USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1991 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part I: trend analysis, 1984-1991

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1991 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part I: trend analysis, 1984-1991
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:
Bus lines--Florida--Management   ( lcsh )
Local transit--Florida--Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Bus lines--Florida--Evaluation   ( 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 - C01-00039
usfldc handle - c1.39
System ID:
SFS0032162:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 2

1991 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FWRIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART I Trend Analysis, 1984-1991 Prepared for The Office of Public Transportation Operations Department or Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Final Report, March 1993

PAGE 3

= = This is a blank page

PAGE 4

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1991 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART I -TREND ANALYSIS, 1984-1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. PAGE ill LISTOFTABLES ................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi FOREWORD I. 11-n'RODUcnON ............................. ... ....... ........................................ A. Tbe Purpose of Performance Review ...... .......... ....................................... ...... B. Performance Review Data Base ......... ............. ............................................ C. The Rol e of Privatizatio n ....................................................................... 11. STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS .................. ............ . ...... ........ ................. ........ A. Statewide Directional Trends .......................... .......................................... B. Florida Fixed-Route TOial Trend .............. ................................... Ill. SYSTEM-BY.SYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS ............ ...................................................... A. Metro-Dade Transit Agency ................ . ................... . ................... ....... . B. Broward Transit Division ............................... ................ ...................... C. Jacksonville Transportatioo Authority ... ................... .................................. D. Hill$borough Area Regjooal Transit . ........ ............................................... ..... E. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority ........................................................... ..... F. Lynx (Or lando) ....................... .............. ........................................ G. Palm Beach County Transportation Autho
PAGE 5

SEcnON TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE S. Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard Cou nty ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 T Tri County Comm uter Rail Authority . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . 324 IV. SUMMARY .................................. ........ .......... ............................... . .... 335 APPENDIX A List of Derwtions .. .. 336 APPENDIX B Review of Data Sources .. . 341 iv

PAGE 6

TABLE INTRODUCTION I-1 I-2 LIST OF TABLES P erformance R eview I odiutOctures o r Florida Transit Systems o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 30 UI2 Modes Operated by Florida Transit Systems (1991) 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 .. 0 00 00 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 oo o 31 IU-3 Abbreviations Cor Florida Tr..Wt Systems o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 32 Mclro-Dilde Transit Ageocy IU -Al Diredly..()perated Motorbus Pcrfonnancc Indicators o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o o o 00 o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o oo 34 lll-A2 Purchased Mocorbus PufOfmance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3S IU-A3 Directly-Operated aod Purdwcd M otorbus P erformance lndiuton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 36 III-A4 Rapid Rail Performance lodieato
PAGE 7

vi TABLE HI-Al9 III-A20 UI-A21 LIST OF TABLES Automated Guideway Efficiency Measures ...................................... ... ....... System Total Efficiency Measures {Excluding Purchased Motorbus) .................................... System Total Efficiency Measures ........................................................ 8roward Transit Division PAGE 52 53 54 lll-81 Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Hl-82 Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 lll-83 System Total Perormance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 IU-84 Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 IU-85 Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 ID-86 System Total Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 lll-87 Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 lll-88 Purchased Motorbus EffiCiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n lll-89 System Total Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Jacksonville Transportation Authority lllCl Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance hidicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gg lll-C2 Automated Guideway Perormance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 lll-C3 System Total Performance lodicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 IIIC4 Directly-Operated Motorbus Elfeetiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 111-CS Automated Guideway Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 IIIC6 System Total Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 lll-C7 Directly-Operated Motorbus EffiCiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 111-CS Automated Guideway Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 III-C9 System Total EffiCiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit lllDl Performance Indicators . 106 10-02 Effectiveness Measures . 107 ID-03 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 PincUas Suncoast Transit Authority 111-El Performance Indicatot$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 lll-E2 Effectiveness Measures ................... ................... ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 Efficiency Measures ................ 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 119

PAGE 8

TABLE Lynx (Orlando) 111-F1 IIIF2 IIIF3 lliF4 IU-F5 lfi-F6 111-F7 IIIF8 IUF9 LIST OF TABLES Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators .... .......................... .................... Purchased Motorbus Perlormance Indicators .......... .............................................. System Total Perlorm ance Indicators ...................... .............................. Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ................................................... Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ........................................................ . System Total Effectiveness Measures ............ .................................................. Directly-Operated Motorbus EfficieDC)I Measures ...................................................... Purebased Motorbus Efficiency Measures ...................................................... System Total Efficiency Measures ...................... . ................. ........................ Palm Beach County Transportation Authority PAGE 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 111-01 Directly Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators .............................................. . . 146 IU-02 Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 147 111-03 System Total Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 JII-04 Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . 149 111-05 Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 150 111.()6 System Total Effectiveness Measures . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. 151 111-<37 Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Meas ures . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . ... 152 IJI-08 Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 III-09 System Total Efficiency Measures . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . 154 Tallalwscc Transit Authority 111-H1 Performance Indicators . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. 16S JII-H2 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 IIIH3 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Regional Transit System (Gainesville) 111 Performance In dica tors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 11[.[2 Effectiveness Measu res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 lll-13 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 East Volusia Transit Authority IH..Jl Performance Indicators . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. 181 IU-J2 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 JIIJ3 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 vii

PAGE 9

UST OF TABLES TABLE Escambia County Transit System IJI-K1 Performance Indicators .......................................................... .... III-K2 Effectiveness Measures ................... ............................................. I II-K3 Efficiency Measures ................................................ ....................... ... Le e County Transit Authority lliLl Directly-Operated Motorbus P erform an ce In dicators ...................................... IU-L2 Purchased Motorbus P erformance Indicators .......................................... IU-1.3 System T otal Performance Indica t ors ........ ....................................................... 111-IA Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measur ................................................... 111-LS Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness M easures ............................................... Ul-1.6 Syste m Total Elfediveoess Measur es ................. ............................................ .. UI-L7 Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures ........................................ .. .... 111-1.8 Purchased Mot orbus Efficieocy Measu res .. .................................................... 111-L9 System Total Efficieocy Me asures ........... ........................................... ......... Sarasota County Area Transit 111-M1 Performance Indicators .............................................. ......... ..... IU-M2 Effecriveness Measures ........................................................... .............. 111-M3 Efficiency Measures ........................................................................... Lakeland Area Mass Trans it District ID -N1 Per formance Indicators ............ ............................................................. III-N2 Effectiveness Meas.u:res ................................. .... .................................... IIIN3 Efficiency Measures ................................. ................................. Manatee County Transit 111-01 Directly -O pera ted Mo torbus P erformance Indi cators ..... ............................................. 111-02 Purchased M o t orbus Performance Indica tors ......................................................... 111-03 System Total Performance Indicators ......................................................... 111 Dir ect ly-Oper ated Motorbus Effediveoess M easures .......................................... DI-05 Purchased Motorbus Eff ectiveness M easures ......................................................... 111-06 System Total Effwiveoess Measures ....................... ...................................... 111-07 Directly-Operated Moto rbus Efficieocy Measures ...... ... ..................................... 111-08 Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures ................. ..... ...................................... 111-09 System Total Efficiency Measures ................. ............................ ....... viii PAGE 198 199 200 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 225 226 227 236 237 238 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES TABU: Smyrna Transit System UlPl Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-Pl Effectivea.ess Measures . . lllP3 Efficieocy Meuure5 . . . . p...., Alu Transit System lllQ1 Performance Indicators . . JD-02 Effectiveness Measwes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ID.()J Emcie.ocy Measu.res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key WC41 Transit Authority III R 1 Dirc.c:tlyOperated M otorbus Performaooe Jndi<:ators ...... ...................... lll-R2 Pu.rchascd MO(orbus Performance lndic:ators ........................................................ lll-RJ S)'Slem Total Performa.aee lnd.ieato:rs .................. ......................... .................. lliR4 DirectJy-Operated Motorbus Effectivel!C$$ Measures ....................................... ... III RS Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ....................................... lli-R6 System Total Etfec:liveoess Measures .............................................................. UJ-R7 Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Meuures ......................................... lllR8 Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures ................ .......................................... . lliR9 System Total Efficiency Measures ............................................... .................. Sp4ee Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) 111-51 Diteetly Operaled Demand-Response Service Performance Indicators .................................... lll.SZ Purchased Demand-Response Service Performance Indicators .................... ..... ....... III..S3 Vanpool Performance Indicators .................................. , . , ....... ............... lii-S4 Directly-Operated Motorl>us Performaooe Indicators .............................. . ................... lli-SS System Total Performance Indicators ......................... ..................................... .. IUS6 Directly-Opera ted Demand-Response Service Effectiveness Measures ................................. III S7 Purchased Demand-Response Service Effectiveness Measures ............................ ................ . JIISS Vanpool Effectiveness Measures ................................................ ......... ........ 111-$9 Directly-Operated Motorbus Effecti,.ness Measures .......... ......................................... 1 1 1-SlO System Toea) E!fectivenw Measures ............................................................... IIISll Directly Operated Dema.ndR"''poase Service Effectiveaess Measure5 ........................ ...... IU.SlZ Purebased Demaod-Respoosc Service Effectiveness Measures ............................. .......... 111-513 Vanpool Effectiveness Measures .................................................... ............ IJI-514 Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ............................................. ...... UI.S15 System Total Measures .............................. ................................ PAGE 264 265 266 7:15 7:16 m 284 28S 286 ZKT 288 289 290 291 292 301 302 303 304 305 306 3IJI 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 31S ix

PAGE 11

TABLE LIST OF TABLES PAGE TriCounty Commuter Rail Authority IIIT l P erforman<:c l a dicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 111-1'2 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 111-1'3 Efficiency Measures ................................ .................... .... 4 Jrl X

PAGE 12

FIGURE INTRODUCTION 1-1 1-2 1-3 LIST OF FIGURES Performance Evaluation Statutes ................................. ................... florida' s Transit Systems ................................................... .............. . .... Factor s Affeeting Transit Performance ............. .... ............... .................. STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS Statewide Total Excluding Pwcbased M otorbus PAGE 3 5 6 11-Bl County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11-82 Pass e n ge r Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11-83 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 II-B4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 IIBS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11-B6 Total Emp loyees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11-88 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 11 Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 19 11812 Revenue Miles B etween RoadcaUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11 Operatin g Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 JI-814 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 111 5 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11 Farebox R eeovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11-818 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 20 11 R even ue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11 Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 IJ-821 Average fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Statewide Total Including Pwchased M otorbus 11-B22 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2A 11 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11-824 Vehicle Miles and R eve nue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11 Total Operaling Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 llB26 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11-827 Vehicle M iles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 lli

PAGE 13

FIGURE 11-828 11-B29 11-B30 11-B31 11-B32 LIST OF FIGURES Passeoger Trips Per Reveoue M ile ........................................................ ......... Operating Expense Per Capita ....................................... . . ......................... Operating Expense Per PasseDger Trip .................................... ......................... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile .............................................................. Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ............. .................................... ......... PAGE 25 26 26 26 26 SYSTEM-BY-SYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS Metro-Dade Transit Agency System Total Excluding Purchased Motorbus liiA l Co\Ulty Populalion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 JllA2 Passeager Trips .............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 III-A3 Vehicle Mil es and Revenue Miles .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . 62 lll-A4 Total Operating Expense . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 62 JllA5 Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 IJJ-A6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 III A7 Vehicles iD Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Ill-AS Vebicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 III-A9 Passenger Trips P er Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . 63 111-AIO Revenue Miles Between IDcideots . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Ill-All Revenue Miles Between Roadealls . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 111-A12 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 111-A13 Operating Expense Per Passeoger Trip .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . 64 III-Al4 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 IJI-AIS Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 64 111-AI6 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 lliA17 Vehicle Miles P er Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 111-AIS Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 lliA19 Passeoger Trips Per Employee . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 lllpA20 Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 System TOiaiiDcludiDg Purchased M otorbus lllA21 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S 111-A22 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 6S lii-A23 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S liiA24 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 6S 111-A25 PasseDger Fare Reveoues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S xii

