 309 : 47 291'.44 -85 56%

PAGE 200

TABLE 111-12 Regional Transit S)stem (Ga inesville) Effectiveness MeaSUre$ EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehlcle'Miles PerCilplto 6 98 8 .81 7 .10 7 02 6 77 7 .74 10.96% SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pas.Mng&r.Trips P&r Capita 9.417 11.61 14. tS 13 .98 14.05 : 1 2 88 35.98% ... Passenger Trips. Per Revenue Mile 1.41 1 .43 2.01 2 .01 2.10 1 .6 8 19. 41% : Pasoenfl'l' Tf11>s Per 18.46 : 30.16 30.16 31.08 :; 33.92 : 83 72% .. QUAL ITY O F SERVICE Avarag'o Speed ; 1 3 :11 16.55 14. 97 14. 97 14.80 .. 20.17 ;; 53.86% Aven19e Age of Fleet (In yea") 6.70 1.19 2.19 3 1 9 4.19 5 .10 23.86% Numtier ot : : 47 .00 30.00 as.oo ss.oo 30.00 28.00 : Revenue Service Interruptions 1 079 .0 0 1,646 00 941. 00 747 .0 0 845 00 759.00 -29.W.4 : eeiween: 26.18 so.39 37 .st 22. 77 40 i 7 8 . > i:so.as .. ":. 92 29% Revenue Miles Between tntenuptions (000) 1.14 0 92 1.36 1.71 1 45 1 .86 62 86% AVAILABILITY Re.ven ue Miles Pet RouttMile (000) 5 57 6 .84 4.78 4 .78 4 .58 5 28 : 5 .14% 17S

PAGE 201

EfFICIEHCY MEASURES COST EfflCIENCY Expense Pet Capita Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Oporatolg Exponoe_ Per Passeng11r Trl> Ope11ting Ex1)4!1nse Per Passenger Mile Operating ExpenM Pet Rewnue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour MIJneen.anoa Expense Per R8v.enue Mil6 Maintenance ExpenUI Pee Operating Exp. OPEAAllHG RAnos LocoiRewnve Pet Operaling Expense ... Pet OporatOig -IIBIIClE UTILIZAT10N Vehlclo Pe< Pook Vehiclo (000) Vehicle HOUtS Peak V el'lide (000) Revenue Miles Per Vehide Mies RIYtnue Miles Total Vehicles (000) RevenJJG HouJ'$ Per V8hides (000) LABOR PROOUCTIVITY Revenve HoutS Per Employee {000) Penengor Trips Per Employee (000) E "ERGY UTILIZATION Vehk:le Miles Per Galon FAAE Aver.ge Fare 176 TABLE 111-13 Rqiono l Tran sit System ( Gain esville) Effic:iatcy Masures 1111 1Nt 1990 1N1 $15.84 $17. 25 $15. 66 $18 .39 $85. 23 $87 06 $86.89 $84. 12 $1.67 $1.49 . > $1. 17 .. -$1.1-1 . . $0 .66 $0.65 $0.37 $0 .39 $2.36 $2.13 .... :. s2.23 ' $2.36 $30.88 $35 .26 $33.39 $35.35 $ 0 4 1 $0.38 ,$0. 3 7 $0.39 17 21% 17 .91% 16.63% 18.35% 33.71% 33.66% 35. 99% 4 0.70% 87.62% 91.99% 100.74% 100 00% 35.65% 35.86% 39.ll5% 4 2.92% 37,84 .48 40 .30 40.30 2 .85 2.83 2.85 2 .85 ue 0 92 0 99 0 99 32.38 30.85 29 .66 29.68 2 47 1.86 1 98 1 98 1.28 1.28 1.20 1.20 23.57 30.42 36.19 5 07 5 .90 4 59 4.4 6 $0.515 $0 .50 $0 0 $0.48 1992 1993 ll 1NI $16.85 $17.48 10.20 % .. $96.31 $107.09 25 65% $ 1 .2q $1.36 ) . 95% .. .. ,. ..... .. $0-40 $0.45 -31 67% $2.52 $2.2&" . .. ' ., -3 22% $37. 2 8 $45.98 48. 90% $0.39 $0 ,35 .. 4 23% 15.49% 15. 26% 11.37% 43.48% 41 .l'Ol" 23.72% 100. 67% 89.86% 2.55% 44.98% 23. 10% i 38. 72 4 7 ;59 26 5 1 % 2 73 2 48 -13.00% 0 99 0.99 2 .63% . 28 4 5 32. 78 1 .24% 1 92 1 62 -34 .20% 1 .23 1 06 17.08% 38.2 4 35.91 52. 34% 39.16 672 .66% $0.S2 $0.57 0 2 7%

PAGE 202

GENERAL QUE STIONS 1 Were any fare changes made. during fiscal ye-,ar 1993? If so, please provide the previous farestructure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes we r e implemented. The basic fare increased from $0.50 to $0.75, an d the discounted half -fare increa se d fro m $0 .25 to $0 .35. Also, transfers, which had cost $0.10, became free 2 Were there any significant changes in service/service area during fiscal year 1993? All holiday service was discontinued 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help expl ain the perfonn ance of the transit system? See response to question #2. 177

PAGE 203

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA I. As shown in the !able, vehicle miles and revenue miles both increased significantly between 1992 and 1993, while vehicle hours and revenue hours decreased substantiaJiy during this time. These changes resulted in a 36 percent increase in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour). Please explain. Olrectly.Qpemod -<>ney was spent. H<>wever, RTS did not indicate what capital purchases were made in 1992. In FY 1993, capital expenses included improvement of the existing maintenance facility. and an environmental impact study and a needs study for building renovations. 3. Passenger fare revenue remained stable at approximately $1,339,900 in both 1992 and 1993 despite an eight percent decline in ridership ( 2,569,580 passenger trips in 1992; 2,370,200 !rips in 1993) during this time This resulted in an increase in average fure per passenger !rip from $0 .52 in 1992 to $ 0.57 in 1993. Is this the result of a fare-increase, or is there some other explanation? System Response: The increase in the average fate is a result <>fa fare increase (see also the response I<> question #I of the General Questions section) 4 Maintenanceempl<>yees deereased39 percent from 12.1 FTEs in 1 992 to 7.4 FTEs in 1993. Please explain the change in this employee category. System Response: According t<> RTS, the correct number <>f empl<>yee FTEs in the maintenancecategorysh<>uld be 11.5. Thus, the decline becomes insignificant. 5. The number of revenue service intemaptions (prcvi<>usly referred to as "roadcalls") decreased from 845 in 1992 to 759 in 1993. Is there any reason for this decline? System Response: The change is dte result of th.e reclassification of service interruptions. 178

PAGE 204

2.000 1,600 1.200 ... ... 0 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Figure IUCounty/Servke Area Population (000) 200 I ... --y: --I w i 160 ) -+! ,_..j ' 120 80 I i I .. 0 nM nn nu UtT """"tHO"" t9911HJ Figure 111-13 Performance I ndicators Figure 3,000 v 2.000 ......... 1,000 0 Figu re 111 Passenger Trips (000) r \ v 1-\ -/ -,'--, -.... 1M4 ttl.$'"" 1M1 ltU 19U 1990 1ttt 19U tttJ Vehk.le Miles and Revenue Miles Tota l Operating Expense Figure llf.tS Pasunger Fare Revenue (000) $900 i' / / f I i j I ' sc.ooo Tr= . ..-: -: -i Fi- --'-.., $1.500 $3,000 $1,200 $2,000 $600 .._.""i'..,(W: t I I I .I t-t-' $1,000 $300 $0 $0 ,,._ IMS IM61917 "" 1919 1990 lttl U92 l'ltl 1'*4 198S ttu 1tt7 lt .. '"' ltto Uti 1H2 ltU IM4 19SS 1916 IM7 "" IMt IMO lftl 1tt1 Itt) 80 60 .. 20 0 Figure IIH6 Total Employees I I l I IM4 t fi.S UU IH7 ""'"'tHO Ut1 ttJ! tttJ Figure 111-17 Vehfdes in Maximum Servke 50 l I I J I kf: t:'.O --I I .. 30 20 10 ___ .,_...wd I I 0 19U I,.S t916 IM7 l"th ''*' IMO U'tl 19 U 1991 179

PAGE 205

180 REG IONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM ( G AINESVILLE) 10 0 8.0 6.0 4.0 z.o o.o F igure 1111 8 V e hi cle M iles Per Capita ---rf 1M top&S ttl6 tttJ 1'11 1Jit 1t90 1tt1 UU Itt) 1 2.0 9.0 6.0 3 0 0 0 Effec.t i veness M e a s ures Figure 111 <(veroge Age of Reet ( y ears) \ Figu re 111-19 Passe nger Trips Per Revenue M ile l O 2.0 l ; I \ !1 I v 1.0 o o 19M ttaS 1M4 ttt1tt .. 1Ht IPP
PAGE 206

REGIONAL TRAN S IT SYSTEM ( GAINESVILLE) $20.00 516.00 $12.00 $8.00 $4.00 so.oo Figure Operating Exptnse Per (apita -. 1t&4 UIS ,,., Ut7 ttu 1919 1990 tnt tttltttl Figure Maintenance hP*nSe Per Revenue Mile so.so $0.40 _,-,-e L -;;;:: V -: -r $0.30 $0. 20 I $0.10 so.oo t-I tMol tM$ tM6 t t 11 ttle ''" tMO 1991 1 991 I"J 1,500 1,200 900 600 :100 0 Figure Revenu e Hours Per Empl oyee v '""' 1---19M 1915 19U 1't1 11" ltlt lttO 1tfl ltt1 1993 Efficiency Measures Figure 111 O perating Exp ense Per Passenger Trip 52.00 --"---,_.. N I 1 7 . -f-...,. .I/ ..., I -.. -I $1.60 suo so.eo I SOAO so.oo ,,.. ,,.s ''" 19$71,... ,,., 1990 ' tttt ,, 60% -r\ 20% 0% F igure 111117 Farebox Re
PAGE 207

RTSSUMMARY 182 A significant service change thal occurred in fiscal year 1993 was the discontinuation of all holiday service. The data indicate that while thenumber of vehicle and revenue miles increased significantly between 1992 and 1993, vehicle and revenue hours decreased substantially during Ibis time. Consequently, the average speed increased 36 percent from 14.80 mph in 1992 to 20.17 mph in 1993. RTS explained that vehicle and revenue miles increased as a result o f the addition of a bus on the campus of the University of Florida. In addition. a slight increase in charter service contributed to the increase in miles. However, vehi cle and revenue hours were both significantly reduced with the cancellation o f all holiday service in fiscal year 1993. Capital expense increased s ignificantly from $29 440 in 1992 to $134,690 in 1993. In ftS<;al year 1993, capi t al purchases by RTS included funds for the improvement of the existing maintenance facility, and an environmental impact study and a needs study for building renovations. Passenger fare revenue increased sligh tl y despite an eight percent decrease in the number of passenger trips (2,569,580 trips in 1992; 2,370,200 in 1993) during this time. This resulted in an increase in the average fare per passenger trip from $0.33 in 1992 to $0. 37 in 1993. This increase w a s a result of a fare increase that went into effect i n fiscal year 1993. The number of revenue service int erruptions (previous l y referred to as "roadcalls") declined from 845 in 1992 to 759 in 1993 as a result of the reclassifica tion of service interru.ptions in 1993.

PAGE 208

J EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Org an iza tional Structurt- East Volusia Tr ansit Authority was established by county ord inan ce an d is, therefore. a division of the county. Governing B ody and Composit ion .. VOTRAN is governed by the Volusia County Commissioners who all serve as members on the seven member Boa r d of Directors. The sevenmember Board includes five distriC t members and two at-large members. Service Area .. VOTRAN provides pubJic transportation services in eastern Volusia County. Modes .. VOTRAN concentrates its efforts on providing fixed-route motorbus services to the community. In addition, the syste m contracts for demand-response services. 183

PAGE 209

184 PERFORMAN C E I NDICATORS SeMc:e (000) : 5ervi08 Area Size (square miles) 198 8 346.30 nla TABLE 111-JI East Volu sia T r ansi t Authority P erformance Indicators 1989 I HO IHI 1992 1993 %Change 1988 370 7 1 I 376.70 I < 196 32 1.... _197.30 . 1.,:;;. nla n/a 132 .00 132.00 n/a n/a -" r. ; # :, 1: 2,149.42 2 787 32 <, '' '"'' < _,. "'( "' '" > > ./' ,.,., .,, ........ : I .. 2 ; 943.95 .. ,,., "5 a:o8% Passenger Miles (000) vefilc'". !-1ilo (000) ; Revenue Mies {000) (000) Reveftu e Hours (000) .. .-,. ,, Total Operating Expense (000) '.,. . .. : . ' TotU. O.,.raJing ExpenM (000 of 1984 $) .. : _ _,_,, Total Mtlintenanoe Expense (000) Total Maintenance EXpense (000 of 1984 $) ... !' > .......... ,., ....... Total Capb! Expense (000) Revenue (000) ,; i. . . Operating Revenu e (000) ,._ .. .: Re-wnue (000) Total Emptoyees . Tfaf!Sportali90 Mainlenanoe E mployees Empl0y6M Ve hicles Avaiab le for Maxi m u m &lrvie6 Vehk:tes'Operated in Ma_xlmum Servie;:e Spare Ratio Total Galo n s Consumed.(OOO) . 7,952 86 I 8 2 75.25 10, 303 84 10,505 .79 10, 588 .55 10,463.8a 31.57% 1.496.81 : ,. ,.,: ,..,, 1 391.48 1,403.5 8 1 ,40 2.4 1 1 430 .44 1,163.70 1 ,4 9 1 1 3 7.16% 107 26 106.68 _,. .. ... 103..79 110.14 D. 101.51 I 101.22 99 .64 107 86 109 16 5 .37% 253.00 256:at .. 257.oo '2s7:oo: d ; : 3 :o7: % 103 60 : .. 267. 2 0 $2 894.94 ,; $665. 1 0 ssso:2s' ... $59 94 .: $.2. 3 52 40 $1,041.03 $742.99 84.70 64. 7 0 16.00 4.00 34.00 27.00 25.93% 368.81 $1, 1 35.73 $ 780 .45 88.50 67. 50 16 .90 4 :10' 37 .00 28.00. 32. 14% .. 383.02 $1,215 16 $824.3 1 90 50 67.50 18.40 4.60 38.00 28.00 35.71% 401.3 0 $1,130.6 1 $1, 343.28 29.03% $847.26 $942.22 '< :26.81% 90.50 96. 10 13. 46% 67 .50 70.10 .. 8 .35%. .. 18 .40 1 9 40 21.25% 4 .60 6 60 37.00 37 00 8 .82% 34.00 34.09 25.93% 8 82% 8 82% -65 .97% 442 .46 451.93 24.16%

PAGE 210

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1 988 SERCICE SUPPt-Y T AB L E III -J2 East Vol usia Trans i t Authority Effecti,eness Measures 1989 1 990 199 1 1992 1993 I I I I I I I Vehicle Mile$ Pe< ::apb 4 32 4 .19 SERVICE CONSUMPTION 4.06 4 .29 Passenger Tfl:ls Per Capb' ," '-' 6 .21 7 .74 7.94 7 .97 15.41 16Jt6 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mie 1.54 1.99 2.10 2 10 2.07 2 18 :rr.,s Ho u r 20.75 27. 46 29.09 ',30 12 28.05 , 29 .?5 QUALITY OF SERVICE . .. Average SpeM (R. !!.IIlH.) 13.43 1 3.83 . 13. 86 14.36 13.57 ;._.,, ,. 13 .68 Av<>11ge AQe of Fleet (in ye.,.) 6 .70 7 67 7 85 6 95 7 94 8 .95 . "'' Number of lncicSents "' ';.;-... 4 2 00 49.00 28 00 55.00 ; l i . ,._ ". 24.00 4 .00 Revenue 5ervice Interruptions 331. 00 371.00 465 0 0 340 00 287 .00 274 .00 Revenue Miles -BetWeen lnC'oident& '(000) . . . ... 33:13 .. 28.64 '50.09 26.01 ,; so.99 ,., 3i2.78. Revenue Miles Between t nlerruplions (000} 4 20 3 78 3.02 4.21 5 10 5 44 AVAILABiliTY .,,,' ,._. . t;tevenoe Miles Mile (000) ,_..,, ; t 5.21 5 : 55 .. 5 .46' I 5 57 .. 5.70 5 .41 %Change 1 988 185. 18% 40. 99% 43. 38% ' 1.70% 33 58% -9o.48% 22% .. 1025.19% 29 45% > 3.97% ISS

PAGE 211

EFFICIENCY M EASURES 19U COST EFFICIENCY expen;., Pat $8.36 < Opera ting Expense Per Peal< V eh;cJe (000) $107 .22 ., ... ... Qpe-> -,. "--Ope-rating Expens.e Per Revenu e Hour $ 2 7 94 . ) Per Rewlnue Mile ,: $ 0.48 ... _,. .. .. .. .,. ,_,. Maintenance Expense Per Operatng Exp. 22.97% OPERATING RATIOS . '" ,' Farebox < .. . ... local Revenue Per Operatng Expense 81.26% ,.. -' ,, :,-: )<'.-- "'' 9Pefatl!'lg Rev&n!J! /a5.9s% . "' .. VEHICLE UTiliZATION Vot>icle MilOs Per Peali (OOO> ;:.\ .. .. : $6.44 > <> . ., .. v Vehide: Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) 3 .9 7 ... lt' )<' '-' -.:-,_ .. Reven ue Mues.Pec.Ve-hicle Miles. ,_. -. 0 .93 _, -:'-. ,. A' . Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) 4 0 .93 Revenue Hours Per Total (000) 3 .05 LABOR PROOUCTNITY Revenue HoutS Per (000) 1 .22 . .-. ' .. Pa..enger Trips Per (000 ) 25.38 ENERGY UTILJZA TION Vehide Miles Per Gallon ,_ .. 4 06 FARE Average $0.35 186 TABLE Jll-JJ East Volusia Tradsir Authority Efficiency Measures 1989 1990 1991 $8.6 2 .$9.88 ,, ( . $110.87 $134 72 $109.49 $ 1:11 $1.2 i'. $1 ..21t ;oy '< "<' $0.38 $0.37 $0.35 .., $2 69 _ :$2, 60 (.t; )'_( .;,;.;:.'>' .. $30.58 $37 .27 $37.36 . < . .a, ... $0 7jl ." .:' _, 21. 92% 28.2 9 % 31. 89% '" 25.14% > "> ,,.., 60 58% 76.25% 71. 18% _.., I ; ,t 30.3'7-%. :( 53,9:4;> ... ..... 5p4, 47 .48 ,. 3 8 1 3.60 3 .05 .. .. 0.89 : 0.93 ;< .. '0 . 93. .. .. ,_, 37.93 36.91 38.66 2 74 ... 2.66 2.69 .. 1.15 1 12 .. 1.10 31.50 32.53 33.17 3.94 3 75 3.65 $0.28 $0.28 1992 1993 1981-1 3 $J9. 2 l ; . ;. $20.115 '. 1311.85%: l . ,_ ... _,.,_ $111.26 $116.35 8 52% . -> ,. ') ,.-_""."' :j :., $..1:.25 y. :"\( . ,_._.,.,. -.<-.-. ..,-,._,,._ 'h -M "-"' $0.36 $0.38 3.86% '. ' -;. ,. .. I' ...... ... $2.58 > .. ... M-M; ,-, _,,.{ ..... ,. w $35.07 $36.24 29 69% < . . 29.60% 30.22% 31.53% 22.28% : ,_ .. ". .. ,.,., ..... . "''i -7 20% "') ... ". ,, ;{';jt-., ""'< ;, --1;-';it's, .,. -73. 42% 77.68% HO% !'. P<,---"i "''' : { -, ' .. i -< . '> '<'. -->"; ;-> <> "''" ;< ,>AG'.33 :... eo \6.<13% . ....... H ,.-< ,-V< '> 3 2 4 3.35 15 .57 % . o:94 . s. k_ l > o . "' '<> 95 .. . ._; ;; :. ;,.,., ..... 1 :83% .-....... .., 39.56 40,30 53% 2 92 2 95 -3.17% ,. . 1.15 ; -;; 1.14 ,-;, -7.13% ;; 'v .. 32.36 33. 79 33.16% M5:; .,.__ ., -. : 3 44 .. :-: . $0.29 .. 1 6 .06%

PAGE 212

GENERAL QUEST IONS l. Were any fare clumges made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please provide the previous fare suucturc as well .. the updated fare structure and indicote when the changes were implemented. Full Far< Reduced/Half Fare Regular Monthly Pass Reduced Monthly Pass IO Ride Pass One Way Trip Token Prior to 1011192 $0.60 $0.30 $24.00 $12.00 $5.40 $0.54 2. Were there any significant changes in service/service area during fiscal ye-ar 1993? None. Effeqjyc 10/l/92 $0.75 $0.35 $26 00 $13 00 $6. 70 $0. 67 3 Have then: been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit sys tem ? Then: wen: no significant changes or events in fiscal year 1993. However effeaiveOctober I, 1993, the county council approved VOTRAN's fiscal year 1994 budget, whicbcxpandedtlleservicearellcountywide. On 'November I 1993, VOTRAN was named the Community TranspcrtationCoordinator (CTC) ofVolusia County Additionally, on July 3, 1994, VOTRAN took over the Coun cil on Aging Transponation Service. Any effms of these changes will be reflected in fiscal y
PAGE 213

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA 1. The reported service areasize decreased nearly 50 perce nt from 257 square miles in 1992 to 132 square mile s in 1993. Is there an explanation for this decline? System Response: In fiscal year 1992, the service area size should have been reponed as 132 square miles. 2. As evidenced in the table below, the number of passenger trips increased between 1992 and 1993, w hile passenger miles declined slightly during this time. This resulted in a decrease in average trip length. Is there an explanation for these changes? Directly.Oponoted FY 1992 FY 1993 %Chongo Passetl90r TripS 3,025,300 3 247,410 7.3% "-Se is due to more passengers traveling shorter distances. 3. Please explain the increase in capital expense from $183,530 in 1992 to $1,097,230 in 1993. What capital purchases were made in 1992? I n 1993? System Response: In fiscal year 1992, there were no major capital expenses In 1993, tile new Transfer P l aza was constructed. 4. Passenger fare revenue increased almost 12 percent from $842,810 in 1992 to $942,220 in 1993. Is Ill is solely a result of the increase in ridership mentioned previously. or is there another explanation? System Response: The fare increase, discussed previously i n questi o n #I of the General Questions section, also contributed to this increase. 5. Total loca l revenue increased II percent from $2,777,340 in 1992 to $3,073,090 in 1993. Approximately one half of this increase was due to an increase in operating revenue ($1,207,840 in 1992; $1, 343,280 in 1993). Please explain the increase in local revenue. System Response: According to VOTRAN, the remaining inc.rease in lo<:al revenue is due to a local match o n capital used for the Transfer Plaza. 6 Admini strative employees increased20 percent from 5 5 FTEs i n 1992 to 6.6 FTEs in 1993. Please exp l a i n the increase in this employee category S ystem Response: The increase in the administrative employee category is due to added positions for the Transfer Plaza. 188

PAGE 214

7. The number of incidents decreased significantly from 24 i n 1992 to 4 in 1993. Given the-unpredic-tability of t h ese events, are there any possible reasons for t his decline? System Response: VOTRAN attributes th e d ecline to a change in the reporting methods. 189

PAGE 215

190 3,000 1.600 1 ,:100 100 ... 0 EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY f'tgure Ul-11 County/Senrice Alu Populotion (000) ... lOCI 200 100 0 ,,.. 1tiS ttM t9171tet1,., '"" '"' 1tN '"' Vehide Miles .nd Revenue M iles "'000 -nooo nooo --------........ .... UillCif $1,000 -------so Performance lod.itaton Figure IIIJ4 Total Operating ExJM!.U. I --CI!Iolo ... 1-..... o._,._ ... ..,.. S) -j_J.j_ j jj 4.000 ),000 3,000 1.000 1 -0 f igure Po-Trips ( 000) / tNt tMS 11M ttiJ ttM '"' ,,. tm tMQ: 1ft) I -I S1,000 -5200 so Figure 111-JS PauongM Fare Ro,.nue (000) 1114 ,,. ,,., .. ,.,., ,,.,. ,,.. tft2 ,,, ... ,,., "" 1911 ,..,,., ,,. ttt1 19N 1ft) .. ttn 1M6 tNJ tMI 1tn 1tJ01"1 1H2: tnJ Ftgure IIIJ6 Total fmploy.,.s :UJ I I El I 10 I I I I I I I 1 1 <0l I I I I I I I I I :101 I I I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I I I '"" l.S ,. ,., ,,.. ''" ,.,. '"' 1th ''" V ehides In Maximum S.rvke 40 ---I - )0 :10 _......,...., ..... 10 .................. I I I -0 ,,.. un tt111* ,., tiM '"' U'N ,,.,

PAGE 216

EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY a.o 6.0 ... 2 0 o.o F i gur a llhJ I M iiH Pe< -1 -l ---1--I--'"" tJlS t H 6 "111t M U U tMO ' ttU tUJ 1 0 0 1. 0 6.0 .. o 2.0 0.0 Effe ctive n ess Mean res Flgui'O Pus.nger Trips Per Revenue M iSe l.5 2.0 I"'-I / r s r o 0.5 --0 0 -1--1M4 ttl$ t t U tttl t m t't., 1 990 U9t t t U t H J F igure IIIJ10 Average Ago of Flott (yeors) -/ "" ;I" I 1914 1 91S "" 1M1 ttM Ult ttto t .. t t"J IHJ F l g u,.. l ll lr2 Revenu e Ml'" Between Ac.dde nts/lnddents: R e v enue Miles Between Interrupt ions 400 ,000 s.ooo :100.000 4,000 ..... .... 1 / 200 .000 2,000 t_L L_ --100 .000 0 -0 '"" ttl$ '"' ttolf tMa tMI "" 19tt tttl t M l '* t M S ttH 1 911 ttu "'" ftfO ttt1 1tt2 ttt) 191

PAGE 217

192 $2'5.00 $20.00 5 1'5.00 510.00 5 5-00 50 .00 Figure 111-JU Operating Expense ,... C:.phJo J II [ 1-IH4 I N S ltll 1M7 IHI tNt ttM '"' ltU IHJ Figure Mli lntenance ExJHtnH Per Revenue M ilit 5t.OO 50.00 50.00 ..... 50.AO 50.20 50 00 ... INS '"' tH1 lt*' ltM ,,_ tttt IHJ UU Figure Rov .... e Holtrs ,._. Employee 1,$00 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 200 1o: 1 K H==i I H m H I I I I I I I I I I I I I lOO I I I I I I I I 1-J o I I I I I I I 1 -1-1 I N-4 1M$ '"" t H 1 l tt ltM ' lttl ItO E A S T VOLU S I A TRANSIT AUTHORI TY Efficie ncy Meas ures Figure UJ..J14 Operating EXpense-Per PatHnge:t Trip S l.!O 5 1.20 1'-,. suo 50.00 50.:10 50 .00 1---ltM INS IMI 1H7 IHI Ult ttto tttl 1 H 2 IHJ -:to" 1-lOll "" Figure III-J17 FarHox R.covery R.itio -IIU ttiJ ttla IN11tlt ttn ,,.,. ltt1 IH.t Itt) 40-:10.000 ,. :to,OOO ,. 10,000 0 F'ogvre Pa._.,Trips Per E111Ployee I . / -I -1 .... I M J ltM 11'17 .. ,_., 1-"0 I M I lttl I") Figu"' 111-JIS Openting Exptnse Per Rev.nue Mile Sl.OO $2.00 [ I LDJ1 5UIO 50.00 ... IMI ttM 1117 till tMt ltM '"' 1Hl IHJ Figu"' 111111 Vohide Ma.s ,._. ...... Vthido oo.ooo 40,000 20,000 0 ,,... ''" ...... .. .... ... ,.,. lttl lttl 19t.l Figure III-Jl1 Awr.,.Fare 50AOT ,-.-o-,r-r-r-,-lll!l 50 .:Jotzl I I l 50.:tol I I 1-l I I I I I 50.1o I l I l I I I I I l 50.ool I I I I I I I I I ... lt&$1 ... t '"' '"' '"'

PAGE 218

VOTRAN SUMMARY The daUl indic:atethat the numbcr ofpass<"'crlrips inc reased more than seven percent betwe
PAGE 219

K ESCAMB I A COUNTY AREA TRANS I T SYSTEM PROFIL E Orea o i zaliona l S t nset urtEscambia County Area Transit is a department of the county government. Governi n g Body aqd Comp95i tion -ECAT is governed by the Board of County Commi ssioners which is comprised of five members wbo are elected by district in staggered two-year terms. S
PAGE 220

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1988 Se.W. M O POp i Jiation (000) 282.50 Setwb Nu Size (squo,. milts) nla p....,fiSIOr (000) 1 0<9.91 P"MfiSIOt Miles (000) 4 784 .28 Vehicle Mlleo (000) I 920.48 Revenue Miles (000) 901 10 Vohkte Hou" (000) 62.88 Revenue HOUI'$ (000) 8t .t2 Routo -Tolll Operrilg ElopenM (000) $ 2 159 .52 Tolll Oporrilg E>openoe (000 o/1984 $ ) $ 1,8&1.05 Total Expense (000) $814. 17 Toll! Mo intenltn<>e ExpenM (000 011984 $) $535.8 3 Total Capita l Expe n .. (000) $530 .37 Tolll local ROYenuo (000) $1 .602.98 ()pog R...,nue (000) $904 .37 PI-Foro Rovenuo (000) $517.99 Totll Employees 55.80 Trtnaportatlon Employees 35.50 Mtfttenance EIJ1)1oyees 1 8 10 Mmlnl$b'atlve Employees Vehicles Avaiable for Maxi'num Service 2500 Vehiclss Operaled in Ma.Rnum Se.rvioe 1 8 .00 Spore Ra6o 36.89% Tolll Gllons Consumed (000) 251 .02 TABLE 111-KI County System Performanet I ndicators 18H litO 1991 285.42 282.80 265.12 nla nla nil 1,073.06 1 112 .98 1 ,112.98 5,184 .96 5,318.90 5,316 .86 931 .83 919.06 908.18 900. 3 1 !i95.63 83.15 60.95 59.70 61 .97 80.08 58.83 1 50.90 150.90 150.90 $2,559.76 $ 2.718.58 52. 921!.94 $2.141.67 $ 2,185 .37 $2,206 9 5 $805 14 189 4 .50 $93M2 $873.64 $712.48 $701.14 $574.28 $390.69 $187.74 $1.379;58 $1,541.60 $1 ,665.95 $575.75 $714 .27 $604.89 $522.90 $851 71 $861 .79 54. 4 0 58.20 56.20 34.80 38. 10 35.00 15.60 17.50 16.60 4 .00 4 .60 4 .60 25.00 25.00 27.00 18 .00 18 .00 18.00 36.89% 36. -50.00% 25022 251 .90 256.25 1992 1993 1988-19 3 200.00 225.00 .35% 42.00 4 2 .00 nla 1 ,118,60 U80.87 20.09% 5,342.42 6,139 .48 28.33% 968.49 1,105.53 20.b8% 959.32 1 ,078.35 ,9 .67% 68.85 76. 19 2121% 65. 71 75.32 22.6 2 % 237.70 244.70 64.34% S3.291!.83 $ 3.293 .80 52.52% $2,38128 $2,306 .30 22 . U% $968.36 $ 796 .96 29.76% $899.01 . $558.0 3 4.14% $508.99 $ 2,264 .90 327.04% $ 1 ,828.98 $1,927.98 2028% sn2.89 $734.118 .73% $606.05 $821 .85 20.05% 61 .00 63. 10 13.4 9 % 41 .50 44.00 23.94% 15 .50 14 .60 -9. 32% 400 4 .50 12.50% 27.00 30.00 20.00% 21.00 25.00 38 .89% 28. 57% 280.17 2 4 3 2 8 -3.08 % 195

PAGE 221

196 EfFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUP PI. Y Vel\iele Miles Per C.plla SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pas!'!ngil< Tr\>1' Per Coi>ili: r Passenger Per Revenue Mile PasseOg!t Tf'C). s QUALITY OF SER\IlC '-;; -. .. <' seeo'! !R.!"!Rctl:l .. : Average Age of Flee t ( i n years) 1 1. : ,;:_ l.;:(: Revenue Service Interruption$ Rovenll 1 24 I 1.24 18 .53 . 18.92 .17.09 ' 14,67 .. 12.60 17.32 14.66 "-i l4.99 :.1 ; ; 15.28 14.60 1 5.60 f 183. 00 13.60 29.00 .I < 198.00 .......... "'"' ' '!.; .. .-.:,.->(, ; ..... t . -.. "'' <;.1 4 .60 .... ) 4 .32'$,' .-2.41"' ,;,. II"' .,._' <."" ; 16 .60 11.40 9.52% <'" "<. . y A f;10.00 1' 'O.>J;:.-,_.79,71%,. ...,, ... ........ 4. ...... : .... ',. .,, "' 99.00 60.00 -67.21% t - 95 .9:t,., p.;;; q, ><77-.02:* t,"":.tll9 . 80% ... . . 9 .69 17.97 284.99% "' .. . 6.05 6.02 L_:_2_ .. 1_1 1

PAGE 222

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating E)cpense Per Capita Ooertllng ExponN Per Pt .. Vehicle (000) Qoeraling Exponoo Per PasMo9er T"' Qoeraling e.po n,. Per Posoeoger MJo Opetating EXpense Per Re-venue Mie Operating Expen.se Per Revenue Hour Mlfntenat\01 Per Mit Maintenance Expense Per Opetating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Recovery t:' Local F\tivenve Per Operating Expense Opetatlng Per Opertling Expense VEHICLE UTILIZA TlON veruc. M ilot Per Pea Vohlc:lt (000) veruc. Hours Per Peok Vellic:le (000) R...,.nue Mkt Per Vel'lic:lt Miles Revenue Mifes Vel'! ides (000} Revenue Hourt Per Total Vehicles (000) l.AI!OR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hourt Per Employee (000) Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTiliZATION Vehlc:le M l01 Per Gollon FARE Average Fa,. TABLE 111-KJ E scambia County Tnnsi t System Efficiency Measures 1911 1989 199il $7.64 $8.97 $10,:).4 $11U7 $142.2 1 $151.03 $ 2.06 $2.39 $2.44 $0.-45 $0A9 $0. 51 $2AO $2.62 $3.()2 $35. 18 $4 1 .31 $4$,25 $0.68 $0.89 $0.09 28. 44% 3U5% 32. 90% 23.99% 20.43% 23. 97% 7 4 23% 53. 90% 56. 71% 01.88% 22.49% 28. 27% 51 14 51.77 51.06 3A9 3.51 3.39 0,98 0.91 0 .98 36.04 36.33 36. 01 2 .. 46 2.48 2 .40 1 10 1 .1<4 1.03 1B.BB 19.73 19 .12 3 .67 3.72 3.65 SO All S0.51l 1991 199% 1993 %Cham 1988-19 3 $1 1.05 $16.49 $14.64 91 .50% $162.72 $157.09 $131.75 9.62% $2.63 $2.95 $2. 61 27.01% $0.55 $0,62 $0.54 18.86% $3.26 13M $3.06 %1A$% $49.79 $50,20 $43.73 %4.36% $1.04 SI.OI $0.74 8.43% 31.77% 29. 35% 24.20% -14 .92% 22.59% 18.37% 1U8% 2 1.29% 56.86% 55. 38% 58.53% 21.14% 23. 43% 22.31% .. 6 .72% 50.64 48. 12 44.21 13.54% 3 .32 3. 18 3 .05 -12.13% 0 ,96 0.99 0 .96 -0-3-4% 33.28 35. 53 35 .94 -ll.27% 2.18 2 .43 2.51 2 19% 1 .05 1.08 1 19 8 .05% 19 .80 18.34 19 .96 5.82% 3.57 3 .72 4.54 23.90% $0.59 $0.54 $0.49 -ll .04% 197

PAGE 223

GENERAL QUESTIONS I Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indica t e when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2 Were there any significant changes in service/service area during fiscal year 1993? Rout e 18, which is the Blue Angel Express Urban Corridor (express service between northeast Pensacola and Pensacola Naval Air Station) was implemented. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit system? 198 Passengers have adjusted to the new rou tes (imp l emented in FY 1992), new buses, and the new transfer center which opened in fiseal year 1992. In addition, an aggressive marketing effort was Wldertaken.

PAGE 224

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA I. The number of passenger trips and passenger miles as well as the number of vehicle miles, vehicle hours. revenue miles, and revenue hours all inc.reased significantly betw een 1992 and 1993 as shown in the table below. Please explain these changes. Di rectly .Openotod Moloft>us FY 1992 FY 1993 %Chongo P.ssenger Trip$ 1.11 8 600 1,2 60.870 12.7% Passenger Miles 5 342,420 6 .139, 480 14 9% Vehicle Mile'S 968,490 1.105 330 14. 1% Revenue Miles 959,320 1 078 350 t2 4% vehicle Hours 66.850 76.190 14.0% Revenue Hours 66.710 75.320 14.6% System Response: The increase in ridership is attributable to the adjustment of passengers to new routes and buses. and the new transfer center. Also, marketing efforts were increased. Vehicle and revenu e miles and hours increased with the addition of the Route 18 Blue Angel Express U rban Corridor (see also the response to question #3 of t he General Questions section) 2. Despi te the sign i ficant increase in service noted in t he table above t o ta l opera t ing expense actually decreased s l ightly from $3,298,830 in 1992 to $3,293,800 in 1993. Please explain how these coot savings were achieved. System Response: Thedecrease in t otal operating expense was realized through favorable rates on Workers' Compensation and reduced maintenance costs associated with lbe 12 new replacement buses. 3 Maintenance expense decreased nearl y 18 percent from $968 ,360 in 1992 t o $796,960 in 1993. Please explain this decline System Response: The decline was due to the 12 new replacement buses, which were discussed previou sly in question #2. 4 P l ease explain the incre ase i n capital expense from $508,990 in 1992 to $2,264,900 in 1993. In 1992 ECAT purchased 1 2 O r i on coac he s. What capital purchases were made in 1993? System Response: The 12 Orion replacement coaches were actually purchased in fiscal year 1993. 199

PAGE 225

5 The number of vehicles available (27 in 1992; 30 in 1993) and vehicles operated in maximum service (21 in 1992; 25 in 1993) increased significantly between 1992 a n d 1993 resulting in a 30 percent decline in the spare ratio. In addition, the average age of the vehicle fleet decreased 31 percent from 16.6 years in 1992 to 11.4 years in 1993. Please explain the chan ges that have oocurred in the v ehicle inventory. System Response: The 12 replacement buses were put into service and the fleet was increased to handle the new peak vehicle requirement with the addition of Route 18 (which utilizes three buses) The 12 new buses decreased the average age of the fleet. 6. Total gallons consumed decreased from 260,170 gallons in 1992 to 243,280 gallons in 1993 despite the significant increase in seN i ce discussed previous ly. This Jed to a 22 percent increase in vehicle miles per gallon (3.7 mpg in 1992; 4.5 mpg in 1993) during th i s time Please exp lain this increase in fuel economy. System Response: The new Orion coaches are much more fuel efficient than the 1981 RTS models that they replaced. The RTS buses averaged 3.3 miles per gallon, while the Orions average 5.2 miles per gallon. 7. The number of incidents increased from 10 in 1992 to 14 i n 1993. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for this increase? System Response: ECAT could not provide an explanation for the increase, but indicated that although the increase amounts to nearly SO percent, four additional incidents is not very significant. 8 The number of revenue service intenuptions (previ ously referred to as "roadcalls")decreasedsignificantly from 99 in 1992 to 60 in 1993. Is there an explanation for this decline? System Response: This decrease resuhed from the 12 new replacement buses discussed previously (see the response to question #2). 200

PAGE 226

1,200 ... 600 300 0 ESCAMBIA COUNTY ARE TRANSIT Figure IU-K1 County/Service Area Popula1ion (000) 300 :-----__,_ __ --200 ---c-----I 100 I I 0 ,,., tH$ ttU UtJ 1NI tttt ttto Uti tttltJtl F igure 111-1<3 Vehide M ite s attd Rev enu e M iles SA.OOO l 1--_I r I I $3,000 S 2.000 $1,000 so Performanc::e lndiutors F igure 111-K 4 Total Operating Expense -/6_ ;:= r -v ... f- ., ... / 1.500 1,200 ... 600 300 0 FiguN! IIIK2 Passenger Trips (000) ,-,--. -' . -19U 1915 19U Ue? 1911 1 M t 1MO 1991 1 992 19U S800 -$600 SAoo S200 so F i gure ln K S Passenger Far e Revenue (000) -...... .... \. v --19 ... 19tS 19U 19t71Mt: tHt 1HO 1"1 tm THJ '"' lt$5 '"' 19t7 l9U 1919 1990 "" 1HZ 199l 1 9$4 IUS 1M4 1987 1911 1tl9 1990 1 1 lttl UU 110 60 60 20 0 ---Figure IIIK6 Total EmpJoyees ---------__ L_ ..;... -1H4 I"S 19U 1N7 t9U 1919 19H 19ft 19U ttfJ 30 20 10 0 Figure IIIK7 Vehicles ln M a Kimum Service .-1 -. -} I 19M 1,.S "" 1917 t t8l ttn Uto tttl tttl 19tJ 201

PAGE 227

2 0 2 ESCAMBIA CO UNTY AREA TRANSIT s.o 4.0 3.0 2 0 1.0 0. 0 Figure Vehicle Milti hr Copita I L u-. tns "" ''" " '"" "" ,,.,. '"' 20. 0 1 6.0 12.0 EfftctivtDess Measures Figure iii-K9 Po._ Trips ,..,. Revenue M i le 2.0 1.2 I 0 8 G.4 0.0 --ltM 1 MS IH6 1N1 INa "It ttto IHI 1"2 tttJ Figureiii-K10 Average Ago oiFIHt (years) \ :-.... v a.o 4 0 o o ltM INS tiM IN11Mt IMt 1-IHt 1 H 2 1tf) Figure III-K11 Revenue Milts Between A cddents/lncldtnts Revenue Milts Bttw .. n ln tlr'Nptlons 100,000 10.000 -..ooo ....... lO.OOO \ '-1 / 1 / ,I I 0 lO,OOO 16,000 12,000 1.000 j 1 / If I 0 '"" un ttiM ,,., ,.., ,,.. ' t m J .... ''liM, .. , ... .. .. ' , ""

PAGE 228

S20 00 S16.00 $12 00 $8.00 $4.00 so.oo Figure IIIK13 Ol)*ratlng Expense Per capita -I ..... ...... . -L ..... I t9M 191 5 Ita& Ttf7 IMl ttn IHO 1 991 1 992 199) Figur e IIJ.K16 M aintenance Expense Per Revenu e MUe $1.20 ,; """ v '\ j_ -$0.90 $0 .60 $0.30 so.oo 1M4 1,.5 ,,_. Ttt7 "" 1Mt 1990 1tt1 1M2 1,) 1.200 900 600 300 0 Figure Revenue Hours Per Employee 0/f I I R !"n 1P4 INS 1H6 1tl7 ,,_ ltU tHO 1ft1 1"2 ttt.J ESCAMBIA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Efficiency Measu res Figure IIH
PAGE 229

ECAT SUMMARY 204 It is evident from the data that ridel$hi p (in terms of passenger trips and passenger miles) ;u well ;u the numbu of vehicle miles, reveoue miles, vehicle hours. and n:venue hours all increased bctweeo 1992 and 1993. ECA T anributed the inere;ue in ride !$hip to the adjustment of passengers to new routes and buses, the new uansfer center. and incre;ued marketing. Vehicle and revenue miles ;u well;u vehicle and revenue bows increased with the implementation of the Route 18 Blue Angel Express Urban Corridor Despit e the increase in service, total operat ing expense actually declined sligh tly from $3,298,830 in 1992 to $3,293, 800 i n 1993. The cost savings were anained through favorable workers compen salion ra tes and reduced maintenance expense s due to 1 2 new replaceme nt buses Capi tal expense increased significantly from $508,990 in 1992 t o $2,264,900 in 1993. In fiseal year 1993, ECAT purchased 12 new Orion r eplace m en t coaches. The number of vehicles available increased by three from 27 in 1992 to 30 in 1993. while the number o f vehicles operated in maximum service increased by four veh icles from 21 in 1992 to 25 in 1993. This resu lted in a 30 percent decrease in th e s par e ratio. The change s in the vehicle inventory we re due to the 12 new replacement buses being put into service as well u an increase in the fleet t o handle the new peak vehi cle requirement with the addition of Route 18. The total gallons COO$U!Ded decre;ued between 1992 and 1993 despite the increase in service. This resulted in a 22 percent increase in the vehicle miles per galloo (3.7 mpg in 1992; 4.5 mpg in 1993). This increase in fuel ecooomyw;u due to the fact that the new Orioo coacbeshave been much more fuel etTocient than the 1981 RTS models they reploccd The tout number of revenue service interruptions (previou s ly referred to as "roadcalls")d eclined sig nificantly from 99 in 1992 to 60 in 1993. This was the result of the 12 new Orion replacemenr buses.

PAGE 230

L. LEE COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTE M PROFIL E Organizational Structure-Lee Cou nt y Transit is an ind ependent division of the Lee County Government. Gpvernine Body nd Composition LeeTran is governed by the Let County Board of Coun t y Commissioners, a fivemembe r public policy body mponsible for overseeing an of Lee County government operations Service .. LeeTran provides public transportation services to Lee County. Modes .. LecTran operates fixcdrout c motorbus services and contractually provick s for se.asonal fixed-route motorbu.'l service and all handicapped transportation 20S

PAGE 231

206 P ER FORMANC E INDICATORS Service Area Populatiot1 (o'oo) SeNiee Area Site (squa. r e miles) .T._,s (QOO) 'i ,. Passenger Miles (000) Ve)lic\0 Milot : (000)'' .,._.. . Reve nue M iles (000) l(ehlcle Hours (OOO) Revenue (000) j'loute Miles > ., *-' '0->. '"\ll-' F.,. .... TOial Operating Expense (000) Total Mai n tenance Expe n se (000) ....... '""''''\<;, .,, .. Total Maintenance (000 of 1984 S) ;, $; ''"'_, . <> .... ,,. ___ ... ....... TOial Capitol Expense (000) <9o) Oper ating Reven u e (000) PaiSMQe' Fare ReVenue (Qoo) Total Efl"'l)loyees ' > Tronsportation Operating fnl>loyees ; ... Maintenance Empl oyees 'Adtnit\iitralivG / :' : .. VehiCles Available for Maximum Sefvlce Vehicles Ope. $743 .93 $568 .75 $328 .65 .. ). , $649 .03 $475.88 ; .$261.n ........ -' ' ..... $t59.7 1 $2 333.37 $1; 438 .oi. . ; $1; 670 .95 <> < $447 .98 $513.06 $876 75 $441.89 $493 9 4 $543.94 56 00 68.00 61.30 56. 00 41.60 10.00 11.00 13. 70 5 .00 1.00 ,. 6.00 29 00 33 00 37 .00 22 .00' 25 00 22.00 3t.82% 32.00% 68. t8% 216 ,4t 255 . t2 295.9t 1191 I 1992 I 1993 %Cham 1988-1 9 3 344 .03 33t.34 . . 1<4.08%'' nla t89.00 t89. 00 nla f.352:'W' -vv. . < N-'f( ':-" 88 .12 90 .89 88.13 0 46% 368.20 ( 368 .20 !';. .o6%" . . $3 t27.88 $3, 106 .95 $3 122.94 35 84% s2.2 .. 2 .i .. . i:-186.66:), 9.o3% ..._.,' > ...... ,.,. . <.>. .-,o;v<<--<><" >; $669 34 $780.11 4 86% -ij."'" 'f ,_, {. .'\'< .j:; ?4:$'.;iY".'' !'; s $459.72"' Ali"' :,1546.23 ...... ,,..._ ,. .-; .;.,,_ ... _._.,..... '"' $26.50 $95.49 $43 69 -72.6>1% $2 .i28 68 I ;$i,33oAi-: $l!Jao:80 > 1;: ,, <-> -. A> ..-. , ........ ' '" -<' $728 .30 $705.31 57 .44% . . $567.49 $60<1. 68 311.84% 6ol.t0 63 .6 0 67. 50 I t6. 38% ,'47 .9o' l ,, 49 .90:: '.:s2.no : >' 20.1ll% t0.50 5 70 36.00 24.00 50. 00% 334 ,t6 11.00 1t.50 2 70
PAGE 232

T ABLE III L2 Lee Coun t y Trans i t Purchased Mot orbus Performance Indicators PERFORMA N C E INDICATORS SeM:e Areo POP .$o.oo $0.00 so:oo $0 00 : so.oo 0.00 0 .00 0 00 0 00 0 .00 0.00 nlo 0 .00 $0.00 so.oo F $0.00 $0.00 0 .00 0.0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 00 n/a 0 00 1990 3 3 5 1 1 n/a 226.8 2 nla 83. 38 82.85 -.7 .17 7 13 13.00 $195 98 $151 42 nla nra n/8 "'' nla nla nlo n/a n/ a 'nJa 4 00 4.00 0 00% nla 1991 344 03 n la 0 00 0 00 o .oo 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 : $0 00 $0 .00 so.oo' $0 .0 0 $0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 00 0 00 nla 0 00 1992 331 .34 189.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 0.00 1 993 350 .81 1 89 00 0.00 0 00 o.Oo 0 .00 o.oo, ,;,, 'o.Oo" 0 00 0 .00 . 0 .00 0.00 % Cha"!i'> 1990-1993 -4. 68% nla _. n/a nla nla n/a nla n/o -n/8 $0.00 SO.OO n / a S0 .09 .. So.Oo j>n/a $0.00 $0 .00 n/a so.oiH '' ,_ ..,;; :": ;nta ... ,., ,._-,,,. $0 .00 $0.00 $0 .00 $0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 $0.00 -', <' $0 00 ., .. '>">'-' $0.00 . . 0.00 0 .00 0 00 o.oo I :: '-o .oo 0 00 I o .oo 0 .00 : 0 .00 nla n/a 0 00 0 .00 ; n/a r\tJ: n/a n/a n/a nla nla n1a n/e n/a n/a n/a 207

PAGE 233

PERFORMANCE I NDICA TORS s..-Anla Population (000) Service Area Slle (square mileS) PatNngtH' Trip$ (000) > : f_ p .. ,.ngr Miles (000) Vehicle (000) ,.,._ ,.,.,{ '*''<\) '_( y M ilel (000) Vahlcle Ho""' (000) .. .( Revenue Houra (000) ROUIO Milos T0411 ()po,.ting "-"M (000) T0411 ()porating .,_ ... (000 ol19t4 S ) T0411 f:q>eMO {000) TOIOI MalniOfiiiiQ .,_..._{000 ol1984 $) Tolal Copbl Elcpense (000) TOial {000) Oporotlng Re .. nue (OOO) PatM('IQit Fare Re...enue (000) ToiJI Employe e s Tflnaportltion Matntemnoe Employees Mmlnlltra!Ne . VehlciOa. Available for Maxi'num Service Vohl
PAGE 234

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Miles Par CaP.it3 . SERV IC E CONSUMPTION T"' P-er Pa.sseoger Trips Per Revenue Mile (''.,,;., *_., ........ ,, QUALITY OF SERVICE .. v; AYOtagO Speed (R.M;R. H ) AYQf3ge Age of Fleet (in yellrs) ,;. .. ,, .. '<' NumbM of lncideMa,,..,, <. ''"""' .. .,.,' Revenue Se-IVIce Interruptions Revenue Mikts Between Interruptions (000 } AVAJLABIUTY "... ' ,,..,. ,,. ' Min' Per ,ile (000) .. _,.,. .. TABLE 111-L4 Lee. County Transit Directly Operated Motorbus EffedivtnHs Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 3.42 3 .70 3.79 4.24 . 3.46 ; > 3 70 .. 3.94 3.93 : 1.14 1 00 1.11 1 .01 12 .95: ,''' ... ... 15.91 : 15. 35 .. .. 15.97 .. .... 11.32 17.87 6 8 0 9 .00 4 59 5 .42 ,_, ,: .... ao.oo 31.00 . 18.00 . 17.00 .. ; "' ;> 418. 00 304 .00 2 1 8.00 168.00 . 66.01 ._,. : 78.73 '..> 33. 1 2 . 36.35 . ... ., . . . 2 38 3.71 5 .45 7.97 .. .. . . 2 :10' 2 .39 2.59 ,;. 3 84 .. 1192 1993 19811-1 3 4.54 4 76 39.05% ;.,; . _., < .... 99 ..y 1 02 1.13 -1 54% 15,97 A I" i : 1 9 94 ::' s3 .22. % 15,61 .. 17.62 i 6.42 7.42 9.12% I ' -20 00% . 21.00 . '"2400 ''' _,, 3.85 - ;' <:i < >. > ;< { 4. 2 95.m 209

PAGE 235

210 TABLE 111-LS Lee Coun t y Transi t Purch.ased Motorbus Effective n ess Measu res EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 19811 19110 199 1 1992 1993 SERVIC E SUPPLY Vehicle Mile$ Capita n/a nla 0 25 n/a n/a / < nJa ; L nla SERIIICE CONSUMPTlON ; t .' --;j,$..>- ;;: ' ... :>__.-;. ; /'" .{ _. 'f"' > '-i' .. PaSMCtger T,.,.Per nita "' .. :-" n/a nla __ '; 0$8 (.;-'< i-' :. nfa .. ;.; .. <' rva %"'"" < .... ..., "' '. . < } ' . .., . "'' -' ."-.h.> Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile nla nta 2.74 n/a n /a nla nla , ,-,_{ ,__ ", __ , , ,-I,.,_ -,.. .-... ,, --. } ,, -''>" , ... -' nta .rva 3 1.e3 ,nl a nta t. n/a,. i\fa QUALITY OF SERVICE -< "'- _, ,,,,..., ""''--. '> .. . .., Average Speed (R.MJR.n. ) ,_ nt a n/a 1-1. 62 vnla ,._, n/e .. r ,_, nla .; : ft/1 ,. ' ... ' ,-'( .. ' Average Age of Flefl (in years) n/' n/a nla nJa n/a nla n/a ' > .-. ;< < ' ,_ >' ... ,;. Nu:rnbef of lnc:idenb ) . n/a nit . nla , . nla nla , nla ,._;:-;.,,....,. f\/1 / ' ' ; /A, _, '' .. v. >' N Revenue SeNice Interruptions nJa nla nla nla nta nta n/a . :. n/a . .; : .'"nt a "',,-nitla. '.y"' .pa ' '' _.,._ ... "' ,, ...... ' ..... Revenue Miles Between Interruption$ (000) nla nla rva nla nta n1a nil AVAI1.A81LITY ''' ........ ""' .... Miles per Route (000)' nJa ... nta .., 8 37 v nta: ".t ''<'rv:> :_:,.;. n/1 ,. Y nla

PAGE 236

E FFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle ,Miles Pe r 9t.Pita S E RVICE CONSUMPTIO N Pa ... nger Per Capb ; _,_ ,_, Passenger Trips Per Revenu e M.ile \: ,_. -{ QUALITY OF SERVICE . . <.,.. '' >;. ' (R ,M.IR H .) . .., ... AI;Je o f Fleet (in yers) ...,.,. -" *'H< . .., 't Number of l nc:i:ISntl i >< > .;.. -.,. ; ... Re'lfl nue 5ervk:.e lntetruption.s Re.Je'RU8 Miei &etween ... ir\c:ki&nta (000) . '-. Revenue Miles Between lntetruptions (000) AV AilABI LITY "' .... . ,. .. ,-.-' Relie. n ue M iles Per Route Milo (000) . T AB L E 111-L 6 Lee Count y Tran.sit System Total Etrtc-liventss Measu m 1988 19811 1990 1 991 :1.42. 3 .70 4 .03 4 .24 .. 3 .70 3 .e, 4.62 3 .93. 1 14 1 .00 1.2 2 1 0 1 1as. 1 5 :91 '20.80-. . 14:74 . ; 11,32 1 5 .97 17.09 .. sr 6.8 0 9.00 n/a 5 .4 2 ,., 30.00' . 31 .00 : o/ a 17.00 418 .00 304.00 nla 168.00 ,, -.. . ''""""' 33:12 38,35: ,,'# '. : > _-, ,, 2.38 3 ,71 n la 7.97 2 10 ,._ .-;. <_ 2.39' 2.70 :3.64 1992 19i3 % Cha':ie 1988-1 3 54 .. <' 4.76 39.05% . ;. 4;38 . ' 9 4 .99 34 :92% -> u<. 1.02 1.13 .54% >.1 5 : 97 '"" _, "'-. -i: ,, ;; 19 84 .: -'''f'< i-63:22,% 'fi; 15 '61 .").{ 7 ,62 '"' ss e:i% < .,.. 6 .42 7 .42 9 .12% . : 21.00 ""'' ,., < > .. ,._ (,' ,,;,40 00%'' .. 163 .00 97.00 -76. 79% ,. _, '< ., ._., .. '._ ., ' 6-4 \Y. ... '95.42% ov ""->. *" .. _____ ,' ,, 8 .71 16.01 573 .68% .;,i': 3.'85' ; . 9$.57% 211

PAGE 237

212 EfFIC IENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Qpera,ting Expen$0 Per C apita .... ... ,. Operatin g Expense Pe r Peak Ve hicle (000) ,.; >. :, Operatin g Expense Per Passeng er Mile . ''" ., . ' .,..,-. )"' Operatin g Expense Per Revenue Hour .. Mairtdnance ExP.eniePer Revenue Mile: .... : ,, ,, .. .. Maintenance Expense Per Operatin g Exp. OPERATING RATIOS ._ 'l '"''' . _.,. . ... ,.,.- '<->:' P.J VEH IC L E UTDJZATION ,. '>' \I/OIIIde Mile< "-rPeai Tota l VefliCIH (000) . LABOR P R OOUCTMTY . . "' HoUfS Pet En'(!lp)'M (090 ) . P assen ge-r Trips Ptr EmplOyee ( 000 ) EN E RGY UTI L IZAT I O N Velllde Per GaliOn F ARE Avetage Fare TABLE 111-L7 Lee County Transit D ire<:lly-Op< r a ted Moto rbus E ffic i ency Measures 1988 1919 1990 $7.48 .. $8.62 < $9.35 > --$ 1 04.50 $111 87 $14 2 4 0 $2 c 4 9 j .. : .. ;Z:;.;$2.37 "'-' > $2.02 < .... $0 53 $0.40 $0.31 1991 199 2 $9.38 $9. 09 $130 33 $ 124 .28 ', ;; '$d1; .. ',:(t >. "' < ""' ., __ ,.. $0. 35 $0.34 1993 % Change 1988-1$93 ... $8. 90 19.0 7 % ... ">,_,_ ."" .,., .... $120.11 14.95% -rh ;. __ .,.,.y, $0. 33 -37 52% ::s2.l1-' I : '*' .ta ,._,.._, ' ,. .. .. ...... ':/$2.64.-_)_ #"> '" - 'r .. '>W_-;>+'v , ,..,,, , $2 .34 >i r $ 2 ; 1 8 .. .o :,.;.. ;.;, _,_,....,.-. lo;', "/ J'I,_._ $26.20 s,,< ,. $0.75 32. 38% '< '' 19.22% < ::.-. > 62 55% (. : """"<''t "' i ;}. \ '-'4 7 ,82" .... -: "' 4 1 0 0.94 34. 26 3.03 1 .51 I 1 9 5 9 4.86 I so.39 I $39.63 $(), 50 ; 2 0. 34% $46 59 ,, $().28 _,.,_ 1 0 .49% $35 50 $34 1 8 $35.43 352 2% "' > ,,; .VHl<>' , .; :''"' <, $0. 50 $0.4 5 : 'tf""L "".50< i-'-32.gz% . -?>-.-... "'!V" . w. ,.,_.,, '< 2UO% 20. 50% 24 .98% 81% ,,, 1,\ ... ... .,,,., .. ,... ' ,, 1S. 35% 1 :-;.:; ':ii28% 1 J-;2:1_.47"': 1 t;, :5e;;., .. ' o/ """' . ,., .. _ 1\1 .f . ... "'! """ t_, .. > ' .. .,. ., 48 02 : *:>'67 .66 >k<< f419 . y. -.... 'i' $li>'J:'_-_{,, ; _,,; .... < 2.96 3 .21 3 82 3 79 3 6 1 -12 03% .. '> 0 .94 0 94 0.92 _,O.D,o4 .. 0.93 ... 1.45% ... ._,._ ' 34. 14 32.11 37 .18 39.42 43 1 5 25.94% .. -19.07%-, 2 .14 1.82 2 .45 2 52 ., i : ; . ' .. 1 .()4 1 .10 1 37 1.43 : > 16.51 21.53 2 1.10 2 2.83 25 .91 3 2 26% :i33l' 4 .71 4 .29 4 38 4 68 ' $0 I $0 .41 I $0 : 4 5 I :. $0 ,3 9 > :jS $0. -11. 10% .:

PAGE 238

El'fTClEMCY MEASURES COS T EFF1CIENCY Operat i ng Expense Per capita Operating ExJ)ense Per Peak V ehide {000) &rMse Per Passellger Tft; 0perJting Eltpense Per Passenger Mile ; .. Expense P8r RevenUe Mlle . Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour MU&1enanee Expense Per Revenue M ile . Maintenance Expen5e Per Operating Exp. O P ERATING RATIOS F..-xRecoYery Loeal R evenue Per ()pef"l.ting Expens,e ()pelating Revenue Poor Opetaling Elq>oMo VEHIClE UTLIZA TIOH Vehido Mios Pet "-11< Veht:lt (000) V e hicle Hours Per J>.e:alt Vehicle (000) ReYenue M-.es Pe:r Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Pe-r Total Vehicles ( 000 ) R ... nuo Hou1$' Por TC>QI Vehicles (000 ) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hoors Per Etr4>10V!HI (000} Paue;; ] l! r Trips Per Emp loyee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION V ehicle Miles. Per Ga.llon FARE A_ F ... TABLE lii-L8 Lee County Tranrlt P urchased M o t orbus Effidtnty Musur a 19 U 1989 1 !1t0 1191 ni a nia s o sa ni a "" $48.19 nil nla SO.IM> n/a n/a n/a n/a nJa. $2 .37 n/a nla $ 27 .50 n/a nla n/a nlo n/a n/1 nla n/a nil ni a nia nta nia n/a n/1 rtJa nil 20,8 5 nl a n/ a 1.79 nla n/0 0 .99 n / a n / a 20. 7 1 n/1 n/a 1.7 8 'nla nla n / a n/a n / a n/ a n / a nta nit nla n/a nla 1992 1993 1190-19 3 ni l n / a n/a ni a n /a n / a n / a ni a nil nil i ;;(Ill nil n/a n/a n /a nil "'' ,,. n/a . n /a nil n/a n/a n/a nil . n/a nti', nia nil nlo n/a n/a ni l n/ a nla n/a "'" ni a n/a .,. nil ni a n/ a n/a n/0 rJa ni a n/a nit nil n/a nil nla nl a nla, n/a n/ 1 nil n/a n/a ni l nla n/a nla n/a n/1 n/a n/a n11 n/a nla n11 nl1 n/ 1 n1a nil nil "!.!.. nil nlo n/1 ---------! 2 1 3

PAGE 239

214 TABLE 111-L9 Lee Couoty Transit System Total Efficie ncy Measures EF1'1CIENCY MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 992 1993 COST EFFICIENCY Operating xpe nse Per COfliCa' ,$H8 $8.82 $9 .93 $9 09 $9. 38 $8 .90 19 07% - "" Operating xpe nse Per Peak VehiCle (000 ) $104 50 $111. 87 $ 1 28.03 $ 130. 33 $ 12<.28 $12 0 .11 14.95% /"<...; '-<-x.. , > .,.,... ( > ... "''-"'*'t _,.,., '<<-. ' ... .. $2 . 15 : Operating xpense Per Pa ... nger M i le $0 53 $0AO nla $0 .3 5 $0 34 $0 .33 52% ', '' '' n-j-HN.Y J ,_ ,., .. -..,., >' A ,_, ;-; >0. '' ' - '< ""1>'W,_,,. -"--"-. >'' ,Qperating Per $2.31: .C8: : *. t 1 $2.34 ; - $2 19"' f" ; /.> v w )I" ... '><,. , >.."" ' o '' '' _,. i ._,.:...., >-ff, h ;;, "' ->;'/ W ' .. Operating u..,nse P e r Revenue Kour $26 20 $39 63 $44 .7 6 $34 .0 8 $34.18 $35 .43 35.22% .. ,.,., .. ... -' __ ,--/>.' Elq>on'! f'!r f!!venue Mile : ': 0 : 75 $0.50 "" n/a "f9..50. $0.45 :t ' -32.92% Maintenance f)q>ense Per Ope rating Exp. 32 36% 2 0 .34% n/a 21. 40% 20. 50% 24 98% OPERATING RATIOS ., ":>': / ,., ,...,. __ ,.. " ., ., FaretiOX .. ;.t, 19.22% 17.66% nla ;19 .55% "''. 18.27% :19:36%' -.. 0 7 3%"' 1 . 1y,., ,.,_. '" .. < '> .t; ... < )f..,,-"),.,.,* )ii,-. >.,._ . v;-, w - "-''" Local Revenue Per Operating Expense 62 .55% 59.59% n/a 77 64% 75 01% 69. 83% 11.64% "' .::4 9.49% : .. :'" 1 i , *;; VEHICLE UTILIZATION "''' . ,.. . ''( .. ,., ' ........ ,, Miles 48.02 "' 52 .00 < 60,11. Vehicle Per Peak Vehicle (000) 4. 1 0 2.96 2 .99 4 .38 3 79 3 61 12.03% < '_, > Revenue Miles Per Vehicle '-'ilet 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0 92 0 94 ,<..;0.93 .45'% < .-v _., Revenue Miles Per TOial Vehicles (000) 34 ,2 6 34 14 31.00 37.18 3gA2 43 .15 25.94% ... . . .. 3 .03. 2.1<4 1 .81 2,55 2 52 L_ .. LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Reven uefioursPer EmployH(ooo ) :, ... 1.-51 Ul4 ,, nJa 1 28 . 1.43 :; /L':1 .3f' 1"-. ". 13 .68% . ,.... ,. < .... <: -. ...... ., . < Pa$$e1lger T fe>s Per EmPloY"" (000) 19. 59 16.51 n/a 18 .81 22 63 25.91 3226% ENERGY UTILIZATIOH Vehicle M iles Per GaUon' 4.86 U1 n/a 4.36 4.86 4 97 2 33% FARE v> Fare .:.__ : ... $0 .44 .... __ rt_ a __ $0 _.39 ___ 1.:_1:;_, 1 .9%" '-"'

PAGE 240

GENEAAL QUESTIONS I. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so. please provi
PAGE 241