PAGE 14

LIST OF FICURS FIGURE PACE m-AZ6 Vehicles in Maximum Service ---- .... . . ........... -. 6S m-A27 Vehicle Miles Per C..pica ... . .. 0 0 .. . -.. .. .. .. 66 III-A28 Passenger T rips Per Re>enue Mile -. .. .. . .. .. .. ...... . . 66 IUA29 Operating &pe.nse Per Capita .. - . --.. -. -. .... .. .. 111-A:lO Operating Expense Per P assenger T rip -.. .. ... 111-A31 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . -... . . 111-A32 Farcbox Reoovery R atio . . . -. . 67 111-A33 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle .. . .. . . .. .. .... ... .. .. 67 III -A34 A>erage Fare 0 . 0 0 .. ...... . . 0 67 Broward Transit Division 111-81 County Population .. .. 83 III -82 Passenger Trips .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. .. . . .. .. .. .. -.... .. -. 83 111-83 Vehic:le Miles and Revenue Miles .. .. .. . ... . ... 0 0 83 11184 Total Operating Expense --. .. -... 83 Ul-85 Passenger Fare Revenues ... .. -.. .. .. ... 0 0 -.. 83 Ul-86 Total . . . . .. .. 0 . .. ----. .. 83 m-87 Vebic:les in Maximum Service .. . .. 0 0 . .... 0 83 111-88 Vehicle Miles Per C..pita -.. --. -.. ----. .... .. 84 111-89 Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile ---.. 84 III-810 Average Age oC Fleet 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. . 0 ...... -. ... -. ... 84 111-811 R evenue Miles 8WO<:eo locideolo .. -. .. 0 .. .. ... . ... .. 84 111 812 Re>enue Miles BCIW<:en Roadealls .. .. .. .. .. 0 .. 84 111-813 Operating Expense Per Capi ta .. -.. ........... . . .. -.. . 85 III 814 Operating Expense Per Passe113er Trip . .. 85 111815 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . ... .. ... .. ... .. 85 111816 Maintenance Expense Per Rcveouc Mile . .... .. . .. . . .. 85 111817 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . 0 0 .. 85 111 818 Vebic:le Miles Pe r Peak Vebic:le . . . .. -.. . 85 III 819 Revenue Hours Per Employee . . 85 111-820 Passenger Trips Per Employee -. . . . . ... .. -. . . -. 85 III-821 Average Far e . . . . . . . . .. . .......... . .. --.. 85 Jacksonville Transportation Authority lliC1 County Population . --.. . . 101 UI-C2 Passenger Trips .. . .. .. ...... .. ..... --.. --. .. .. . ... . 101 lll-0 V ehicle Miles and R e-enue Milu ........ .. -. ... .. .. .. . -...... --. 101 xili

PAGE 15

xiv FIGURE lli-C4 lli-CS lli-C6 JJI-C7 111-CS lll-C9 IH-C10 lii-C11 lii-CI2 lii-Cl3 IJI-CI4 Ill-CIS III-C16 111-C17 liiC18 Ili-C19 111-CW 111-C21 UST OF FIGURES Total Operating Expense Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . Total Employees . . Vehicles in Maximum Service Vehicle Miles Per Capita . Passeoge r Trips Per Revenue Mile Average Age of F1eet . . . . . . . . . . Revenue Miles llelween IDCideots ............................................................. Revenue Miles Between Roadealls ................. . ............................................. Operating Expense Per Capita . Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . Maintenance ExpeDSC Per Revenue Mile Parebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . ... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . Revenue Hours Per Employee Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Average Fare . . . . . . Hillsborough Area Regional Transit PAGE 101 101 1 01 101 102 102 102 102 102 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 lliDl County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 UID2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 111-03 Vehicle Miles and R e venue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 lll-04 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 IH-05 Passenger Fare Revenues .... ... ............................. ............. . . . . . . . . . . 112 111-06 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 111-07 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 111-08 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 ID-09 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 IU-010 Average Age of F1eet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 lll-011 Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 111 Revenue Miles Between Roadealls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 111 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 111-014 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 111-015 Operating Expense Per ReYCnue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 lll-016 Mainteo.anee Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 lll-017 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

PAGE 16

FIGURE 111-018 111-019 111-020 lll-021 LIST O F FIGURES Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle .. ..................................................... Revenue Hours Per Employee ....................... .................................... ..... Passenger T rips Per Employee .................................................................... Average Fare ................... ............................................................ PineUas SuO<:Oa.St Transit Authority PAGE 114 114 114 114 lllE1 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 IIIE2 Passenger Trips .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. 124 III E3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 III E4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. 124 lliES Passenge r Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 24 lll-E6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 124 IIIE7 Vehicles in Maximum Service .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . 124 IUE8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 lll-E9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 125 111-EIO Avernge Age of Fleet .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 125 IIIEll Revenue Miles Between Incidents .......................... :. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . 125 Ill-Ell Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 125 lli-E13 Operating EJ
PAGE 17

.,.; FIGURE lll-F9 III-FlO lll-Fll IJI-F12 lll-F13 liiF14 111-FlS JII-F16 JII-F17 III-F18 JII F19 JII-F20 111-F21 LIST OF FIGURES Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . .... Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revenue Miles &!ween Roadcalls ............................................................. Operating Expense P e r Capita .............. .......................................... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ..................... .............................. ...... .. .. Operating Expense Per Re..:nue Mile ................ ............................. Maintenana Expense Per Revenue Mile ........................................................... .. Farebox Recovery Ratio ... .......... ................ . ........................................ Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ........................... ................. .................... Revenue Hours Per Employee . Passenger Trips Per Employee .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Average Fale . . . . . . . . . Palm Beach County Transportation Authority PAGE 142 142 142 142 1 43 1 43 143 143 143 143 1 43 1 43 143 111-Gl County Population . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. 160 Il l-G2 Passe.nger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 111-G3 Vehicle Miles and Re..:nue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 lli-G4 Total Operating Expense .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. 160 lli GS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 III-G6 Total Employees .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. 160 JII-G7 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 liiGS Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. 161 liiG9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mjle . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. 1 61 IIIGlO Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 lllGll Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 JII-G12 Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 161 JII-Gl3 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. 162 JII-G14 Operati.ag Expense Per Passenger Trip .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . 162 lliGlS Operating Expense Per Re..:nue Mile .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. 1 62 IDGl6 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. 162 IDG17 Farebox Recovery Ratio .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. 162 III-G 1 8 Vehicle Miles P er Peak Vehkle . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. 162 IU-G19 Revenue Hours Per Employee .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .. 162 III-G20 Passenger Trips Per Employee .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. 162 111-G-21 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

PAGE 18

FIGURE LI S T OF FIGURES PAGE Tallahassee TratUit Authority 111-H1 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 III-H2 Passenger T r ips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 lll-H3 Vehicle Miles and Reoenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 111H4 Total Operating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 III HS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. 171 IIIH6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 lll-H7 Vehicl e s in Maximum Service . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. 171 III H8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1n III-H9 Passenge r T r ips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1n lll-H10 Average Age of fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ln IU-Hll Revenue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 IU-H12 Revenue Miles Between Roadealls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . 172 lll-H 1 3 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 lll-H14 Operating Expense Per P assenger Tri p . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 173 lllHlS Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 173 IU H1 6 Maintenance E xpense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 IU-H17 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 173 111H1 8 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 111-H19 Revenue H ours Pe r Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 III-H20 Passenge r Trips Per Employee ................. ......... . .......... ........... . .................. 173 lii-H21 Average Far e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Regional Transit System (Gainesville) 111-11 County Popul.1tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 111-12 Passenge r Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 111-13 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 182 lll-14 Total Operating Expense . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . 182 III-IS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 llll 6 Total Emp loyees . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. 182 111 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 182 111-18 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . 183 111-19 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. 1 83 lll-110 Average Age of flee t .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. 183 111-111 Revenue M iles Between Incidents . .. . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . 183 JU .. J12 Revenue Miles Between Ro.adcalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 111-113 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. 184 xvii

PAGE 19

xvili FIGURE lll-114 IJI-115 111-116 111-117 111-118 III-119 lll-120 111-121 LIST OF FIGURES Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ... ............. .............................................. Operating Expense Per Reveaue Mile .............................................................. Mainteaaace Expense Per Re..,nue Mile ............................................................ Farebox Recovery Ratio .... ........................................................... .. Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle .................................................................. Reveaue HoW'S Per Employee . Passeager Trips Per Employee .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. Average Fare ................................................................................ East Volusia Transit Authority PAGE 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 lll-11 County Populatioo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 lli-J2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 JII -J3 Vebide Miles aad Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 JII-J4 Total Operating Expense ........................ o o o o o o o o o o o o o 193 lll-J5 Passeager Pare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 IllJ6 Total Employees ............................................................ ...... . . . 193 IU-J7 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 111-JS Vehicle Miles Per C..pita ............................... .... , ... ............ . . . . . 194 lll-J9 Passeoger Trips Per Revenue MUe .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. 194 lll-JlO Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. 194 Ill-Jll Revenue Miles Between Incideats .. . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. 194 IJI-J12 Revenue Miles Beb\'een Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 111-J13 Operating Expense Per Capita . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. .. . . 195 III-J14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. 19S III-J15 Operating Expense Per Reveaue Mile . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. 195 III-J16 Mainteaaace Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 111-.117 Farebox Recovery Ratio .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. .. . . 195 111-J18 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vebide .................... .................... . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. 19S 111-119 Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19S III-J20 Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19S Dl-J21 Average fare o o ............................................................... 0 0 19S Es
PAGE 20

LIST OF F I GURES FIGURE P A GE lllKS Pass<1 Revenue Miles 0 . ... ... .. 0 .......... 0 00 00 .. 0 220 UIU TO!al Operating Expense .. .. 0 .. 0 .... 00 0 0 220 IIH..S Pa$SeDSet Fare R evenues 0 ..... . 0 0 0 0 OOo 0 00 220 IIH.6 TO!al Employees 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 00 . 0 0 00 0 0 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 00 0 220 lllL7 Vehicles in Maximum Service 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 .. 0 0 220 JIIL8 Vehicle M iles Per Capita 00 0 0 0 .. 0 .... .. 0 221 IIIL9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 0 0 ... .. . . 0 0 .. 221 liiLlO Average Age of Fleet . . . . 0 0 00 .. .. 0 . 000 . ... 221 lllLll Revenue Miles Between Incident$ .. .. . .. 0 00 0 00 00 .. 0 221 lll L12 Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls 0 .. 00 .. 0 .... .. 00 221 lllL13 Operating Expense Per Capita .... 0 0 .. 00 0 0 . 00 ... 00 0 222 liiL14 Operating Expense Per P assenger T rip 0 ooo 0 ..... 0 0 0 222 IDLtS Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile 00 0 ... .. ... 000 0 .. 0 . . 0 ...... .. 222 IDL16 Maintenan
PAGE 21

"" FIGURE UI-L19 lli-UO 111-1.21 LIST OF FIGURES Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . .. Passenger Trips Per Employee . . .. .. . .. .. Fare .. . . . . .. .. Sarasota County Area Transit PAGE 222 222 222 Couaty Populatioo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 IHM2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 111M3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. 231 III-M4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. 231 111-MS Passenger Fare Revenues . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 231 111-M6 TO(al Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 IU-M7 Veb.ides in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 lll-M8 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . 232 lll M9 Passenger Trlps Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 10-MlO Average Age oi Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. 232 111-Mtl Revenue Miles Ber.oeea lacidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 IJI-M12 Revenue Miles Betweea Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 IIIM13 Operating Expense Per Cap i ta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . 233 III-M14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . 233 IIIMI5 Operating Expense Per Reve nue Mile . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . 233 IIIMI6 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 IIIM17 Farebox Recovery Ratio . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . . 233 IIIMl8 Vehicle Miles Per Peal< Vehicle ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 III M19 Revenue Hours Per Employee .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . 233 111-M20 Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 233 III-M21 Average Pare .................... ............ o o o o o m Lakeland Area Mass Transit District 111-Nl County Population 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 IIIN2 Pa&SeDger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 III N3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . 242 UI N4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 242 m-NS Passenger Fare Revenues ......... o o o 242 111-N6 Total Employees ...................... o o 242 JII-N7 Vehicles in MaximW1J Service . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . 242 lliN8 Vehicle Miles Per.Capita......................................................................... 243 UI-N9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. 243

PAGE 22

FIGURE IIINIO IIINil IliNI2 IliN13 IliN14 lliNlS IIIN16 IUN17 IIIN18 IIIN19 IIIN20 IIIN21 LIST OF FIGURES Average Age of Fleet .................................................................. ........ Revenue Miles Between Inci dents .................... . ................................. Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls .... ........................................................... .. Operating Expense Per Capita ............. . . ........................... .... ................... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ............................................................ . Operating Expense Per Reve nue Mile .............................................................. Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .......................... .... ..................... Farebo x Recovery Ratio ........................................................................ Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ..... .............................. ................................ Revenue Hours Per Employee . . Passenger Trips Per Employee .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manatee County Transit PAGE 243 243 243 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 111-01 County Population . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . 259 111-02 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259 lll-03 Vehicle Mile s and Revenue Miles . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. 259 111-04 TotaJ Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 111-05 Passeng er Fare Revenues ............................................... . ........................ 259 111-<>6 Total Employees ................................... ..... ............................... . . .. 2S9 111 Vehicles in Maximum Service .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . 259 111 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . 260 111 Passc"8er Trips Per Revenue Mile . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 260 IU-010 Average Age of Fleet .................................................................. .. .. .. 260 111 Reve n ue Miles Between Incidents . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . 260 111-012 Revenue Miles Betweea Roadealls .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . 260 111-013 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 111-014 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . 261 111-015 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 261 111 Maintenance Expeose P e r Revenue Mile . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . 261 111 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. 261 lll-018 V e hicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. 261 lll-019 Revenue Hours Per Employee .................................. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . 26 1 lll-020 Passenger Trips Per Employee ............. ........................................... .. .. .. 261 lll-021 Averaae Fase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 xxi

PAGE 23

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Smyrua Transit System 111-Pl City Population ............................................................ ................... IIIP2 Passeoger Trips .............................................................................. . liiP3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ................................................................. III-P4 Total Operating Expense .......................... .......... .............. ...................... ID-PS Passenger Fare Revenues ................................ . ..................................... IllP6 Total Employees ................................................................... IllP7 Vehicles in Maximum SeM<:c .................................................................... IUPS Vehicle Miles Per capit a .......................................................... .............. 10-P9 Passeoger Trips Per Revenue Mile ................................................................. 10-PIO Average Age of Fleet .......... ........................ .... ................................. .. 111-Pll Revenue M"Jles Between Incidents ........................... .................................. .... IIIP12 Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ............................................................ 111P13 Operating Expense Per Capita ....................................................... ............. IIIPl4 Operating Expense Per Passenge r Trip ............................................................. IIJ -P15 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ............................................................ .. liiPl6 Maintenance Expense Per Reveoue Mile .................................. . . ...................... 111-P17 Farebox Recovery Ratio ................................................................ Ill-PIS Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ............................................... ....... liiP1 9 Revenue Hours Per Employee ................... ........................ ................ IIIP20 Passenger Trips Per Employee ................................................... ..... ...... lliP2 1 Average Fare ..................................................................... ........... Pasco Area Transit System 111 Counl)' Population lll-02 Passenger Trips . llJ-03 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . llJ.Q4 Tolal Operating Expense . .. .. .. .. U l-05 Passenger Fare Reve-nues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Vehicles in Maximum Sernce 111 Vehicle Miles Per Capita . 111 Passeoger Trips Per Revenue Mile 111-09 Average Age of fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . IU-010 Operating Expense Per Capita 111-011 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Ill-012 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Ill.Q13 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .. xxii PAGE 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 271 271 271 271 271 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 279 279 279 219 279 219 2BO 2BO 280 281 281 281 281

PAGE 24

FIGURE 111-014 111 111 LIST OF FIGURES Farcbox Recovery Ratio ............................................................. .... Vehicle Miles Per Pea k Vehicle ................................................................... Average Fare ............. ........... .. Key West TraJISit Authority PAGE 281 281 281 111-Rl County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 l llR2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 IIIR3 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 111-R4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Ili R5 Passenger Fare Revenues .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 lll-R6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 111-R7 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 IIIR& Vehicle Miles Per Capita ............... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 IU-R9 Passenger Trips Pe r Revenue Mile ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 111-R10 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 111-Rll Revenue Miles BeiWCen Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 lliR12 R evenue Miles Between RoadcaUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 lllR13 Operating Expense Per Capita . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . 298 111-R14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 298 IIIR15 Operating Expense P e r Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 298 III-R16 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 298 IIIRI7 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 111-RIS Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 liiRI9 Revenue Hours Per Employee . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 298 III R20 Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . 298 I I I-R21 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) 111-51 County Population . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 320 111-52 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 320 Ill-53 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. 320 111-54 Total Ope r ating Expense . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. 320 JJJ-55 Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 JJI-56 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 111-57 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 111-58 V ehicle Miles Per capita . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 321 111-59 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. 321 xxiii

PAGE 25

xxjy FIGURE ID.SlO 111-su IH.S12 lll.S13 lll.S14 ID.SlS lll.S16 III.S17 III.S18 lll.S19 lll.S20 III.S21 LIST OF FIGURES A veroge Age of fled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revenue M iles Between Incidents ...................................................... Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ................................................................. Operating Expense Per Capita ... ........ ......................................................... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . Farebox Rcrow:ry Ratio . . . . . . . . . Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle Revenue Hours Per Employee .................................................................... Passenger Trips Per Employee .................................................................... Average Pare ................................................................................ TriCounty Commuter Rail Authority PAGE 321 321 321 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 111-Tl County Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 111-T2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 III-T3 Vehicle Miles and Rew:nue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 IIIT4 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 111-TS Passenger Fare Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 111-T6 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 lllT7 Vehicles in Maximum SeMce . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 331 01.'1'8 Vehicle M"iles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 111'9 Passenger 'I'rips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 lliTlO Aw:rage Age of Fleet (years) . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . 332 lli-T11 Operating Expense Per Capita . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 333 lii-T12 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. 333 IIITI3 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . 333 IIIT14 Maintenance Expense Per Reveaue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . 333 Ill TIS Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 IDT16 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 IDT17 Reveaue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . 333 IJJ-T1 8 Passenger Trips Per Employee . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. 333 IIIT19 Average Fare . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . 333

PAGE 26

FOREWORD Under contract with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportat ion, State of Florida, the Center for U rban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida's fixed-route transit systems. This report is based on data from federallyrequired Section 15 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 are the result of a substantial data collection and reporting process by the transit systems. Some Section 15 data are used by FTA and by states and localities for calculating formulae for the allocatio n 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 evaluation project. In addition to this technical memorandum (Part I, Trend Analysis, 1984-1991), a second technical memorandum was prepared (Part II, Peer Review Analysis, 1991). This is the fourth statewide transit evaluation conducted by the Florida Depa rtment of Transportation (FOOT) and CUTR. CUTR would like to thank FOOT and each o f the individual transit systems for their cooperation and assistance in the preparation of th e memoranda. Center for Utban Transpoltarion Research University of South Florida Telephone: (813) '174-3120 Proj
PAGE 27

.. This is a blank page

PAGE 28

1991 P ERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANS IT SYSTEMS PART I -TREND ANALYSIS, 19lW-1991 1. INTRODUCTION Rapid growth m Florida bas resulted m increased attention to pub6c transit as a potential aolutioo to solving evu-mcreasiAg transportatioo pYoblcms i.o tbc slate Aloag wilb the iDa:eascd emphasis oo pub6c traasit comes the necessity to a5Sess the effecti\'eness tod officieocy of transit S)'Siems. Floricb. Jesislatioo requires tbc Florida Department ol and Florida s transit systems to develop tod repott perfonnanee measures. The rcle>ant Florida statutes are noted in F"J811fe 1-1. FLORIDA STATUTE 341.041 FLORIDA STATUTE 341.071 FLORIDA STATUTE 341.052 FIGURE 1-1 o.341.o41 1880 SUPPLEIIEHT TO FC (3) pulltllh. I01d odmlnl&ter -,...,.. CCI lOOming l)'llom monogonwt. peIc t-1)111-. (1) ........ public lrlnl1l ,..,.._---pubic ..... OWovod locol -""*" OC>rl"j)<"'*""" pfroc.' 'Eadl ,._ piO"o'lde< -..,,., ptoduclMiy ond pe4ioh In 1he local-at lo eroathe ptoduotlvly I01d perlofmaneo mooour .. ollolllllllod tor tho yvar . .' (4) 'To romoln ollglble to rocoiYe lunclng ... ellgiblo public -,..,.rdoro ..tlh t-34 1 .071 (1) 1. 19111 end .. ... 341. 07t(2) Ill' .kiT 1. 19112 3

PAGE 29

Consistent with the legislation, this report provides an overview of the individual and ooUective performance of Florida's fiXed-route transit systems. There are twenty systems that are included in this report, seventeen of which provide fcred-route motorbus servioes. Of these seventeen systems, fourteen also offer some type of demand-mponse service directly or through a oootract with an outside vendor (this report does DOl address demand-response servioes). Two of the systems (Metro-Dade Transit Agency aod Jadtsonville Transportation Authority) operate automated guideway systems (peoplemover) while a single system (Met ro-Dade) operates a rapid rail system. In addition, a commuter rail system is currently operating in South Florida (Tri-County Commuter Rail). Two systems (Space Coast Area Transit in Brevard County and Pasco Area Transit) are unique when compared to other systems around the stale. Space Coast provides demand-response and vanpool-based transit servioes only. Pasco Area Transit discontinued fJ.Xedroute motorbus service in 1990 and now only provides demand-response service. The report is presented in two parts. Part I, Trend Analysis, begins with a summary of statewide trends. foUowed by a consideration of the Florida fw:d-roule total trend. Part I also presents the performance trend for each of Florida's fixed-route transit systems over an eight-year time period (1984-1991). A variety of tabular and graphical data are included which portray the changes in several performance, effectiveness, and efficiency measur .. from the year 1984to 1991. Appendix A provides a list of defonilions of the terms used in the report. Appeodix B presents a review of the specific oouroes for data used throughout the analysis. Part II, Peer Review Analysis (separately bound), presents lablllar and graphical data contrasting the performance of Florida's transit systems with each other and with similar systems from around the country for 1991. Appendix A provides a list of defonitions for terms used in Part II and is identical to Appendix A of Part I. Appendix B presents a review of the specific souroes for data used throughout the analysis and is identical to Appendix B of Part I. The Florida transit systems included in this report are provided in Figure 1-2. 4

PAGE 30

a-td Jkoowotd GoiHIIobough ..... T...,olt JacboiM1Io T .... portallon A&othottty Key w ... T......., Authority l.4blond-Most T-Dbtrict Loo County Transit Auttoority Mao-CountyT..,.It -HewSmymo Orlando Palm8ooch ,...., l'lnellat s..-.. TTif.ltall V .... lo SmymoTranol!S,..... "'""Tranoll Palm 8ooch County T ..... port-Authorlty Plneloo Suncoalt T...,.lt Authority S..O...a County....., T .... lt Tal......_ T...,.lt Auttoority T rloC4o.nty Conwnulo< Rail Authority Eaot Valuolo Transit Auttoority # ... <1.:.,w .. 5

PAGE 31

A. THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW Since performance analysis is only oae meaas of evaluating performance and is limited to those aspects included in the analysis, the reader should ue:cise ooasidcrable caution in interpreting the resulls. It is particularly stroog in reviewing cost effectiveoess aod efficiency; however, it docs not report on the exteot to which Olber objcetivcs of the transit authority are being attained. for tJ
PAGE 32

B. PERFORMANCE REVIEW DATA BASE The major source of data for the performance review is Section 15 reports To receive federal funds, transit properties are required to report a variety of data in a standardized format, resulting in what is known as a Section 15 report. These reports provide slandardizcd measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison o( information between properties. Since 1979, when this reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinelllents in data collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and comparability o f the data. The data are for tbe fJSCal year used by each transit authority. For Florida properties, the fi.SC3l year runs from October 1 through September 30. For other properties, the fiScal year may be different For clar ificat ion of any discrepancies, it is recommended that the appropriate transit syslem be contacted to verify data and identify any unique characteristics of significance. Data Rellabllltx All Section 15 data submitted to FrA are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each report is thoroughly cl18.1Dined to identify errors, questions, and inconsistencies. FrA identifies problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to these problems before the fmal report is accepted. The quality of the data published in FfA's "National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics Section 15 Aunual Report" improves each year as transit systems become more familiar with collecting and reporting data and as definitions and procedures become more standardized. Despite the fact that the data are becoming more reliable over time, there still remain problems with the quality of the data for some trans it syslems. For this sludy, data were taken rom published summary reports of Section 15 filings and from individual Section 15 reports provided by the transit agencies for fiScal year 1991. With the exception of data on service area population and tbe inflation rate, aU information was provided by the transit syslems. CUTR did not collect any original data or conduct any audits or on-site analyses of the data or data collection procedures CUTR did, hovrever, review the data in detail and correspond with the transit syslems concerning queslions or inconsistencies. This review involved identifying irregularities in trends and numbers that were believed to require additioual review and verification, such as reviewing selected ratios and data trends to identify changes that were atypical, given the overall trends. Additionally, a completed syst em data me was provided to each property for review and verifJCation. In many inslances, data were changed or significant modifications were made. In several cases, data previously submitted to FrA were changed to reflect new information or refonements in defUlitions and data collection. In some i.ns.ta.nces, transcription or other errors were discovered in the data. In other instances, erroneous data from previous years which could not be COrTected were extrapolated or eMimated to provide the mOsl accurate information possible. The level of attention to data review was oonsiderably greater for Aorida properties than for peer properties from outside the state. The data used for peer comparison in Part II of this report oonsisted of data reported (or 1991. Since these data are more recent, they are eJ
PAGE 33

The data colleaion procedures further specify exactly what i$ being referred to by a given term. for example, 'passeoger trip' refers to an iDdividual boarding a transit vehicle. A person riding a bus from tbe corner to tbe office takes one passenger trip to work and a second passenger trip to return home. J.Akewise, a person who takes a bus, translers to and then transfers to MetromoYOr would be oounted as taking three passenger trips. In spite of these defo.nitioas and oontinued refUIOments in data oolle
PAGE 34