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECfiON 15 DATA I. The number of passengenrips increased at a significantly greater rate from 1992 to 1993 than did the number of passenger miles (see table below). This resulted in a decrease in average trip l ength. Is there an explanation for these changes? 01.-y.()pemod lilotos 1,451,670 1 748,920 20 5% Pa-Miles 9 182,610 3 4% Average Tf1> Length 6 33 miles 5 43 miles -14.1% System Response: In April 1992, the trolley service on Fort Myers Beach became a free tare zone, causing a sharp increase i n ridership. Since this occurred half-way through FY 1992, and FY 1993 had the entire year of the free tare zone, a large difference resulted between the two years. Passenger mile data was derived using farebox revenue as described in FTA CircuJ ar2710.4A. Since the increase in passenger trips was mainly due to the free fare zone, fare revenue did not inc-rease in proportion to the increase in trips. This caused a decline in the average trip length; howeve r the free fare zone only covers a conidor thus producing trips considerably shorter than the rest of the system. 2. As indicated in the table on the next page, the number of vehicle miles and revenue miles increased significantly, whiJe the number of vehicle bows and revenue hours both decreased slightly. A result of these occurrences was an inereasc in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour} between 1 992 and 1993. Please explain thes e changes 216 Dl.-y-Opor.rtod llotO
PAGE 242

3. Maintenance expense increased more than 22 percent from $636,860 in 1992 to $?80,110 in 1993. Please explain. System Response: This increase is largely attributable to increases in maintenance labor and fringe benefits. An additional factor is the high cost of maintaining the older fleet of 19?9 buses. 4. Total capital expense decreased 54 percent from $95 490 in 1992 to $43,690 in 1993. In 1992, more than 80 percent of capital expen ses was for the purchase of a new maintenance fleet computer system. What capital purchases were made in 1993? System Response: In fY 1993. capital purchases included shop equipmenr. a staff car, and initial work for the renovation of the fueling system. 5. Despitcthe significant increase in ridership discussed previously passenger fare revenue increased a modest seven percent ($56?,490 in 1992; $604,680 in 1993) between 1992 and 1993. This re. sulted in a 12 percent decline in the aver a ge fare per passengertrip from $0.39 in 1992 to $0.35 in 1993. Please explain. System Response: As discussed previously in question i.'l, the moderate increase in fares (when compared to the large increase in ridership) is due to the implementation of the free fare zone on Fort Myers Beach. 6. The number of adminiwative employees increased48 percent from 2 7 FTEs in 1992to 4.0 FTEs in 1993. Please expla in the increase in this employee category. System Response: For the entire FY 1993 period, the administrative staff was increased by two employees, while thedirector position was filled for one-half of the fiscal year. 7. The number of incidents increased from 21 in 1992 to 24 in 1993. Given the unpredictability of theseevents, are there any possible reasons for this increase? System Response: Lee-Tran noted the unpredictability of such events, and suggested that there may be some correlation between the increase in boardings (and/or the increase in miles traveled.) and the number of incidents. 8 The number of revenue service interruptions (previously referred to as "roadcalls") decreased significantly from 163 in 1992 to 9? in 1993. Is there an explanation for this decline? System Response: This reduction is attributable to an increased preventive maintenance program and less need to utilize the older fleet of 1979 buses (which are more likely to be involved in a service intem.lption). 217

PAGE 243

21 8 l.OOO ..... 1 100 ... ... 0 LEE CO UNTY TRANSIT Figure 1 114.1 County / Service Area P opula t ion (000) H i l 1 1 200 1 I I I I I I I I 100 I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I Perrorm aace lndicaton l.OOO 1 ,600 1,200 800 ..,. 0 '-fig
PAGE 244

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT 5.0 4.0 3.0 2 0 1.0 0 0 Flgurelll-1.8 Ve-hi
PAGE 245

220 S10.00 $&.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2 .00 $0.00 fig\Jre IIH.U Operoting Ex-Pe< Capito v / -ttl' IMS 1116 Ual IMI ttt tttO ttlt 1tl1 Itt) fig\Jro 111-1.16 M arntenance Expense Per rt.venu Mit. $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 / \ / .... 'V $0.20 ( N) ) so.oo -ltM IJIJ tM4 tHliMI tMt tttO 1tl11ttl ttl) 1.000 uoo 100 ... 0 Revenue Hours Ptr Employee A 1/ ........ / I'. ( ...,. : ........... ... I M i ttM 1 M J 1JN "" tHO ' 1tfl '"' LEE CO UNTY TRANSIT Effic:ieDcy Measures figure 1114.14 Operating E>cpenM Per l'a$$e"9et Trip Sl.OO u.oo $1 .00 $0.00 .... tfll ltll ltl7 IMI 1Mt 1tt0 IM1ttl2 ttl) lS" -IS" 10l4 S" ( Ol4 fiiUr 111-1.17 Farebo x Recovery Ratio J I ............ -) 1H4 IllS 1111 1N7 1Mt ,,., tHO till lltl 111J 20.000 10,000 0 figure Passtngtt Trips Per Employee / I I' ;' ( . ... ) .... t M S 1M4 1 M), .. ""' 1,. .,, 1\Mil till figure 111.15 ()porotin9 Per Rewnue Mile $3.00 $1.00 ..... I'--/ $ 1.00 --------------so.oo UM 1MJ ttt4 IN?"" ltn 1990 '"' lttl tttJ Figure 111-l 18 Vohlde Pe< I'Nk Vohi
PAGE 246

LEETRAN SUMMARY A significant event during fiscal year 1993 that may have affected LeeTran"s perfom1ance was that for a period p rior to FY 1993 and including the first si x months of fY 1993, LeeTran operated without a Director. In addition. the Lee County Government was implementing a major reorganization plan. The data indicate that t he number of passcngertrips increased at a signifi ca ntly greater rate between 199 2 and 1993 t han did passenger miles. This led to a decline in the average trip length from 6 .33 miles in 1992 to 5.43 miles in 1993. LeeTran explained tha t in April 1 992, the trolley service on Fort Myers Beach became a free fare :rone, resulting in a distinct ridership i ncrease S ince this occurred mid-way through FY 1992, and FY 1993 had the entire year of the free fare zone, a large difference resulted between the two years. In addition, since the increase in passenger trips was primarily due to the free fare zone, fare revenue did not increase proportionately t o the increase in t.rips. Therefore: since passenger mile data is derived using fareboxrevenue, this caused a decrease in the average trip leng t h (also, the free fiuc zone only covers a seven-mile corridor and thus generates trips that are considerably shor1cr than the rest of the system). Between 1992 and 1 993, the number of vehicle miles and revenue miles increased significantly while the number ofvehicleand revenue h ours both decreased slightly A result of this was an in average speed from 15.61 mph in 1992 to 17. 6 2 mph in 1993. According to LeeTran, the increase in vehicle and revenue miles was due to an added route in Cape Coral and increased service on U.S. 4 1 Vehicle and revenue hours were reduced through increased overall route efficiencies as well as the reduction o f trolley service hours on Fort Myers Beach (the Beach service area is heavily congested and expends hours at a greater rate than miles). Maintenance expense increased more than 22 percent ($636,860 in 1992; $ 780, 110 in 1993) ma i nly as a result of increases in maintenance labor and fringe benefits. Also the high c ost of maintaining the fleet of 1 979 buses was cited. Passenger fare revenue increased a modera te seven percent ($567 490 in 1992; $604 680 in 1993) despite the significant increase in r idership, resulting i n a 12 percent decline in the average fare per passengc. r trip between 1992 and l993 This decrease was due t o the implementation of the free fare 7.0ne on Fon Myers Beach. 221

PAGE 247

M. SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Organizational Strueture. Sarasota County Transportation Authority functionally operates as the-Transit Department of Sarasota County government. The transit system is infonnally known as the Sarasota County Area Transit bus system and uses the acronym "SCAT"' for marketing purposes. Governing Body aqd CompOsition-SCAT is governed by the Sarasota County Board ofCowtty Commissioners. which is comprised of five members representing districts and elected by district voting (starting in 1993). Servi
PAGE 248

PERFORMANCE IN DICATORS 1 988 SeMc:e Area P opuratlon (000) 257 70 Service Area Size (square miles) n/a PaMonger Trips (000) . 827.32 Pa ... nger Mle (000) 3, 1 24 .85 Vehi' ,; 888.05 . ; > / Rev e n u e Mies ( 000) 8 1 0 .38 ... .. "' Vehicle Hours (000) . 64.00 Revenue Hours (000) 60.16 < "1. ,._ ; '.'!}' 2 '53.2o ...... :""'' s ,., .,.,,,, ., . .. Tota l Ope rating Expe n se (000) $ 1 ,927.20 Tolal OPerating Exp0noe !000 of 19'64 $ ) .... . $1, 681 .36 Totl Maintenan ce Expense (000) $29 3.01 >< ;;--, _,. . .. Tolal Ma i ntenance ,J;xpenao (000 ol1964 $) $255.6 3 .. ., . ' ._')$1, 187 .04 d . :); . >. .. Operating Revenue (000) $423.03 _, .. "''<"' <' Passenger F&AI' Reve nue ( 000) ,: .. :. ' Total Employees 51.60 .... TranspOrtation OpetJting Employees 35.50 . ' . Ma intenance Employees 9.50 . ; """ Mmln.lslrative emp1orno 6.80 > Vehicle$ Avai1Jb1e fo.f Maximum SeNice 33.00 1\ M aximum Servloe 16.00 Spate Ratio t06.25% T olal Gallons COnwmecf (000) .. 171.71 T ABLE 111-M I Sarasola Co u nty Area Tran sit Performance I ndicators 198 9 1 9 90 263. 94 277.78 nla nla 903.48 1 o52 :41 3,694 77 ... 188. 61 1,047.08 1 090.81 964 .61 1,024.40 v-> 71.01 74.02 66.55 69. 79 1991 283 .14 nlo 1,199 .38 4 ,763. 91 1, 090 .35 1 024.93 74.67 70 .30 .. ,; : 2 88.50 . ,288.3 0 ... . $2,2 4 2 .76 $ 2, 5 1 8 .60 $2.5 7 0 1 9 $ 1,876 45 . $2, 006 .08 $340.54 $3 7 9 .61 $433.42 <; .. ,.. . $302 .36 > .... ; $326: 5 8 ",_. $19.59 $11 24 $2,229 .43 $ 1 ,346.53 $ 1 ,854 .36 $461. 4 1 $5 15 .50 $580 .0 5 .. . $442.88 "< . : :"' $499.00 $522 .23) 5 7 7 0 60 .30 60 1 0 41.30 42.50 4 1 .80 . 10. 00 11. 4 0 11.80 6 4? .. 6.40 6.10 35.00 3 7 .00 46 .00 1 9.00 1 9 00 . 19.00 .. 84. 2 1 % 94.74% 1 4 2 11% 20 4 .99 2 1 9.6$ 258.75 1 992 19U 1 988 19 3 227.47 230 .16 10 .69% 96. 20 96.20 n/a 1 258.56 ::1,31 7 .85 59.29%' 5 102 .69 5 119 98 63 .85% 1 109.99 1 119.66 26.o8% ..... 1 ,044.50 1 056 02 30.31% '. 75 .29 -' ; 76 .91 '"' 20.17% .. 71.06 73 00 21.30% '> -. > 293. 8 0.._, ,.>'h i \ :, .-4; t15:01. $' $2 743 .33 $2.896 .68 50.31% _,. $),980.28 .f < 20,63% $419.63 $440.22 50. 24% ' '$302'il1' .$$08 '. < ::t . . ... "<> / $30.92 $708 .55 136 2 .74% .. $1 .s:os .5a 6D.62% $603. 8 1 $625 98 4 7 .98% ,. $522 .83 9>;. : , :29.s"s% 60.10 62.5 0 21.1 2 % 42.10 .44.60 ,_ . 2 $.63% 11.20 11.30 1 8 95% 6 .80 ; :6.60 .. 0 00% 37.00 35.00 6 .06% .. 20.00 ;, '. 20.00 25. 00% .. 85.00% 7 5 00% -29.41% .. 275.91 277 8 2 61.00% 22 3

PAGE 249

224 EFFECnVE NESS M EASURES SERVICE SUPPlY M iln Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTlON _, ., p .... nger Tl1>f ,Per C.elta < Pau.enger Per Revenue Mile .,, V' ;--' Y Per Hour QUAI.nY OF S E RVICE ' ''<' ... (R.MJR H o ) "' '. < > (-, ' __ ',. > Average AQe of Fleet (in rearJ) ". '< ... ;' ,-.; .. :-U -,,,_ ... ... '>. .'<' ,. Revenu& Servioe Interruptions > 1 988 3.45 1 .02 13.75 .... ,..,-. -v-l009)' ; (, 3.20 TAB L E 111-M2 Saraso t a Cou n ty Area T r ansit Effectiveness Mt.asures 1989 1990 3 97 3 .93 1991 3 .85 ''< .. "/3, 42 ... _,. -., ... '< >. ' 3.79 ':, 0 94 1.03 1.16 ,_, { 13.58 15.08 1 6 .92 ;.. :'14.$0. . "'. -10.68 13. 46 10.70 < ,43,01) '-f' ' "' $ j .. Z1. 00 ;..., 28 .00'> ,_ ,, ... '' .... -> > ... . 727 .00 858 00 618 .00 <22.43 < '. ,48.7 8 '' '. 36.60 1 .33 1 19 1.66 3.34 . _., ,. 3 .55 3 .S6' 1992 4 88 . 1993 %Change 1988-1993 4-.86 ( 41.17% ">'':>, __,,, ... _,._ ...... y 5.53 "". ' -.;;;/"' 78.l\5% w > .} ...... .., ,..., , .. .,, 1..20 1.25 22.24% .,f ,11:11 t: r.r > > '> X 14.70 12. 30 __ t:-; e 7 ; I;'; C ' 7 3%: .. --::r. < y 11.60 23.40% . -'. ,. "'"'''..: ?ts.oo ':"';';',; --ki.::""'-'' 350.00 -32 30% 4 72 .. 00 116 .06 ,, 221 .. *.ta% ..W. ,_,.__,_ ... ' 3 02 92 .. 49% i < ;>-: l
PAGE 250

EFFICENCY MEASUIIE$ COST EFfiCIENCY Operating Expens.e P6r Capka Oper1ting Expense Per Peak Vtl'llctt (000) Operating Expense Per P11senger lrir> Operating Expense Per P&sMnger Mtle Operalk\9 ExptiMe Pit RMnue Mile Operatin9 Expense Per Rt\lenue Hour Maintenance Per Rltnu llAile Per Ewp OP'EAATING RATIOS local R....,ue Per Operoliog EJ 1 ,16 15 .66 17 45 5.H 4 .97 $0..49 $0.47 "" 11tl 1993 "a..M 11U-1 3 1908 $ 12 .59 81.29% 1135 27 $1:i ? $1 ... 83 20. 2 4 % $ 2 18 $2.18 $2 .20 $0. 64 $0. 64 $0.57 -a. 27% .. $ 2.51 $2.63 : $2.74 1 5 .34% $36.56 136 .60 $39.68 23. 9 1% $0,42 $0.40 $0.42 15 .2G% 18.86% 15 .30% 15.20% ..0. 0 4 % 20.32% 19 .06% 1U7% -13. 78% 72. 15% 70 .11% 65.82% 8.86% 22.67% 22.01% 21.61% .&5% 57.39 55.51:1 55.91 0 .88% 3 .93 3 76 J.e5 3 .87% 0 .94 0.94 0 .114 3 .38% 22.28 28.23 30. 17 22.87% 1 53 1 .92 2 .09 1 4 .37% 1 17 1.18 1.17 0 .14% 1 9 .79 20.94 21.09 31 51% U\ 02 G3 -2 2 .07% S0.-44 s o $0..41 18.&1% .. 225

PAGE 251

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please provide t he previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2. WeiC there any significant changes in service/service area during fiscal year 1993? None. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the petfonnance of the transit system? None. 226

PAGE 252

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECT ION IS DATA 1. The reported service area population increased from 247,280 i n 1992 to 290,600 in 1993 despite a stable servioe size of96. 2 square miles dur ing this time. Please explain. System Response : In FY 1991 and prior years. the population of the entire Sarasota County was reponed in the Section 15 statistics However, beginning in FY 1992, SCAT began to use the new definition o f (ADA) service area population that includes the population within three-fourths of a mile on each side of each fixed route. Utilizing 1990 Census data, this has been calculated as 79.2 percent of the entire county's population. Therefore, th e FY 1992 and 1993 servi c e area populations should be 227 465 and 230,157, respectively. 2. Total capital expense increased significantly from $30,920 in 1 992 10 $708,550 in 1993. What capital purchases were made in 1992? In 1 993? System Response: In fiscal year 1992, 1 S radios, two engines.. and miscellaneous small tools and equipment were purchased with capital funds. In fiScal year 1993, capital purchases included three radios. passenger benches, miscellaneous tools and equipmc.nt . two 2 8 -foot Champion buses. and three 35-foo t Orion I buses. 3. The number of vehicles available for maximum service decreased from 37 in 1992 to 35 in 1 993. In addition, the average age of the vehicle fleet decreased during this time (12 30 years in 1 992; 11.60 years in 1 993). Please explain any changes that have occurred in the vehicle inventory. System Response: Clwlges in the vehicle inventory consist of the addition of si< buS
PAGE 253

22& t.lOO !100 600 JOG 0 SARAS OTA COUNTY AREA TRAN SIT Figure lii-M1 County/S.rvl
PAGE 254

SARASOT A C OUN TY AREA TRANSIT s.o 4 0 ).0 .2.0 1.0 0.0 Vhidt Milti Por r---1 ----'* "u """" ''" ,,., ''" '"' tttl ,,, 1S. O 12.0 9.0 f.O EfTectiveMSS Measurts Figureiii-M10 Average of Fleet (years) !.-"' ..... 1 5 u 0.9 0 6 o.J o o Passenger Trips Per RevMUe M il& 1-"' __ - ... ltM n n "" ttl? ttta '"' tm '"' "n ,,J ).0 / 0.0 " IMS tM:i tM? 1tll 1N9 1fN tttt ttt.t tltJ Revenue Miles B etween Accktents/lndde nts figureiii-M12 Revenue Miles htwun Interru p tions 120 000 _..__,_ .. 4 000 --90,000 \ ),000 I v 00.000 )0,000 -I :-.... I I' l,OOO 1,000 0 -0 t t-N t'tJ Utl ltl11 ... lift,..,. ttt'l tMl 19U ... .. s ,,.. ,,., .. ,,., ,,. '"" t m. tttJ 229

PAGE 255

230 $15.00 $12.00 I I 59.00 $6.00 I I Sl.OO Figure 111-MU Per capita --I 50.00 ---' i 19 M IUS 1916 1M7 ttN 1989 IMO tttl 1992 ltU Figure III -M1 6 M a intenance Expense Per Revenue M ile 50.50 50.40 /._ I'. 50.30 i $0.20 50 .10 50 .00 -ttM 19U UH 191 7 till ltU 19M lttt tttltHJ 1,200 900 600 3ClO 0 Figure IUM19 Rev enue Pe r Employee ._,.. lt&4 lt&S ''" ltl7 ''" ,,., 19901ttl lttltttl SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Effitieney M easurtS Figure III-M14 Operating Expense Per Passenger T ri p S2.50 r--.,; _, / ,. S2.00 ..... Sl.50 I $ 1.00 50.50 so.oo It ltiS U16 1M7 IHI "" IHO tttl lttl IHJ -20% 10" 0% -' Flgureiii-M17 F arebox Recovery Ratio ""' -f-ttM 1'-S 1M' Ut) ,,., IPt 1190 I ttl l Z IHJ 25,000 20.000 15,000 o 1 0.000 N s.ooo "" 0 Figure III MlO Passenger Trips Pe r Emp loyee Ti. -r -. 1 191$4 tttS I M 1917 ,,.. 1919 1990 tttl tttl lttl Figure Operating Expense Per R evenue M ile Sl.OO S2.00 _,; $ 1.00 50.00 19M IMS I,_ IM'7 t91l ttu 1990 I Itt UU tttJ Figure III-M18 Vehi cle M iles P .. hak Vehicle 60 '000 I'OOl"1 1:= I I I I I' 4 40,ooo l I I I I I I I I I 20.oool I I I I I I I I I o .J-.-l--1 1 9 M UIS 1116 ltl7 1Nitttt IMO tttl lttl Itt) $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 50. 00 Figure III-M 2 1 Average Far e 1/ l 1M4 INS IM5 tMl' Ita tMt I MO tttt tJ l9tJ

PAGE 256

SCAT (SARASOTA) SUMM ARY Starting in FY 1 992. SCAT began using the new definition of service area population that includes the population within three-fourths of a mile on each side of each fixed route. Accordi n g to 1990 Census data this has been calculated as 79.2 of the population of Sarasota County. Therefore, SCAT's service area population figures for FY 1992 and FY 1 993 were updated to 227,465 a n d 230,157, respectively Capital expense increased significan tly from $30,920 in 1992 to $708,550 in 1993. In fiscal year 1993, capi tal purchase s included three radios passenger benches, miscellaneous tools and equipment two 28-foot Champion buses, and three 35 -foot Orion I buses The number of vehicles available for maximum service decreased from 37 in 1 992 to 35 in 1993. Additionally, the a v erage age of the vehicle declined during th.is time (12. 30 years in 1992; 11.60 years in 1993) I n fiscal year 1993, SCAT added six buses to the flee t and re t ired eight Code BB 1982 buses, for a net of two vehicles. The six buses that were added include three Code BB 1993 buses, one Code BC 1991 bus, and two Code BC 1993 buses The number of incidents from nine in 1992 to 20 in 1993. SCAT noted t hat, in retrospect, FY 1992 was a very good y ear from a safety perspective The 20 reported incidents in 1993 were still be low levels from 1 990 (21 incid e nts) and 1991 (28 incidents), and represent sta t istical improvements given the additional passengers carTied in 1993. The number of revenue serviceintetruptions (previously referred t o as "roadcalls") declined from 472 in 1992 to 350 in 1993. SCAT attributed this decrease to the introduction of the newer coaches to the fleet and the retirement of the 1982 S killcraft Transmaster coaches. Improvements in SCAT's maintenance program were also believed to have been a factor in the decline. 231

PAGE 257

N. LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT SYSTEM PROFILE Orepnl28tional Structure Lakeland Area Mass Transit District is an independent authority (special taXing district). Governing Body and Composition LAMTD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors comprised of three City Council member s and two County Commissioners. Service Ar'"' LAMTD serves the Lalceland urbanized area. Modes Services provided by LAMTD include fixed-route motort>us services and demand-response services. LAMTD also contracts out for vanpool services. 232

PAGE 258

F'ERFORIIIAHCE INDICA TORS 5e rvk6 Alea Popufallon (000) 5ervk6 Alea Size ( sq uare mie s) I'Msenger Trip$ (000 ) Puoenger Mile$ (000) Vehicle Mile$ (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehk:lo Hours (000) ,; Revenue Hours (000) R..mMies. T ot s l OpeIen anee Expense (000) T olal Mainlei.ance Expense (ooo ol 1984 S ) Total Capbl xpente (000) T otal l oeal R...,ue (000 ) Operating Rewnue (000) Passenger Fare Revenue ( 000 ) Total Employees Transportation Operating Empbyees Maintenance EmpiQyeei Adrrinblnlllvo Ve-hicles Av,i lable for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Servloe Spare Ratio Total Gallon Consumed {000) TABLE Tri-N1 Lakeland A...,. Mass Tran si t D is t rict PtrJ or-man l ndit:at o n 1111 1 91$ 1990 1HI .. 00. 4 0 4 10 .86 4 0S .38 4 1 4 .70 nl a n/a nla nla 4 5 2 .08 512 .68 703. 8 9 7 8 2 .48 2 ,435 .42 2,691.54 3 ,315. 1 1 3.685A 8 662 .79 744.63 847. 2 9 886.9 2 659 .90 741.47 842.5 3 680.5 8 39.97 44.49 49.2 3 52.54 3 9 .72 44.11 4 8 .79 5 1 .82 126 .00 126.00 1 5 2.00 152 .00 $ 881 .97 $1 ,349.00 $ 1 ,404.22 $1,373 .57 $ 769.48 $1 128 .66 $ 1 118,48 $ 1,034.11 $192.66 $238.04 $167.25 $220. 17 S l88.ll8 $ 199.16 $ 133.21 $ 165 .90 $ 2 .08 $292.55 $2,266.78 S ll7 4 .07 $92 5 .97 $ 1.250.22 $1 ,A9$.54 $ 1 542 .153 $42 1 0 5 $371.67 $820.11 $881 54 $201.52 $255.24 $31 0 .84 $298.61 27.10 31 .00 32.70 33.90 2 1.30 23.80 2 6 2 0 27.40 4 ,00 5 .40 5 .30 5.30 1 .80 1.80 1.20 1.20 14 .00 14.00 19 .00 19.00 1 3 .00 13.00 1 5.00 1 $.00 7 6 9% 7.69% 26. 67% 28.67% 13 6 .94 152.97 18 1 81 194.o7 1992 1113 1tl8-1t 11 0 .00 110.0 0 -72 .63% 90.00 90.00 nla 860.84 981 91 117 2 0 % 3 .977.85 4,351 0 2 78.68% 696.59 896 0 2 3 5 19'4 883.99 883.41 33. 8 7% 54.50 52.53 3 1.4 3 % 51.88 5 1.91 3 0 .70% 152.00 152.00 20.153% : $1 ,464.56 $1,474.88 17. 22% $1, 0 5 7.19 $1 ,032 .69 34. 21% $328.50 $225. 7 8 $237.13 $ 158 .09 85% $46.06 $ 2 .445.84 117488 AS% $ 1 ,840.48 S I;63D.47 71.08% $ 7 2 1.1 9 $696.76 65. 4 8% $421.37, $417.31 1 0 7 0 8% 35.70 40.00 4 7 60% 28.80 33.2 0 85.8 7% 5.50 5.20 30.00'4 1.40 1.60 11 .11% 19.00 2 1 .00 50.00% 14 .00 14.00 7. 69% 35. 71% 50.00% 550.00% 217.03 271 ,48 98.23% 233

PAGE 259

234 TABLE III -N2 Lakela n d Area Mass Transit Di.striet Effectiveness Measures EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per Capita 1 .66 1.81 2 09 2.14 . 8.15 SERVICE CONSUMPllON : '. ,.,_ > ,,, .. ; . -:; .!'&sen!!!' Per 9'Pita . : <:'> 1 .13 . ,.7 < ... 89:7.83 -... ;.;-, "' .... ...... ""'"' Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 0.69 0.69 0 .84 0 .8 9 0.97 .. -. . . ... 15 .10" . .... PaSH!"I)et Trips lic?W . 1 1)38; 11, 62 ._, ; .. '. .. OUAUTY OF SERIIICE : AV10,.ge 16.61. . ,_ .. '>6 t ' ... :i { )7.27 ;, ...... 1 6 .99 <: .. .. .. Average Age o f Fleet {in years) 5 .10 6 .14 5.40 5.95 6. 95 > ; . ' .. < . ," > 29.00.:; >,-"< .,Hun,t;er ,l . ' 36.00 26 00 . ..... .... ..... .. ''. < l -).;i< _ ........... Revenue Service Interruptions 50. 00 70.00 148.00 152 .00 I } i.citea (000) . ;, ... -1Bo3l ' '. . .. . .. '' ;' 28.52 '' 29.05,.i 1-<'5071 ; . -,: w Revenue Miles Betw6en Interruptions (000) 13.20 10 .59 5 69 5 79 2.89 AVAilABILITY ., ;-: < ,,_, ..... _ 5. 8 8 . 5 .54 ... ,>.,;,;;-> ,,, : :s.79.. 199l %Chat; 1988-1 3 .. :} '' 8 .1-5 t> 8.93 .J ,_.-. _, . ... % .-;t., ... t : $: :1>' "''"'" ,;_,,;' . 1 .11 62 25% '"' - , ... . .. .. .. ., ,. . . >'>< ..... .,. '17.02 .. .. "5 2.43%' ""$,. ... ... .. 5.66 14 .90% .'1' ,.,..,_ .... > .. 7 .00--; .. >- > .. 1 69.00 278.00% ':->< ,_ ...... ., ;.;. ., '< '$ '1:"588 .48% ....... ........ 4.67 -, : 5 ai ,: 1o:97%: ,_' .

PAGE 260

EFFK:IEHCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita ()perst ing Expen,se Per Pealt VehiCle {000 } . Operating Exyense P ' Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Operating P&r Mile Ope111ting Expense Per Revenu e Hou r Miinienanoe xpe-hs8J 'er Revenue MiSe Malnlenance Exs>e-nse Per Operating Exp OPERATING RATIOS Ft:rebox -,:-Local Revenue Per Operating Expense -. . Operating Revenue Per Operating E>q>ense VEHIClE UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles :Per.Pe'al< vehicle (000) Vehicle Hoot$ Per Peak Vehicle {000) Miles Per Veh.icle M ileS Reven u e Miles Per Tolal Vehieles ( 000) ,(> Revenue H6UI'$ Per T9tat V&hlele.s (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Re.enue Hou"' Pef (000) Passenger Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTiliZA nON Vehicle Miles Pef Galton FARE "Average Fare . TABLE I II N3 L akeland Area Mass Transit District Efficiency MeasurtS 1988 $2.20 567.84 $1 .95 $0 .36 $1.34 $22.20 .. $0.29 21.84% 22.85% 104 .99% 1 ; ,. 50 .98 3 .07 1 .00 47.14 2.64 1. 4 7 1 6 .68 4 .64 $0.45 1989 : 2 8 s.. .'!. i'7 52.63 30.50 $1.82 $30.58 $():32 17 .65% 18.92% 92 .68% 27.55% ,57.28 3 .4 2 1 .00 52.96 3 .15 1.42 16 .54 4 .87 $().50 199 0 $3.46 $93. 61 $ 1.99 $0.42 $1.67 $28.78 $0.20 11. 91% 22.14% 106.50% 16% 56.49 3 28 0 .99 44.3-4 2 .57 1 .49 21 .53 4 66 $0.44 1991 s3. 31 $91.57 51.76 $0 37 $1 56 $28. 51 $0 2 5 16 03% 21.74% 112 .31% 59.13 3 .50 0.99. 41!.35 2 .73 1 53 23.08 4 .57 $().38 1992 $13 31 $ 1 04.61 $1. 70 $().37 $1 1j6 $2823 $0 37 22.43% 28. 77% 112.01% ... 92.%.1 i 1993 $13.4 1 $105 .35 $1.50 $0.34 $1 .67 $28 .41 $0.26 15 .31% 28. 29% 110 .55% 47.24% 64.04 < 64.o0 3 .89 3 .75 0 99 0 99 46.53 2 73 1 .45 24. 1 1 4 .13 $0.49 42.07 2A7 1.30 24.55 3 30 $0.42 y Change 1988 1993 .. 508 69% 55 28% .01% 24.91% 27.94% 1 2 .46% .92% 23.83% 5 .30% .04% 25.Sl% 2 2.05'4 .98% .75% 1 2 .87% .45'4 47. 15'14 -31.80% -4. 86% 235

PAGE 261

GENERAL QUESTIONS I. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please provide the previous fare s t ructure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implement ed No changes were made. 2 Were there any significant changes in serv i ce/service area during fiscal year 1993? None. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may h elp explain the performance of the uansit system? None. 236

PAGE 262

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION 15 DATA I. The number of passenger trips and passenger miles increased significantJy while the amount of revenue service provided remained relatively constant between 1992 and 1993 (see table below). To what can this increase in ridershi p be attributed? Motort>us FY 1992 FY 1993 %Chango Passenger Trips 860,S40 98t,910 14.1% F'o>oengee year The passes were purchased by organizations such as Medicaid and Polk County's CTC for distribution to participants of their programs, who began riding more but paying less than they had been previously. Another explanation i s that LAMTD began c ounting children under six years of age as passengers (children in lhis age group do not pay a fare when accompanied by a fare-paying adult). S Totallocalrevenue incrcased30 percent from S l ,640,480 in 1992 to $2,126,860 in 1993 desp i te a slight decline in operating revenue($721, 190 in 1992; $696,760 in 1993) during thi s time. To what can this significant increase in local revenue be anributed? 237

PAGE 263

System Response: In LAM TO's FY 1993 Soction IS report, line 17 of Fonn 203 reports a figure of$933,719 for property taxes On the second page of fonn 203, $496,382 is given for property taxes. In actuality, the $496,382 figure was just part of the overall $933,719 thai was raised by the property tax. The total amount of local revenue should then be $1,630,474. 6. The total number of employees increased 12 percent due mainly to an increase in transportation operating employees (see table below). In addition, the number of employee FTEs in the administrative category increased while maintenance employees declined slightly. Please explain the changes in each category. Direc:lly.Opaaed --.. FY 1992 FY 1993 %ChangO Operating En\>l<>yeeo 28.8 33.2 15.3% Maw.enonce En\>IOYeeo 5.5 5.2 .5% EmptoyMo 1.4 t 6 14.3% Total En\>l<>yees 35.7 40.0 12. 0% System Response: The only explanation provided by LAMTD was that an increase in leave hours taken during the fiscal year increased the total number ofFTEs. 7. The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from 19 vehicles in 1992 to 21 in 1993. In addition, the average age of the vehicle fleet dec. lined from 6 .95 years in 1992 to 5.86 years in 1993, a decrC8seof nearly 16 percent. Please explain any changes that have oc curred in the vehicle inventory. System Response: As discussed previously in questions tf2 and #3, LAMTD purchased 13 new buses for its fixed-route operation in fiscal year 1993. These vehicles had an impact on the average age of the vehicle fleet. 8. Total gallons consumed increased 25 percent from 217 ,030 gallons in 1992 to 271,460 gallons in 1993 despite the relative stability of service provided. This caused a 20 percent decrease in vehicle miles per gallon (4.13 mpg in 1992; 3.30 mpg in 1993). Please explain this increase in fuel consumption. System Response: LAMTD attributes this increase to the mileage of the new buses discussed previously. 9. The number of incidents decreased significantly from 26 in 1992 to seven in 1993. Given the unpredictability ofthese events, are there any reasons for this? System Response: LAMTD had acted lo increase the general awareness of safety issues during the fiscal year, but cannot specifically amibute the decrease in inc:idents ro the system' s efforts. 10. The number of revenue service interruptions (previously referred to as "roadcalls ) decreased nearly 40 percent from 306 in 1992 to 189 in 1993. Is there an explanation for this decline? System Response: The decrease in revenue service intenuptions can be anributcd to the new buses which were purchased for fisc:al year 1993. 238