TABLE 1 1 Performanoe Review Indicators aad Measura Dlrtdly-Qpuated Traaslt s.rnm Ptttonnanc4l lndlcetof't ....... awe. f.ftlclonoy-SeMoo Nea Po!>ulado<> Sor.tcoSg &p. Ptr PaTrip Trips ,., Cl9fta Oporlllfng &p. Par p,.,.._ Milo Vehido MIJ.s PUNng Trips Per Revenue Mite Operating Exp. Per Revenue Mile Revenue Mltt PasMngtf Trtpa Per Revenue Hour Operatin g Exp. Per AeYinut tk>ur Vehicle ttourt MalnltnMOO &p. Per Rownut Milo Atvenue Hourt Clwolltyofs.Mc:o Mllnl &p. Par Oporeting &p. Route Mllet A-MrogoSpood A-Mrogo .>(jo of FIHI )'0"'1) OporoUng Rollo o Tolll Oporatlng &pon.11 -ol-11 Forot>ox Aooovory Tolll Operating Expon11 (11184 $ ) ToliiRoedcda local Rewnue PeJ Operating Exp. T otaJ MalntlnatlOI Eq>tnM Revenue Miln Between lnddttrtl Rownuo Per Opor. &p. Tolll Malmononoo ExpoMO (11184 S) Atvtnut Wet Between Roaclc:dt Total Copi1IJ &ponao Vollido--...... ,.., -MiooPtrPookVehiclo ToliiiDCOI-.,.,. --PtrRouloMilo ___ ,., __ Clpo!.OIIug-... __ ,., __ -MIHPwT--Aw.nue i*Jufl ,_, T otaf VeNclel Total Emploo,MI Opo,.dng Emp4oyooa ....... Prodoclllty MlinltnlllOO Employooa Atvtnw Houtt Per Admll1111t-Emplo)'Ooo Rovwnuo Hou,. Per Optr. Emplo)'Oo Atvtnue Hours Per Malnt. Employee Vthlcl" Avaltlbt. for MIJc. S.f\llct; Rovwnuo -.. Ptr h:lrnln. Employoo Vthloltt Optrated In Max. s.Mct VtNclt Miltt Ptt Mainl EmpfoyM $palo Ratio Paallngor Trips Par Employoo T olll Vohk:ln Por Malnt. Emplo)'Oo Total Galton Consumtcl Total V.hieftot Ptr Admin. Emplo)'H tolowatt Houts of Propultlon Power 11111za11on Vohido Milll ""Gallon Vohido Miln Ptr l
PAGE 35

C. THE ROLE OF PRIVATIZATION Privatization is becoming increasiogly importaot in the transit industry across the United States and in fl()rida. In 1984, no florida tnnsit systems C()ntracted for the provisi()n of fiXed-route motorbus service. Howcvcr, in 1990, six florida transit systems C()ntracted with the private sector I() provide some fiXed-rout e service. In 1991, the number of florida systems =tracting for fixed-r()utc service b as declined to only two. The importance of privatization as it relates to Ibis report ooncems the availability of dat a f()r these contractual services. Many of the measures that can be easily ealculated for services that are directly-<>perated cannot be ealculated f()r purchased motorbus since many perf()rmance indicators arc unavailable. Table 1-2 in dicates generally what perf()rmance indicators arc available for fiXedroute, privatized transit as well those measures that can be ealculated with t hese indicators. Pfotmmnc. ..... ...,. -,. Popvla11oo> Pu-.gTripo .._ ....... VthidtMIIeo Mills ---Rewnue Hotn Total Oporating Exponto Total Oporating Exponto (1984 $) 1/ehlcl
PAGE 36

II. STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS The statewide trend analysis provides a summary of the combi.oed performance of Florida's transit systems. The analysis is comprised of two sections: (1) statewide directional trends in key indicators and measures, and (2) Florida ftxCdroute total trend. The statewide trend analysis provides an asgregate measure of transit performance in Florida. A. STATEWIDE DlRECI'IONAL TRENDS Table liAl provides a sum.mary of statewide dire<:tional trends in key indicators and measures for the time period from 1990 to 1991. Based on tbe percent changes in data for these year.;, the directional trends illustrate the current direction in wbich Florida's transit systems are moving in various areas of performance. The table establishes bow many systems are experiencing an increasi.og trend, de<:reasing trend, or no change for selected indicators and measures. Pedonn anq lndlqtoa A majority of Florida's transit systems are experiencing increasing trends in most of the selected performance indicators. However, only eight of eighteen systems show an increasing tread in vehicle miles, and most systems are showing de<:reasing treads or oo change in the number of wohicles !bat !bey hawo available or operate io maximum service. Effectiveness Mqtum Only five fl()rida systems indicate a positive trend in the number of oebicle miles per capita. This r ep resents the ability of Florida's transit systems to provide transit services within their service-area. The magnitude of service consumption eaa be measured by tbe ratio of passenger trips to rewonue miles. Thirteen of eighteen systems experienced a positioe trend in this effectiveness m easure. A majority ()f Florida's tra.asit systems oontinue to experience positive trends in reliability. EleW>D of eighteen systems show an increasing trend in tbe uumber of revenue miles between roadcalls. However, only seven systems show an increasing trend in tbe number of rewonue miles between incidents (safety). Efficiency Measuru A majority of Florida's transit systems show an increasing treod in the following cost ratios: operating expense per capita, opeD systems. The average fare from 1990 lo 1991 has increased in elewon of the eighteen systems. 11

PAGE 37

-l'i -il!.i' ::[f fit "' .... '" :a ... !;f I o . :0 z I ... c: .. I !r z "' g 1: i i.e. e f :a i i' c: ., !2 !!H I l 0 I -!l !r f ;li.!> i ; g"i ... ii""' c! '<(;:; l; li' -... !if ff;i. :I ... ii 1 a ... .. 3: h 1: = j $ 5 l !tl s-i "":. p a." lfjf h il.S. F"f

PAGE 38

B. FWRIDA FIXEDROU1E TOTAL TREND Tables llB1 through 11-83 and F"JgUres 1181 through ll-821 represent the Florida ftxedroutc total trend in various indicators and measures excluding purchased motorbus (privatization). Similarly, Tables 11 through 11 and f"ogures 11 through 11 provide the tOialtrend including purchased motorbus. As indicated in the introdudion, indicators and measures that include privatized services have less data available. For that reason, many indicators and measures cannot be reported. Tbc tab les provide the Florida fixed-route total trend from 1986 to 1991 along with the percent change from the beginning to the end of the time period. Seleded indicators and measures are also presented graphically. It should be noted that data for the years 1987 through 1989 may not be consistent with the indicators and measures presented in versions prior to the April1992 version of this report. This is due to th e inclusion of Key West Transit Authority beginniJ>g with the April 1992 version. It should also be noted that, in some instances, a system may nO! be included in the statewide total for a particular indicator in a particular year due to the unavailability of data for that system. For example, if a system's purchased motorbus passenger trip data for 1987 is nO! available, then the statewide total (including purchased mOiorbus) figure for 1987 passenger tripo only includes the dirc
PAGE 39

14 Key West TraMII Aulborll)' In the Statewide Total Including Purchased Motorbus table, KWTA iocludes only diredly-operated motorbus data for 1987 revenue miles and revenue hours sioce purchased motorbus data are unavailable. Tri.Couul)' Commuter Rail Aulborll)'In the Statewide Total Excluding Purchased Motorbus table, TRIC fuel ooasumptioa, iocident, and roadcall data for 1989, 1990, and 1991 are DOl avnilable and ar e lberefore not included.

PAGE 40

TABLE llBl Florida TraDSit SJSUtll Totals S tatewid e ToCal Paforma.ace ldlcalors EsdudJ8a Pvclauod Motorks PfAFOIIMANCE .. DICATORS 111117 1 tNt tHO 1tl1 (000) 8,&1$.50 9,135.12 9 ,<400.S5 t,IIOO.OO 10,051. 1 4 9,94-815 12.41,. ---. "' 'U!S" l'uMng {000) ll04,150U8 S82 ,e85.915 !le9 233.35 8211.31e.gs 708,204.82 731,457 00 21. -. . : 87,58$.70 ,4 !1),m ;r8 72, '\ .; . ;; 13.41" )C ' '' '' "'W V>" _..,.., ... ,, Flmlnuo r.llet (000) 81,222.32 63,133.74 64,no.08 1515,1182.02 119,265.81 119.81515.64 14.18,. -"* l-":p ...... .......... -. ....... -w__..'\ '" '"f f;4:i+ *. ... ............ ... ........ :'n:;l ... .:1; i:! Flmlnuo Houra (000) 4,367.80 4 463.22 4,630.40 4,7$4.90 4 913 .92 4,880.118 11.715,. ___ ., ->' ; : ' .' 1 ,. ,. :i' '*>iv.i>f"''"""'J'- .._..,...... fiOute ,..f. > '1'>-"' -.ol Y- 7,8+! ,85 "I'd' > < 18.,&4-f-Oporllling Expomo (000 ) $224 817.47 $235.513.15 $243,420. 94 $306,21U5 :IS.33,. .., .., .. ,......,._,. ___ ...,...,._ -'"-""' 0'_.,_' t'l "'--:"......,.. .... .,.. .......... ,.. ..... T .... (000 of 11184 II $207 220.40 $213,144.!)2 : $212,3119.QO $221.&77 .82 $231;388 .87 $230,13$.83 11.3511 .. -.... __ ... ,., t.wntononco E>q>onoo (000) 181,0411.10 $71 .717.o& $$5,475 7 4 see.m.11 m,oeg.so $83.420.118 _,. l&l;320.1'3 $57 ,123 58 W.m.o& .ei.wtril_-' 11.81,. TOiol Copilal E'>porloo (IXq $ 72,605.19 $82.811.10 $ 71,874.50 $1 23,182.87 $al5,1&1.01 $81,3112.51 ToW (000) $ 10D,8V0.87, $2 10 .e84.3 1 S221,2Sol.ll3 $221.-cM $248,781JIO 37.30!1 --. Opotlding-(000) $64 802.78 $67,352.32 $74 ,502.89 $78.1181.25 $64,586.34 $915.477.33 4 7 ."/K ... ,_ -... -_, ......... ,.._ ... Panoigtt (000) $61,104.70 .. -0& MD.-78. .177,303.79_ '"$8!,142.13 <&-Teal &npiO)>Mt 5 008.01 4,974.41 4.719.33 15.014.81 4 ,870.00 4 .7815.35 -4.48,. " ; ...-.,, -0 "' -..-* ... .. . OpotOI!ng Einploplt 3,011.20 .3, 139.e0 2,977.45 3,20MD .. ,,3,083:31)' ; .U.,. ......... . '" ..... -.. .. ____ _.._ Moln1ononco &nployeeo 1,231.00 1,218 .75 1 140.05 1,217 20 1.231.80 1,21111.00 5.01,. t a99.,iL eeJ.q111 mt:,r-23" Vohldeo Avalloblo for Maximum $ofYioo 1,782 00 1,771.00 1,713.00 1.802.()0 1,814.00 1,831.00 2.75,. .. ... ., .. __ ., : ------""1< >-+ . ,..,._..,._, __ .,.,_.., .. <11-'..._..,..,., ..... - t .oo' 1 "-'oo" 1 --oo -.oo ... ..,.,.,oo, 1 noo ...... .. ;.,, .,_,., ;l:l1 1,--, .. : .... : < Spare Rolio 33 .2n 25. 30 :10" 29.39" n/a 1S,151.35 ._d . T-Eno
PAGE 41

"' m .. ;l! .. 1: i c: :D Cl I -i I f -!!. I .. t .. it: "''" -I .u 'l -a. I i -I I -!

PAGE 42

i l 0 :=:; ... .. i !!Ji. !I ... I .:.d ., .. ... a ro:e r.l s I i > '_,_ .. r ... .. a: = l ::E l l:i .. . .. .. ; \ 0 ' u

PAGE 43

18 10.000 ..,_ ZOPOO 0 STATEWID E TOTAL EXC LUD ING PUR CHAS ED MOTORBU S Pnform&DClt IDcllcaton Agurellolll County Populo tion ( 000) IZPOO,--,-,--,---,-.--,--. ,.oooll I I I I I l .000 1 I I I I I I I 1 .0001 I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I '-* tttS ttM 1.-? t tMt 1tt0 1ttl Flgurelloll3 Rgurell-84 Agurell-t2 PuN._ ( 000 ) ::::F I I I Jd I I !IO.oool I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10.ooo1 I I I I I I I o + I I I I I I I ,.. ' "" ... f ... ,.. .... "'" Vehkle M i les end R-M iles T otAII o,.roung ElcpenM Flgu,.lloliS P.._Fore-(000) I . . ... .. fi' .ooo UOOPOO uoo.ooo """"<'t.....,IIDII .. ,..... ....... $ 100.000 --l I so 1-$ 100.000 SIO,OOO $00 .000 uo.ooo so I I I I !=w ,.. t.S ,.. 1M1 ... ,,., ''"" ,,.. ,... , ,.., ,.. ''" ,.. "" ,.. ,., -"" t.-ttlt "'" Rgurelloll6 TotAII 6 ,000,---,--,--,--,-...,.-,---, .oool I I I I I I I l.OOOI I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I ,... ,., ,... ,...., -"" ,,. tttt ZPOO uoo 100 000 0 Figure 11-17 Vohldesln Mulmum S.M
PAGE 44

STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Figure 11 Vehicle Miles Per Capito 8. o F i I I I I I 1 6.ol I I I I I I 1 4.ol I I I I I 1 2.ol I I I I I I I o o l I I I I I I I tM4 ttiS tM6 1987 1919 ttte 1991 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 EITecti
PAGE 45

20 STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Flgurell-1113 Operating ExpeMe Per C. pita S40.00,---,----,--.---,--.,.---.---, :::::kd I I I I ll s1o.oo I I I I I I I I so.ool l I l I l l l ,,.. ,,., ,.. .. ,. ""' ,... "" Figure 111116 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue MiJe s 1 .21> $o.90 $0 .60 $0.30 $0.00 1tl4 ttiS 1116 ,,., ,_ ,,. 1190 tttt Flg0 ,---,---,-,--,---,.--.,--, I I r l I 'ool I I I I I I I lOO+-l1 I I f--1-1 o i I I I I I I I ,,... ,.s ''" ,... ,,.. ''" 19t1 Eftlcleacy Measurts FlgunoiiB14 Expense Per Passenger Trip $2.50,--.,-,--,--,-.,--,--, $1.50 Sl.oo+--+-l-t--t---t-1 1 :::I I I I I I U IJM IIU '"' ltt.J ,_ 1ttf tttO 1tt1 Rguro 11-1117 Farebo Recow.y Ratio -N 1 1 f I 11 z0%1 I I I I I I I 10%+-l I I I I I I 0%1 I I I I I I I 19M HilS "" ,,.., ,.. "" '"" ,.., Figure 11-1120 P .... ngor Trips Por Employoo 60,000 ,--,----,.--,--,---,-,--, lO.OOOr 1 1 1 1 P"l 1 2o.ooo1 I I I I I I I 1o.ooo f--1--1 I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ttM IMS 1M 1917 ltll IM!t 1990 tttt Rguroll-815 Operating Expense Por R-MUo ss.oo,-.,--,-,-,..-.,,-,---. :::U I I I I I J n.ool I I I I I I I s1.oo I I I I I I I I so.ool l I l l l I I .... t18S ... ., ... ,,.. lttO 19t1 Figure 11-1111 Vohldo Mil .. Por Peak v.hldo 60.000 ,.--,--,-,.--,--,-,--, 40.oool I I I I I I I 2o.ooo1 I I I I I I I ,.. ttiJ ,,. -... .... ''" suo 10.40 10.20 10.00 Rguro 11-1121 A_ F.,. IIIJ'f 1fi liN HIS '"' tJ "" 1M tJt0 1991

PAGE 46

., I i -'S I i -.e :J_ i! Eil i i.-e = "'s !i .all liko 't .t J --!! i :J "' ., I< 5 0 z I I< 0 .. I<

PAGE 47

.. I m 1: i m U> it i ... .. I ( .,:L Lf;; ":"" -p: I !!. ii '3 t I 3:: l I -!

PAGE 48

i -i -.. I -. ); : '2--

PAGE 49

24 STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Figure 11-1122 County Populadon (000) 12 ,000.,--,-.--.-.---.-.--. ,.oool I I I I I I j 6,ooo I I I 1-1-1 I I 1 .oool I I I I I I I ol I I I I I I. I 1M4 1 M J IMI tMJ 1M ,,_ "'10 1991 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Per1orman
PAGE 50

...1 ;3 e w 0 s: w ..... ;3 IJ) s ... ,..., !0: -; = 6-::E U: 0 .; i -" ! f -It - It 0 0 o" .,; ,.; 0 ..! ::E ! c ""' .... -! .. .., u: .... I > --! .: .. 0 .. q .. o" ,.; ,.; --0 0

PAGE 51

26 STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Figur e 11-829 Operating Expense Per Capilli WI.OO,--,--,--,-----,,--,--,----, :::.:td I I I tl1 slo.oo I I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I 1tl4 IMS 1916 1M7 ,,.. 19tt 1990 1991 fl9ure 11-831 Oporallng bponM Per R-nue Mile ss.oo .,---,--,---,-----,-.----.---, ::tJ I I I I 1 1 ::::11 111 1 11 so.ool I I I I I I I 1tl4 ttiS 19M 1917 1M 1919 tMO t9J1 Efficiency Measu .... Flgonll-830 Operating ExponH Per P-r Trip $2.5 0 ,.---,----,--,---,----,--,---, ::::U H 1 1 I 1 s1.oo I I I I I I I I so.so I I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I 19M tttS 19" ttll '* 1-tttO ,,.... fl9onll-832 Vehicle Miles Per-Vehicle 60,000.,---,-,.--,----,-..,---,--, 40,ooo-l-1 I I I I I I zo.oool I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ,,.. tNS t't ttiJ ,,_ tM9 199G t9t1

PAGE 52

STATEWIDE TREND SUMMARY It is important to note that statewid e trends are significantly impacted by the pe r formance of Metro Dade Transit sin"', in 1991, this system comprised nearly 38 per.,nt of statewide service miles and 49 per.,nt of ridership. In 1991, many of the statewide trends (Statewide Total Includin g Purchased Motorbus) have been affected by the decline in the use of priwtizcd foxed route service. Purchased motorbus passenger trips declined more than 70 percent from 1990 to 1991, primarily due to a 53 percelll decline in the amount of service provided (revenue miles) for this mode. The majority of the decline in purchased motorbus service can be attributed to the termin ation of Metro-Dade Transit's Private Enterprise Participation demonstration project. The number of passenger trips on Florida's transit systems increased 1 percent from 1990 to 1991. The number of service miles provided decreased nearly 2 percent from 1990 to 1991. Statewide operating expense increased 4 percent from 1990 to 1991 Inllation was 5.4 percent during this time period. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls (reliability) decreased 10 percent from 1990 to 1991. The number of revenue miles between incidents (safety) decreased ..-r 22 percent from 1990 to 1991. Based on the eYaluation of each transit system's performance, it is evident that the incident data reported for the 1990 fiSCal year are unretiablc, due primarily to the change in this indicator's defanition. Operating expense per passenger trip increased from $2.01 in 1990 to $206 in 1991, an increase of 3 percent. Operating expense per revenue mile increased from $4.12 in 1990 to $4.34 in 1991, an increase of S percent. The average fare per passenger trip for Florida transit systems increased from 54 cents in 1990 to 59 cents in 1991, an increase of 9 percent. v

PAGE 53

This is a blank page

PAGE 54

Ill. SYI>"TEMBYSYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS There are three basic organizational structures under which Florida transit systems currently operate: six independeot authorities, teo couoty -aft"Wated systems, and four city-affiliated systems. All of the systems are governed by some type of Board of Directors or Commission. The Board of Directors for independeot authorities are typically comprised of appointed members represeoting different local entities within the service area. Alternatively, the goveroing bodies for county-affiliated s)'S(ems and cityafftliated systems are comprised of members from the county commissions and city councils, respectively. A summary of organizational structures by system is provided in Table lll-1. Table lll-2 summarizes the various modes operated by each Florida system. A m a jority of the systems offer fiXedroute m()(orbus service as weU as some type of demand-response service. In addition, Metro-Dade T r ansit Ageocy provides rapid rail and automated guideway transi t services. Jacksooville T raosportation Authority began operating i ts guideway transit s)'S(em in June 1989. TriCounty Commuter Rail began operating in January 1989, as well Each Florida transit system that provides faxedroute service is included in the s)'S(em-by-system trend analysis. A brief system profile is provided for each s)'S(em p r ior to the presentation of the trend data. Tables are theo provided which include perfo rmance indieators, effectiveoess measures, and efficiency measures. Specific oommeots about the data or modifications that were made to the data are also provided. Key indicators and measures are theo illustrated graphieaUy. At the conclusion of e ach system section, summary comments are provided to identify and explain major changes in the performance indicators A major chaoge is a teo perceot (10%) increase or decrease in a performance indicator from 1990 to 1991. Abbreviations for Florida's transit systems used throughout the s)'S(em-by-system trend analysis a r e provided in Table 111-3. In some cases, the conventional abbreviations were not used in order t o achieve graphical consistency. Ooe ehaoge in abbreviation shoul d be noted. Due t o the oarne change for Orlaodo's transit system f rom Tri County Trans i t to Lynx Transit, the system's abbreviatioo has been changed to LYNX. This abbreviatioo differs from the ooe used in the previous trend and peer reports (OTCT). 29

PAGE 55

f I f f I i II c. 0 a !. < "' ., 2 aao 8 0 ... ... c "' 1 !(') l El ..

PAGE 56

T/'' y an .. '\-"'*;;.,... ,. .Ol'*<> s . '-' .... .. . . '-... .. PJneiJie Sunooat Tr1n1h Au1hoftty I I' "' .. 1 -+ .. .,s;;,"" "" .. !' -t)o, Polm -County Tranop. AAAihotlly ( ( .f "*"" ., .... ., "'t :;"' J'"" 1 ',,,,, ... ,.,, T......, Sy tiO'" (Gol-lo) I ( ; . E'Mt-T--;; --( . ( :f" .... Cowttr S)'8tem I I' -.......... 9"' .... eou..-, r, .... t_ "':-... 1 .. I' S.....aa Cou('jt)' AIM Trtmlt I I' ... .,, """ UlteluMI AIM Mae a Traneh Dtttrlct ..,.. ( . \;;. .:t ( 9 '.::Ovv";.,., -... + Co*s"':.< <4-."' --1':.-t '. ,--,.,,<.";;t;;. ,. ....... ..... Patco AI.-Tranth Sytttm .f .> '-'\ ' w...._ y.; ... . .. I r '';W5 -' $ "'''-. ;,_. _ Speco Coo"-TrantM (Brword Co.) r ' .. ;. ......... ... .. ... ,_,.., ::'T..t1'" .... Authortty ..\0' c'-t ""' / H > ; KEY: M B moiOrtlut a.--rtl RR -rOj>ldrol 31

PAGE 57

i 0 z I I I .. li" f ::!1"' i t .. -i

PAGE 58

A. METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM PROFILE Omnlyllonal StructureMetro-Dade Transit Agency is a department of Dade County, which is charged with the operation of a unifted publi<: transit system. Th e agency was created on O<:tober 28, 1986, a result of the restructuring of the former Metropolitan Dade County Transportation Administration. MOTA is managed by a Director appointed by and directly responsible to tbe County Manager The Director is responsible for the coo.struction, and operation of Metrorail, Metrobus, Metromover, and special traosportation systems. Gortmlng Body and Composl!loqMOTA is governed by Dade County which is, in effect, a super-municipality with governmental powers effective in the r1 cities in the county and the unincorporated areas. Dade County bas a two-tier, commission-manager, type of government. The Board of County Commissioners is comprised of a mayor and eight commissioners, all of whom are elected officials serving fourycar terms. The County Manager is appointed by this governing body. Srn1cs AmMOTA operates within the geographic boundaries of Dade County; however, portions of three bus routes exteod into Broward County. Modes Fixed-route mocorbus services, purchased motorbus services, purchased demand-responsive servioes, rapid rail transit services, and automated guideway transi t services. During the 1989 foscal year, MOTA began tbe construction of a 2.5-mile extension of the existing downtown Metromover system, which is expected to be completed in March 1994, at an estimated total cost of approximately $248 million. 33

PAGE 59

! I 'll i. t (:; fi = -:I' l.l ":'" I i ::1, .. 0( Ei i

PAGE 60

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TABLE IIIAl Metro-D a de Transit Agency Purc:baS
PAGE 61

... L i' ... m 0 3 lt' m z S! g 0 ., !il I l::: a .. [i' ""i' s; :::'t aa ::: i };; 71 i I 5 I

PAGE 62

TABLE 111-A4 Metro-Dade Tnosll Rapid Rail Performance Indk:ators PERFORMANCE INDICATORS t,n6.10 1987 18M Spoto Rallo ,.,...,. "". : ,. -'';l<:.(:'''$f-.. .. 1,802.<0 1,836.20 1989 1,873-08 91. <3% Total <3,187.00 tHO 1 ,937 .09 1991 %Chango 1-1991 10.4511 37

PAGE 63

-I 3 l:: il" I ... jli' s ... i's; ;,if ;: I ( .. B' I a

PAGE 64

Toll! TABLE 111-A6 Metro-Dade Transit Agency System Total Performance Indicators (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) PERFORMANCE INDICATORS -1N7 ,_ lite tno "' kw-ho) '"' li.Oianp 198&-lttl 39

PAGE 65

PfRFORMAHCE INDICATORS ,_ 40 TABLE IIIA7 Tnaslt Aataq S,sltm Total Ptrfoi'1DAliullcaton 1917 1-11110 1"1