PAGE 264

1 ,000 ... ... 400 200 0 LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRI C T Figure UI-N1 County/Service Atea Population (000) 500,-;---,-i ' .oot.--1=-H i I 1 ... 1 I I I I I I H -1 200 I I I l I 1-1-1-\1tool I I I I I I 1 I ol--1 I I I I I I 1-l nM u n " '"' ,,.. ,., u.o '"' tta ,,, Figure IIIN3 Vehicle M iles and Rev enue Miles """ 1/ ) .... +-H 1---!-4--1--J 'J. '=t=l 4 -$1,500 $1.200 $900 $600 5300 so Perfor m a n ce Indicators F igure III-N4 Total Operatin g Expense I I I, -. -' -d' -l-ltOOoil1loll) / ---!--!-=+.: I I I 1,000 -....., BOO ... ... 200 I' 0 F igure III-N2 Passenger Trips (000) -, -...... i --/ 1tM lttS 1tl6 IM71Jt8 IMt 1tt0 1MI 1ttl1ttl SSOO $400 -$ 300 S200 -$100 $0 Figure 111-t.IS P assenger Fare Revenue (000) L I / ..... I lfM l t&S 1tl6 1t871t8tiM9 19 9 0 19tl lttJ lttJ u u '"s '"' ,., ''" '''' tno '"' '":a un 1M41,.S 1tl6 tN1 ltlt Hltt tttO Uti lttJ IMl 40 30 20 10 0 F igure IIJ..N6 Total Employees rn; 1--I""" -----------i 1 i --i r-... I -------_, 1M4 1MS 1M6 UU "" 1Ht 1tt0 ' ltt2 1ttJ F igure IU.t.l7 Vehicles i n Max i mum Service 2s .TT-r-r-r=;_::_:, >ot-H--1-_L IS. t--.FI-l--1 +-, r ..... i I I I SH oLU 'r:r-:d.-l-1-UM Hits It" ttt7 1 t N l tlt 1MO ltt1 19tZ 1993 239

PAGE 265

240 LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure Vehlde Miles Per C8pita -----r------r-. 19M t MS 19M 1JtJ lt .. 'ftt ttto 1ft'l tttJ ... u .. o 2.0 Effectiveness Mt.a.surt$ Figure 111-N10 Average Age of F!Ht (years) Figure IIJ..N9 Passenger Trips Revenue Mile t 2 -r---1-rrrl iv 0.9 r vt--t-, lt'-:T__l I 1 1 I 0.6 0.3 0.0 ,,... tttS '"' ,,.,,,.. ,., 1!90 1991 1t't2 '"' i / I -" 0.0 19M IWS HIM 1911 ,,.. 19., 1990 1t'91 19N tt Figure III-N11 Figure III-N12 Revenue Miles Accidents/lnddents Revenue Miles Between lnte.,ptions 1 50,000 20.000 120,000 16,000 ' I' !/ r\ 90,000 60,000 30,000 Ofi \ I\ = 12,000 8,000 .. 000 0 0 -------------19M IMS ,,_ 1911 1981 1"' tm 1H1 1 992 199) ,,... IWS 19M 1"11911 ttn 1990 1991 tttlttt)

PAGE 266

LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRIC T $15. 00 $12 .00 $9.00 $6.00 $).00 $0.00 figur e Ope rating Expense Per Capita ----,,.. u n '"' 1911 ttu ,,., tttO u" tttl tttJ F igure 111-N16 M a intenance Expens.e Per R e v enue Mile $0 ,<10 $0.30 $0.20 TTT . c -I r SO. t o -$0.00 . "*" '"s ''" un uu ,., 1m'" u u un 1.600 1 ,200 800 400 0 Figure IIJ.N19 Revenue Hours Per Em ploye. ,-----.--........ .... + -IJM 19U lH' IUJ UU ,,., I MO lttl ltn tttl Effic i ency Measures F i g u r e III-N 1 4 Operati ng Expen s e Per Passenger Trip .... -I 111\ $ 3.00 $2.00 ..... $1.00 $0.00 . "" tns '"'' ,.., ,,.. ''" tMO '"' n n nn 30% 20% 10% 0" F igure III-N17 Farebox R e c o very Ratto --,-ll ..... I'. -. ---I -i 1 -'"' IMS t916 Ul11ttt t m tHO 19t1 UtJ 25.000 20,000 1 5,000 10,000 s.ooo 0 Figure IIIN20 Passenger T rips Per Employee -. -,--"'"" .... -1---1 7 --..... """ _... ---1 -l-l-1-1-1 _ [:-f-1M4 t"S 1M5 IMJ " t J U H'IIO tttt ttt3 ttt) Flgureii1-N15 Operatlng Expense Per Reven u e M i l e $ 2.00 -b }..... -I ...... $1.60 $1.20 so.eo -$0.<10 $0.00 -"" ,,.s ''" " a N"" ttto ''" ttta ,,, F igureii1-N18 V e hicl e M iles Per Peak Vehide 10.000 60,000 -"""' / I"" <10.000 L 20.000 0 ltM t H S tH& tM? 1 9 .. tNt 1990 Ut1 19U I ttl $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 1-F igure IU-N2 1 A verage Far e ..... -!'.. J N I i 1-I ttoM tHS "" Ull 1Ml " 1"0 1991 ttN IHJ 241

PAGE 267

LAMT D SUMMARY 242 Passenger crips increased 14 percent between 1992 and 1993 (860,840 in Jm; 981,910 in 1992) and passenger miles increased nine pen:ent during this time (3,977,850 in 1992; 4,35 1,020 in 1993). However, the amount of service remai ned relatively ce>nstant (with less than e>ne percent changes in revenue miles and h ours between 1m and 1993). LAMTD could not specify a reason for the increase i n ridership, but did note that the system has experienced ridership intreases nearly every year since its inception. Total m a intenance expense decreased apprc>ximately e>ne-third from $328,500 in 1992t<> $225,780 in 1993. LAMTD a ttributed this decline to t he purchase of new buses in early 1993. These new buses arc: less prone to mechanical failures and were covered under warranty during the time period. Total capitaleusly referred to as "roadcalls )decre a sed from 306 in 1992 t o 189 in 1993, a decline of almoot40 percent. LAMTD attributed this de c rease to the new b u ses which were purchas e d for fiscal year 1993.

PAGE 268

0. MANATEE COUNTY AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Organizational Manatee County Area Transit is a division within the Public T ransportation Depa rtm ent of Manatee County. Gove rn In& Body and Composit ion Manatee County Area Tr ansit is governed by the Board o f County Commissioners. Service AreaThe system prov ides service to the urbanized pans of Manatee County ModesMCAT operates fixed-route motorbus services as well as demand-response transportation servi c es. 243

PAGE 269

244 TABLE 111-01 Manatee County Area Trans i t Direct Jy-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 19ll8 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 SOI'Iice Aiea Population (000) 187.50 192 69 211 .11 215 .13 215.00 223 : 00 18. 93% . Service Alea Size {square mies) n/a nta n/a nta 747.00 747.00 n/a Passefiger T<*is(OOO) 666.38 559 85 527 .27' 636 72 643 .17 "' 625.90 10.51% Passenger Miles (000) 2,279.98 2,437 38 2 ,2t7.t4 2.535 .44 2,624 .13 2,454.35 7 65% VehlcloM i!H(OOO),," .. 576,33 525.29 .. 49>.65 530'.74 .. 566 .11' ,;,; 551. 07 -4.38% "' ",. .. ,;, '" Revonue Miles (000) 557 .28 507 62 476.86 514 57 541.29 533 69 -4. 23% Vehicle Hour> (000) 35 .17 32 .41 32 .4 8 34.92 35 .60 35.80 123% ,.,_. R e vonue Houro (000) 33.68 31. 28 31.32 33. 85 34 .18 34.18 1.48% ,. ,. "'' <-. >. ... '" Roul!eMiie$:, ..... .;;-'?"><' < 1 23 70 12370 12370 ' 12370 t4580 : 239% , j -., ' ; .... ' ',_ "' Total Operating Expense (000) $1,333.34 $1,319.98 $1,325 02 $1,521 .95 $1.667.50 $1,556.94 16. 77% ,..,.... ' ....... .. $1,163 : 26 $1.104 .38 $1, 955.39 $1,146 79 ,' $1;090 .16 Tolol Moin,.nonce Expense (000) $310. 64 $368 98 $288 .64 $332 68 $394 .20 $293 .65 -5 47% -'rOt.i (o000 t : t9U:$ f $3o8a1 ; ; $229.90" s2sO.s1:. s28.i.Ss.t s20S.e2 ... 13% ._. A.V: ;.,:. / .<. ' . _.,..,"' '.-.,. -. < ,.. ;:; . Total C.pila l Expense (000) $615.33 $1.189. 79 $215 .29 $288.69 $710 .76 $1,101 .27 78 .97% ' ' . f Tololloeal Revenue (000) $1 ; 042 .11 $1, 168.09 $1,230 .00 $1, 243.54 $1,505 : 80 $1.172 94 ". 1 2 55% ' .. .. / .. .. Clpefaling Revonue (000) $268 .85 $295 82 $300 .06 $308.93 $330 .16 $342.41 27 36% PUienQer : Fare (o06f; ;. "'; S239.33 .. S265 : 93'" ,. :. :': Total Employees 28 62 26 .46 24 .40 25.40 28.10 29.60 3 .79% '' ',. ' Tronsportotion Operating Employeos 25 30 22 35 20 .30 22.80 .24. 80 25.30 0 00% ' ,. ' < ' Maintenance Empbyees 0.00 1 .50 1 .50 1 .00 1 00 0.60 n/a -,.,, ... ,.. , .. ' '' Adminisi!O\Ne EmployMO. . 322 2.6 1 2 . 80 1 .60 2.30 ' . 3 c 70 14.9 1% Vehict&s Available for Maximum service 1 3.00 14 .00 15.00 15.00 17 00 18. 00 38.46% ,Vehk:IO> o"'raled in SeNice 9.00 8 .00 8.1io 9 .00 9:00 ., 9 00 t 0 .00 % Spare Rallo 44 44% 75. 00% 87 50% 66.67% 88.89% 100. 0 0% 1 25.00% Total Gallons Consumed (olio) 123.25 . 110 05 101.43 106 .89 118.31 i 1B.98 -3.46%

PAGE 270

PERFORMAHa; 114DlCA TORS semc. Anla Populatio n (000) service /Vea Size (s.qu,re miles) Passenger Trl>s (000) P a snnger Miles (000} Vehicle Mles '(QOO) . : .. > Reven ue Miles {000) Vehicle Hours (000) Reveflue Houcs (000) Rou1e Miles . Tot.l Ope,.ting Expense (OOOJ T01al ()petaUov exp.nse (000 olllle4 $ ) Total Mtfllenance Expense (000) Total lbkllenante Expense (000 ol1984 $) To .. capw expense (000) T04al Loeo l Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) P.asung6r Fate Revenue (000) T otaJ Employees Transportation Operting Employoet . Maintena nce EmpSo)'Hs Admin.iWaiM> Employees Vehides Available for Maximum SeNioe Vehicles ()ipinale$Umod (000) TABLE 111-02 Ma11atee County Ana Tran.rlt Purchased Motorbus Performance loditators '"' 1989 19t0 '"' 187 .50 1 92.69 211 .71 215 .13 n/a n/ a n/a nla 0 .00 11.68 65.18 0 00 0 .00 51.52 27 4 .01 0 00 0 .00 32.35 ' 51.3 0 0 .00 0.00 30. 8 1 48 .84 0 .00 0 .00 1.58 2.51 0.00 0 .00 1 4ll 2.23 0 00 0.00 24 .10 24 .10 0 .00 $0 00 $34.43 $ 75 .80 $ 0 .00 $0.00 $28.80 $80.37 $0 .00 $0 .00 nla "'" $0 .00 $0 .00 nla "'" $0 .00 $0.00 oh n/a $0.00 $ 0 00 n/a n/a $0.00 $0. 00 n/a nla $0.00 $ 0 00 nfa nil $ 0.00 0 00 nla "' 10.00 0 00 n l a nla $0 .00 o .oo n la nta $0 00 0 00 n/a nla $0 .00 0 .00 2.00 2 .00 0 .00 0 00 1 .00 1 .00 0 .00 nla 100.00% 100 00% .,. 0 .00 nta .,. nil -1992 1N .. 1 3 215 00 223.00 15.73'4 7 47 .00 747 .00 nlo 0.00 0.00 n/a 0 00 0 .00 nla .. o.oo 0.00 -', ...... . . :. > ' n t 0.00 0 00 nil .. . ,,. 0 .00 0 00 nil 0.00 0 00 nlo 0.00 0 00 n11 $0. 00 $0 00 nil $0.00 $0. 00 nl $0.00 $0.00 nil $0.00 $0.00 nil so.oo $0.00 nil $0 .00 $0.00 n/1 $0.00 $0.00 nla $0.00 > $0.00 nil $0 .00 $0. 00 nla so.oo $0.00 ""' $0.00 $0.00 nlo $O.QO $0.00 n11 0.00 0.00 n/1 0.00 0 00 n11 nla nla nil nla nla n/1 245

PAGE 271

PERFORMA NCE I NDICATORS Sef'lice Area PopulatiO n (000) Service Area Size (square miles) Paisa n9ilT,.,s ( 000) .. Passenger M iles (000) Vehicie MlieO .(000) . . ., . Revenue Mile$ (000) (000) -Revenua Hours (000} Mf5H, .... t ' .. ,;,; . : ; Tot111l Operating Expen$e (000) Tobi l Opeiailng EXpeoM (000 cif.19&4, S)'. Total M aklrenance Elcpense (000) (Ooo <>! Tota l C apfta l Expe nse (000) ToW L.oeaf ROY'enue (000) ., "' t' Opera11rlg Rewnue (000 ) .. ,. .. P:asM!)ger Fant (ocio) <. < Tota l Employee& Tra'ns .,Ortaiioo Opeta6ri'g E!MPk>yees, Maintenance Empk>yees EmP.Ioyoes .. ' .. Vehic:Jes Avaiable: for MJximu m Service . ", in Max1mum Service S p are Ratio Total G.-ons con.Umed (OOO) 24 6 TABLE 111-03 Manatee County Arta T ransit System T o f a l Perfor m ance Ind icators 1988 1989 199 0 1!191 1 87. 5 0 192.69 211.7 1 215.13 n/a n/a n/a n/a 566.3 8 571 5 1 592.43 &36 .72 2.279 .98 2, 466.90 2 4 91.1 5 2 ,535.44 576.33 557.64 544.95 .. 53Q.7 4 557 .28 538.43 525.70 514. 5 7 35. 17 :i3.99 34.96 34. 9 2 33.68 3 2.68 33.55 33.85 1 4 2 .40 141-80 1 4 7 .80 123.70 $1,333 .34 $ 1,354 .40 $ 1 400 .82 $1 ,5 21. 9 5 $ 1 16 3. 26 Sl,l33 1ti $(115.76 $ 1 146 .79 $310 .64 n/a n/a $332.68 nia . $2sim.: : ... $ 271.01 .. ,(ntcli.. -;. .. $815 .33 n/a n/ a $288.69 $1 ,042.11 n/a rlJB $ 1,243.64 . $268 .85 nta n/a $308.93 ... $ 225 36 rita n/a -' $265,93 28 5 2 n/a n/a 2SAO '25.30 nta . nla 22 8 0 0 .00 n/a n/a 1.0 0 .. 3.22 . n/a n/a 1.60 13. 00 16 00 1 7.00 15.00 9.00 9 .00 9 .00 9 .0 0 44.44% 77.78% 88. 89% 66.6 7% 123 2 5 nla : n/a 106.89 lt92 1993 1988 -19 3 215 .00 223. 00 18 93% 747 00 747. 00 nla 643 1 7 : 10 51% : 2 624 13 2 ,4 54.35 7.65% :. 568 .11, 551 07 541.29 533.69 -. ''>35.60 ; 3 5.60 1 23% 34. 1 8 34. 18 1 .48% .. ---. .. . 123.70 . 145.80. ; ... 2 39% $1,667.50 $1 ,556.94 16 .77% $1,09Q .16 t -6.28% $394 20 $293.65 > .,,y -. . .. $284 .56 .. It .13% ;, ' . ,. > h $71 0.76 $1, 101.27 78.97% $1, 1n.ll4 .. 12.55% $33 0 16 $342.41 2 7 36% '$265.36 . .,. ; $25o;79 > : .. 11.28% 28.10 2 9 ,60 3 .7 9% 2 4 .80 25.30 .. 0 .00% 1.00 0.60 n/a 2 .30 '3.70 ... ;; 1 4 9 1%-17 .00 1 8.00 38. 46% 9 .00 ) 9 .00 0.00% 88. 89% 1 00.00% 125 00% 118 : 3 1 . 1 1 8 ;98 3.40%

PAGE 272

EI'FECTtVEHESS MEASURES SIORVICE SUPPI. Y Vehtcle Miles Per Capita SIORVICE CONSUMPTION Pa548ng&r C.pila Passenger Trips Per Re_.enue Mil& Passenger Trips H o u r OUALI 7Y OF SERVICE AYO
PAGE 273

EFfECTIVCHESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehicle Mjleo Per Capila SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pe! Capita -'< Passenger Tfi:ls Per Revenue Mile Per Hotn: QUALITY OF SERVICE AYllrage Speed (R:M .IRli}'; ' Averagelv}e of Flee! (in yea,.) NUmber of'lnddentil: :'. '= -> : '--$i{ Revenue Service l ntenuptions . Mid _ n (000!':, -Reveflue Mile-s Between lntenuptions (000) AVAILABiliTY ; Mios Mia (Oool 248 TABLE 111 Manatee County Area Transit Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 n/a 0 17 0 .24 n/a '* nta 0Jl6 0 31 -. _; n/a ' ' n/a 0 ,38 1 ,33 n/a ' nla ' '', 8.31 29,2 9 "' ,. n/a "nta 21.95 21.95 '' nta n/a n/a MO n/a < ... n/a nfa nla n/a < > n/a n /a nla n/a '. -'nta '"'' ..... '> : "''"' n/a n /a nla n/a ' ' ' .: 1 .28 ,, 2 .03 n/a 1992 1993 198,.19 3 nla n/a n/a ' < nla nJa nli ' nla nla nla nla nla nfa . 0/a r\11. nla nla nla nla 'iva ..... nfa nfa ;_;,.;, nla nla n/a ' ... -) < .... >"nla nla n/a nla n/a < / ''-': "'

PAGE 274

EFfECTIVENESS MEAS URES SERVIC E SUPPLY Vel"!jcle Mies Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION !rip$ Per C8P,ita Passenger Trips Per Revenue Jrips Per Rev!mu& Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE A""ra"' Speed qtMJR.H ) Avorage Age of Fleet (m yea") of Incidents Revenue Setvioe Interruptions .. R6venue MJies Betweeri Incidents (000) .. Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000 ) AVAllABIUTY Reve.nue Miles Per Rou\e Mile (000 ) TABLE 111-06 Manatee County Area Transit Syst em Total Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 3.07 '3,Q2 1 02 16.82 : 16.55 5.30 2 1 .00 291.00 26 54 1 92 3 .9 1 2 .89 2.97 1.06 17. 49 .\'.47 nla nla nJa nla nla 3 64 2 .57 2.80 1.13 17.86 15 67 6.18 nla nla nla nla 3.56 2 .4 7 2 .96 1 24 18 .81 15.21) 6 93 12 00 283 .00 42.88 1 .8 2 4.16 1992 2 63 2.99 1.19 18 .82 6 .44 3.00 230.00 180.43 2 .35 4 .38 .. 1993 2.47 2.81 1 .17 .. 18.31 .' 15. 1!? 5.06 2 .00 '. 195.00 2 .74 '3.66 %Change 1988-1 Sit3 -19.61% -7.08% 15. 39% 8.90% -:, -5.63% : -<1.53% -90.46 % -32 99% ;. .. ;. . 42.91% -6'!7% 249

PAGE 275

250 EFflCI ENCY MEASURES COST E F FI C I ENCY Op;efating E.lcpen $6 Operatin g Expense Per Peak Vehicle ( 0 00) Os>aratlng ,Expense Pe (P11'.s.senger Trj) ,. Operating Expense Per Passenge r Mile ;; ,. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . Operating Expente Per Revenu e Hou r Per R .Mn.u.e:u.e Maintenance &pen se Pe r Operating Exp. OP E RATI N G RATIOS . . .., .. :lj, s-,,., ...... _"" <' .. <$.:---> -"' ,., local Reveflu e Pe r Operating &:pe n s e _,. ,. ... ... ......... Of>6riltil>g Op6rovng.Elipen$e VEHICI.E U TI LIZATION '" ,.,.,,, .... v .. Miles Per -Vehlele . .... -Vehicle HoutS Per Pe a k Vehicle (000) ReYff"!ue P e r vehide > Revenue Miles Per Vehicles (000) Revenue' HouiS l'er T otal V ejli!:Jo> (000 ) LA80R PRODUCTIVITY .. .. Hou" Per En'4iloyee ( 000) .. Pas senger Trips Per Employee (000 ) ENERGY unUZA T ION veh}de M 11eS Per Galon ,_. . -----FARE A verige Fire < TABLE 111-07 C.ounty A r ea Trans it D i rec tl y-Operat ed Motorb u s Effi c i ency M easures 1 988 $7.11 S U $ 1 5 $2.35 $0.58 $2.39 $39 .59 $0.56 23.30% 16.00%. 1989 56.85 1 $165 .00 $2.36. $0.54 $2. 6 9 $42 2 0 $0.73 27.95% 18 13 % 88.49% 1990 $6.26 $ 165.63 $2. 51 $0.60 $2.78 $42.30 $0.61 21. 78% '19 .01'1\ I 92. 8 3 % 1991 $7.07 $169 11 $2.39 $0.60 $2.96 $44 .96 .;, ss : I 2 1 .86% 11..47% 199 2 $7.76 $ 165.26 $2c59 $0.64 $46.79 $0.73 23 .64% 1 5 .91% 90.30% > 78. 16% :!0 16% 22 .41% 22.65% 81 .71 % 20 .30% .,. 64.04 3 9 1 0 .97 42. 8 7 2 .59. 1 1 8 1 9 .86 4.66 $0 ,40 65.86 4 ,05 0 .97 36. 2 6 < 1 .j8 21.16 4.n $0-43 . ',6 1 :71 4 06 0.97 31 .79 2 .09 128 2 1 .61 4 .87 $0 .48' 58.97 3 .88 0.97 34 .30 2 26 1 .33 25. 07 4 9 7 $0. 42 > 62, 90-' .. . 3 .96 0 .96 31.84 2 .01 1.22 22 .69 4 : 7t $0 . 4 1 1993 $6.98 $172.99 $2.49. $ 0 .63 $ 2.92 $45 .55 $0.55 1 8.66% %Cha-1988-1993 1.82% 16 .77% 5 .67% 8 .47% 2 1 .93%. 15.07 % 1 29% 19 .04% .... 1 6 1 l % 1-" .. ,,,;, ..... 75. 34 % -3 .61% ';' 9 .07% 61.23 3 .96 1 .23% 0 .16% -30. 83% 0.97 29 .65 1 90 1.15 21.15 4.63' $0.46: -26.71% 2.22% 6 48% .0.95% 0 7 0 %

PAGE 276

EFFI C IE NC Y M EASUR E S COST EFFI CI ENCY Operating Elq>Onse Pot Capita Ope ating Expense Pe Peak Vehicle (000) Ope nta nl! < nla :f ' nlo n/a n/a n/a "'" ' ;,. n/a ;..>-:>'. < n/a nta. ' .. :. "' < I :: .: nl)l "' n /a n/a nla n/a n / o n/a < n/a . n/a n/a nla n/a .,. n/a nl a i1ta nla n/a n/a n/a nla n/a nla nla rJa n/a .. .. nla n/a n/a n/a .rifa f1/i! 251

PAGE 277

252 EFFIQEHCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Clpefaling EXpense POf Cap;ta Operating Elcpense Por Poak Vehlclo (000) Pas$el)96r Trip Operatirtg Expense Pe r Mile epenttng Expense PN Revenue Mile ,, .. . . Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Per Revenue Mie Maintenance Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Fardb4J;C R&COvtty ;. r. Local Revenue Per Operating Expense ... - . Revenue E;J Vehicle Hours Pef Peak Vehicle (000) 'MileS P&r Revenue Miles Por Total Vehicles (000) ReVenue Houro Per Total (000) LABOR PROOUCTMTY > Reven"" HOUI>. Pet EmployeO (000) . . . Passenger Trips Per Employt:e (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vel\icJe f:ler Galton FARE Aw.rage Fare > TABLE 111-09 Manatee County Arts Transit Sys rem Total Efficiency Measures: 1988 $7.11 $148. 15 $2.35 $0.58 $2.39 $39.59 $0.56 23.30% 1e. J'9% 1 '. 78 16% 20.16% ; 1 64.04 3.91 0.97 42.87 2.59 us 19.86 4 .68 I $0,40 1989 $7.03 $150.49 $2.37 $0.54 $2.52 $41.44 n/a n /a n/a. n/a nla 61.96 3 .78 0.97 33.65 2.04 > nta nia nla nla 1990 $6.62 $155 .65 $U6 $0 .56 $2.66 $41 .76 nla nla nla nla n/a 60 .55 3.68 0.96 30.92 1 97 nia nla nla nla 1991 $7.07 $169.11 $2.39 $0.60 $2.96 $.96 $0.65 21.86% 17.47% 81.71% "},: 2o 30% 58.97 3 .89 I , 0.97 34.30 2.26 1.33 25.07 4 .97 $0.42 1992 Si78 $185 .28 $2.59 $0.64 $3.08 .. $48 .79 A, 23.64% 15.91% 90.30% > > 19 :80% 62.90 3.96 0.96 31 .84 2.0t 1.22 22.89 4.78 $0. 41 1993 $6.98 $172.99 $2.49 $0.63 $45.55 ,. .. $0.55 18.86% %Chango 1988 -1.82% 16.77% 6'.67% 8.47% 2 1 .93% 15.07% .29% 19 .04% 16.11% I ., -1. :70% 75.34% 21.99% ...: '6).23 3.96 .'. 0 91 29.65 1.90 1.15 21.15 '4.63 $0.40 .61% ; 1 23% 0.16% 30.S3% . t1% -2.22% 6 .48% -o.96% 0 70%

PAGE 278

GENERAL QUESTIONS I. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? lf so, please provide the previous fare structwc as well as the updated fare struclurt and indicate when lhc changes were implemenled. No changes were made. 2. Were there any significant c -hanges in service/service area during fiscal year 1993? Due lo ttaffic congcslion, Roule 5 (1he Beach roule) was unable lo mainlain an onlime schedule. Therefore, Rou1e 5 was changed loa IWo-hour schedule, thereby reducing the number of trips and miles. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the perfonnance of the transit system? In fiscal yeac 1993, MCAT received six new 31Ho01 Gillig buses. 253

PAGE 279

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1 993 SECTI ON I S D ATA I. Route miles increas
PAGE 280

System Response: Maintenance is perfonned by another county depanmcnt, and it appears that either due to the calculation, rounding, or interpre1ation of an FTE, the 0 6 figure was provided toMCAT. However, bus main .. nance personnel did nol de
PAGE 281

256 100 100 200 0 MANA TEE COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Figure 111.01 County/Servic e Area Population (000) 250 -200 150 -100 50 0 19M I"S 19U tflliMI lttt lf'tO tttt tttl ltU Rgurelll-03 Vehlde Miles and Revenue Miles sz.ooo S1,600 --$1,200 -1111tU Mlol $800 -Miti((IOOI r-$800 I so Performance Indicators Figure II Hl4 Total Operating Expense I .... -j IOIW
PAGE 282

MANATEE COUNTY AREA TRANSIT 4-0 ....... 3.0 2.0 1 -1 0 o.o Figure 111-01 Volllcl I'IK"-11_ ..... } o.o ,,.. t H S nlf n u "" '"' tno '"' '"''"J figu re 111.011 Revenue Milts B etwee n Acddtnts/ln d dents figur e lllo0 1 2 R e v enue M i les Between I nterruptions :100,000 1,000 200 000 rc-== :r -NOl l f j '-6.000 .. 000 -'J_ -J \ 100.000 j r 1 / !oo. . 0 z.ooo .... IOOQ .... ) 0 11M t M S ttu ttfl 1NI t t tt'M tttt t9N '"' tM4 INS 1M6 tWJ""' lttt ttto 1191 ttR lftJ 257

PAGE 283

258 $1.00 $'-00 $0. 00 $2.00 10.00 Flgu r 111-<>13 Opt16 Mintenance E'xpense Per Reve,.,e Mile 10.10 -10 .60 / _, 10. 40 v \II 10.10 ( !lOW 10 .00 ,, ... nn '"' '"' '"' ,.,, '"*lttt tnt,,, 1,500 1,100 too 100 )00 0 Figuro 111.019 Revenue Hours Per Emp'oyee \ .v N')W ..... ,,.. IM5 11M I M J t,.. twt ,,_,, ttN Itt) MAN A T E E COUN TY AREA TRAN SI T tTteieDcy M ea$ares Flguro 111-<>14 Opt,.tlng El17 Farebox Recovery Ratio \1 ( t.olf ) '"" tte:J ttt6 IMl 1Hf It" ltto "" 1,1 I M J lS.OOO 10,000 15-1Q,OOO s.ooo 0 Figure 111-02 0 Passenger Trips Per Employee "' ....... I ..... liM tMS I tal' "',,..''" t tPO 1Ht lttt t .. J F igure 111-<>15 Optrotlng Elq>onw Per Revenu Mi .. w.oo u .oo RII J !4H Sl.OO $1.00 10 00 U M 1HS IHI tM'J t'Nl u .. tHO IHI IH.lltfl Figwe 111.018 Vohi< .. M iles Per Poak Vohl< .. IO.OOOJ I I I I I IiI I ::btttlll 1 tj 10.oool I I I I I I -l I I o l I I J J I I I J J ""' un ""' ,,., utNt ttto tnt tm tttl 10.50 10.00 ""' So.JO $0.10 10.10 10 .00 Figure Average Fare _, 111011.. i ) 1 I N S I W I IM7 1,. ''" U'MI 1ttl 1"J ,,.