PAGE 66

TABLE UI-AII M dro-Dade Traull :.f.,...., DlnctiJ-Openled Motorl>vs Elrod ...... Moasam EfRCTlVE NESS M fASUAES I 11M I 1187 I 1I 1I 1110 I 1"1 I SEIMCE Slf'f'I.Y I 11. 56 1 ., 11.63 1 11.1$ 1 11:211 1: ... :"\1.81 I SERVICE CONSUMPTION '! ... ,_,.._ .... .,. .. ,., ...... I ................. ....... .. 30 1 i1f .. ..... -' 33.56 -.. +"--.t 28.04 <'f .... 28.7 111.3a% : f t -t:. "*""'*''* 'i28:10 "lf .. G.-,' .,.tj' .<<11 ---,,._. "'* 4;.4; fli Y>lidVr ,,,. M Ptr Revenve Mile 3.31 3 .:2$ 2.81 3.08 2.88 2.1$ ,._ '\" "" ... .,.,. "'""t.n o self <'ft'$_,.,.,.,. ... 50'' ( .. ' 7 < ,.. ,....., .... ..... ,..,.,. ... ....,.. ..... . ..., 3 .) 11, $:% 4f33.30J ; ;-*- .> ,,10;,., /" OUAUTY OF S ERVICE .. . .. .. ... """'-$ !?::--.. 12.18 1')J:Ilr 12.4 1 . 12.38>. t> f 12.35 'i"i"'f-';?' ... ... V"'J -: ..:. ., ., ':.< >$1 ..... ..... -age Ago of -(In,. ... 11.80 6.50 $ .10 8 13 5.3SI 6 25 28.8810 ...,.... 1 '31.00 .. 1 ,414 .00;i < 1 477.00 1,288.00 130 00 ,.. .j; 1.235.00 .. S.7010 TOIII-9.()48.00 8 037.00 4 ,!!01 .00 = 3 403.00 5,11117.00 -38 1 410 ;z.ls ; 12..53 ,_ .,._. 12.511 14.23 > ? 4.21 :IU110 .... -"" . .. 1 .99 2.$9 4.11 8.91 5.88 3M 82-l'DlO -.. 14M I --.....-P.w ....... M'-men 14. 1 8 13.64 13.80 1 5.71 14.30. 3.0511. 41

PAGE 67

I 'l !j .. f'l !r s; I i'" !! i .. I a

PAGE 68

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY . < SERVICE CONSUMPTION TABLE lliAlO Metro-Dade Transit Ageocy Dlrectly.()porated aad Purchased Motorbus Etrectlveoess Measures 198& 1187 1988 1881 1990 1Mif . .. 12.:13 12.88 11111 43

PAGE 69

I 'b: a !!. ;;.. i .. -:r:-t a

PAGE 70

E I .. 8 .. i 1! -= .-= w w ... it3 : :q .. 6 0 I < -

PAGE 71

j E. I "' If !;li' i rr s;; i1:: i :,a t I 3: -.. I 1!.

PAGE 72

TABLE III A14 Molro-Dadt Traaslt Aaeeo SyslnD Total ElredlvtMSS Me&soros ffCT1YEIIESS M EASURE$ liM 1117 liM 1-1890 SERVICE SUPPlY ,..,423 . .....;.;: 1;.. ""'1 M'.. .... ,:.... : ,l'"'"""l'.- < ,QJ ... -"""" .... > 11!'"'' .. SERVICE CONSUMPTION .... .... -;!:Oi>IIO"'--.... +.,...... . ,. """ '"!>)!# ...... ... ... ........ ..... 'll:>"-- .. ..... ........ -.:-.... "'---'"' ''"-"' .. 38-' w"",.> J.... -'*""'""f,37'" <' ..,.. , ""';.,y ... ... ... ........ ,."' .,. . ...-........ ... -... ..... . .. "" . .. - P.-gtt Per Rovt..,. Milo 3.04 3.13 2.70 2.81 2.7V 2.11 2 .81" , -., .. if.-''. '*' <: 'Ji' .., ..... ';;.}. '1":, *"fit nuur t J&$i vh . 38..35, ... . . 1'"' QlOOTY Of SERVICE .... ,_. :-; t3,150 l ;:;: <2.3&i"' .-__ ...... ,. ............. '. ... ->< ... . -. ... .. >'f:-. .. .... -.. AwQo ot Flool P yo.,.) n/ a I I nt I I I -;r -,.eoo.oo ... ft/a ; 1
PAGE 73

< '-1-t f .' t! ... s-;,!11$!!2 ,...... t J I t
PAGE 74

! i .. e c "'ti ; :c! --... .. = e e! .... (ooo Q... I "il :lO_a 1:: &: i < '*' .. V-h ;- ,, 't4.; -.. !: ,. i lll . ]l \< .: .. : a: :!' 3 l "": '5. c 2 .!i .t [ 't<: .. 'it E !> l. ;j! :t. ffi i t:; l. c:; ; f > 1 1:: .:1 . 3 .... 31 -5 5 5 r .. i ,c ' j i ,;.: ::> >-t; !i!l .. l:i! .. li! w Q. {!::! w 0 z 0 0 w

PAGE 75

--I I -

PAGE 76

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Oporadng &ponte Per Peak V.hlcle (000) ,.,... ..... .,_.,., .. _,.. n-,,._; T" :,.....1rr-C Panenger Trlpt Per Employoo (000) w,, . ,,. ,. \Toto! V.-, . ... -,;'-TOUJ V.hiclea Pet Admin. Vehiole Miln Kilowatt4Hr FARE 1t88 TABLE 111-AIS Metro-Dade Transit AgeDcy Rapid Rail Ellk:kDCY Moasures 1981 IN8 1989 11190 1M1 51

PAGE 77

. ,. 1.1 I f rr11a l I I J lJ J ij iiff' f f J f i ri f i i t f 1 ltf I I I S! ll2 ll i :ll llll; l -.: l f t f J .lfl! i I l i f t l l rf. t! 1 i f .. i' : I t . i ' w H' . "l \ <> ''\t-,. .. . I t : ) i 't: I .. -( -i A!! ---s .. I II i !I .. _,_,. - p ii' s a.._., .. t(;; .. r: I .. 8 I p i : -r !?: "' I - s I s : ;; I :t p !:0 p. :a-...... t "'l l iii .I I !!3 - !. I .. !! I 1:1 -I p -kl .. -h 8 i .....

PAGE 78

I f "$ ::a 1 i .a 1: "'t! i -" ... !! .. ..... .. = ::ae i i g '* .. ll! = :a .. .. .. .. "'

PAGE 79

... ld <>,;, .. .. .. ; 8 Ill ' I r' -l i. -.. I n a I -I

PAGE 80

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1 Were any fare ch>Dgges iD the cash fare and prepaid pass slnldures are shown below OiscoUJit fares are applicable for all hours to youths thr ough g1ade 12 with proper student ideotilleatioo, persons age 65 and older with a Medicare or M edicajd card or a MOTA pboto ideotilleatioo, aod handicapped persoos as defmed by MOTA rules. Full Fare Discount Fare Q!s! liD! Qhl !:WI: Cash Fares Metrobus or Metrorail $1.00 $1.25 $0.50 $0 .60 Metromover $0.25 $0.25 $0.10 $0.10 Transfer bus to bus, bus to rail, rail t o bU $0.25 $0.25 $0.10 $0 .10 Transfer Melrorailto M e u o movor Free Free Free Free Transfer MeiiOmover t o Metrorail $0.75 $1.00 $0 .40 $0.50 Metrobus Express /Special $1.25 $1.50 som S0.7S Metrobus Shuttle $0.25 $0.25 $0.10 $0.10 Prepaid Passes Monthly Transit Pass sso.oo $2S.OO $30.00 Monthly Group Oi.soount S t o 99 P asses $44.00 each $54.00 each n / a n/a Monthly Group DiseoW>t 100 or more Passes $42. 00 each $52.00 each n / a n/a Monthly College Student P ass $35.00 $45 .00 n/a I 2. W ere there any significant changes in s ervice /trvioe area during fiscal year 1990 or 1991? Changes in purchased transportation services included the following: During tbe entire 1990 fiscal year, MOTA contracted with Greyhound lines, Inc., (GU) under the Privat e En t erprise Participation d e monstration project. GU tcrmiDated its contr act on N ovember 16, 1990, due to the filing of banbuptcy proceedings and MOTA began operating the service. MOTA began contracting with M ayflo wer Coniiacted Service, lnc., on July 29, 1990, since the contract with Comprehensive ParatrlllSit Services was terminated. Compreheaaive suhmks their own Section 1S reports On July 30, 1990, MDT A began coa trac:ting with HandiVan for the Dade land Shuttle The eooiiact eapired on February 8, 1991, was n o t renewed, and MOTA began operation o f the service. Additiooally Metrom over service wa& 1101 provided during various nights and weekends io FY 1990 due to the demolitioa of the ColumbU Hotel This included thirtc:c:n Saturdays aod twelve Suodays In FY 1991, Metromover pr ovid ed full service during 365 days as opposed to the 340 in FY 1990. ss

PAGE 81

3. Have there been any re<:eot cbangcs or significant events tbat may help explain the performance of the transit &yslem? 56 MOTA provided the following in response: The proliferation of jitneys due to the absence of eoasistent enforcement activitie& bas resulted in fluctuations in Metrobus ridership and revenue In FY 91, empbam was placed on the provision of express routes in order to address the increased demand for work-oriented trips feeding the cc-otraJ business district. A full funding contract with the Federal Transponation Administration was sigDed on May 11, 1989, for the Metromover Extension project. The FY 1990 activities included the fuW design of the stations and guideway, lllility relocation, risbtof-way aequisitioo, aDCI &)'Siems by Westingbou&e. The projecl ente red the coDSiruction phase, with guideway and station work beginning in Mardi and May of 1991. Revenue service is projected to begin in 1994.

PAGE 82

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECTION IS DATA DlredlyOperattd Motorbus Questloos 1 As indicated in the table below, the n umber of vehicle miles a n d revenue miles increased while the number of Vtract data. 2. Despite the increase in service evidenced by the increase in revenue miles shown above, and the increases in the number of r oute miles and in tbe number of vehicles operated in maximum service shown in the table below, ridership bas declined slightly between 1990 and 1991. Is there an explanation? Dlroctly-Opotatod MOI<>
PAGE 83

Maintenance expense tolaled $15.1 million o( which only $2.7 million was allocated to Bus with the balance alloeated l o Rail and Mover. In additioo, MOTA was able to eapitaliu approximately $1.1 million in engille and transmission rebuilds. 4. Passenger fare reveaue increased from $35,808,720 in 1990 lo $39,357,070 in 1991 despite the decline in ridership discussed previously. Is this the result of a fare increase (see also question #I on the survey form), or is there some other explanation? System Response: The increase in Metrobus passenger fare revenue was due to a fare increase, which was effective December 1, 1990. 5. Vebkles available (503 in 1990, 547 in 1991) and vehicles operated in maximum service both increased sign.if>eanlly between 1990 and 1991. Can these increases be attributed to the decline in purchased motorbus service, or is there some other explanation? System Response: In FY 1990, Greyhound Lines, Inc. (GU) provided service using 43 MOTA buses under the Private Enterprise Participation detnonstration project. The cootract was terminated on November 6, 1990, due lo GU's filing o( banluuptcy proceedings and MOTA began operating the service. In additiOD, the eonlraet for the Oadeland Shuttle expired on February 8, 1991, and MOTA operated the service for the rest of the 1991 fascal year. 6. The number of incideots increased from 730 in 1990 to 1,235 in 1991, and the number of roadtalls increased from 3,403 in 1990 to 5,5111 in 1991. To what can these signifieaot increases be attributed? System Response: MOTA closely monitors the number of incidents and roadtalls throughout the fiScal year. The increase in total incidents is due lo increases in both the collision incideots (increase of 166) and the personnel casualties incidents (increase o( 330). These increases are primarily due to improvements in the reporting methodology The number of total roadcaUs increased as a result of increases in both the number of mechanical and non mechanieal roadeaUs. The increase in mechanical roadtalls was due to aging of the fleet, and engine and door failures. Purchas
PAGE 84