PAGE 284

MCAT SUMMARY The data indicare that, although route mjles increased 18 percent (123.7 miles in 1992 ; 14S. 8 miles in 1993), vehicle miJeJ and revenue miles declined slightly during this time. According to MCAT, the increase in route miles was due to the addition of segment s to two routes The number of vehicle and revenu e miles decrease
PAGE 285

P S MYRNA TRAN S IT S Y STEM SYSTE M PROFILE Qrt.anju!lonel Structure Smyrna Transit System is operated as a department of the City of New Smyrna lleach G2vynine Body and Com1!9sitionThe system director, appointed October I, t989, also oversees the airport Because Smyrna Transit System is a department of th e C it y, it i s directed through the office of the City Manager Servlee Aru -STS was c reated to provide public transportation services to the residents and visitors of New Smyrna Beach. ModesThe system only provides motorbus services, however, STS will alter routes upon request to provide door-tcrdoor se-rvice for any pe-rsons. Prior notification i s required for this service-because of the necessary route changes. There is an additional charge for this "dial..abus" service. 260

PAGE 286

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service AJea Population (000) Service Alea Size (squ are miles) T/l>s (000) Passenger Mies (00 0 } V6 h lcl0 Mile$ (000) . .,; .. ,, .. *: .. ' >l ..... Reve n ue M iles (000) < 'I') Vehicle Hours (000) ,_. ). .. Revenu e Hour$ (000) . .. _,. 'i 'i ... -- < M}les -.v. ... -. .,._ ., Total Operating Expense (000) Total Operallllg >POfiSO (000 of 1984 $ ) .>: Total Mainle n a nc:e Expense (000) $) \ : ,.,. .... Total Caput E>pense (000) Total Local (000) . .. Operating (000) Pa.sMng,et fare Revenue (000) Total Empk>yees Tran-SpQrtation Operating Employees ,_ Maintenance Employees Admini&tratNe mpbyees Vehicles AvailabM for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated. in Maximum Service S p are Ratio Total Gallons Consumed (000} 1988 15.65 nla 33.07 166 12 89.06 ,., ; 86.53 -,. 4 .81 .. 4 .55 . ,52.00 $140 .45 .. $122 .53 $46.03 ... $10.16 .. $0.00 :, $86.08 . $16.51 . $16.51 4 31 3 .50 0 .60 0 .21 2.00 2.00 O .OG% 12.20 TABLE Ill-PI S myrna Trans i t System Performance I ndicators 1 989 1990 16, 15 16.45 nla nla 31.50 25.29 158.30 n la 87.50 87.75 81 .25 82.50 ; -": .. 4.75 4.75 -. .. 4 .50 4 .50 < 5?0:0' ?52 .. 00. $ 158. 3 8 $172.00 $132. 51 $137 .00 $34.20 $35.96 '$28. 61 .. $28.64 .. .. $ 1 ,45 $84.78 $156.8 1 $170,43 $ 18.11 $14 .83 $ 1 5.32 $14. 8 3 1 0 .00 11.00 5.00 5 .00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 2 .00 2 .00 0 00% 0 00% 12.58 12 42 1 9 91 1992 1993 198819 3 17.08 17.08 . 17 .23 : 10. 10% : ,,,. nla 19.00 1 9 .00 nla 23.30 22.77 25.86 -21.8 1 % 65.52 63.98 72.41 41% 69:74 .. < : 65,26 : ,26.72% 76.87 . .. .. .. .. 48.63 55.43 63. 3 7 -26.76% . s ,o2 5 :02 5.02 4 .37% 3.11 4 .52 4 .02 _, .. .. . .. "' 1 5 2.00 ss.po 5500 ... i ... 5 .77"' i '> _, $191. 2 2 $182.16 $199 .58 42.11Wo $144.08 $131.,49 ,!39.74 14 .04% $34.43 $28.94 $18.75 .26% ., .,; . ,$2 5 .94 : : !!! _,, $0.00 $0.00 $140.2 1 nla $1 $182.16 :$13.33 ,;.: $14.2 5 $ 1 3.92 $13.33 25% . $1 4.2 5 $1 3.33 > -19.25% 5 .00 3 .11 4.20 55% 4 .00 3 .11 .:. 4.00 14. 29% o.oo 0 .00 0 .00 -100 .00% 1 .00 0.00 0 .20 -4.76% 2 .00 2 .00 2 .00 0 .00% 2.00' 2 .00 2 0 0 0.00% 0 00% 0.00% 0 00% nlo 12 .75 11.47 10 .92 10.52% 261

PAGE 287

262 TABLE 111'2 Smyrna Transit System Effectiventss Measures: EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 SERVICE SUPPLY vehlcloi MU.s P,M Capita 5 69 5.42 5 33 4 50 3..79 -33 45% SERVICE CONSUMPTION P .. PerC..Pb 2 .11 1 95 1'.54 1.36 1 33 1.so 2 8 98% . . . . Passenger Trips Per Revenue M i le 0. 38 0 39 0 .31 0 48 0 4 1 0 .41 6 77% : . Per Revenue 7.27 7. 00 6 .82 7 50 5 ; 04 6 44 QUALITY OF SER\11CE Y ' Average > 19.02 1 8.06 18.33 15. 66 12:21 15 .78. . -17. 02% ,. ' ' ""'rage Age of Fleet (M years) 7.00 8.00 9 .00 10.00 11.00 10. 67 5 2.43% ....... " ; .,_._ ..... .. - > ;.,, .,. <.h.. . > Nombe f of $:" ': :. 3 .00 t ,. 1 00 2 00 .. 1 00 .. t .oq ., ''7k ; 1;90' : .. Revenue Service Interruptions 4 .00 9 00 10 .00 15.00 9.00 10.00 150 00% ... ,,. ... .,;.. "' Revo-: 28.84 : 11125 41.25 : 48 .63 5 U 3 ,,,; wi63:3 7 119,. 71% . . .. ,;_. ,.. . .... , Rev enue M iles Between Interruption s (000) 21.63 9 03 8 .25 3 24 6 t 6 6 .34 70. 70% AVAilABILITY ,.; tooo> : S1.6e tss .. t59 o 94 : 1.oi . ...

PAGE 288

EFFICIEHCY MEASURES 1988 COST EFFICIENCY Op&rating Expense Per Capita $8.97 Ope-rating Expen&e Per Peak V ehie:ie (000 ) $70.23 Operating El -$4. 25 Operating Expense Pet Passenger Mile $0 85 Operating exPen.s.e Reve nue . A $1:82 Operating Expense PeJ Revenue Hour $30.87 .. Maintenance ExP:&nse Per Revenue Mile . . ... . . Maintenance Expense Pe.r Opetllti'lg Exp. 32. 77% OPERAT I NG RATIOS .. '11.76 % loca l Revenue Per Operating Expense 61. 29% .. Operating Operating Expense 11:76% VEH ICLE liTI LIZATION VehiCle Per Peak Vthide (000) : 44.53 Veh.icle Hours Per Peak Vehi cr.e {000) 2.41 ..R&venue Miles Per Veh.de M ; ... ":. 0.97 -. . . R e venue Miles Pet Total V&I'ILO ,.. .. 15 89% 9 40% -7 1.33% . 7 64% -,, -43 18% . 100 00% 6 68% '.7,64% ,, 6.88% .. ,. -43 18% < . . . 34 87 .. 32.63 '28.72% 2.51 2 .51 4 37% '.'.Q .97 0 79 : -o,os% 27 .71 31. 69 -26 76 % 2.26 2 0 1 74% 1.45 . 0 : 96 .42% 7.32 6.16 -19.76% .. 6.08 5.98 -18. 11% $ 0.61 $0.52 3 .26 % --263

PAGE 289

GENER AL QU ESTION S I Were any fare
PAGE 290

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA I. The number of passenger trips and the number of passenger miles both increased more than 13 percent between 1992 and 1993, as noted ln the table below. In addition. it is evident thai the level of service, as me asured by revenue miles. increased 14 percent during this time. Is the increase in ridership attributable to this increase in service or is there another explanation? Olroctly.Qpemed Motorbus FY1992 FY 1993 %Change Trips 22.no 25,860 13.6% Passenger Miles 63 ,9e0 72,410 13. 2% Veh0e-. 69.740 65.260 Revenue Miles 55.430 63,370 14.3% Vehicl6 Hours 5020 5,020 0.0% -Revenue Hours 4,520 4,020 -1 1 .1% System RespOnse: The increase in ridership noted in the table above is due -to an increase in service. 2. As indicated in the above table revenue miJes increased -significantly while vehicle miles decreased, which resulted in a significant decline in the number of deadhead miles between 1992 and 1993 (14,310 miles in 1992; 1,890 miles in 1993). Please explain how tills improvemen1 in deadhead mileage was achieved. System Response: STS noted that its vehicle fleet was replaced in fiscal year 1993: two new vehicles were purchased replacing two vehicles which were II years old. However, the system could not provide a specific explanation for the decline in deadhead mHeage. 3. Despite the six percent decline in vehicle miles, vehicle hours remained constant a1 5 ,020 hours be1ween 1992 al)d 1993 (see 1able above). In the STS staled t hat, due to staff and resource constraints.. vehicle hours were stated in tenns of scheduled hours. Is tha t still the case, or is there another explanation? System Response: STS indica ted that this is still the ease 4. The service supply data in the previous table indicate that revenue hours decreased II percent while revenue miles increased appro xima tely 14 percent This resulted in a significan1 in
PAGE 291

5 Total maintenance expense decreased from $28,940 in 1 992 to $18,750 in 1993, a decrease of approximately 35 percenL To what can this decline be attributed? System Response: This decrease can be attributed to the two new vehicles (see response to question #2) which were purchased in FY 1993 to replace two older vehicles (which required more maintenance). 6 T o tal local revenue d e creased nearly 93 percent from $182 ,160 in 1992 to $13,330 in 1993. This occurred despite only a slight decline in operating revenue from $13,920 in 1 992 to $13,330 i n 1993. Please explain this decrease in local funding. System Response: STS attributes this decline to the fact that, in fiscal year 1 992, the system received no federal funding: therefore an increase in locally generated revenue was necessary. However, in fisc a l year 1993, federal funding was resumed and not as much local revenue was needed. 7 Passenger fare revenue decreased slightly from $13,920 in 1992 to $13,330 in 1993 despite the increase in ridership discussed previously This resulted in a decline in the average far e per passenger trip ($0.61 i n 1992; $0.52 in 1993) during this time. Please explain Ibis decrease System Response: This decline i s attributable-to a special fare promotion for student riders that was initiated in fiscal year 1993. As noted in the response to question #I of the General Questions section, the discounted student fare decreased from $0.50 to $0.25. 8 The number of total emp l oyees inc. reasedfrom 3.11 FTEs in 1 992to 4.20 FTEs in 1993 due to a 29 perc
PAGE 292

100 80 .. 40 20 0 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Fig ure llf.P1 City / Servi c e ArU Pop u la tion ( 000) 20 .. 12 -- 0 --P erformance Indicators ,,.. ,_, '"' " "" nu tttO '"' ,,, ntJ Figu r e IUPl Figure III .P4 Vehide M ikts and Revenue Miles Total Operating Expense -\ r""'! S200 I """ ..... ' .... -. ...I $100 s uo sao -p:q _, _ ._fiOCIII soo ... l I I I -so -I 40 )0 1'-.20 1 0 0 Figure IJ J.Pl Pas-T rips ( 000 ) I -_, 19M UIJ UU 1M7 1'N8 1919 lttO 1tt'l Ut2 Itt) S2S S20 ... S I S SIO -ss so Figure IIH'5 Passenger Fare Revenue (000) N I ltM 1HS 1M6 U87 "" "" ttte Utt tHl IHJ 1M419U '"' tH7 lUI 1M9 ltH IHI UU l t U 1M4 INS 1M4 1"119U 1'" ,,. IMI I H I IHJ 1 2 9 ' 3 0 Figur e IIIP6 T otal Emp loyee s r--I -...... -,,.. I NS'"' 1 7 t ... 1Mt ttM 1 1 1Ml tftJ I 2 t I 0 F i gure III.P7 Vehldesln MaKimum Service --------;-I I I I ttM tttllt.M IN.l 1 M tllft IMD lftl ItA 1ft) 267

PAGE 293

268 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM i.O <1.0 2 0 0,0 Figure lll.f11 Ve hicle M iles Per capita "" r---" " ,. ,,f1 " "'" tttO 1"' u., ,.,, u o t O 1.0 EITectlv ent$S Me&$Gres F igure llf.PIO A v ereg e Age of Fl
PAGE 294

$ 12.00 $ 9.00 $6. 00 $3-00 Figur e ll l-P13 Ope rating Exp ense Per Capita .... J 1 1 ., --Tr r.:: r-'1-I -I -1 + 50.00 IN' 1915 .. UU Uti Ult 1tto 1H1 tHZ 1t9l Figure IIIP1 6 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue MiJe 50.80 1_[ A I !.,; " I\ 50.60 $0.40 1l 1--.... .. ---50 20 50 .00 U M ttiS 19&4 1UJ1tU IHt IHO Utt 1tt2 Uti f igure III P19 Revenue Hours P e r Emp loyee ltM INS 1 U IUJUII 1tlt tttO 1t91 1 tt2 l t U SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Erficienc y Meas urrs: figure 111 Ope r a t i n g E xpense Pe r P a sscA9f r Trip $ 1 0 .00 I $8 .00 ----I1--$6.00 $4.00 $ 2 .00 .. 50.00 -1H4 UU UU 1M11tU l91t 1 t90 19t1 lttZ lttl -16% 12% 8% .,, 0% Figure 111Fa rebo x Reco very Rat io I" r--. 1 1--.. -1 ---------u u 1 915 1Ml1tl7 .. ,., 1t90 ,,.,, lttl I ttl figure IIJ.P20 Passenger Trips Per Emp l o yee ooorr 6 000 ; f-J '-1-1 .. 000 2.000 t-+ -1-Ho , .. 1tiS 1M61917 1961 1tn "to tt91 tt9l1ttl f i g ure IIIP 1 5 Operating E xpense Per Revenue MUe $4.00 l ... IJ I ; $3.00 ...... ... I ] $2.00 $1.00 50.00 I* I M S ,,., 1'N7 19M Utt lttO 1ttl I ttl 1HJ F igure III P18 Vehide Miles Per Peak Ve hkle $0.0 00 f-.. 40,000 30,000 IJ 21>,000 10,000 0 1-. -tt .. I tiS 1M' 1tl71ttl tNt IHO 1tt1 I ttl IHJ 50.80 50.60 50.40 50. 20 50.00 Figure IUP21 Average Far e Kr" -...... 1/ 1--1-.. -1---f--I I 1 _j 1tt4 tttS "" tt87 tM& U H IHO 1tt11tfl1ttJ 269

PAGE 295

STSSUMMARY 270 Between 1992 and the number of passenger trips and passenger miles increased more than J 3 percent. In addition t o the increase in ridership, the level of service (as measured by revenue miles, which increased more than 14 percent between 1992 and 1993) also increased during this time. STS acknowledged that the ridership increase was the result of the increase in service. While the number of revenue miles increased significantly between 1992 and 1993, vehicle miles decreased from 69,740 in 1992 to 65,260 in 1993 resulting in a significant improvement in deadbead mileage (14,310 miles in 1992; I ,890 miles in 1993). However, STS could not provide a specific explanation for the decline in deadhead miles. The service supply data indicate that, although revenue miles increased approximately 14 pe-rcent between 1992 and t 993, revenue hours declined I I percent during the same time. The result was a significant increase in average speed from 12.26 mph in 1992to 15.76 mph in \993. STS was unable to cite any reasons for this increase in average speed Total maintenance expense decreased approximately 35 perocnt from $28, 940 in 1992 to $18,750 in 1993, primarily a.< a result of the two new vehicles which were pwcha.std in L 993 as replacements for two older vehicles. Despite only a slight decline in operating revenue between 1992 and 1993, totallocalreven uedecreasedalmost 93 ptr<:ent from $182,160 in 1992 to S 13,330 in 1993. STS attributed the decline in local revenue to the fac1 that. in FY 1992, the system did not receive federal funding. Therefore, an increase in locally-generated re.vcnue was ne<:essary. However. in FY 1993, federal funding was resumed and less local revenue was required. Although ridership increased significantly between 1992 and 1993, passenger fare revenue declined slightly from $13,920 in 1992 to $13,330 in 1993. Consequently, the average fare per passenger trip decreased from $0.6 1 in 1992 to $0.52 in 1993. The decline in fare revenue is due to a special fare promotion for student riders that was implemented in fiscal year 1993. The student fare decreased from $0.50 to S0.25 in 1993.

PAGE 296

Q. PASCO COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE SYSTEM PROFILE Qr&ani zational Structurt-Pasco Coun t y Public Transportation Service is a division of Pasco County government Governing Body and Composition -The transit system is governed by the Pasco County Commission which is comprised of five county commissioners. Strvice Area !he Pasco service is provided to lhe West Pasco Urbanized Area. Modes Since June 30, 1990, only demand-response services have been provided Prior to that time, limited fixed-route motorbus was provided. 271

PAGE 297

272 PERFORMANCE INDI C ATORS Servioe Atea Population . > $18.71 $18.71 nla n/a n lo .. n/er 6 .00 4 00 50. 00% nla ,. .. $21.20 $21 .20 nla nla nla n/a 6 .00 4 .00 50. 00% nla . 1991 0.00 nla o.oo 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 ; 0 .00 $0 .00 i,'so.oo $0.00 $0.00 n $0 .00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $0 .00 0.00 .' 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 > nlo o.oo. 1992 0 00 0 00 0 .00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 $0. 00 so.oo $0. 00 : $o.oo" .. ' >.' < $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 nlo 0 00 1993 %Change 1989-1993 I 0 .00 o.oo :o.oo 0 .00 y110 .00 0 .00 :0.00 0 .00 < -, 0 .00 $0 .00 ' $0.00 I .. $0 .00 <. '::--'H r $0 o o '' ' T'<. < , $0 .00 $ 0 .00 $0 .00 $0.00 o.oo 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 nlo 0 .00, nla nlo nla nla nla n l a nla nla nli nla nla nla nli'. nlo rita. nla nlo n l a nli; nla rill nla nla n la nla

PAGE 298

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehicle Mile$ Per CaP.itii SERVICE CONSOMPTlON .. Tripa 'Per C8pJta: Passenger Tt\'s Per Revenue M i le T._,s. Per. Hour ' QUALITY OF SERVICE .. 'AverJge Speecf(R. M.IRJU . < Average Age of fleet ( i n yeats) Nwnber o.f lneldents . \, < Revenue Service Interruption$ . . Miles Between lnoillepl& (000) v Revenue Miles lntenuptlons (000) AVAI U\IIIllTY Revenue Miles Per ROute Mile. (000) ><: < TABLE 111-QZ J,asco County Public Transportation Service Ette("liveness Measures 19U 1989 1990 1 991 n /a 0 .39 0 .35 nla n/a 0 16 0.17 nra . n/a 0.43 0 51 nla .... nta 6 .52 . 7 .64 . ,-. fila 15.Ht; 15.10 ., . fila 17 .67 18.67 nla nla nla n/a !_. ,, ,Ya nla n/a nla nla < fila . n/a nla n/a I nla n/a n/a n/a n/a < 1 .56 nla 1992 1993 1989-19 3 n/a nla rila " -<. nra ..,. ,Jlla .. fila . < nta n/a fila .. nla ; n/a. I ,:, .. i,,)"' ., ... fila n/a ,, . nla nra n/a nlo .. nla "' n/a nla n/a .... .. ' { nla .. fila _,.., .,., ; .., . -.. ... nla nta fila '-. nla .>. n/8 273

PAGE 299

274 EFACIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Capb 0pef11ting E)(pense Per Peak Vehide (000) Operating exPense f>Q>ense <, .. .,: .. ..... VEHICLE UTILIZATION '., ; .. .,._. ,, Vehicle Per Peak VebiCIO (000) ... Vehiole Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Mihi Pe1 Vehide Miies Revenue Mies Per Total Vehicle$ (000) HoUr$ Per TOtal Vehlcte. i (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY (!!OOJ Passenger Trips Per EmplOyee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehk:le Mile& Pet Gallori FARE Average 'fare .. ...-. TABLE 111-QJ Pasco County Public Transportation Service Efficiency Meas urtS 1988 1989 1990 1991 I n/a nJa nla nla n/a nla nlo nla $1.15 $78.54 $7.40 $0.99 $3.19 $48.28 $0.02 0.52% .rila:. l 5.96%: nla 29.46% $1.03 $72 .71 $6. 15 $0 82 $3.11 $46 97 . $0. 01 0.43% 7 . 29% 28.09% nJa l '.' 5.9G% 1 : 7.29% '> ' 4 'fila nla :. nJa n la "rifa 'rVa nla nta nla 26.74 1.73 0.92 16.39 1.0 9 ,. nJa nJa nla $0. ... 2(40 1.62 0 96 15 .58 1.03 nla nla nla. $0:45 n la nla nla I nla n/a nta nJa n/a .. nla, nla : n/8 nia n/a nla n /a nla nla nla nla nfa 1992 1993 n/a nla n la nla nla I nla nla I ., :n: nla t n/a nla nii nla nla nla nla nla %Change 1989-1993 nla nla '"' nJa r,f nJa, .. nla nla nJa nla . 1(, t nl nla -;.. rVa rila nla nla nla ntal, nla nla nJa nla .;. J. A.-. ,.. .. ... ... ... " tl/a .. nla "'' nla n/a nla nla nla nlli ..... Ofi nJa ,, .iiv'a ., nta nJa nla nJa n{a n/a nta nla .

PAGE 300

GENERAL QUESTIONS NOTE: No questions coneeminggeneral system characteristics or 1993 Section IS data were asked of PPTS since the system discontinued its operation of fixed route service in June 1990 due to poor ridership. Til is service has since been replaced with demand-response service which began operating in December 1990. Despite this change in service, PPTS was still included in this report so that its dir ectly-operated motorbus data for 1989 and 1990 would be reflected in the statewide totals for these two years. 275

PAGE 301

276 PASC O CO UNTY P U B LIC T RAN S P ORTAnON SERVI C E figUN! IIIQ1 Area Population ( 000) )00 [illTn zoo 100 0 ,,.. tMS "" 1M1 "" !tl1 Uto tttt tttl ltll Flguro IIIQJ Vellldo Mi!H end M iles 120 !10 60 )0 ......... ..-PlOt )-0 1_1_ .. ,,., ... ' ,,.. '"' ''" '"' tt'U tft) figure 111-QS P a ssenger Fare Revenue (000) S:lSr-I 1 I I 1 1 I szol I I I I 1:.-1 I I I m f I I I I 1 1 1 l 1 SIO I I I I I I I I I I ss l + I I I I I I I I sol I I I I I I I I I ltM Itt$ tJM 1,.1 IHI tNt 1tto IHI ltf2 ttl) Perrormant. e lndic:ators 50 .., )0 20 10 0 Figur e III-Q2 PasHnger Trips (000) ttt4 1115 Ul& ttU 1-,,., IMO '"' ttU tHJ figure 111-(!4 Toul Opontlnv f-se MOO $300 UGO ---QI:Iitr-.(-10001 SIOO , .. .,1 ... ,...-so I U I I I ltM IN5 ttM nil ttU tftt 1tM 1ttt tMlttll 1 0 figure 111.()6 Vehicles in Maximum Service ........ .... '"" ,,.,,,., ,,., ,,.. '"''* "'' nn ,,,

PAGE 302

PASC O CO UN TY PUBLIC TRANS PO R TATI O N SERVICE 0 4 0.) u 0.1 0 0 Ettec:tina ess Measures figure IIIQ 7 Veh ide M iles Per C.plto --r-....... --L --J 1tM tMs ttu un "" "" uto '"' 1tt1 tMJ u OA 0 2 CIA Fl
PAGE 303

278 PASCO COUNTY PUBUC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE $ 1.20 suo so.oo 50.30 50.00 FigureiiiQ10 Operating EJCpeme Per Capita ..--r-... -1-1-1--1M4 tMS '"' Ut7 lttl 1 M 9 1990 tttt U 2 19H Figure 111-Q12 Efficiency Measures Figure 111Q11 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip S&OO $6.00 --1---1 -s.o.oo 1---$2.00 1--50.00 T 1* t,.S 19M IMJ ltN ttQ Uto lt91 1991 19n Operating EJCpense Per Revenue Mil e Figure 111-QU Mainteonan
PAGE 304

PPTS SUMMARY NOTE: Due to the discontinuation of directly-operated motorbus service in June 1990, petformancc indicator crcnds could not be analyzed tbr significant changes from 1992 tO 1993. A$ a no summary COmments could be p
PAGE 305

R KEY WEST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S YSTEM PROFILE Organi1'.alio n al Structure Key West Department of Transportation is a department of the City of Key West. Govcrnlne. Body 1nd CQmposition The Department of Transportation is directed by the Port and T r ansportation Au t hority Board wh ich i s comprised of seven members all appointed by the Mayor of Key West This Board then reports to the Ci t y Manager who in tum reportsto t he City Commission The City Com m ission is comprised of five eJected members (the mayor and four city commissioners). Servi ce M
PAGE 306

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Se!VIoe Area Populallon (000) Service Area Size (square mies) Pa .. enger TriJ>$. (()90) Pa>senger (000) Vehicle M!Jos (000) Reven u e Miles (000) .. Vehicle Hours (000) ;; > Revenu e Hours (000) Route Miles '< ,. '<-Total Operating Expense (000) To TABLE 111-RI Key West Dtpartme .nt of Transpor t ation Diredly..Operated Motorbus Performance I ndica t ors 1988 27 80 n/a .. 265}0 1,123.62 230 .38 220. 31 18.10 17.42 > 26.80 $620 .96 $541.76 > $ 225.13 $196.41 $2 67 $604.2 1 $197.58 $156 .35 12. 00 8.00 3.25 0 .75 9 .00 4 .0 0 125. 00% 79.79 1989 28 .18 nle 245 90 821 7 9 177.84 . 174 30 13.02 12.66 27.60 $715 89 $598.96 $199.41 $166 .84 ._ .. $0.00 $600.69 $160.06 $122 95 14 .00 7 40 5 50 uo 9 .00 4.00 125. 00% 60.00 1990 28.45 nla 238.52 822.01 177.80 174.26 12.99 12. 66 27.60 $668 .10 $532..15 $200.9 1 s160.o2l : so.oo $541 .6 0 $157.14 $127.97 14.00 7.40 5 .50 1.10 9 00 4.00 125. 00% 54.80 1991 29.23 nla I f 836.01 "' J78.4s I 175.19 ' 13.02 12.67 27.60 $688 09 $518 47 $215 90 $162.68 . $112 .61 $624 .76 ..... ,.. . $154 .60 $130 .74 14.00 7.40 5.50 1.10 9 .00 4.00 125 00% 51.57 1992 32 .47 19. 00 227.59 784.34 175 .22 172 .17 12 . 50. 12.15 27 .60 1993 32..47 19.00 . 238 31 821.29 177.89. 175.45 12. 9,7' 12.56 27.6g $674.30 Siln.14 : L $212.41 .... %Change 1988 16.82% nla 19.18% 26.91% -20.37 % -2(32% 27 .91% 2 .99% 8.59% 12.85% -5.65% $671 .5 1 $484 73 $181.70 $13U6 $0 .00 I $597.21 22259 19% $524.94 $153.91 $110 .77 1 13.00 7.60 3 .90 1 .50 $165.87 $133.56 13.30 7 .60 4 .20 1.50 8.00 11.00 4 00 4.00 1 00.00% 175 .00 % 48.61 I , 44.96 -16,05% )4.57% 10.83 % .00% 29.23% 100 00% , 22.22% 0 .00% 40. 00% -43.66% 281

PAGE 307

SeiVIce Area Population (000) SefVic:e Alea Size (square m iles} Trips (000) Passenger Miles (000) Vehicle Miles (000) .< > :. Revenue Mi .. s (000) Vehicle 'Hour> (000) .. Revenue Hours. (000) .. : .. ROtrteMIIes .. Total Operating Expense (000) . . Qi>e,.Ung (QOO 01)98,4 Sl Total Maintenance Expense (000) !iiin .... < ,, > *'''' .. .J Total Capital Expen.., (000) r<>l01 iievenu$'/ooli> ; '' ' .. . Revenue (000) "' A Pas-r Fa"' Revenlie .(OOO) Tolal Employees Maintenance Employees ,. Admin-Ejnpioyeu > . Ve hicles Available for Maxinum SeMoe Vehktes .Ope-rated In Madnum Setvice Spare Ratio Total Galons C<>nsumed (OOOj 282 TABLE 111-IU Key West Departme-n t of Tran sportatio n Purchased Motorbus Performance lndicaton 19U 1989 1990 1991 27.80 28.18 28.45 29.23 nla n/a nla n/a 98 .28 46 90 0.00 O.OQ 87 38 85.54 0 .00 0 .00 21.67 .. 17.68 0 .00 0.00 20.72 16.90 0 .00 0 .00 2 .51 2 16 0 .00 0.00 2.51 2 08 0 .00 0.00 2.20 1.30 0 .00 0.00 $32 .13 $24 .80 $0 .00 $0 .0 0 $19 75 > $0.00 so.oo n/a nla $0 .0 0 so.oo .... . ... ;,.-nta . so.oo -,-.. i o .oo : '!' nla < nla nla $0 .00 so.oo n/e nla $0.00 $0.00 < nla n/a $0 .00 $0.00 itll nla '. $0.00 so.oo nla nla 0.00 0.00 ; nfa . nt8. 0 .0 0 0 .00 . nla nla 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 nla nla ,, 0.00 0 .00 1 .00 1 .00 0 .00 0 .00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 00% 0 00% nla nla n/a nfa. 0 .00 1912 1993 19U-19 3 32.47 32.47 16 .82% 19 .00 19.00 nlo .. 0 00 0.00 n/o 0 00 0.00 n/a o.oo o .oos . ;nfa 0.00 0.00 nla 0..00 0.00 '': :nla o .oo 0 .00 n la 0.00 0 .00. $0 .00 $0 .00 nla . "'' : < $0 .00 ::> $0.00 ;. ?' _, ' $0.00 $0 .00 nla ;. so:oo '>/ ' >ll-'i > <.. ' $0.00 $0 .00 nla < $0.00 'woo ,. .. .... n!a 0 .00 o.oo n/a .. o.oo ... 0.00 nla 0 .00 0 .00 n/a 0 .00. 0 .00 .. ""'. nJa : 0 .00 0 00 n/a 0.00 0 .00 nla I nlo nlo n/o 0.00 ... . o .oo. n/a

PAGE 308

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Population Service Area Size (square miles) Passenger T..,$ ,(000) -:. -Passenger Miles (000) > VehiCle M iles (000) ', ; .. Reven ue Miles (000) Vehicle Hou" (000) Revenue Hours (000) . RouteMa&s ,. ., ; ::,-' TOial O!>eroting Expense (000) TOiaio()p'e-g Expenljl (000 of 1984 $ ) w TABLE lll-R.l Key West Department of Transportation System Total Performance Indicators 1988 27 80 nla 363.58 1989 28.18 nla 292.80 1,210.98 I 907.33 i52.0z 195.52 : >' 241 04 191.20 2o .6i .. 19.93 I 14.74 1990 28.45 n/a 23M2. 822.01 177.80 174.26 12.99 1991 2 9 .23 nla 242.58. 836.01 :' .a: 175.19 13.02 12. 67 v 1992 32.47 19.00 784.34 172 .17 I 1993 32 .47 19.00 238.31 %Change 1984 nla 821.29 I -32 18% m ;8e >; 175.45 2 7 .21% . ' ; . . 12.97 . .08% -37.00"A. . 29.00 28.90. 12.66 27.60 12.15 I 12.56 ""':.,. -.27.60 J -.21.6Q , ,.,. % >-!' .--4.83 $653 .10 $740.69 .t 35 .. I c $668.10 $532.15 $671.51 .. $181.70 $674.30 3.25% : $2t2.41 n/a Total Maincenance Expense (000\ $688.09 . $5!8,47 $215 90 $162.68 : nla nlal $200.91 t01a1 Main1ena9ce I . n/a nla $160.02 Tolal Cspila l Expense (000) n/a nls $0.00 I $112 .61 Sf3Liih I:;; $148:73 -;;. .,_ > so.oo $597 .21 I ''" iolo nla ., .... it/8 I .. f$567 .':ls Tcibil Loeol Reytnue (OOO) .. nil' nla $541.60 $524 76 . '. ;, :, "' < (000) n/a nta $157 .14 $154.60 $153.91 $16 H1 Passenger Fare nla n/a E-127.97 $130 74 $110.77 : 1 ''; n/a .. __ Total Employees nla n/a l-4.00 1-4.00 13.00 n nl Transportalion ,Op,erali
PAGE 309

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per Capitll ... SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pa'"!'?6' Trips . Passeng er T rips Per Revenue Mile T.._,s .Per. Reve-ntie Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Awrogo Spood (R,M. IR .H.) .. Average Age of Fleet (11'1 years) Number or l ndclents: ' -. . Revenue Service Interruptions -;;_ RMnUe We Betw.en (000) ,; - Revenue MJes Between l nlenuptions (000) AVAILABiliTY . . ,. __ .. ''" ... R8vtmue Mies Per ROute-Mie: (OOO) 284 TABLE lll-R4 Key W est D t .partmtnt o r Transporta ti on D i r ttti)'-Optrated M oto r bus F.fftttivt ness M easures 1988 1189 1990 1 9 9 1 8 .29 6 .31 6 25 6.11 9 .55 8.73 8.39 8 .30 .. .. 1 .20 1.41 1 .37 1 .38 15 23 19.42 .. 18 .84 1 9. 1 4 12.65 13.76 13.76 1 3 .82 6 .44 7 .44 8 44 9 .44 8.00 8.00, 5 .00 2.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 25 00 21.sr '! 21.79 34.85 8 7.60 .. 27.54 34.86 34. 8 5 7 0 1 8 22: 6 .32 ' 6.31 i '"6.35"' 1992 1 993 19881 3 5.40 5 .48 -33 .90% 7 .01 . 7 .34 < -23.11% 1.32 1 .36 12,80% - 18 .73 18.98 ... 24.61%.: 14.17 13.97 1G.47% 10.44 1 .91 -70 34% -. 1 .00 '< o.oo -100.00% '-> 65.00 33.00 312.50% 172.17 : o;.rltt. .. >-.r '. <;' .. 2.65 5 3 2 -80.69% . ; ._; 6.36: ... . 6.24 : -22 67%

PAGE 310

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles SERVICE CONSUMPTIOH ci,piia . . Passenger T,..,s Per Revenue Mile Passerig.ei T,..,s,Per Rev,&nue'tlour . OUALI7Y OF SERVICE (R;M-?ttil ...... ,. : Average Age of Fleet (in years) NurTd>er of llieid81lts .. : '< ' Revenue Service Interruptions ReVenUe f.1iles Incidents {000) Rew.nue MileS Between lnlerruptlons (000) AVAIUI81U7Y per Route Mile (000) TABLE 111-RS Ke)' West Department or Transportation Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 ---0 .78 0.63 nla nla .. 3.54. .. : f. :rvl! nla > .. 4.74 2 78 nla nla 39 .12 > nla '.: .. 8' 25 .:1' .. n/8 Vc' '. 8.00 n/a nla n/a ... _. ; ; nla. M11 n/a_. < !Ill: "' . ro> .. nla n/a nla nla nJa nla "IVa n/a nla nla nla nla .... 13.00 nla' nla .. 1992 1993 %Cha;; 1988 19 3 nla nla . . nf; ' Y''';'. -'> _,_ ... ;.. a "' .,: nla nla nla . nla ;; . . ., .. n/a. ''"' "' ... "'. . ,_ :, ,_,.: nia nla -,,_--,.,_ ,nla . ,. . nla nla nla < ., , ,,,,. ' nla .. nla .. ;, ... nla nla nla : : -:""'' : . -:, .rita U '. iva .... nla nla nla .' n/8 :!"a < ; ..... .. nla .. 28S

PAGE 311

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERCICE SUPPI. Y Vehic$e: Miles Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passet')98f Trla Per C,pla t .f: Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile : Pautngir TriPs Per Revenue Hour < QUALITY OF SERVICE Av ::. Revenue M*ts Between I nterruptions (000) AVAILABILITY ... "". < . . ' ; _Per Route MiM (000) .. 286 TABLE III-R6 K ey We$t Department of T ransportation System Total Effectiveness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 9 .07 6 .94 6 25 6 11 13.08 10.39 . 8 .39 8.30 1.51 1 .53 1.37 1.38 18.24 19 .85 18.84 19. 14 '12.09 12.9 7 13.76 . 13.ey;l : .. 6 .60 nJa 8.44 9.44 nl . nla 5 00 2 00 nla nJa 5 00 25 00 .. . . nla nla _ , '< 34.85 87.60 nla nla 34.85 7 .01 8.31' .. ; 6 :35 . 6 .8 2 6 . 31 1992 1993 1988 3 5.40 5.48 -'39 58% _7.01 7.34 -43 89% .. 1.3 2 1 .35 -9 95% 18. 73 18.98 4 04% 14.17 .. 13.97 15. 54% 10 .44 1 91 .05% 1 00 -r . o.oo nfa '<' 65 .00 33.00 nla ... 172.17 ) n/a ' : .., nta. 2.55 5 .32 n la .624" 6 .36, . .. -23.52% ..