System Re.ponse : The decrease io purchased motorbus service is due to the termination of the Greyhound Liocs, Inc., (GU) contract io NoYI:mbcr 1990. In FY 1990, GU provided a f ull year of service. 2. The decline in purchased motorbus service bas brought about an increase io speed from 14.91 io 1990 to 1831 io 1991, due to rtwenue bours decreasing at a faster rate (61 percent decline) than that of reYI:nue miles (52 percent decline). Please explain the change io service speed for this inode. System Response: The service provided by GLI under the Private Enterprise Participation demonstration project consisted of local service while the service under the other cootracted service was mainly express service. GL!terminated their oontract io November 1990 because of bankruptcy proceedings and the elimination of this slower local service resulted io an increase in the average speed. Rapid Rail Question 1. Maintenance expense iocreased from $18,443,990 io 1990 to $20,105,120 in 1991. Please explaio this increase. System Response: The orsaiutioaal change of MDT A's Facilities Maintenance Division and subsequent expense allocation was responsible for the inaease in Rail maintenance expense. Tbe FY 1990 Facilities Maintenance expense totaled S10.3 million for Rail and Ma..r as compared to $12.4 million for 1991. The increase of $2.1 million was split $1.5 million to Rail aod $0. 6 million to Mover 2. Please explain the significant increase io capital expense from $2,650,610 in 1990 to $5,836,650 in 1991. What capital purchases were made in 1991? System Response: The increase in Rail capital expense was primarily due to the oonstruetion eosls of the South Miami Mdrorail station parkh,g garage. The FY 1991 expenses totaled $4 million for the parking garage project with the balance representing purchases of oomputer and maintenance equipment through various Section 9 grants 3. As indicated in the table below, passenger fare revenue increased almost29 percent between 1990 and 1991 despit e ooly a two percent inaease in ridel$hip, resulting io an increase in average fare per passenger trip from $0.74 to $0.93. Was this the result of a fare ioaease or is there some other explanation? Ropd Roll FY 1990 FY 1991 %Cilanp Pamnoer Trips 13, 621,920 13,906,5) 2. '"' Pueenger Fa1e Revenue $10,012,240 $12,885,010 28.7, Averaot Fare $0.74 $0.93 2&.1% System Response: The increase in Metrorail passenger fare revenues io FY 1991 was due to a fare incr""8C, which was effective December I, 1990. 59

PAGE 85

4. Administrative employ
PAGE 86

4. Please explain the signifJCaDt increase in capital expense from $22,813,220 in 1990 to $41,355,330 in 1991. What cap ital purchases were made in 1991? System Response: All of the FY 1991 capital expense was related to the MetromOI'er Extension project The $20 million inacase in expense from the prior year was due to t he projeCI enteri.Qg the construction phase, with guideway and station work beginning in March and May of 1991. S To what can the 11 percent increase in total local revenue be attributed (see table below) given that passenger fare revenue declined duri.Qg this time and no other operati.Qg revenues were identified ? Automated Gukleway fY ti90 FY1t91 Total Local Re .... nue $6, 450,240 $1,134,680 Operating Revenue $383,970 $379,960 PMMngr Fare fleyenue $383.!110 $379,960 System Response: Since the Metromover is totally locally funded, the total revenue is equal to the operati.Qg expense. In order to balance the increase in maintenance expense, disong. OperOiing Employe" 6.5 10.0 53.6'1(, Maitrttonance EmpiO)'M"$ 55.8 68.1 22.0% Administrative Employees 10.2 9 1 .6'1(, TotaiEmployett 72.5 87.2 20 .3'1(, System Response: The increase in the number of total employee equivalents allocated to Metromover is primarily a result of increases in Transportation Support and NonVehicle Maintenance Support employee equivalents. The increases are due to improved allocation methodologies provided by the Rail and Mover divisions. The Transpo rtation Support increase included reassignment of secretarial pe=nnel from Transporta tion AdminisJntion to Transportation Support, and allocation of Rail T raffic ControUers equally between Rail and Mover as compared to 73% to Rail and 27% to Mover. Non Vehicle Maintenance Support increases are a result of the creation of the Communiations division and the resulti.Qg reassignment of employees: reassignment of Rail Main tenance Control Clerks from Non-Vehicle Maintenance Administration to NonVehicle Support, reassignment of Data Control Clerks from Transportation Administration to Non-Vehicle Maintenance and the reallocation of Rail StruCiural Technicians from 92% Rail and 8% Mover to 10% Rail and 90% Mover. 61

PAGE 87

!0 i i i i i i i _o g S g I i i i i i j ff: I u II I \ ... il 11.= i i i : I j i f-[f f i f-D i J J 8 I i i i i i t-f-1--1--_lS I i i i i 1 : I fl H H H ; 1 .. I i N ... !0 8 8 i i i ; i = I H .... -i i i i i \J i .f .,_iii i N !'> .!! 5> _o 8 8 8 8 I i -if I l i I i j i .. :& i iii i !i \ i -

PAGE 88

METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL XCWDING P U RCHASED MOTORBUS Etrectiftoess M easures Ffgu<4111-Ae Vohklo M ilos Pfi Cap;ta 15 010"""1 I I I +" I 1 u.ol I I I I I I I 9.o l I I I I I I I 6 .ol I I I I I I I 3.o.J-l I I I I I I o.ol I I I I I I I ,,.. ,,., '"' .. , ,. ,.., ,,. '"' 111-A 10 11ewnuo M iles .. A
PAGE 89

64 Rgure Ill -A 12 Operating E-P..-Capita ::Lkt I I I 11 I I I I I I I I s2o.oo1 1 I I I I I I 50.001 I I I I I I I ltM ltiS '* t9t1 ,,., 1M 1191 Melntenanw Expense Per Revenue Mil $2.50 $2,00 $1.50 !/ I"" S1.00 50.50 50.00 ,.. \tts .,. t9U -,,., ,,. '"' 1,000 800 600 coo 200 0 Figure 18 Rewnue Hours P..-Employw RJJ:: ,.. tMS 111M 11117 1* UQ tM 1911 METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCIIASED MOTORBUS Ellkiency Measures Figure Ill A 13 Operating Expense Per Pa...,nger Trip S2.50 ,----,--,-----,,-,---,--,---, ::::t;t t l"""t I ll : : 1 1111111 ,.. INS 19M 1tl7 1tM lftt 1990 tt91 00" 30" 20" 10" 0" Figure 111-A 16 Fanobox Rocowry !lotio L l I I l l 1., '"" IWS 11M ltll' ,.. ltn IMO Uti Flgureiii A19 Passenger Trips Par Employee
PAGE 90

METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Performaoce Jndlcalon Agure III-A21 County Population (000) I I I I I ll 1.2oo I I I I I I I I eoo+I I I I I I I .oo I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 1914 IMS 19M 1911 1911 19H lt90 1,1 Figure iii A23 Vehicle Miles and Revenue M iles 40,000 30,000 J 20,000 ............ .,""'(((lei 10,000 __ .... IOX9 0 19M '"' '"' 1flt1 ,,.. "" '* ,,, S60,000 s.o.ooo S20,000 so Figul'9 IIIA25 Pas-r Fare Revenues (000) ........ 1M4 IMS ,,_ 1M7 19M lttt 1 9't0 1,1 FigureiiiA22 Passenger Trips (000) I I fP1 I j .o.oool I I I I I I I 20.oool I I I I I I I o-1-1 I I I I I I t!ll4 IMS 1916 11117 '* 1989 1990 1991 Figure III-A24 Total Operetlng Expe11H S16D.OOO S120,000 I/ .... l .... SIO,OOO 140,000 H 1so t!IM tttS t916 1MJ IMI ltet 1tf0 1ttt 800 600 400 200 o Figure 111-AZ& Vehkles In Maximum SeMce ... ....- _.....,oo........w.rr I IC "'" ) 1915 1 M tM7 '"' 1Mt 1990 ttt1 65

PAGE 91

Cll a 0 .. l: _o 0 0 _o 0 0 0 E : !:9 i I i i !li-0 i 2)1. a P o i ;!,l I -c: m i 115 -! .. i IQ i -i i i :1: i Z' j "'< ...

PAGE 92

METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCIIASED MOTORBUS Ellklency Measurts Figure III-A29 Operating Expense Per Capita :::rn I I I I I $40.ool I I I I I I I s2o.ool I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I IH-4 ltti 1916 1917 t9N IM9 1990 ltlll Flgu,.IIIA31 Operating b:pense Per Revenu e Mile SG.OO c:n 1'"1 I I 1 sc.ool I I I I I I I s2.ool I I I I I I I so.ool I t I I I I I 19M tteS ,. ,,., ,.. "" "'0 "" Flgunt III-A33 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehkle 60.000 I <0.000 20.000 I ( 11011 191!11dr.o--" 0 ,,._. tMS 1-191J 1-IMt 1 990 1991 Figure IIIA30 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip S2.50 S2.00 ""' $1.50 ./ $1.00 so. so so.oo tM4 tMS '"' IM7 t,,_ "'to 1991 -)()% -10% 0% Flgureiii-A32 Farebox Recovef)' Ratio D I I I lid ,,... Itt) 1-19f1 1,. t'" I,. ""' 10.80 50.60 50.<0 S0.20 so.oo Flgu,. III-A34 AVt! Fare I D I r ltM I'Jn 19M I M J 1911 ,., tttO ''"' 67

PAGE 93

MDTA SUMMARY 68 System Total revenue hours deuted to improvements in the reporting methodology. The number of roadcalls (for directlyopuated motorbus only) increased from 3,403 in 1990 to 5,507 in 1991, an increase of approximately 62 pereent. MDTA states that this increase is due to the asing of their vebicle fleet (6.25 years in 1991), and engine and door failures.

PAGE 94

B. BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION SYSTEM PROFILE OmnlzaiiQ!!al SJructurt Tbe Broward County Mass Transit Division is a division of the Broward County Pubtic Services Department. Gol'W!Ing l!oclr agd ComoosllloaTbe Transit Division is governed by the Board of County Commissioners for Broward County, wbicb is oomprised of scveo elected dislricl representatives. Seryke Alta Tbe service area covered by the SY$tem includes Broward County, North Dade County (North Miami Beach, Carol City), and South Palm Beach County (Boc.a Raton). Modes Tbe system curreot!y provides fixed-route motorbus service as well as contracting for some.services sucb as social service transportation which provides door-to-door transportation for qualified elderly and handicapped persons in the area and Tri-Rail Commuter Rail feeder bus service. (fJ

PAGE 96

TABLE JII .II:Z B...,...nl Trult Dhlsloa Pu,.,b.,.d MotorbooJ Performance lndleaton PERI'Ofii!AHCE INDICATORS _I_ 1tef 1lll7 11tlt 111t0 1n1 1 ,149.20 1,181.00 1,213.70 1,242.45 1 ,26S 49 1,278.38 ' ' .... ""! ,. ... .. 'II{< .. .:,; nN\ 1\IW\. 0.00 a. .,..., 0.00 o.oo 784 .18 ;.#""!..._.' 00 0 'f"-1 ., ..... o . 0.00 .00 .. -.ao ... w - -(0001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.98 ----....---.... ..... ... _.,... Houtt ().Q) o.co 0.00 -o.oo-: ... .t6 ....... ... ..... .... -... 4-..__ ---(0001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.40 37.15 ..... ...,110.,.,.,.. .. "' ----,. Mlr.t A !_If'; 0.00 >.; 0.00 'f' : t o,oo >' 0,90,! y aJ1 00 104,$) &ponte {000) $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $1,38U9 $ 1,490.70 ... to.OO _. Sii Total Molntononoo &pon10 {000) $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 :rotat.Matin.Mno. so.oo :_#so.OO! : _, .so.co .. -.. . . .. .,.,_._.,..,_.. .... -"'' . . T Olal Copllll fxponM (000) $0 00 $000 $0.00 Locol-PlO) $0 00 $000 $000 Oporring -llOO) $0.00 $000 $000 Pllllnget T Olal Etnployoos 0.00 0.00 Oporlllnti &,.,...,..., 0.00 0.00 1 o .oo Mo,.,,. .. EmP'oYH _. o.oo . o.oo. o.oo j o.oo I nt ,,,, .. I l T o .oo H Vol>ldoo Avallablt lot Mulmum SeiVice 0.00 0 00 0.00 v-ot'O,..oltd 1n M0.1muni '' o.oo o .ci:l ;: ; o.oo . .. "'"'' .. -1 .821' 71

PAGE 97

I f 5' atlj (i ! Ill tg 3 I

PAGE 98

EFFCTMNESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPI'I.Y ........ .... "!!. !'Vet SER'IICE CONSUMPTlON .. ,_!;. "" . A ...... ." ... ,; _. '"'' .. .. Pueengtf Trips P Revenue Milt .... ":.'": .ttt .-.. ., i QUAIJTY OF SER'IICE .. ,.. ..... .,. ....... ,... ... ., . . ' .. ;;, .t -""" loge of -ynn) .. ---. __ .., . TOIII--. -. -wo WO..eot.-oon-1000) .............. -..,.,. ... Be-_ .. (000) AVMJ>Bl\JTY -...... .,.. f'!ILRDUto ... 1000) TABLE IIIBC a.-ant Traaslt Dlrisloe Dlroctly.Qpmlled Molo, 2 .12 1.37 1 .!\& 1.81 ;'i :''"'1" .. : :"': 2isi:\ : . -18.96:>0 .,:22.M .. .. ., ',.._ ..... '''.<$'>lll"1" i4. 58 l"\< "',. 13.85 14.015 ,.,_,___ ,.,, ., 6.20 6.40 6.80 7.11 577.00 "564.00; ._ .... ,. . 485 .00 4aOO -4 817 .00 S,Ool9.00 4 897.00 4 ,1t&JX) 1 4.52 15.74 IUJ' 18.1!8 -1.7 .. 1.75 1 82 2.14 12$ 15.53 14.53 14.73 litO "' ... -.. ... .. ''743 .'l. '<-, 7 ... -"' .. -e;18'!1 ) "'- ,..;. 13l3;:: ,_ : p........ t "' 1\-' 4.27% .... -.h.olo;... _,...,.,.,.,.. .. L a. t'-l'o t ., ,._,. ... -... -y.y '<' .. ..... '"" : ... ;;. ;-:: !. t3:t8 .t .. 1 '"' -... .. .......... l>lil'$-'4 73

PAGE 99

-I :l' ::1 -h ia. ;>I .. 1 ill = =--I H f -a I ..