PAGE 312

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per <>Petating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Pef passenger Trip ,; Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Opecatil\g 'exP!nse Per Mile.: ' Opefating Expe-nse Per Revenue Hour .Mairltenanc:e &pen N Pei' Rev&l'lue Mie Ma intenance Expense Pe r Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS ' loca l Revenue Per Ope rating Expense Per Expense VEHICI.E UTI LIZATION Vehicle Miles Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hou1S Per Peak Veh ide (000) ReYenue Miles Per Velltde Miles ' Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) Revenu e Hours Per Total VehicJes (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY R6Yetlue Hou ts P et (000 ) Passenger Trips Per EmplOyee (000) ENERGY UT ILIZATI ON VercJe Miles Per Gallon FARE Average Fare TABL E IIJ -R7 Key West Dep a rtment of Transportat i o n J>irettly -Operattd Motorbus Efficiency Measures 198 8 1989 1990 1991 $22.34 $25 .41 $23 .4 9 $23 54 $155.24 $178 .97 $167.03 $172 .02 $2.84 $2 34 $2 .91' ,, $2. 80 ' ; $0 .55 $0 .87 $0 .61 $0 82 $3.83; $3 .93 $2.82 $4 .11 ' ' $35.65 $56.53 $52 77 $54 .29 $1.02 $1 ,14 ' $1.15 -,. $1.23;. 36. 25% 27.85% 30.07% 31. 38% 25 18% nm 19 ,15% 19 .00%' 97.30% 83.91% 81.07% 76.26% 31.8:i% 22 .36% 2 3 .52,'!1 22 ? 4 7 % ' 57.59 ,44,48 44.45 44.6 2 4 .52 3.25 3 .25 3.25 0 .96 0 .98 0 98 0 98 24.48 19.37 19.36 19. 47 1 94 1.41 1 41 1.41 1.45 0 .90 0.90 0 9 1 22. 1 1 17.56 17 04 17 33 2 89 2 96 3 .24 3 .48 $0 59 $0.50 $0.54 $0 54 1&92 1993 % Cha'9f, 1988-19 3 $20 68 ' 7.05% $167 88 $168 .57 8. 59% ., $2.83 $0.86 $0.82 48.56% $3. 90 $3 84 "': 36.36% ' $55 26 $53 .70 50 .84% > A );:-;,-' J 8 .4 .8% 27 06% 31.50% .1 1 % 16 50% : 21.33% 78.17% 84. 1 4% .53% 22 92% 24.60% -22 e9% 43.81 44.47 t :i2:78% 3.12 3 .2 4 -28.32% 0 98 ,.,, 0 .&9 3.12% 21.52 15.95 -34.84% 1.52 1 .14 -41 .02% 0 93 0 94 -34.96% 17 50 17 .92 3 .6 0 3 .96 37 .06% $0. 49 $0 56 -4.90% 287

PAGE 313

288 EFACIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per C3pila Operoting Expense Per Peek Vehicle (000) Operating EXpense Per Passen9M Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile . Operating' ExJ?OnM Per Rever>ue Milio : Operating El' "' Local Revenue Operating Expense ,,_ ., . Operollng Re-ui Per :op:eiOtlng Expense VEHICl.E UTiliZATION .\iehidi; Maej Per, Pfik .. . . Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) 'Mttes Revenue MiSes Per Total Vehicles (000) Rev&nue TOtal Vehicles (000) lABOR PRODUCTIVITY Re...enue Etf!PtQyee (000) Pa ... n110r Trips Per En"c>loyee (000) ENERGY UTiliZATION Vehicle Mile;s Per Gallon . ? FARE Avef!ge ". > 1-: > TABLE 111-RS Key West Depar1ment or Transportation Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measuns 1988 $1 16 532 .13 $0 .33: $0.37 $1.55 $12 .79 nla nla 1989 $0.88 $24.80 $0.53 $0.29 $1 .47 $11.92 nra nla 1990 nla nla nla nla nla nla nta nla . J., .. nla "> nfa .,. .' n/a" nla -nla . 21c67 2.51 20.72 2.51 n/a '"'' nfa nla '.) " nfa < 11.6$ 2.16 0.96 16.90 2.08 n/a nla n/a n/a . ., 5 nla > -> nla nlo nla n/a nla n/a n/a !'Ill nla 1991 nra nla nla nla nla nla ., nla nla nla nla nla .. "''" ... .._ <.: nta n/a n/a n/a nfa nta nla < nla n/a 1992 nla nla n/8 1 : nra nla, 1993 nla nla n/a n/a riJ' n/a nla nla nla nla n/a "'t n/a %Change 1988 -1993 <> ., "' nla n/a nJa n/a n/a n/a nta n/o n/a nJa nla ,_ >ril& . ': < ' ' nla nlo nta n/a nla wa nla n/a n/a : > ' nra nla nla' I nla nil ntl > nla nJa .rila I n/a n/a nla n/a n/a ,. nf nla 'nla' n/a

PAGE 314

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EfFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Peak Vehide (000) Op&raling Expense Per Tfl> Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Operating Per ..... Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Ma.ntenanee Expe,;M Per Revenu8 Mite I ,,._, Mainten,nce Expense Per Operatirtg Exp. OPERATING RATIOS TABLE 111R9 Key West Department of Transportalioo System Total Efficiency Measures 1988 $23.50 Sl3o.62 $1.80 $0.54 $2.71 $32.77 Ilia n/a 1989 $26.29 $148.14 $0.82 $3.87 : $50.24 nla nla 1990 $23.49 $167.03 $0. 81 $3.83 $52.77 $1., 15 30.07% 1991 $23.54 $172.02 $2.64 $0.82 $3.93 $54.29 V' ,. $1.23 > 31. 38% 1992 $20.68 $167.88 .. $?.95 .. $0.86 $3.90 $55.28 "".:'''), <> ....... 27.06% 1993 %Change 1988-1993 $20. 77 I , .-11.82% $168.57 29.06% .. , :;;/ ; ; $2.8.3 x: 16.50'%. : 19: 8 1% ": : n/a . . . .... .. '.. ,;, Local Revenue Per Ope111ting Expen-se n/a n/a 81. 07% 76.26 % 78.17% 84.14% nta n/a. n/a : 23 .52%. 22 ,-47% 22.92% . ..:.--: n/a VEHICLE U'IJLIA I tuN . . Mile$ Per P.uk Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) Rewnue Per Miles Revenue Mile$ Per Total Vehicles (000) Re'(enue Hours Per Total (000.) LABOR PROOUCTMTY ReYef'lue Hours Pe:r Employee (000) Passenger Trips Per EmplOy" (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehleie Per G.aJon FARE Average Fare 50.40 4.12 0.96 24.10 1 .99 nla n/a n /a nta 39.10 3 .04 0 .98 1 9 12 1 .47 11/8 n/a n /a nla 44.45 3.25 0 .98 19.36 1.41 0 .90 17.04 3.24 $0.54 44:62 3 .25 0 .98, 19.47 1.41 0 9 1 11 .33 3.46 $0.54 43.81 3.12 0.98 2 1 52 1 .52 0.93 .. 17 .50 3 60 $0.49 44A) t ., 3.24 -21.32% 0 99 3.12% 15. 95 -33 .83% 1. ,. -42.73% 0.94 1 7 .9 2 3 .96 $0.56 n/a n/a n/a n/a 289

PAGE 315

G E N E RAL QUE S T IONS I. Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, please provide t he previous fare structure as well as the updat ed far e struc ture and indicate when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2. Were th ere any significant changes in service/service area during fisc al year 1993? Peakhour buses were extended by t hree hours from February 22, 1993, to April 16, 1993. The peakhour buses were then extended by one hour from April 16, 1993, to September 30, 1993. Prior to the arrival of new buses in December 1992, KWDOT did not provide pea k service on a r egular basis 3 Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit system? 290 In January 1993, KWDOT received nine ElDorado N ati onal 1 6-passengerSquire propane-fueled buses. The reduced seating on these vehicles requires increa sed frequency In addit i on, KWDOT installed a p r o pane fuel farm which allows for fuel to be pur
PAGE 316

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1993 SECTION IS DATA 1. Since your 1993 Section IS report did not include a figure for passenger miles, the average trip length from the 1990 data (3.45 miles) was used to calculate a value for this indicator using 1993 passenger trips (see table below) This is the same procedure that was used to calculate 1991 and 1992 passenger miles. If this procedure is unsatisfactory, please provide an updated figure for 1993 passenger miles. Directty.()peno.d -FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change PJs,-senger Trips 227,590 238,310 4 .7% Passeoger Miles 784,340 82t,290 4.7% System Response: K WDO'r is not required to conduct an on-bnard passenger count for funding purpos es. Due to a lack of personnel, the last count was performed in 1989. As such, KWDOT indicated that the method used to calculate 1993 passenger miles is satisfactory. 2. Maintenance expense increased nearly 17 percent from S 181,700 in 1992 to $212,410 in 1993. To what can this increase be attributed? System Response: rn the 1992 Section IS report, fuels, lubricants, tires, and tubes were reponed as operating expenses instead of maintenance expenses. For the fiscal year 1993 report, these items were included in maintenance expenses. 3. No major capital purchases were made-in 1992 while capital expenditures in 1993 totaled $597,210 What capital purchases were made in 1993? System RespOnse: In fiScal year 1993, KWDOT purchased nine new ElD orado National Squire buses. 4. Passenger fare revenue increased21 percent from SilO 770 in 1992 to $133,560 in 1993 despite only a five percent increase in passenger t rips (227,590 in 1992; 238,310 in 1993) during this time This resulted in an increase in average fare per passenger trip from $0.49 in 1992 to $0.56 in 1993. Is this the result of a fare increase, or is there some other explanation'? System Response: According to KWOOT,Ihis increase is the result of the new buses whiC h auracted full fare riders and allowed accurate mileage re-portS. The older buses could only estimate mileage. S. The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from eight in 1992 to 11 in 1993. In addition, the average age of the vehicle fleet decreased from 10.44 years in 1992 to 1.91 years in 1993. Please explain any changes t h at have occurred in the vehicle inventory. System Response: As discussed previously (see also the response to quescion #3 in the General Questions sec-tion), nine new ElDorado National Squire buses were purchased in fiscal year 1993. These vehicles replaced eight GMC buses. 291

PAGE 317

6. The number of revenue service interruptiOn$ (previously refermlto as "roadcallsj decreased almost SO percent from 6S in 199210 33 in 1993. To what can thu decl i ne be attributed? 292 System Response : The decrease is due to the fa<:t that the ongoing maintenaneeproblem. with the old GMC buses were el i minated with the arrival of the new buses in December 1993 and J anuary 1994.

PAGE 318

KEY WEST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Figure IIIR1 Co\lntyfSer v"i I 6 3 o I L:1.. r t I } 1 j-. -... UM t'JU 1't7 U .. 1ttt '9N ttfl ltll ,,, 293

PAGE 319

294 KE Y WES T D EP A R TMENT OF TRAN SPORT ATI O N 6.0 3.0 f igure llrVebide Miles Per capita 0.0 I +M-1 J-+ttl4 IUS 1U6 1M? tUe UU 1t,O 1ttt IHJ n o 9.0 6.0 ) 0 Effediveness Mu.sures figure uwno Averag& Age of Fleet ( years ) r Figure IIJP'is.stngf'f Trip$ Per Revenue M ile 1.6 1.2 f--l--,l -.. 0 8 -0.4 I 0 0 "', .", .. : . 1/ ,---.. -'"" ltU '""Ill? "" tttt tHO 199t 19U tnJ o o I ... r--i-'. roo-,: F "T' J=t 1114 ttiS 1116 1M1tt .. tt" ltto tnt 1tU IHJ Figure IIIA11 Revenue Miles AccldenU/fncldents fill"rt IIIR12 R e venu e M iles Betwetn I nterruptions 200,000 ]C l-+-t__I_ -I -I I -l 1 -...... -1 >----L-" 120,000 10.000 40.000 0 40,000 r :r."!':' ) -+ < HOtt r-r]. -r-V -!--rr-' --.. --30,000 20,000 10.000 0 ,,.. tMS ttn IWJ t9M tWt "" lt'tl lttl lttJ ... IMI tM6 ltll tttt ltft ttto tnt I H l 19U

PAGE 320

KEY WEST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Figure IIIA13 Operating Expense capita 530 .00 1 1 __ r-r I]' 520. 00 J .... 1 .. -. 1 y . $10.00 1 so.oo I 1 -J. ] 19 .. IMS tH6 19U 1966 19n 1990 1991 1992 ttU Figure 111-R16 Matntenance Expense Per Revenue Mile 51. 50 1-Tf* -_;:=;_: i __ J .... 50.60 I ++t--i-----1-. L_ 50.30 -:1 -L . :hl -1 ..... SO 00 I .. I 1-. o-J ; -r-.. tt&4 tMS ttu tttl IUt Ult 1990 1 1 Itt! tt9) F igu r e IIIR19 Revenue Hours Per Emp loye e 1.500 1 'l l_____ ,. --1.200 .. LT -\ L 9001 .. --, 600 1 1---' -1 I I l 300! c::: I i .:: ,,:-:1 -IIO U tMiooloo .. ) l r 1 .. i .. 1 .. t,,... 1965 1n6 t967t9U 1969 1990 1991 1992 199J Efficie nc y Measures flqure 111-1!14 Operating Expense Pe r Passenger Trip Sl.OO ;, -,. .. 1 t .. ; 52.00 51.00 so.oo 11 -t :--t i 19641 ttH IM4 tW ltU u., ttto lttt t 9 U 19tJ 30% 1 I 20%1 Figure UIR17 Farebox Recovery Ratio I I I 10%1 j ,--/ .. -- I \._ ..-.()It fo:I.H .. rl.ft'-lM>I,.I>n4 0% ; l i I 1, 1964 ,,u ., ... 196) " "" ttt-0 1991 1992 199) Figure IIJ.R20 Passenger Trips Per Employee :::: I I I .. -I : f I I I 15.000 1 1 . r 1 0,000 i 5,oool I 1 1 1 ( ) o l i i 1 . f .. l ( ,,.. ,,.s u" ,.,,,.. "'' '"' l'lt1 un 1tn Figure IU-R15 Operattng Expense Per Revenue M ile :: $2.00 .. $1 00 ...... -__ l . L--h()l!' b XI.oM-1 M : l "l"' .,,,._ :r::--c so.oo --l=F 1 4 1 tH4 UIS tH6 ttl? ttu 19" 1t91 199! 1HJ Figure III-R18 VehJde Miles Per Peale Vehide 60,000 r ;--r ;--rn-r-1 20.000 1 i -t-1-1---" o l J 1--... ... ,, ... 1964 I"S 19K 1H119 U 1 H 1991 1M2 199) 50.60 r -i 50.40 I. Figure Average Far e T _ __ .. ,_. 1 ---' .... ......... .. __ L_L L L .. ?.; 1<011 t .. l.: .. ... ou. .. ....... ... ... -. --$0.00 ... ... ; .. -J-:'F .... " ,,.s "" .,.., " "" '"o 1tt1 t t n ,,, 295

PAGE 321

KWOOT SUMMARY 296 A significant event t hat occurred in fiscal year 1993 was the purchase of nine ElDorado National 16passenger Squire propane-fueled buses. This purchase was the major capital acquisition of FY 1993, and as a rcsuh, capital expen se increased to $597 2 10 In K WDOT installed a propane fuel farm which allows for fuel to be bought at a reduced rate. Total maintenanceexpeJtSe increase d almost 1 7 percent from $181,700 in 1992 to $21 2,410 in 1993. KIVDOT noted that, in the FY 1992 Section 15 report, fuels. lubric.anlS, tires, and tubes were reported as operating expenses instead of maintenance expenses. For the FY 1993 report, these items were categorized as maintenance expe.nses. The number of vehic les a va ilable for maximum service increased from eight in 1992 to 11 in 1993, while the average age of the fleet significantly during this time (10.44 years in 1992; 1.91 years in 1993). This was mainly due to the replacement of eight GMC buses with the nine new ElDorado National Squire buses which were purchased in 1993. The number of revenue service interruptions (previously r eferred to as roadcalls .. ) declined nearly 50 percent from 65 i n 1992 to 33 in 1993. This decrease was due to t h e fact rhat continuing maintenance problems were el iminated with the replacement of old GMC buses with the nine ne\v buses in 1993.

PAGE 322

S. SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT (BREVARD COUNTY) SYSTE M PROFILE Organizational Structure-Space Coast Area Transil is a dtpartmen.r of Brevard County. Covernin c Body tnd Composition -The system is govemtd by t he Brevard County Commission which is comprised of five elected commissioners .. Spac-e Coast provjdes transil services l o Brevard County. SCAT d irectly operates demand-res ponse strvices as well as contracting to provide additional demand-response and vanpooJ services. In addition, SCAT began operating fixed -route motorbus servi ces on Oc tober 1. 1991. 297

PAGE 323

298 TABlE 111-SI Space -Coast Arta Transit (Brevard County) l)irecllyaOperaled DernandaRespGnse Service Per r o rmance Indicators PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 SeflriOO Are-a Population (00 0) 387 60 403 5 0 398.98 409.37 417.74 Sel\lic:e Area Size (square miles} nla n la nla nla 427 00 Pas sen ger Trips (000) 364.05 360.32 385. 69 392.68 202 .4 8 Passenger Miles (00 0 ) 3,724.72 5,109 .31 4 ,844 27 4,932 .06 2.5 4 3 0 9 Veh i cle Miles (000 ) 984.8 1 t 1n.63 1,449 09 I ,347 68 392.45 Rev enue Miles (000) 892 .87 1,11 8 .75 1 ,362 65 1,273.56 344 1 1 Vehicle HOUI$ (000) 71. 90 64.24 78.76 73.24 21.33 R evenue Hour$ (000} 69 .82 61.05 74, 06 69 22 18.70 Route Miles nla n la nla n/a nla Total Operating Expense (000 ) $2 098.24 52.160 63 52,638.37 $2,789.42 $1, 107 13 Total Ope ratin g E xpese (000 of 1984 $) $1,830 .58 $1,80 7 73 $2 101 .4 8 $2 .101.82 $799. 1 8 Total Maintenance Expense (000) $462 67 $374 04 $391 94 $541.19 $207 .51 Total Mainle nane& Expense ( 000 o f 1984 $) $403.65 $312.94 $31 2 18 $407.78 $149: 79 Total capita l f)(pe M e (000) $576.21 $673.48 $677 79 $742 .89 $1.149.57 Total Local Reve nue (000) $ 1,381 ,46 $1, 678.84 $2,318.25 $ 2. 068.88 $2 217.51 Operating Revenue (000) $1, 1 8 1.46 $1,465.51 $1, 985 .35 $1, 691.55 $1, 710 90 Passenget Fare Revenue (000 ) $ 220 .09 $269.70 $415.05 $439. 7 6 $128 47 Tota l EmpbyeM 50. 20 57.50 56. 25 51.60 21.30 Ttansoc>ttatlon ()pe taUng Employees 4 1 .00 54.50 54. 25 46.80 19. 00 Maintenance Employees 2.20 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 Administrative Employee-s 7 .0 0 3 00 2.00 4.80 2.3 0 Vehicles Available for Maximu m Service 32.00 3 4 00 39.00 36.00 29 0 0 Vehicles Operated i n Maximu m Service 23 .0 0 23.00 25.00 25 .00 20 .00 Spare Ratio 39.13% 47.83 % 56. 00% 44. 00% 45 00% Tolal Gallons Consumed (000) 1 1 3 .22 145.05 169.42 182.43 84.88 1993 1988-19 3 417.74 7 .78% 427 .00 nla 18 8 .4 9 -48.28% 2. 118. 66 -43 1 2% 384.98 .94% 319.26 -64.24% 29.08 9 55% 25. 44 63 56% nla n la $1,244 90 -40 .67% $871.67 -52 38% $219. 49 56% I $153.89 -61. 93% nta nla $1, 275 .32 -7 .68% I $779. 17 05% I $113. 97 -48.22% 18.00 -64 14% 14 .90 I -63.66% 0.00 n la 3 1 0 -55.71'4 28 00 -12.50% 1 8.00 -21.74% 55.56% 41.98% 84.33 -43.18%

PAGE 324

PERFORMANCE I N D I CATORS Sel\lice A r&.a Pop ulatiOn (000) Service Area Size (square mlies ) Passenger T"'s (000) Pa$$enger Miles (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Reve nue M i les (000) VehiCle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route M i les Tota l O p eratng Expe nse (000) T otal Operalng E'Jq>ense (000 of 1 964 $) Total Maintenance Expense (000) Tota l M a intenance Expense (000 of 1984 $) Total Capita l (000) Total local Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) PassenQ4'r Fare Revenu e (0 00) Total Empl oyees Transportation Operating Employtes Mainlenance EmplOyees Admini$trative Empl oyees Vehicle$ Ava.ilable f o r M aximu m Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Servi ce S par e Ra tio Tolal Gallo n s Co nsumed (000) ----TAB l E 111-Sl Space Coast Are.a 'fransit (Bre\ard County) Purthased Demand-Response Service Performance I n dica tors 1 988 1989 1990 1991 1992 387 .60 403.50 398.98 409 .37 417 7 4 nia n/a n / a n/a 427.00 60.46 82. 31 85.98 134 .08 172 .52 850.52 1.00 8.43 1 139.40 1,648. 31 3 272 .35 449.54 448.84 664. 1 4 1,145.00 1 ,689.54 440. 41 426.40 632 .52 1,02 1.34 1 ,477.44 14 .93 40.80 60.38 76.03 76.57 7.15 38.76 57.50 69.75 72 01 nla n/a n/a n/ a nJa $273.26 $437 .14 $634.54 $869. 13 $ 1,939.37 $238 .40 $365 .74 $5(15.42 $654.89 $1 ,399.94 n/a n/a nla n/a n/a nia n/a nia nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n / a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a nia n/a n/a n / a n /a nla nia n/a n/a $958 .33 n/a nla n/a nla nla n/a nlo nia n/a n/a nla n/ a n/a nia nia n/a n/a n/a nia n/a 19 .00 1 8.00 20.00 30.00 33.00 19 .00 1 8 .00 20.00 2 6 .00 30.00 0 .00% 0 00% 0 .00% 15. 38 % 1 0 .00% nia nia nla n / a n /a 199 3 % 19881 3 417.74 7.78% 427.00 n/a 175.06 189.55% 3,417 15 301 77% 1,369 .35 204 .61% 1,203 .53 1 73.27% 64.93 334 .87% 59.45 731.41% nJa nJa $ 1 ,844.0 7 574 84% $1,291. 2 1 441.61% n / a n/a n/a nla n /a nia nla n/a nla n/a $1.023 .85 nla nJa n/a nla n /a n/a n/a nia n/a 32.0 0 68.42% 30.00 57.89% 6 67% nla nJa n/a 299

PAGE 325

PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS S e rvice AJea Populalion (000) S eNioe Area Size {square miles) Passe nger Trips (000) Passenger M Jes (000 ) Veh ;cle M;les (000) R eve nue M i les (000) Veh ;cle Hours (000) Revenue Hours {000) Route Mile s Tota l Ex pense (000) Tolal Operating Expense (000 of 1984 $ ) Tota l M a i ntenance Expe n se (00 0 ) Total Expe nse (000 o f 1 984 $) Total Capital Elq>ense (000) Totalloeol Revenue (000) Operating R even u e ( 0 00 ) Pa-tSGnger Fare Rewnu e (000) Tot a l EmpiOy&es Trans.port3lion Operating Employees Maintenance Employees A d ministrative Empl oyees V e hicles Avaiable for Maximum Service Vehicles Opera ted in Maximum Service S p a r e Rati o Tota l G allo n s Co nsumed (000 ) 300 TABL E 111-53 Space Coast Area Tr ansi t (Br t\'ard Co unty) Vanpool Performanc e I ndicato r s 1933 1 989 1990 1 9 9 1 387.60 4 03 .50 398.98 409.37 nla n/a nla n/o 1 34.32 188 26 1 72.63 1 94.49 6 ,495.09 8,405.34 8 ,947.78 11 94 4 .27 747.12 930.86 955. 18 1 138 .72 7 47. 1 2 8 84.32 909.69 1 084.0 6 4 7 .63 59.29 60.84 4 5 .66 47 .63 56.33 57.80 43.38 nla nla n l a nla $ 1 6 7. 42 $25 9 .35 $285. 9 8 $328 07 $ 14 6 06 $ 216 .99 $227.7 8 $24 7 .20 $9.03 $77.66 $89.7 6 nla $8. 2 3 $84.98 $71 .4 9 nla n/a nla nla n/o nla $ 267 .10 $ 29S.S2 $316. 07 n/a $ 248.00 $295. 8 2 $316. 0 7 nla $248 .00 $295.82 $31 6.07 n/a 2 .00 2 .00 tl/a n /a 0.00 o .oo n/o n/a 0.00 0 .00 nla nla 2 .00 2.00 n/o 42 00 61.00 55.00 68. 00 40 .00 58. 0 0 55.00 44.00 5 .00% 5 .17% 0.00% 54.55% 0 .00 88.43 90.97 n la 1992 1993 %Change 1 9 88-1993 417.74 4 17.74 7 78% 427 00 427.0 0 nla 217 .97 258.03 39. 99% 13,593 .56 14,621 .78 125. 12% 1 521.97 1,635 .95 118 97% 1 448.53 1 554 .15 10 8 02% 6 1 .03 65.44 37. 39% 57.78 62.16 30.S2% nla nla nla $306.98 $348 .19 t06. 78% $221 .6() $2 4 2 4 0 65. 96% n/a nla nla nla nla 11/a $524 07 $513 .95 n/o $ 294 .98 nla n/o $ 294.98 nla nl a $294.98 $334 .19 11/a 2 00 2.00 nla 0 .00 0 .00 nla 0 00 0 .0 0 nla 2.00 2.0 0 11/a 75.00 80.0 0 90 .48% 67.00 69.00 72.50% 11.94% 1 5 9 4 % 218. 84% n/o n/a nla

PAGE 326

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Pop ulatiOn (000) Service Are-a SV.e (square miles) Passenger Tt1>s (000) Passenger Miles (000) Vehicle Miles ( 000) Reven u e Mi\es (000} Vehiete HoUI1i (000) Revenut.: tiours {000) Route Miles Tota l Oper;Uing Expense (000) Total Operating Expen$0 (000 of 1984 $) Total Maintenance Expense (000) Tota l Mai ntenance E xpense (000 of 1984 $ ) Tota l Capital Expe nse (000) Total local (000) Ope rating Revenue (000) Passe nger Fare Revenue (000) Tota l Emp loyees Transportation Op41:rating Employees Main tenance Employees Administrative Employees Vehicles Ava.ileble for Maxim u m Service Vehicles Ope rate d i n Maximu m ServiCe Spare Ratio Total Gallonl Consumed (000} TABLE III S4 Space Coast Area Transil. (BreYard Counly) DirectJywOperated Mot orbus Pe-rformance Jndic.ators 1988 1989 1990 1991 )87.60 403 .50 398. 98 409 ,37 n la nla n l a nla 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 .00 0 .00 0 00 0 00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 00 0 .00 0 00 0 .00 0 .0 0 o .oo 0 00 0 .00 0 00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 00 0.00 $0 00 $0 .00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 .00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 so.oo $0 00 $0 00 $0.0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 .00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 .00 $0.00 $0.00 so.oo 0 .00 0 00 0 00 0 .00 0 .00 0 00 o .oo 0 .00 0.00 o .oo 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 .00 0 00 0 .00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .00 0 00 0.00 nJa n/a nla nla 0 00 0 .00 0.00 0 00 1 992 1993 1988-1 3 417.74 417.74 7 78% 427.00 427. 0 0 nla 123.21 13 2 00 nla 1,54 7.53 1,483.64 nla 456 .43 nla 400 .21 418.:.'-7 nla 15 22 1 7.49 nla 14.30 1 5 .30 nla 452.00
PAGE 327

PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS service Area Population (000} Service Atea Site (squat e miles) Passenger Trips (000) Possenger Miles (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Reven u e Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route Miles Total Operating Expense (000 ) Total OPerating ExpenSe (000 of 1984 $) Total Maintenan-ce Expense (000) Tola. l Maintenanoe Experise (000 of 1984 $) Total C.lpital Expense (000) Total Local (000) Operating Revenue (000) Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Total Emp ioyees TransportatiOn EmplOyees Maintenance Employees Admini$traliYe Employees Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Ma)(imum Service Spare Ratio Total Gallons Consumed (000) 302 TABL-E 111-SS Space Coas t Area Transit (BrcvanJ County) System Tota l l'erfo rma nce I n d icators 1988 1989 199 0 1991 387 .60 403.5() 398 .98 409.37 nla nla nla nla 609.23 630.89 644.28 721.25 1 1,070.33 14,523 .09 14 ,931.45 18 524 .63 2 18 1.48 2 557.34 3 068.41 3 631.40 2.080 .20 2 ,429.47 2.904.86 3 378.96 t34.46 164 .33 199 .97 194.93 1 24.59 156 .14 189.36 182.34 nla nJa nla n la $2.$38 .91 $2,857.12 $3, 556 .89 $3,986 .62 $2,215.05 $2,390.46 $2, 834 .66 $3, 003.91 nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n l a nla nla n la n/a nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a n la nla n/8 nla n la nla nla nla nla nla nla 93.00 113.00 114 .00 134.00 82.00 99.00 100.00 95.00 13.41% 14 .14% 14. 00% 41 .05% nla nla nla n la 1992 1993 %Chango 1988-1993 417.7-1 417.74 7 78% 427 .00 427.00 nla 716 17 753.5 8 23 89% 20,956.53 21. 641 .23 95.49% 4,060 .39 3 .848.52 76.42% 3.6 7 0 .3 0 3 495.31 68.03% 174. 15 176.95 31 60% 162 .80 162.35 30. 3 1 % nla nla nla $4 269.52 $4,379.56 n.50% $3,06 1.96 $3, 066.54 38.44% nla nla nla nla n la nla n la nla nla nla nla nla nla nra nla $1 379.78 $1 ,.72.00 nla n la nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla 13 7 00 1 40 00 50.54% 128.00 1 28 00 56.10% 7.03% 9 38% -30.11% nla n/a nla

PAGE 328

TARL E III -S6 Space Coast Area Transi t (Brevard County) Oirectly .. Ope r ated Demand-Response SerYic:c Effe<:ti\eness Ml11Surcs EFFECTIV E N ESS M EASURES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1988-19 3 -SERVICE SUPPLY Vehkle MileS Per C3plt;) 2 .54 2 92 3 63 3.29 0 .94 0 87 SERV I CE CONSUMPTION P8$$eOgt'lt TrC>s Per Capila 0.94 0 89 0.9 7 0 .96 0.48 0 .4 5 -52.01% Passenger Trips Per Rev e n u e Mile 0.4 1 0 32 0 28 0 .31 0.59 0.59 nla Pas$Gnge r Trips Pe r Revenue Hou r 5 22 5 90 5.21 5 .67 10 83 7.41 41.93% O U A lnY O F SERVICE Avorage Speed (RM. IR.H,) 12. 79 18. 32 18.40 18.40 18 40 12. 55 1 .86% Average Age of FJe-et {in years) 4 .22 5 .42 5 19 4.64 4.79 5 7 9 37.10% N umber o f Incidents 46.00 28 .00 44 ,00 52. 00 8 00 6 .00 -8 6 .96% Revenue Se-rvice Interruptions 112.00 1 1 1 .00 107.00 84.00 26.00 13.00 Reve n ue Miles Between I n cidents (000) 19.41 39.96 30 .97 24.49 43. 01 53 .21 174.19% Revenue M ile s Between Inte-rruptions (000) 7 97 10 .08 12.74 15. 16 13 24 24 56 208 13% AVAILABILITY Revenue Mile-s Per Route M i le (000) n la nla nla nla nla nla nla 303

PAGE 329

EFFECTIVEMESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehicle Miles Per capita SERVICE CO NSUMPTION Passenger Trt>s Per Capita Passenger Tf'C)s Per Revenue Mi1e P11Mn90r T,.,s PM. Revenue Hour QUAliTY OF SERVICE A""rogo Soeed (R. M IRH.) Average Aqe of Fleet (WI years) Number of Incidents Ra...,ue SeMoe lntenvplions R-ue -Be-n lnciden!s (000) Rovetwe MJss Between lnlenuptians (000) AVAILABIUTY R"""nue Miles Per RoUie Mile (000) 304 TABLE lll-s7 Sp:tce CO'IJI Aru Tran sit ( Brevard County ) Pun-based De.mand Responst Senitt Measures 19JI 1989 1990 1911 1 18 1.11 1 .66 2 .80 0 16 0.20 0.22 0 .33 0 14 0.19 0.14 0 1 3 8A8 2.12 1.49 1 .92 81.80 11.00 11.00 14.64 nia nia nia 1.10 nil ""' nia nia nil nla ... nil nil nla n/a nil nil nil ... nil nlo nia nio nil 1992 1993 %Chango 1988 4 .0<1 3.28 182.63% 0 .41 0.42 188.65% 0 12 0.15 5.95% 2AO 2 .94 -%.17% 20.52 20.25 -67.13'% t 74 2 71 nia nJo nJo nia nla nla nla nil ,. nil nil nia nla nla nia nla

PAGE 330

EFfECTIVENESS MEASUReS SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per Cap il a SERVICE CONSUMPnON Pas w nger Trips Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenge-r Trtps Per Revenue Hour QUAI.ITY OF SERVICE Average Speed (RM.JR.H. ) Average Age of Fleel (i"l yeai'S) Number of Incidents Revenu e Service tnlenuptions Revenue Mil&s Between InCidents (000) Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Per Route Mile (000) TABLE IIIS8 Space Coa.st Area fransit ( Bre.vard Cou nty) Vanpool Effec.tinness Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 .93 2 .31 2.39 2.78 0 .48 0.47 0.43 0.48 0 25 0 .21 0.19 0 18 3.67 3.34 2 .99 4.46 15.69 15.70 15.74 24.99 1 2 1 1.44 2.41 3. 1 9 n/ a 6 .00 9 00 n l a n /a 2 4 .00 30. 00 nla n/ a 147.39 101.0 8 nla nla 36.65 30 32 nla n/a n/a n/a nla 19 92 1993 % C hange 1988-1993 3.64 3 92 103 .11% 0. 52 0.62 29 89% 0.15 0. 17 -32 70% 3.77 4.15 7.26% 25 07 25.00 59.36% 2 5 9 2.03 67 .36% n/ a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla ""' n/a n/ a nla n /a n/a n / a 305

PAGE 331

EFFECTlVENESS MEASUR.ES SERI/1CE SUPPlY Vehicle M iles Pe1 Capita SERVICE CONSUMP TION Passenger Trips Per C.aplta Pas.senger Trips Per Reve nue Milo Pa$senger Pet Revenue Hour QUALITY OF S ER VICE Averago Spoed (R. MJR. H ) Aver190 AQe of Fleet (;, )'0111) Number of fnc:ide.nts Revenue Setvice IMemlpt*ls Ftevanue Mies eetwe.n lnddtntl (000) Revenue Miles Betwee n l ntenupclons (000) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Per Roule Mlle (000) 306 TABLE 111-S9 Space Coa.s l Are-a Tramit (Brevard Cou nty) M o torbus Effedivtness Mtas ures 1tlll 1919 1990 .. n/a nia nil n/a .,. nia nia .,. .,. nla nia nia n/a nla nla ni a nil nil nla nil nil nia nil nil nil n/a nla n/a nil nla nil n/a nio nla '' nil n/a nla nla nil nla nia n/ a n/a 1992 1H3 IIM-1 3 1.09 1 1 4 n / a l 0.29 0 32 nio 0 3 1 0 32 nia 8.62 8 .82 ni a 27.99 27.34 nia 4 .79 5 .79 ni a 7 .00 3.00 nla 30.00 1&. 00 nla 57.17 139. n/a 13 .34 27.89 n/a 0.89 0 .111 n /a

PAGE 332

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per C4ipita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Psssenger Trips Per Ca p b Passeng er Trips Per Revenu e Mile Passe-nger Trips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SRVICE Average (R.M.JR.H. ) Average Age of Fleet (in years) of Incidents Revenue Service Interruption s Reven u e Miles Between Incidents (000) Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Pe r Route Mie (000) TABLE 111-SJO Space Coast Are.a Transit (Bre mrd County) System Total Eftecfhencss 1\'h:asurcs 1988 1989 1990 1991 5 63 6 .34 7 .69 8 87 1 .57 1.56 1 6 1 1. 7 6 0 .29 0 26 0.22 0 .21 4 89 4 .04 3 .40 3 96 16. 70 15 .56 15 34 16 53 nla n la nla nla nla nla nla n la n la nla n/a nla nla nta nla nla nla n l a nl a n la nta nla n/a nta 1982 1983 % chanra 1988-19 3 9 72 9.2 1 63.69% 1 7 1 1 80 1 4 ,77% 0 20 0.22 -26.38% 4.40 5 .08% 22.55 2 1.53 28 .95% nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n l a nla nla nla nla nl a nla nla nla 307

PAGE 333

308 TABLE 111-SII Space Coast Area Transit ( Brevard County) Senic.e Efficiency EFFICIENCY MEASURE$ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 COST E FFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita $5.41 $5.35 S6 61 $6. 81 $2.65 Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) $91 .23 $93 .94 $105.53 $111.58 $55.36 Operating Per Trip $5.76 $6.00 $6.84 $7.10 $5.47 Operating Expense Per Pa.s.senger Mile $0. S6 $ 0 .42 S 0.54 $0.57 $0.44 Operating Expense Per Mile $2.35 $ 1 .93 $ 1.94 $2. 19 $ 3 .22 Operating Expense Per Reven ue Hour $30.0 5 $35.39 $35.63 $40.30 $59.20 M.aittenanoe Expense Per Revenue Mile $0.52 $0.33 $0.29 $0.42 $0.60 Maintenance Expense Per Operating Exp. 22.05% 1 7. 31% 14. 86% 19. 40% 18.74% OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Recovery 10.49% 12.48% 15.73% 1 5 77% 11.42 % local Revenue Per OperaUng Expense 65.84% 77.70% 87.87% 74. 17% 200.29% Operating Revenue Per Operating Expense 56.31% 67.83% 75. 25% 60. 64% 154.53% 1/EHICLE UTILIZATION Vehide Miles Per Peak Vehtcre { 000) 42.82 51.20 57.96 53.91 19 .62 Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehk:le (000) 3 .13 2 .79 3 15 2 .93 1 .07 Revenve Miles Per Vehicle Miles 0.91 0 .95 0.94 0-95 0 .88 Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) 27.90 32.90 34.94 35.38 11.87 Hours .Per Total Vehicle-s (000) 2 .18 1.80 1.90 1 .92 0.64 lABOR PRODUCTMTY Revenue Hour$ Per Employee (000) 1.39 1.06 1 .32 1 .34 0 .88 P3ssenger Trips Pe r EmpJoyee {0 00) 7.26 6.2 7 6 .86 7 .61 9 5 1 ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Miaes Per Gallon 8.70 8. 1 2 8 .55 7 .39 6.05 FARE Average Fare $0.60 $0.7 5 $1 .08 $1.12 $0.62 1993 '!. Change 1988-1993 I $ 2 .98 -44 95% $69.16 -24.19% $6.60 14.72% $0.59 4.31% $3.90 65.89% 508.93 62.81 % $0.69 32.65% 17. 63% .04% 9.15% -12.72 % 102.44% 55.60% 62.59% 11.!6'k 20.28 -52.64 % 1.6 2 -48.31% 0 .87 -3 .50% 11.40 -59. 1 3 % 0 .9 1 -58.35% 1 .41 1.63% 10.47 44.24 % 5.67 $0.60 0 .12 %

PAGE 334

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFF ICIENCY Operating Expense Per Operating Expense Pet Peak Vehicle (000 ) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Operatw'lg Expense Pet Revenue Mile Oper.1tilg Expense Per Revenue Hou r Maintenan ce Expense Per Revenu e Me Maintenance Expense Per Operating El(J). OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Recovery loca l Reven u e Per Ope rating Expanse Operating Revenue Per Expense VEHICLE UTILIZAT I ON Vehicle Miles Pe r Peak Vehicle (000) Ve h ide Ho urs Pe r Peak Veh i cle (000) Revenue Mae.s Per Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Pe r Total Vehicles (000) Revenue Hours Per Total Vehicles {000) LABOR PRODUCTIV I TY Revenue Hour$ Per EmplOyee (000) Pas.senget Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGY U11LIZA TION Vetlicle Miles Per G311on FARE AvefJge F3fe -----------TABLE 111-512 Space Coas1 Area Transit (Brt -\'ard County) Purchased DemandResponse Senice Efficie-ncy Measures 1988 1989 1990 1991 $0.71 $1. 08 $1.59 $2 .12 $14 .38 $24 29 $31.73 $33 43 $4 .52 $5.31 $7.38 $6 .48 $0.32 $0 43 $0 .56 $0 .53 $0.62 $1. 03 $1. 00 $0 .85 $38 22 $11. 28 $11 .04 $12.46 n/a nla n /a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/o nla nla "' nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla 23 .66 24 .94 33.21 44 04 0 79 2 27 3 02 2 92 0 98 0 95 0 95 0 .89 23.18 23.69 31. 63 34 04 0 .38 2.15 2 .88 2.32 n/a nla n la n/a nla nla n/a nla nla nta n/a 11/a nla nta nla nla ----1992 1993 1988 19 3 $4. 64 $4.41 526.15% $61.47 327.40% $11.24 $10.S3 133. 07% $0.59 $0 .54 67.97% $1 .31 $ 1.53 146.95% S26 93 $31.02 -18 83% nla n/a .. nla nla n/a n/a 49 41% 55 52% nla n/a n l a nla nla nla nla 56.32 4 5 .65 92.92% 2 .55 2 .16 175. 42% 0 8 7 0.88 -10 29% 44.77 37. 6 1 62. 26% 2 18 1 .86 393. 65% n/a nla ota n/a nla nla nla n la nla $5.55 $ 5 .85 nla 309

PAGE 335

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operati n g Expense Per Capi(a Operallng E xpense Per Vehicle (000) Opertlng Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Operating Expense P er Reveraue Mite Expense Per Revenue Hour Mlk'ltenJnce Expense Per Revenve Mile Mafntenance Expense Per Operating Exp OPERATING RATIOS Fa--g Expense VEHICLE UTl.IZATION Ve hldo M ile s Pe r Peak V e h;cte (000) Vehlcae H ours Per Pea1t Vehicle (000} R evenue Per Vehlde MJes Revonue Mlles Per Tolal VehK:1es ( 000 ) R ovonue Hours Per Total Vehicles (000) lA80R PRODUCTIVITY R evenue Hoors Per Employee {000) Pnsen ge r Trips Per EmpfOyee ( 000) E NERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle M iles Per G a llo n FARE AW4'19f' F are 310 TABlE III.SJJ Sp a ce Coast Arta Transit (8.-uard C o u nt y ) V an pool .ffie:it a t y Measures 1111 1 989 1990 1991 $0A3 $ 0 64 $0. 72 $0 80 $ 4 1 9 $U7 $5 20 $7 4 8 $0.81 $1.38 $1. 68 $1. 6 9 $0 0 3 $0.03 $0. 03 $ 0 0 3 $0. 22 $0 29 $0 3 1 $0 3 0 $ 3 52 $4.6 0 $4 95 $ 7 68 $0 .01 $0. 09 $0 1 0 n/a 5 64% 29 94 % 31.39% '' nia 95.62% 1 03 .44% 98. 34 % nil 102 99% 103 ... % 98.34 % nlo 95. 62% 103. % 98. 34% 18.58 16.05 1 7 3 7 25 .88 1 1 9 1 .02 1.11 1 0 4 1 00 0 9 5 0 95 0 .95 17 79 14. 50 16 $4 1 5 9 4 1 1 3 0.92 1.05 0 .6 4 ni l 28 1 6 28.90 n /8 nil 94 13 86.31 nla "'' 1 0 .53 10 .50 nia ni l $ 1.3 2 $ 1 7 1 $ 1.63 119 2 1993 .,.c ... m 1988 3 $ 0 73 $0.83 9 1 .86% $4 5 8 $5.02 1 9.87 % $1, 41 $1. 34 47.71 % $0 .02 $0.02 $0 2 1 $0. 22 .().59% S 5 3 1 $5 57 58.43 % n/o ' ni a n /a ni a nia 96.09% 96.53% nia 98. 09% nla nlo 96. 09% n/a nla 22.72 2 3 .71 26 94% 0 9 1 0 95 20 3 5 % 0 .95 0 .95 -6 0 0% 19 3 1 19 .43 0 77 0 78 -31. 49% 2 8 .89 3 1 .08 n/a 108 98 129.01 nla nil n/a nla $ 1.3 5 $ 1.30 nla

PAGE 336

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICI ENCY Operating Exl)6ns& caplla Opetating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Pas.-senger Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating Expensa Per Revenue Hour Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile Mliintenanc:e Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Recove-ry Loeal Revenue Per Operating Expense Operating Revenu e Pe r Qperating Expense VEHICLE UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles Pet Peak Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Miles Pe r Ve h icle Miles Rtvenue Miles Per Total Vehicl es (000 ) Revenue Hours Per Total Vel'licles (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per Emp loyee (000) Passe n ger Trips Pe r Employee (000) ENERGY UT ILIZATION Vthicle Mil&s Per GaliOn FARE AvtHag6 Faf e TABLE Space Coast Area Transit ( 'Brevard County) Motorbus Efficiency 1\t("aSurt.'S 1988 1989 1 990 199 1 n/a nla n/a nl a nla nla n/a nla n la nla nla nla n /a nla n la n la n la nla n l a nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nlo nla nla nla nla nlo nla nla nla nla nla n la nla nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n la n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n la n /a nla n /a nla n / a n la n/a nlo nla n la nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla n /a n /a 1992 1993 1988 3 $2 .19 $2.26 nla $83 .28 $85 85 nla $7.43 $7.15 nla $0.59 $0. 64 nla $2. 29 $226. nla $84 06 $61 .71 nla $0. 60 $0 67 nla 26.35% 29.76% nla nla nla nla nla nla nlo n/a n/a nla 41.49 43.48 nla 1 38 1.59 nla 0 88 0 87 nla 1 3.80 14.94 nla 0 49 0 .55 nla 0.91 0.65 nla 7.80 S .S9 nla 6.05 5 .77 nla n l a nla n/a -311

PAGE 337

EFFICIENCY MEA SURES COST EFFICIENCY Operallng Expense Per Capita Operallng Expe nse Pe r P eak Vehicle (000) OperJting Ex p e nse Pe r Passttnge r Trip Operating Ex p t nse Per P astenger Mile Optratr.g Expense Per Reve11ue Mile Operating Expen se Per Revenue Hou r Mtintenanoe Expense Per Revenue Mile Maintenance Expense Per Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Far-Recovery l.ocat Reftnue Per Clpe:raU'Ig Expense R ... """ Per 0s>errin!1 e-... 1191ICI.E unLIZATION Vetlicle Miles Pel Peak Vehicle (000) Vel'licfe: Hours Per Peak Vf:hide (000) Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mires Revenve M l'es Pe r T ota l (000) Reven u e Ho urs Per Total Vehides {0 00 ) lABOR PRODUCTMTY ReWII'IUe H<>Ut& P e r EmplOyee ( 0 00 ) Panang.er Trips Per Employ ee (000) E NERGY UTiliZATION Vehlca Mile$ Pet Galon FARE Fare 3 1 2 TABLE 111-$15 Spla'm 198S,.1 3 $ 10 22 $ 1 0 .C8 60.05% $,3,36 $34. 2 2 1 0.5 1 % $5 .96 $ 5 .81 39. 46% $0 .2 0 $ 0 2 0 -11. 76% $1. 1 6 $1. 25 2 .66% $ 26 .23 $26.98 32. 38% nla nlo nlo nla nl a nla 32. 32% 33.61% nto nl o nla nla nta nla nil 31. 72 30.07 13 02% 1 .36 1.38 -15 .69 % 0 90 0.91 -4 .7 6% 26 79 2 4 .97 11.62% 1 19 1 1 6 13.44% nla nl a nil nla nta nla nla nla nlo SU3 S1.95 nlo

PAGE 338

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1 Were any fare changes made during fiscal year 1 993? If so, p leas e provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented SCAT implemented a 12-rid e pass bk for the price of 10 rides In addition, a student half-fare category was created for youths aged five to 18 years and for college students with identifi ca tion. 2. Were there any significan t changes in service/service area during fiscal ye.ar I 993? SCAT began operating a new two -day per week route in the Cocoa Beach area. 3 Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the perfonnance of the transil system? SCAT indicated that they began using a more accurate method of determining vehicle hours, which resulted in a large change in the vehicle hours operated. 313

PAGE 339

Q UEST ION S ABOUT 1 993 SECT I O N I S DATA Di r ecdy-Operattd Demand Response Quest ion.s 1. The number or passenger miles dem:asedat a significantly greater rate from 1992 to 1993 than did the number of passenger trips (see table below) This resulted in a decrease in average trip le ngth Is th<:rc an explanation? Dle
PAGE 340

3 Total operating expe nse increased 12 percent from $1, 1 07,130 in 1992 t o $1 > 244>900 in I 993 Please expla in this increase. System R esponse: Other than general increases in wages and maintenance costs. the i ncrease could not be explain ed 4. The number of t ranspo rtatio n operating percent (19.0 FTEs in 1992; 14.9 f-rEs in I 993). while administrative employees increased from 2.3 FTEs 10 3 1 FTEs during 1 he s ame lime. This rcsullcd in a 1 5 p ercenl decline in lhc number of 1o1al employees (21.3 FTEs in 1992; 18.0 FTEs in 1993) Please describe t h e changes in these employee categories System Response: SCAT employees arc allocated between the directly-operated mot orb u s and 4ema nd -response modes. The overall i ncrease was from 37 I FTEs in 1992 to 41.6 FTEs in 1993. In fiscal year 1993> SCAT hired a maintenan ce/building supervisor. sponsored a s tuden t intern, and began operating a new ro u te. The rest of the increase can be accounted for by overtime hours. s 1 'he number of revenue serv i ce interruptions (previously referred to as "r oadcalts"') decreased SO percent from 26 in 1992 to 13 in 1993. Is there an explanation for Ibis decline? System Response: According to SCAT this decrease can be attributed to be.tter maintenance efforts. Direcrly-Operated Motorbus Quest j ons 1 The number of passenger miles inc. r eased between 1992 and 1993, while the number of passenger t rips declined (see table below). T his resulted in a decrease in average tri p lenglh. Is there an explanation? Dif'OCUy -0 Motorbus FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Passenger TripS 123,210 1 32 000 7 .1% Passenger Miles 1 ,483, 640 -4. 1% Average Trip Length 1 2.56 m i!Gs 11. 24 niles 5% System Response: As indicated in qucslion #I in t he Oireclly Operated Demand Response fiscal year 1993 was a passenger mile sampling year, and it was concluded thai the average passen&er trip le n gth declined from the previous sample 2. A s shown in t he table on the next page, the number of vehicle hours increased nearly 15 percent between 1992 a n d t 993 whic. h i s a considerably grea t e r rate than the inc reases in vehicle miles revenue and revenue hours. Please explain sig n ificant increase i n v ehicle hours. 315

PAGE 341

Directly-Operated -orb
PAGE 342

System Response: The decrea"e is the result of increased maintenance efforts. Dircttly-Optrated Demand Response and Motorbus Questions NOTE: SCAT has not provided separa t e revenue data in irs Section IS reports since the system began using its vehicles for bo t h fixed-route a nd demand-response serv i ce on October 1, 1991. As a result. it is diffkullto formulate questions con c erning revenue dala reported for each individual mode, specifica lly in the 1992 an d 1993 report years. TheretOre, it is necessary to u tilize revenue data combined for both modes 10 compare t h e 1992 and 1993 data. I As shown in the table. Iota I local revenue decreased mo r e than 42 percent between 1992 and 1993, pri marily due to a 55 percent decline i n operating revenue. Please explain Oirectfy-Operated Demand Res.ponse and Motorbus FY 199 2 FY 1993 %Change Total Locat Reveoue 2,217,510 1,275,320 -42, 5% 0per3tlng Reveoue 1.710,900 779,170 54 .5% Sys tem Response: In fiscal year 1993, Medicaid revenue was reclass ified from special iares to state funds. The Medicaid fundillg in fiScal year 1992 was this accounts for the de cr ease in operating revenue between fiscal years I 992 and 1993. 2 Passenger fare revenue decreased at a great e r r ate than the number of passenger trips (shown in the table below) between 1992 and 1993. This resulted in an eight percent de<: line -in the average fare per passenger t r i p during this time. P l ease explain these changes Oireetly..Optrated Demand Response and Motorbus FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Tf1>s 325, 690 320,4 90 1 .6% Passenger far e Revenue 126 470 1 13,970 -9 .9% Avetage Fare $0. 3 9 $0. 36 -3A% -System Response: The decreas e i n passenge r fare revenues i s due w the fc1ct that a greater pe-rcentag e of riders i n fY 1993 were half fare riders (i .e all students are now half-fare riders, as shown in the response to ques.tion #I of t h e Genera l Quest i on.s section) In addition SCAT implemented a J2 .. ride discounted passbook. 317

PAGE 343

Purc hased Demand Res ponse QuesUon s I. It is t\'ident from lhe data in the table below rhat, despite a cons tant number of vehicles operated in maximum service, the amount of service provided has decreased significantly. Please explain this decline. ---Purchased Demand Response FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Passenger Trips 172.520 175.060 1.5% Passenger M'lles 3,272,350 3,417, 150 4.4% Vehicle Miles 1 689.54() 1.369, 350 .0% Revenue Miles 1,477 ,440 1,203,530 8.5% Vehicle Hours 76,570 64,930 .2% Revenue Hours 72.010 59,450 -17.5% Vehicle$ Op in M&x. SeMce 30 30 0.0% System Response: The decreases in vehicle and revenue miles can be attributed to SCAT's service contractor becoming more efficient in grouping trips. 2. Despite the signific-ant declines in the amount of service provided, the data in the previous table indicate that passenger trips and passenger miles increased sli ghtly between 1992 and 1993. Is there an explanation for these increases? System Response: According to SCAT, the increases are the result of an increase in servic e during the summer months. 3. Passenger fare rcvenue($958,330 in 1992; $1,023,850 in 1993} increased at a greater rntc than >he number of passenger trips (shown in the table above} between 1992 and 1993. This res.ulted in a five pe:r<:ent increase in the average fare per passenger trip from $5 .55 in 1992 to $5.85 in 1993. Is this the result of a fare increase (see also question #I in the General Questions section) or is there sorne other explanation? System Response: The inc.rease i n passenger fare revenue is attr ibutable to a. n increase in Medicaid-funded trips which are more expensive Purchased Vanpool Questions 1 As shown in the tabl e on the next page, it is evident that the number of passenger trips incre-ased at a significantly greater rate than passenger miles. This resulted in a decline in the average t rip length. Please explain these changes 318

PAGE 344

Purd't.Hed va.,I)OOI FY1m FY 1H3 %Chatlge 217.970 18 4 % p--1).593.560 14 821 .7 7.61' AYOfage Til> LOnge\ niles 56.68-.1% System Response: No explan.alion cou l d be found. 2 The. rable below shows that the amount or service provided increased between 1992 and 1993. In addition, rota I operating expense increased nearly 1 3 pc:rccnt during this time. Is th e increase in expense solely due to the increase in service, or is rhcrc some other explanation? -Purchased vanpoot FY 1992 FY 1H3 %Change Revenue Mires 1,446.530 1,664 150 7 3% Aevli'ue Hou rs 57,780 62 ,1&0 7 6% VehiCSes Op II\ M.a. SeNtce 67 69 3 .0% Total Ol>eraong e:.ponse $306 980 $346 190 12.8% I Sys1c.m Response: The increase in 1olal ope.ratin1 exptJ\SC is auributable to the increase in service J P.usenger fare revenue increasedllpptoximatery 13 ptrccnt from $294,980 in 1992 to $334. I 90 in J993. J s thi s increase due to the intrc.ase in ridership disc:ussed previously. or is there another reason? System Response: The increase in fare revenue is due to the in(:.reasc in ridership discussed in question #1. 4 Tf1e number of vehicles available for rnaxirnurn service increnscd from 75 vehicles in 1 992 to 80 vehicl es in 1993. and vehicles operated i n maximum service i ncreased from 67 to 69 during lhis l ime (as no1cd previously) Also, the average age of I he vehicle flce1 decreased from 2 59 yean in 1992 10 2.03 years in 1993. Please-cxpliain any changes that have occurred in the vehicle inventory. Sys1em Response: Every year. SCAT rcphaces tli,iblt vehicles and expands the nee' as necessary In yea r 1<>93, a number of o lder vehicles were replaeed. 319

PAGE 345

320 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Figure lfi-S1 County/Service Area Popula1ion {000) 500 .. i l o L J .. I 1 I l + I ----r . 0 -------.. -+....... J ... 400 300 200 100 0 ,,.. 1MS ''*' "t7 t9 N lttt 1990 1tt1 1tt2 1tU Figure IIIS3 VehkJe Miles and Revenue Miles ss.ooo Performance Indicators Figure 111-54 Total Operating b:pens;e Figure 111-52 Passenger Trips {000) 800 1 11-r I I , 600 I I 0 "1 400 -200 1 --1----1---............ ---10 .. 1 9*S 1986 1987 "*' tm 1990 IHI lttl 19U Figure 111 Passenger Fare R e v e nue (000) I SOOOEE' = == ;=;; .. 000 ---m -3 ,000 -l --n-T-$4.000 ssoo ..,-..,...: t t S200u.-----11] >"-2,000 t l 1--+ $2.00Q ... S:I.OOO .. = t : :::_ $1,000 1,. l(<;.!Ofil'fo'""'(IC
PAGE 346

SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT 4 0 2.0 I I i I 1 ltt41MS ttt6 1Ml ltM lilt tHO lttl 1991 lttJ 8-0 Effectiveness Me-asures Figure: 111 Average Age of fleet (years) Figure III-S9 Pi!i.uenger Trips Per Revenue Mile u OA 0.2 . r ; i __ I!Olf: .......... ... o.o I I I" 'f" r-1- 111 4 ,,., 1916 1tt11tlt ,,., IMO IHI lttl 19tl 6.0 t /r -1"' 4.0 2 0 0.0 'tl> 'll l< ... Ot\..""' c...... llo_ol,.,._... ...... { ; i j '"' IYfi 1911 IMJ "" tttO IHI IHJ I"J Figure Revenue M iles Be-tween Accidents/Incidents Figure R e venue MIJes Between Interruptions 60.000]-1 [ 40,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 t 1 r .. ... J .. ,--l ... ---NOll j ... uflt,. ,,., ......... '. ... ... J .. T"C'. 20.000 c __ ._. ........ ..., ........ _.... 0 ; I I l 10.000 s ,ooo : 1 0 ltM IMS Iff' lti.J ltN tttt ltM '"' IH) IM) tMt ltiS tH4 UU ,, .. t9H t9t01tt1 199:1 tH) 321

PAGE 347

322 Figure fiiS13 Operating Expense Per capita $12.00 I I ' T T I I I I S9.00 I ---... $6.00 I $3.00 r.--I I I I so.ool--1 -1 1 1--f--1 --1--l 1984 UlS "*' 1t87 1981 1t90 1H1 1"2 1HJ Figure Maintenance Expense Per Reve-nue Mile so.eo -$0.60 1 -li())(, h:Wrl so.oo -1--F ::-r : :.::r.:.:::: --.. ------' 1-\ .. c-.; q --1ct .. ..OWtW 0tn--.1 "-< uilil:'. =i:::: ::-r-1--''"' t9U 19U 19t'1 ttlt 1Mt 1tM 1tt119921t9J Figure Revenue Hours Per Employee 1,500 r --.-1.200 900 600 1 -300 0 1U4 1"*5 ttu ntf '"* 1919 1990 1991 1ttl U'U SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Efficiency Measures F igu re 111-514 Operatin g Expense Per Passenger Trip $6.00 I I $4.00 I I I I I I I I r $2.00 $0.00 .. 1. -. J 19$4 t"S t9t6 19lt "" 19U 1MO 1H1 1"11993 t6'% r Figure III-S17 Farebo)( Re M < ,,... 19$5 "" 1987 "" ,,., ,,.,., 1991 1991 1993 Figure 111-520 Pa$$enger T rips Pe r Employee '2.ooo,.----r------1 --T-9.ooo [ _ --1 1 6 .000 1 __ --1----_ r--___ ooo-r----t 1 -1----1 J --. ;:!!. --c.;.r....(l,.__(lr .. (10"\o o . .::r.:: : r-::: 1.-:-.:.r:: 1--1 1"" IN$ 19*' ttt71UI 1919 1tJO 1 ')91 1992 Itt) Figure 111 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile n.oo. ........ S2.oo+ I FigureiiiS18 Vehide Miles Per Peak Vehicle 40 .000 1 T .... r ---. ----r [ --1..--j._ ___ _._._ .. 0 J \ --'F 1 1'-1----, .... -, .... nas "" 1ta1 ,,.. ,,., o "" nn "" $1.20 Figure Average Fare S0 .90 $0.60 -SO.lO -1so.oo -r''" ttl$ "" ,,., "" ,. 1990 1991 1 992 199)

PAGE 348

SCAT (BREVARD) S UMMARY The number of System Total passenger trips increased f rom 716,170 in 1992 t o 753,580 in 1993. 11lis increase was primarily due to an 18 percent increase in purchased vanpool passenger trips from 217,970 in 1992 to 258,030 in 1993. SCAT could not provide an explanation for the growth in p u rchased vanpool trips. Sy!>tem Tota l vehicle miles and revenue miles both declined between 1992 and 1993. mainly as a result of significant decreases in t hese indicators for the purchased demand response mode. During t his time period, the number of purchased demand -res ponse vehi cle mi l es and revenue m i les each dec l ined approximate l y 19 percent: vehicle miles decreased from I ,689,540 miles to I ,369,350 m iles, and the number of rev enue miles decre.1sed from 1,477,440 to 1,203.$30. These declines in the purchased demandresponse mode were attribuled to S C AT' s Transponation Disadvantagedservicecoordinator becoming more efficie nt in grouping trips. In fiscal year 1993. SCAT began uti l izing a newer and more accurate procedure for dctenn i ning vehicle hours. The use of this method resulted in a 36 percen1 increase in directly operated demand-response vehicle hours (21,330 in 29 080 in 1993) and a IS percent incre-ase in the number o f direct ly operated motorbus vehicle hours (15,220 in 1992; 1 7 .490 in 1993). Between 1992 and 1 993. passenger fare revenue decreased at a g r eater rate than passenger trips (directly-operated demandrespo nse and motorbus only ) reiultiog in an eight percent dc<::line in the ave rage fare per passenger rrip ($0 39 in 1992; S0. 36 in 1 993) SCAT indicated tha t the decrease in passenger fare revenue was due to the fact that a larger percentage of riders in fY J 993 were half-fare r i d ers. In FY 1993, all s t ud ents became eligible to be half-fare riders. In add ition. SCAT initi ated a 12-ride discount e d :>assbook. 323

PAGE 349

T TRI -CO UNTY CO MMUTER RAIL AUTHOR ITY S YSTEM PRO F ILE Ortanit.ational Structure The Tri-Counly Commuter Rail Authority is an authority established by the Florida Legislature for the purposC of owning. operating and maintaining a commu ter rail system in t h e tricounty area of Broward. Dade. and Palm Beach Counties Governing Body and ComOO!ition .. The TriCounty Commute r Rail Authority is governed b y a nineme mber boord of directors that consists of a County Comm is.sioncr appoi ntee and a business pc .rson appointee from each of the three counties and three ex officio members chat include a re. presentativc of FOOT District IV, a GovenlOr appointee and a member-atlarg e selected by t h e eight other board members. Se rvice Area .. 111e Tri-County Commuter Rail Auth ority is charged wilh operating a n d managing a commuter rail sys1em for the area defined by Broward, Dade, and Palm l:lcach Counties Modt! Commuter rail. 324

PAGE 350

P ERFORMANCE IN D ICATORS Setvioe Area Population ( 000} ServiOe Area Slz:e (square m iles) Passengat Trips (000) Passen9e r Miles (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Reven u e M i le s (00 0 ) Vehicle Hour& (000) Re11enue Hours (000) Ro u te M iles Tota l Oper ating Ex pense (000} Tota l OperaUng Expense (000 o( 1984 S) Total Mai nte-nance Expen s e (000) Tota l M a in t e n a nce Expens e (000 of 1984 $) Tota l Caplla l Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000} O perating Revenu e ( 000) Pas senger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees Transpo rtation Operating Employee$ E m ployee$ Admin i strative Employee s Veh icles Available fo r Maximum Service Vehic:tes Opera t e d in Maximu m Setviee Spare Rat io Total Gal lOns Consumed (000) TABLE 111-T I T riCo unt y Co m muter Rai l Aulhorit}' Per f ormance I ndicators 1988 1989 1990 1991 0 00 3 981 04 4 05 6.10 4,123.12 0.00 n l a nla nla 0 .00 291 .37 1,082.19 1,870.67 0 .00 9,240.02 3 2,1 31.9 7 64, 469.46 0 .00 510.90 1,208.89 1 ,563. 05 0.00 49 4 .80 1,172 .62 1 .503 .05 0 .00 15.94 43.76 48.47 0 .00 12..44 34 .06 38. 3 0 0 .00 132 .80 1 32 .80 132.80 so.oo $7.428.56 $12 708.93 $13.030 .93 $0.00 $6,2 1525 $10,122 .77 $9,818 .77 $0.00 $ 448.45 $2,252.33 $ 2 ,702 .76 $ 0.00 $375.20 $1,794 00 $2.036.52 $0.00 $58.040.8 6 $0.00 $0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1 03.45 $1 6 8 5 49 $ 2 ,849.12 $0.00 $ 103.45 $1.685.49 $2, 849.12 $0.00 $76.78 $1.634.99 $2. 849 1 2 0.00 1 5 .00 29 .50 37. 50 0 00 1 0 0 4 00 4 00 0 00 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 .00 0.00 13.00 24. 5 0 3 2.50 0 00 2 3 00 23 00 23.00 0.00 20. 00 20 00 2 0 00 1 5.00% 1 5 .00% 15.00% 0 00 nla nla nia 1992 1993 1989 3 4 ,000. 00 4,000 00 0.48% 1 ,340.00 1,340.00 nla 2.266.4 7 2 ,697 .46 825.79% 76,801 5 1 88,615.5 5 859. 0 4 % 1 892.30 2,382. 33 366.30% 1,799 .89 2.295.14 363. 85% 55.64 59.13 27 1 .05% 44..27 5 7 03 358.64% 132.80 132.80 0.00% $16. 249.28 $19.700.76 165 20% $11,729 55 $13,794.37 121. 94% $1 ,701.2 8 $ 1,4 98.51 234. 15 % $2.639.96 $3.036.94 709.41% $11 066.37 $1,844 0 1 9 6 8 2% $3. 528.38 $4, 7 08 09 4451.16% $3, 528 .38 $4,708. 09 4 4 51 .16% $3.435 23 $4,806 44 5899 37% 4 6 .70 ""' ""' 2 40 nla nia btO nla nJa 42.90 n/a n/a 27 00 31 .00 34.76% 20.00 25. 00 25 00% 35. 0 0 % 24. 00% nla nla nla .,. NOTE: Tri Rairs 1 989 Scc(ion IS Rport inchwk s onl y six month s o f systo;:m d::a1a. s i n e.: operating on Janulll)' 9 1 989 Serv i ce WILS provided at nO SC untillune I 1 989 when re, enue $Cf\'ke b<:gM. As a teS.uh, c>nl y
PAGE 351

EFfECT1VENESS MEASURES 1988 SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miles Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Tr1>s Per Captta Passenger Per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Average Speed (R.MJR.H.) Average Age of Fleet (In years} Number of Incident$ Revenue Service InterruptiOn s Revenu e Miles Betwoeen tncidents {000) Re'lenue Miles Betwee n lnterruption. s (000) AVAILAB!LITY Revenue Miles Per Route Mile (000) 326 TABLE 111-TZ Tri-Counly Commuter R ail Authori ty Effedinne.ss Measures 1989 1990 1991 n/a 0 13 0 30 0 .3 8 n/a 0 07 0.27 0.45 nla 0.59 0 92 1.24 n/a 23.43 31.n 48.85 nto 39.79 34 .413 39.25 n/a 1.00 2.00 3.00 nta n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n /a n/a n/a nla nta nta nta nta nta nta n/a 3.73 8.83 11.32 1992 1993 I 1989-19 3 0.47 0 .60 364 09% 0 57 0 67 821.40% 1 26 1.18 99.59% 51.20 47.30 101.86% 40.66 40 24 1. 14% 3 65 5.26 426. 00'.4 n/a nta nta nta n/a nlo nta n/a nla n/a nta nla 13 55 17 .28 363 .85%

PAGE 352

EffiCifNCY MEASURES 1N8 COST EffiCIENCY Operatjng Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) ()potating expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Pa"enger Milo Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Ma intt n ance Per Revenue Mile Maintenance Expen$e Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Recovety Local Revenue Per Openlilg Expenw ()pecWlg Reoenue Per Opera1ing Eoq>enso VEHIClE UT1UZATION Vehide Miles Per Peak Vehkle (000) Vehicle Hour:s Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Miles Per Vehide Miles Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) Rt'i$nue Hours. Per To\31 Vehicles (000) LABOR PROOUCTMTY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000 ) Passenger Trips Per Empk>yea (000 ) ENERGY UTILIZA TION Ve hicle Miles Per Gallon FARE Average Fare TABLE IIIT3 Tri-Cou.nty C.ommuter Rail Aulhorhy Efficiency Measures 1N9 1990 "" nla $1.87 $3 13 $316 nla $371.43 5635.45 $651 .55 nla $25.5 0 $11 74 $8 97 nlo $0 .80 $0.40 $0.20 nla $15.01 $10.84 $8 .67 nla $597 .3 9 $373 13 $340 27 nla $0.91 $1.92 $1.80 nlo 6 04% 17.72% 20. 74% nla 1.03% 12 86% 21 86% nla 1.39% 1 3.26% 21.88'1
PAGE 353

GENERAL QUESTI ON S I Wtre any fare changes made during fiscal year 1993? If so, p l e a se provide the previous fare struclure as well as che updated fare Strucrure and indicate when the changes imp lemente d. Effect i ve 211 / 90 Dai l y One-Way Tic k et $2 .00 $ 3 00 Daily All D ay Tick e t nla ss.oo Round Tr ip Ticket $4.00 n/a Weekly Ti c k e t $17.00 $18.50 Monthl y Tick et $60 00 S6S.OO Daily One-Way D iscount Ticket $1.00 SI.SO Daily All Day Discount Ticker' n/a $ 2.50 Round Trip Discount Ti c ket' $2.00 n /a Weekly Discount Tick et' S8.50 $9.2S Monthl y Oil<:ount Tic ket' $30 00 $ 32.5 0 12 -Pak ( 1 2 One-W ay) nla $22 50 Those eliaible t o purchase diS<:OUllled tic k ets SA:nior eiriz.ens (65 years o f age and a bove), di .. bled individ uals, students, and chi (ag e s S -12). Tri-Rail a l so o rre,. an Empl oyee Discount Program. Those eligib l e receive a 10 percent d iscount off t he M o nthl y Tic k e t ( $58 50) or 12-Pak ($20.25) 2. Were 1here any significant changes in service/service area durin g fiseal yea r 1 993? Be&inning on September 14 1992, six weekday train were added on a daily basis Monday through Friday. In additi o n Sunday service was started on September 2 0 1992 adding 10 trains 3 Have there been any recent changes or significant even1s thot may help explain the perfom1ance of the transit syscetn? 328 During fiscal year 1993, Tri-Rail has experienced riders hip Increa se due to effects from tlurricane Andre w (which hit Florida August 24, 1992) as well as increased weekday an d Sunday service (S<:c the respons<: t o question #2 above).

PAGE 354

QUESTIONS A80UT 1993 SECTION IS DATA 1, As indicated in the table below, ridership and the level of service provided incre-ased significantly between 1992 and 1993. Please describe the t hanges in service that have occurred (see also question #2 of the General Questions section). Is the ridership growth solely anributablc to the service changes that have been made. or is there some other exp lanation? Commuter Rail FY 1992 FY 1993 %Change Passenger Trips 2,266,470 2,697,480 t9.0% Passengef MileS 7&.80t,510 88.615.550 t5.4% Revenue Miles 1,799 ,890 2,295,140 27.5% Revenue HOUtS 4.11,270 57,030 28.8% Vehicles Op. In Max. Service 20 25 25.0% System Response. : The ridership and level of service increases are a result of Hurricane Andrew (which occurred August 24, 1992). Beginning in September and O<:rober 1992, the number of weekday trains was inc reased from 24 to 30 trains. Evening and midday service was expanded and Sunday servi ce was implemented. 2 Total operating expense increased from $16 249,280 in 1992 to SI9, 700, 760 in 1993, partially due to a 19 percent increase in maintenance expense ($3 ,657 ,220 in 1992; $4 337,280 in 1993). Please explain the increase i n maintenance expense as well as t he remaining increase in operating expense. System Response: Tri-Rail incorrectly categorized security and tick eting costs as nonvehicle maintenance in both f'Y 1992 and I 993. These costs should have been reported as vehi cle operations expense Consequently, maintenance expense for FY 1992 and 1993 should be revised to $1,701, 283 and $1,498,507, respectively. Therefore. the change in mainten ance expense between I he two years is a 12 percent decrease. However, total operating expense increased as a result of the increase in service, including increased fuel costs associated with the additional trains (see the response to question #I above). 3 Total capital expense decreased significan tly from $11,066 ,370 in 1992 to $1,844,010 i n 1993. In 1992, capital expenditures included a track and signal rehabilitation project, the purchase and installation of route signing, staff a utomobiles and office equipment. What capita l purchases were made in 1993? System Response: In previous Section 15 re-ports. reporte d capital expense was money &hat was eannarked.budgeted. o r scheduled to be used, and not necessarily expended. In the fiscal year 1993 repo11, Tri Rail reponed actual cap ital expendilures only, and this is renected i n the decrease between 1992 and 1993. 4 Passenger fare revenue ($3,435,230 in 1992; $4, 606,440 i n 1993) increased at a greater rate than the numberofpassengertrips (shown in the table above) between t 992 and I 993. Thls resulted in a 13 percent incre.ase in t he average fare per passenger trip from Sl .52 in 1992 to $1.71 in 1993. Is thi s the result of a fare increase or is there some other explanation? 329

PAGE 355

System Response: This increase in passenger fare re-venue is t h e result of a fare increas e (see also t he response to question U I in I heGeneral Questions section), as well as an incre-ase in thelevel of service. S. The average age of the vehicle fleet increased from 3.65 years in 1992 to 5.26 years in 1993. In addition the number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from 27 10 31 \'chicles, and vehicles operated in maximum service increased from 20 to 25 vehicles (as noted previously) during this time. P lease explain any changes that have occurred in the vehicle imentory. 330 System Response: The vehicle inventory was i ncreased by three locomotives which were purc -hased by Tri-Rail, and this is reflected in the increase in the number of vehi cles available for maximum service. Since these vehicles we.re re-manufactured, they may only be considered new based on the percentage of replacement parts This may have cause-d the average age oCt he fleet 10 increase between FY 1992 and 199 3. In fiscal year 1993, five train sets were nccc-.ssary for operation in maximum service (each set contains four cars and one locomoaive). Therefore, the number of vehicles operated in maximum service increased to 25.

PAGE 356

TRI-COU N TY C OMMU TER RAIL AU T H OR I TY Figu,.IIH1 county/ Serv K t: Area Populition (000) s .ooo ; ; H-ti 4.000t J I I 3 .ooo I 2.000-r-r- 1,000f-l--l-+-i--l -+--.. 0 +---1--t --t,, .. ltU "" 1ttf 19U un 1MO 1111 UU ttU Figure Ill-T3 Veh i cle M iles and Revenue M iles 2,500 .,--,-,-,--,-,-,-,, 2,000 -l -1 .5CO-+-1 000 f-tj_l LY-1 jj I soo H :::;::;:;::::,_) :..-1-+-l- I 1-1 $20,000 S1l000 su.oou $4.000 $4.000 $0 Performance I ndic-ators Figure-IIH4 Total Operating Expense rT--!--v -L- 1-... -,.---. '---... --.. ... -\-.:.; '1 '-" I = 1..=-:.1 Figure m-n Trips (00 0) ).000 a.ooo' v 1,000 -7 o .. I-t--< c L j ltM 111t 1U6 ttf71tl. 1Mt '"0 1 991 Utl 1"J Figure Pas$enger Fare Revenue {000) ss.ooo '-$4.000 .). nooo J . $2.000 -II 1--. S1,000 $0 1914 1MS 1m 1917 UU 1ttt ,,. "" tiU 1HJ 1tf41 1HS 1!M 1H7 UU n n 19M! tttt Utt 1ttJ 1M4 1HS "'*' UIJ UU1Nt tt+t1tt1 ltU ttt) SO -40 30 Figure III T6 Total Empl oyees i 20rtlJj r ... tJ .. IMS ,,.. ltu 1 ... tNt '"' IHI IHJ 1ft) 40 !10 :N) Figure 111-T 7 V ehides in Maximum Service ---r-T-' -.,. .... / .. -' ] I [ _ ..,_ -.. e....-.T I I -ttM It&t IM6 I M J ttll 1 .. '""'"' ttt:l: lttJ 331

PAGE 357

332 TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY 0.6 0 4 0.2 Effecti'teness Measures Figure 111-TB Vehicle Miles Per Capita 1 I I l l I i I I o oi-l I 1 -! I I I I i tt ttl$ ttU t U 1 1 9tl t"9 tHO "" 1P92 1973 Figure llf.T9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile 1.5 -rl-.,. r u + + .J __ -I 0.9 + i 0 6 1---1--+-I 1 -o H .. 1-+-! --t 0 0 1 ... f .. +j ----J L-.. ,,.. ltU 19M 1911 19 U 1M9 tHO fHI 1991 1993 Figure 111T10 Average Age of Fleet (year$) 601 I 4. 0 I I 2 0 -.j . -' o o ; .. I 1 1 j __ 1-Ll.L I , ... t 91s "" 1 m "" " ,,o "" ttn tttl

PAGE 358

TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY Figure 111-T11 Operating Expense Per C apita ss.oo I I S4.00 noo $2.00 I S1.00 1._ $0.00 I ".,. tMS ,,., 1tst nn 1tt0 '"' u n nn Figure 111-T14 Mainten a nce Expense Per Revenue Mile $2.00 I "'I T '1''1l--. : J-"1'"" suo 51.20 SOBO i -I 1-+-+-J-t t so.., 11.. I l ----i_ ... $0.00 j I 19&.t 1MS ,,_. 1987 1 981 1919 1tM 1H1 19U 19U Figure IIJ.T17 Revenue Hours Per Employee 1.200 --1 -r--; T 9001' : I i 6ooi 300 I J L. J .I j I ( . ) o : 1 1 1 : 1-r ... I IUA IMS l98& "" l9U 19U 1 0 1 1 1992 ltU Efficiency Measures Figure IIJ.T12 Operating Expense Per Pas5e'nger T r ip S30.00 .. .... ---.. S20 .00 $10.00 so.oot1 r l I--I .. .. U l914 l91S 1916 191'1 19U ltf9 IMO ' 19U Itt) Figu re III-T15 Farebox Recovery Ratio 2S"ll--. -I I ' . 'I I I 20% ......... I I 15% ... ......... I ... I 10% ... . ' ... 5% -' .. .. 0% .. I 1tf4 ''" ''" ,,.,,,.. '"" 1990 1991 1992 1 993 Figure IIIT18 Passenge r Trip s Per Emplo yee 50.000 f' I -. I .. I 4<>,000 i ' 3 0 .000 1 I 20.000 I I 10,000 . I l ....... I (._ H:.ll l ; oll il.ril( i Ut4 1tas "" 1987 ''" "" 19to ,, 1991 u n Figure Operating EKpense Per Revenue M ile s16.oo T--------m.oo 1----l---1-1-\ ...... ....... __ I 'I ,_ .. ---, -+--$4.00 l ------1--1 ---so.oo ---; ,,,. '"s nn ,,.., '"' "" '"o '"' tm ut) Figure III-T16 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehide 100,000 l 1 ";;;; ..... -----80,000 60,000 -/ "-----I 4<>.000 .. 1---1-20.000 ... --" ... 0 ' --1 ---------1 19M ues "" "" ,,., 1990 un ,,1 1tn Figure 111-T19 Average Fare 52.00 I "'"I 51.60 .f -... --$1.20 . ---S0.80 1 I $0.40 1 '1 ... - $0.00 1 - i -! j--t --I -t1 . 19 \tlS 1986 1*'l119t8 1989 1990 '"'' 1992 19'tJ 333

PAGE 359

TRI-RAIL SUMMARY 334 A sign i ficant event which may help to the explain pe rfonna n c e was Hurr i cane Andrew. which occurred on August 24, 1992. After the hurr i cane, Sunday str\ i ce was implemented, as was additional weekday service (t h e number of weekday trains was inc r eased from 24 to 30 trains) T riRail e xperienced a 28 percent incre as e i n the n u mber of revenue miles as a resuh of t he additional ser vice d ue to Hurricane Andrew. The subsequent ridershiJ) increas e was reflec t ed in a 1 9 pe r cent increase i n passenger trips. Tota l operating expense increased from $16,249, 280 in 1992 to $19,700,760 i n 1993, partially due t o a sign ificant increase in maintenance expense during t his time ($3,6 57,220 in 1992; $4,337,280 in 1993) Tri-Rail noted t hat, i n bot h FY 1 992 and 1993, secu r ity and tic ketin g costs had been incon-ectly classified as nonvehicle maintenance instead of vehicle opera t ions. The refore, mainte n ance ex pense should have equalled $1 ; 701.283 in FY 1992, and SJ ,498 507 in fY 1993, res ult ing in a 1 2 percent decline between t h e two years However. operating e xpense did incre .ase as a result of the increas.ed service as well as the increase in fuel costs for the additional trains. Total capital expense declined from $ 1 1 066,370 in 1992 to $ 1,844,010 i n 1993. Tri-Rail indicat ed that, in previous Sect ion 15 reports, reported capita l expense was money that was eannarked, budge-ted, or schedu l ed to be and n o t necessarily expended. H ow ever, in the FY 1993 Section IS report, Tri R ai l reported the a ctual capital expenditu r e s only, which result ed in the dec r ease between t h e two years. Passenger fare revenue i ncreased at a greater rat e than the number of passenger t r i ps between 1992 and 1993. T his led to a 13 percent inc.reas.e i n the average fare per passe ngertrip from $1.52 in 1992 to $1.71 in 1993. T r i-Rail aributed this to a fare increase which took effect July I 1992. The average age of the neet increased from 3 .6S years in 1992 to S.26 years in 1993. A lsot the number of vehicles available for maximum se. rvicc increased from 27 to 31 vehicles, and vehicles operated in maximum serv ice increased from 20 to 25 during t h i s time In fisca.l year Tr i Rail purchased t hree new rtmanufactured l ocomotives. which may only be considered as new depending on lhe pe r ce ntag e of repla c ement parts. A I sot five train sets bet"ame necessary for operation in maximum servi ce (each set contains four cars and one Jocomotive) > result ing i n the inc rease in t his indi c ator

PAGE 360

VI. SUMMARY In summary. the Center for Urban Transponation Research (ClTfR) has condult"U:d a pc.rfonnancccvaluation of Florida transit systems under contract wilh the Offtce of Public Transpor1atioo Ope
PAGE 361

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS APPENDlX A LIST OF DEFINITIONS Area Population for 1991 and prior years. county popula tion is used to approximate the service area population for each of the Florida transit systems nnd is taken from the Florida Statistical Abstract for each year. The only exception is Smyrna Transit Syste m {STS), for which the population of the city of New Smyrna Beach is used to approximate the service area popula tion for these years. This measure provides a s uitable approximation of ove-rall market size for comtJarison of relative spending and service levels among oommunilies in the absence of actual service area population. However. in 1992, ffA began r equiring transit sys t e m s t o provide service area population in their Sectio n IS reports. As a result, this is the measure thtu is now util ized in this study. National lnOotlon Rote Used to deflate the operating expense data to constant 1984 dollars Inflation -adjusted dollars provide a more accurate representation of spending changes resu ltin g from agency decisions by factoring out the general price inflation. The inflation rare reponed is the percentage change in rhe Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (including commodities and services) from to year. During the 1984 10 1993 period, service and labo r costs tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices Therefore. tran sit operating expenses. which are predominantly comprised of 5Crvicc a _nd labor cosrs. may be expected to have inueased somewhat faster lhan inflation even if the amount o f service provided were not increased Passepcu Trim Annual number of passenger hoardings on the lransit ve hicles A trip is c:oonlec:l each lime a pa.ssc:nger board$ a rransit vehicle Thus. if a passenger has 10 transfer between buses to reach a de$1:inalion, he/she is counted as making two passenger uips. P assenccr Milts Number of annual passenger trips multiplied by the system's average trip length (in miles) This numbtr provides a measure of the total number of passenger miles of transportation service consumed Vehicle Mile s Total distance traveled annually by revenue service vehicles. including both revenu e miles nnd deadhead mile$. Revenue Mll u .. Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). Thi.s number is smaller chan vehicle miles because of the exc l usion of deadhead miles s uch as vehicle miles from the garage ro the s tart of service vehicle miles from the end of service to the garage driver training., and other miscdlaneous miles chat are n o t considered to be in direct revenue service Vehielt If ours Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles including hours consumed in passenger service and deadhead travel. Revenue Hours Total hours of operat i on by revenue service vehicles: in active revenue service R oute MUt:e .. Number of directional route mites as in Section IS data: defined as the mile-a;ge t.hal se. n-ice ope rates i n each direction ove.r routes traveted by public lransportation vehicles in revenue service. 336

PAGE 362

Total Operating Exeense Reported cotal spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, and operation of service vehicles. Total Opera tin' Expense (1984 $)_-Total operating expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for operating expenses. Total Maintenante Expense Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expenses; a subset of cotal operating expense. Tota l Mainlen!nce Expense -(1984 S)Total maintenancee xpensesdeflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for maintenance purposes. Total Capita l Expense Dollar amount of spending for capital projects and equipment. Total Local Revenue All revenues originating at the local level (excluding state and federal assistance). Operating Revem1e Includes passenger fares, special transit fares, school bus service revenues. freight tariffs, charter service revenues, auxiliary transportation revenues subsidy from other sectors of ope-rations, and non-transportation revenues. Passenger Fare Re,enue -Revenue generated annually from passenger fares. Tota l Employee$Total number of payroll employees of the transit agency. Jt is useful to note that the increasing tendency to contract out for services may result in some significant differences in this measure between otherwise similar properties. It is important to understand which services are contracted before drawing conclusions based on employee levels. All employee s classified as capital were excluded from this report. Transportation Opera ti ng Employees All employees classified as oper:ning employees: vehicle-drivers., supe .rvisory personnel, direct personnel. Maintenanct: All employees classified as maintenance employees who are directly or indirectly responsible for vehicle maintenan c e. Administrative Emplo yees All personnel positions classified as administrat ive in nature. This report includes all general administration, ticketing/fare collection, and system security employees as classified by FTA in Fonn 404. Vehicles Available for Service .. Numbe r of vehicles owned by lhe transit authority that are available for use in bus service. Vehiclcs Operated in Maximum Service The largest number of vehicles required for providing serviceduring peak hours (typically th e rus:h period). Spare RatioVehic.Jes operaled in maximum service subtra cted from vehicles avai lab l e for maximum service divided by vehicles operated in maximum servic.e. This measure is an indicator of t he number of spare vehicles available for service. A spare ratio of approximately 20 percent is considered appropriate in the industry. However, this varie-s depending o n the size and age of fleet as well as lhe condition of equipment. Total Gallons Consumed Toral gallons of fuel consumed by th e ve-hicle nect 337

PAGE 363

Total Energy Consumed .. Kilowatt hours of propulsion power consumed by a transit system (rail and automated g uidewa y) Average Age of Traditionally, a standard lransit c oach is considered t o have a useful life of 12 years However,longer service lives arc not uncommon The vehicle age and the reliabilily record of the equ i pme nt, the nu mber of miles and hours on the equipm ent, the sophistica tion and features (i.e., wheelchair lifts, electronic destinat ion signs, etc.) and operating environment (weather, roadway grades, and passenger abuse) all affect t he maintenance needs and depreciation of th e bus fle et. Number of Incidents Total number of unforesee n occ.urrcnces resulting in casualty (injur)'/fatality), collision, or property damage in excess of $1, 000. For an incident to be reportable, it must in volv e a tratlsit veh icle or occur on transit prop erty Rev en ue Service A revenue serv i c e i nterruption during a given report ing period caused by failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle or for other rea sons not included as mechanical failures. EFFECfiVENESS MEASURES Vehic.le Miles Per Capita Tota l number of annual vehicle miles divided by the service area's population This ca n be characterized as the number of miles of ser vice provided fo r each man, woman. and child i n the service area and is a measure of the e-xtensiveness of service provided in the servi ce area. Passenger Trios Per Capita -Average number of transit hoardings per person per year. This number i s la rger in areas where publi c transpOrtation is emphasized and in areas where there are more transit dependents, and is a measure of the extent to which the public utilizes transit in a given service area. Passe nger Trips Per Reven ue Mile-The ratio of passenger trips co re venue miles of service ; a key indi cator of servic e effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided. Pa"encer Trips Per Revenue Hour -The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation; reports on the effectiveness of th e service s ince hours are a better represencation of the resources consumed in providing service. Averae.e Speed Average speed of vehicles in operation (including to and from the garage) cakula ted by dividing total vehicle miles b y total vehicle hours. Reve nue Miles Between IncidentsNumber of re\' enue miles divided by the number of r epo rts the average interval in miles, between incidents. Revenue Miles Between lnlerruotionsNumber ofre\'enue miles divided by revenue service interruplionsi an ind icator of the average frequency of delays because of a problem with the equipment. Rt\'tnue Miles Per Route MileNumber of revenue miles divi ded by the numbe r of directional rou t e miles of service 338

PAGE 364

EFFICIENCY MEASURES Exoen.se Per Capita -Annual operat i ng budget divided by t h e county/serv ice area population; a measure of t he re -sour ce C-Ommitment to transit by I he commun ity. 01)(!rating Expense Ptr Pe-ak VehicleTotal operating expense per Ychicle operated in maximum service (peak vehicle); provides a measure of the resources required per vehicle to have a coach in operation for a year. Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating expenditures divided by the total annual a measure of the efficiency of transpon ing riders; one of the key indicators of companuive perfonnance of transit properties since it r eflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. Opera tine, Expense Per Passenger MileReflection of operating expense divided by the number of passenger miles: takes into account the impact of trip length on perfonnancc since some operators provide lengthy trips while others provide shon trips. Operating Pe r Re\enue Mile Operating expense divided by the annual revenue miles of service ; a measure of the efficiency with which service is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Operating expense divided by revenue hours of a key comparative measure which differs from operating expense per vehicle mile in that the vehicle speed is factored out. This is often imponant since vehicle speed is s-trongly influenced by local traffic conditions. Ma i nte nance Expense Ptr Revenue Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenue miles Maintenance Expense Per Operating ExpenseCalculated by divid ing maintenance expense by operating expense; expressed as a percent of total operating expense. Farebox Recovery Ratio of passenger fare revenues to cotal operating expenses ; an indicator of the share of revenues provided by the passengers. Local Revenue Per Opera tine. ExpenseRatio of total local commitment with respect ro tota l operat ing expense. Operat ine: Per Operating Expense -.. Operating ratio calculated by dividing operating revenue by total operating expense Vehicle Miles Ptr Peak Vthiclt Vehi cle miles divided by t h e number of peak vehicles. It is an indica tor of how intensively the equipment is used and is influenced by the bus travel speeds as well as by the levels of serv i ce in the time periods. A more uniform demand for service over the day would result in a higher number. Vebitle Hour s Per Ptak Vehicle-Sub$titutes vehicle l1ours for vehicle miles and again renects how inrensively equipment is utilize-d. 339

PAGE 365

Revenue Miles Per Vehicle MileReflects how muth of the t01al vehicle operation is in passenger service. High er rarios are favorable but garage location, training needs, and other considerations may influence the ratio. Revenue MiiH Pe.r Total Vehicles Total revenue miles of service that are provided by each vehicle available for maximum service. Rc:venut: Hours Per Total Vehicles Indicates tota l revenue t1ours of service provided by each vehicle a\ailablefor maximum service. Revenu e HourS Per F.mployee Reflects overall labor productivity Passenger Trips Per Emp loyee Another measure of overall labor productivity. Vehicle Miles Per GallonVehicle miles of service divided by total gallons cons umed and is a measure of energy utilization. Vehicle Miles Per Kilowatt-Hour .. Vehicle miles of service divided by total kilowatt .. hours consumed and is another me-asure of energy utilization. Ave race Fare--Passenger fare revenues divided by the total number of passenger trips. 340

PAGE 366

A P PEN DIX 8 REV IEW OF DATA S O URCES SOURCES FOR 1 984-198 7 DATA Nali o n a l U rban Mass T ra01portation S tatiSiia 1984-1987 Annual Stion I S R t ,poru' Data Jte. m County/City Populati o n. Nationa l Inflation Rate Passenger Trips Passc.:ngc::r Miles Vehicle M iles Revenue Miles Vehjcle Hours Revenue HOUr$ Route M iles T o tal Opera tin g Expense' Total Mainte nance Expense, Total Capital Expen se' Local Revenues Operating Passet,ger Fare Revenues Total Employee$ Operating E mploytes Mai n tenance Employees Administrative Employees Vebitles Aailable for Maximum Service' Vehicles Operated in M axim u m Service f lorida Statistical Abitrac.t Tab l e 3,16 Tabl e 3J6 Table 3.16 Table 3 16 Table 3 .16 Table 3 16 Table 3.13 Table 3 07 Tab l e 3.07 Tabl e l04 Tabl e 3.01 Ta ble 3.01 TAbl e 3,01 Tab l e 3.14 Table 3 .14 Table 3 .14 Table 3 .14 Table 3 17 ( 1984 ), Table 3.16 (19 85-1987) Table 3 .14 (1984). Table 3.16 (19 85-1987) 341

PAGE 367

NOTES: 342 Dala lie"' To1al Gallons Consumed Kilowatt Hours of Propulsion Power Average Age of Flee!' Number of Numbe r of Roadcalls" 1AII statistics are for dircctly opcratcd motori:lus service unless otherwise noted. Source Table 3.12 Table 3.12 Table 3.17 Table 3.15 Table 3.11 expense excludes all reconciling items including inte rest expense. leases and rentals and depreciation. lJnclu des vehicle maintenance and non-vehicle maintenance expense. 4Referrcd to as total public capilal assistance in fede-ral Section l5. This figure is reported as a transit system total and therefore may include purchased andfor demand-responsive transportation services. sLocal revenue includes all revenue in Table 3 .01 except for federal and state revenue. Operating revenue includes transportation revenues, non transportation revenues. and subsidy from other sectors of operations (denoted as "other"' in column 10 of Form 3.01 ) Revenues are reported as a transit system total and therefore may include purchased and/or demand-responsive t ransportation services. Howc.ver, passenger fare revenues for s ervices can be extracted from the data source. 6Employees are distributed among three categories on Form 3.14 : transportation, maintenance, and general administration These three categories are used for distribution in our data as well. 10ata r eported differently in 1984 than in following years which required pulling data from different fonns in that year. Vehicles operated in maximum service are for those used for directly-operated services only. 'The following vehicle 1ypes were included in lhe calculalion of average age of flee l : molorbus (BA, BB, BC), anicula ed molorbus (AB) double-decked bus (DB), lrolley bus (TB), and school bus (SB). Also age of rail flee! includes !hrce vehicle lypes: heavy rail (HR), lighl rail (LR), and inclined plane (IP) It should be re cognizedthat some of these vehicles may be used in the provision of demand -responsive transportation services as these vehicles cannot be idcnlified in the federal repon. 'I ncludes incidents involving collisions derailments, personal casualties and fires 1 0ln cludes mechanical failure and other reasons.

PAGE 368

SOURCES FOR 1988 DATA Actual 1988-1993 Stion IS Reports' Data Item County/City/ Service Area Population Service Area Size National Inflation Rate Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Vehicle Hours Revenue Hours Route Miles Total Operating Total Maintenance Expense Total Capital Expense' Local Revenue4 Operating Revenue,. Passenger Fare Re.venue Total Employees) Op<.,..ting Employees Maintenance Employees Administrative Employees Vc.hjdes Available for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Source Flor ida S t alistical Abslnsct Form 00 I Form 001 Florida Statistical Abstract Form 406 407 Form 406, 407 form 406, 407 Form 406, 407 Form 406, 407 Form 406, 407 Fomt403 Fonn 006,301,310,312 fonn 301,310,312 Form 103 Form201,202,203 fonn 201,202, 203 Form 20 I, 202, 203 f orm 404 Form 404 Form 404 Fonn 404 form 003, 406 407 Form 003,406,407 343

PAGE 369

NOTES: 344 Data Item Total Gallons Consumed' Kilowatrl lours of Propulsion Power!' Average Age of Fl<" and depreciation. )This figure is reported as a transit system total for years prior to FY 1992 and the refo r c may incl ude purchased and/or demand-responsi ve lransportation services for those years. 4l.ocal revenue includes all revenue e x cept federal and state revenue. Opera ting revenue includes transportation revenues, non-transportation revenues, and subsidy from other sectors of ope rations. Revenues are reponed as a transit sys tem total and therefo r e may include purchased an d/o r respons ive transportat ion services. However, passenger fare r evenues for fixed-route se.rvicc only can often be extracted from the d.ata source sThrough FY 1991, eroployees were distrib uted among dnee categories as identified in Form 404: rows J-3transportation operating employees rows 4 8 -mainte nance employees., rows 9-10 administrative employc.-es. For FY 1992, employees were distrib uted among the categories in Form 40 4 as follows: rows J-2 transportation operating employees, rows 5-6 maintenance employees rows 3 4, and 7 .. administrative employees. In FY 1993. Form 404 was altered slightly again and employees were distribu t ed among the categories as follows: rows 2-3transportation operating employees) rows 6 -7-maintenance employees.. rows 4, 5, and 8 administrative employees. FTA assumes that Fonn 404 DO-MB excludes purchased transportation servaces. 6FT A assumes that energy consumption reported on Form 402 excludes purchased transportation services. 'The following vehicle types were included in t he calculation of ave
PAGE 370

Trnsi t Svstem Metrt>Dade TransJt AQency B rowa r d Transit D iv i sio n JaCksonvi lle "''ransportatiOn Authority Hilsborough Ar ea Regiona l Tra nsit Pinellas S....,coast Transl Au1hority Ly nx Transit Patn Sead'l County Authority Talla h assee Tra n s it RegiOnal T raos it System East Volusia Tr3nsi t Authority Es.cambia Co un1y Area Trans it Lee Cou nty Tra n s it Sarasota Couoty Area Transit APPENDIX C CONTACT LISTING FOR FLORIDA TRANSIT S Y!.1EMS Address 111 N W First Street Miami F L 33128 3201 W Road Pof1'1)ano Beach FL 33069 P.O. O
PAGE 371

Transit System La k e land A re a Mass Transit D i strict M a natee Cou nty Area Srny1na T ransi System Pasco County Pub liC Ttan$poftatlon Service Key WeSI Oe_.,t ol Tron>pon Ma nage r Aicher Director MI. Bon Gibson Superintendent Mr Don R. Lusk Transit D i rector Mr James P Liesen.felt, T r a n s it P lanner "' G i lbert M. Robert, E xecutive D ir ector Mr. Jeff D iredot of P l a n ning (813) 688-7433 (813) 747 8621 (904) 424 -2120 (813) 847-8031 (305) 292 -8247 (407) 633-2019 (305) 7 28-8512