PAGE 100

TABLE 111 Browanl Traaslt Dlrisloe System Total Elrtdlv-. Meo-EFfECTIVEHESS MEASURES I -I 11117 I -I .. I -I 1 1 I SEIMCE SUPPlY - ---......... .. ---- SEFMCE CONSUMPTION -;;11>""'_,. : , .;._ ..... I -r 1 11 eo 1; ,.. tK r .. 15,4S c 10.28 < 11.37 ... .,..$$.- . -:.. < ' < ' .. -""' ....... ---.... : ,,,;.,,, PuMt>glt Pot Revonuo Milo 2. 1 2 1.37 1 .55 1.61 1.91 2.14 1 .03" '' .... .... ,..,,. ....... _;or -:.e ... ... r;e; '' OUAUTY Of' SERVICE ... .. ., ' .. ... <:-: ::tl": .-,. '" '"#.t ... ''C_ .... ..-\""" 13.73 ,.,., 13M-' 14.511 14. 05 .,. 12.80<. .,.,,-Ki-tien -e.1a" .. )o .,,,,._,.,_ -"' ' _, ., ,,., ... , .,._ ... .....,.,_ ' '1'<-tl ;..: 511.00 ..... -.. -.............. ..... ...., t lietlbo' .. --,..,.. ... I Numbo< of - 564.00 455.00 455.00 .t _____ ____ .._. .. "'' T cM1 Roedcallt 4 ,811.00 5,()49.QO <1,897. 00 4,105.00 fll& I I AIYenul ... h:idwM (000) 1 4 .52 ,. 1$.74 18.37 tea j2.8J' I -. ---Mlea S.t.Mri Fbedclllt PlO) 1.7' 1.15 1.82 2.14 I I I AY/IUBIAJN ..._,. .,. r Por -.... Jool I 12.87 I t5.83 I 1 4 .83 I t 4 ,13 I 10-86 t t:.se I -2.111% 1S

PAGE 101

EFF1CIEHCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY 76 TABU: 111 Broward Transit Dlri s toa Directly-Operated Motorbus Efllc:leocy Mtasllr
PAGE 102

i i 2 I ,. :! g::E u I 18 iS-5 ..:. -15 .. r-= 0 = .:!] t .f I "' w "' "' 3 c :1 i l z I .. l:i f > w i ... !I "' {?. w 8 z w

PAGE 103

-I f If.., --I 52"' :s.'"' .,8 a -i

PAGE 104

GENERAL QUESI'IONS 1. Were any fare changes made iD fascal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as weU as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. In FY 1990, the County Commission authorized a change in the student fare from SU.7S to free fare ($0.00) effective November I, 1989. The County Commission later autboriud another change in t he student fare from free-fare to reduced fare ($0.35) effective June 1, 1990. In FY 1991, the County Commission authoriud additional changes in B.ROW's fare structure effective January 21, 1991. These changes arc outlined below. Regular Fare Senior /Handicapped/Children and Students K-12, Fare Regular Transfer Senior /Handicapped/Children and Students K -12, Transfer Park and Ride Express, Intracounty Park and Ride Express, Intraoounty, with Pass Park and Ride Express, Inter-county Park and Ride Express, Intcr county, with Pass 2. Were there any significant changes iD service/service area during foscal year 1990 or 1991? Q!4 S0.7S $0.3S $0.10 so.os $1.00 $1).2S $ 1.SO $0.1S $0.85 $0.40 $0.10 $1).10 Sl.SO $1).65 n/a I According to BROW, changes were made to fourteen of their 33 dirccllyopcrated routes in January 1991. The changes included route straightening and the restructuring of several routes so that BROW's more popular destinations could he better served by the system. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit system? S ixteen new buses were purchased in the 1991 fascal year; BROW believes that the new vehicles have been an effective markeli.ug tool iD increasing the visibility of the gystem. 79

PAGE 105

Dlrecd)'-Opualed MoloriNs Qooestk>Ds 1 As illdiatcd l.a. lbe table below, lbe number ol tripo ioaeued significaDIIy despite ooJy modest l.a.creaseo l.a. lbe amOUlll ol senice provided. lo additioa, lbe nWDber of passeuger miles dedi cd, rault.iDg l.a. a decrease i.o """'""'trip (pweoaer miles pu J>WCD8"' trip) from 4.81 mila iD 1990 to 4.18 miles iD 1991. Is tbere an explaoatiou for tbege). S Adminisltalive employees increased from 4 S fTl!o iD 1990 to 70 FI'Es i.o 1991. Please csplaiD the sipifieant increase iD thi< employee eategory. Syslem Respoa$C: BROW cites the reasslpmc111 of eategories as a potenlial r eason for lbe increase in the adml.a.istralive employee category.

PAGE 106

6. The average age of the vehicle Oeet decreased from 7.97 years in 1990 to 6.57 years in 1991. The data suggest that some of the older vellicles were cut from the active fleet. Please explain. System Response: The average age of the Oeet declined as new vehicles were purchased to replace older vehicles. 7. The number of incidents increased from 689 in 1990 to 755 in 1991, and the number of roadea!Js inaeased from 2,611 in 1990 to 3,597 in 1991. To what ean these significant increases be attributed? System Response: No explanation could be identified for the increase in the number of incidents. However, BROW believes that the eogine and air conditioning problems that were experienced with the new buses may have contributed to the increase in the number of roadealls. Purc:based Motorbus Questions 1. The number of passenger trips ina:eased at a greater rate from 1990 to 1991 than did the number of passenger miles (see table below). This resulted in a decrease in average trip leogth. Please explain the decline in this measure. Purchased Motorbut FY 1990 FY 1991 PaS$engtf Trips 237,550 429,060 Passenger Miles 784,180 1,302,sa) Avttage Trip Length 3.30 miles 3.04mllet System Response: The decline in average trip leogth for the purchased mororbus mode resulted from the addition of a downtown trolley service in FT. Lauderdale. The trolleys produce much shorter trips than BROW's purchased feeder bus servioe to Tri-Rail. 2. As indicated in the table below, the number of vehicle miles, revenue miles, and reveoue hours aU increased between 1990 and 1991; however, the oumber of vehicle hours declined. Is there an explanation for this inconsistency? PurcMHd Motorbua FY 1990 FYIWI %Chan;. Vehlete Milts 238.590 36$,420 26.6% 200,980 345 980 72.1% Vehicle Hours 42,450 39,210 7 .6 % Rewnue 1-buta 35.400 37,150 5.01' Average Speed 5.66 mph 9.31 mph &4.01' 81

PAGE 107

System Respoose: BROW attributes these treads to improvements in the efficiency of routiog aod scheduling of its purcbased motorbus $erncts that ha"" helped to deeredeadhead. 3. The table above also shows that the in<:r.-io the number of re..,.ue miles was much greater (72 percent) than the iocrel$e io the nUDJber of re..,.ue hours (5 percent). This resulted in a significant ina-ease in average speed. Is th ere an explanation for this iou.-? System Respoose: BROW cites the overall routing and scheduling impro...ments that have been made and the faster operating speeds of the dOWDiown trolleys as the primary reasons for the iou.-d average speed of the purchased motorbus mode. 4. Plel$e provide a figure for the number of route miles in 1991. System Response: BROW provided a route mileage figure of 104.5 miles for the purchased motorbus mode for FY 1991. S. Please explain the increase in the number of vehicles available for maximum senice from 19 vehicles io 1990 t o 2S vehicles io 1991. 82 System Respoose: The ina-ease in the number of purchased motorbus vehicles available for maximum s.eniee resulled from the addition of a downtown troUey senice in Ft. Lauderdale.

PAGE 108

10.000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION figure County (000) 1,500..---r-T---,--,---,--,---, 200 I I I I I ; I 1 9oo I I I I I I I I 6oo I I I I I I I I 3ool I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 19M IMS IM IM7 "" 1 919 1990 1991 Figure 111 V e hicle Miles and Revenue Miles I ...... $40,000 $)0,000 $20,000 --lo-(OXt '-""tM'tJfQOOI) $10,000 $0 Performance Indi cators flgu"' 1114 Total bpense - ...... kWOJ.oro'-"\OIXI H L__ I 20,000 16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 figure 111 P.,..ngor Trips (000) 19M IMS 1915 1tl1 ,,.. ttt9 1990 1 991 }-$10,000 $8,000 16,000 $0,000 n.ooo so Flgu,. 111 Passenger faro Revenues (000) / ( l'IOII t.d.oM, __ M.S... ) ,,.. ,,., '"' 1tl7 '"' ''" 1990 '"' 1Jif4 IMS 19M f1111 "" "" 1990 "tl ttM "" ,,. ttiJ ,. "" 1fl0 ,,., 100 600 oo 200 0 <. figure 111-116 Total Empi<>)'"S MOlt l l.o1<1...,...""""'M .... M4ol ... ) ,,.. ''" 19M .,., '* ttlt 1990 '"' figure 111-117 Vehicles In Maldmum Service 250 L 200 ISO 100 __ .,_.._ s o 0 1 1 ltt4 tMS '* lttr ,,.. ,_, 1tll0 tttt 83

PAGE 109

84 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Figure 111-118 Vellldo M iles Per Ceplta 10.0 .--.-.,--,.--,--,.--,-----, . o J::::l;o:-1 I I I 1 1 ,.ol I I I I I I I .ol I I I I I I I 2.ol I I I I I I I o.o I I I I I I I I ,.. tMJ '* .. ... "" ,., ,.., Elfecti>
PAGE 110

Figureiii B13 Openting Ex-Pr Capita S:IO.OO / S20 .00 ,. S10 .00 i so.oo '"" ,., '* ,., ,.. 19tf 1990 ''" Figure 111-1116 Malntenanc. e Expense Per Revenue Mile S1.00 ./ S0.80 S0.60 S0. 40 S0.20 so.oo (_ 110n t...-. """"'* ) f1IM IMS ttM ttiJ IMI 11ft 1990 1991 1,200 900 600 300 0 FigU
PAGE 111

BROW SUMMARY 86 System Total passenger trips increased m<>re than 14 percent fr<>m 17,094,760 in 1990 I<> 19,537,270 in 1991, primarily due to a 13 percent increase in directly-operated mOI<>rbus ridership (16,857,210 in 1990; 19,108,210 in 1991). It is anticipated t hat these incceases in ridership are attnl>utablc I<> the route m<>dificatioos that BROW instituted in January 1991 to straighten routes and imprOYC scmce to popular dcstinati()QS. System T<>tal r<>ute mileage decreased 11 percent from 816.2 miles in 1990 to 724.8 milcs in 1991. All o( this decrease is due to a 50 percent decline in purchased mOI<>rbus route miles from 207.0 miles in 1990 to 1045 miles in 1991. It is anticipated that this decline resulted from BROW's improvements in the r<>uting <>( its purchased moorbus serviees. Toea! capital expense increased from $3,741,350 in 1990 t<> $9,615,540 in 1991, an increase (){ nearly 159 pereent. Aecording to BROW, m<>St this increase resulted from the purchase or sixtee n new buses for its vehicle fleet. The number of incidents (directly-operated motorbus only) inereased 10 per eent from 689 incidents in 1990 t<> 155 incidents in 1991. BROW could nor identify any reasons for this increase. The number of roadcalls (directly-operated motorbus only) increased approximately 38 percent from 2,611 roadealls in 1990 to 3,597 roadealls in 1991. BROW believes that the maintenance problems (eogine and air-conditioning) that were encountered with the aew vehicles may have contributed to this increase in the number of roadealls.

PAGE 112

C. JACKSONVILLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Orxan!yll!onal Structure Jacksonville Transportation Authority is an independent authority. Goytrnlng Bodr end Com!!95ftlog 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 tbe Florida Departmenl of Transportation Region Secretary is automatically appointed. Semst Area Tbe Jacksonville system provides transportation services in Duval County. Modes Directly-operated modes include fiXed-route motorbus service and automated guideway service (the fust phase of tbe Automated Skyway Express became operational in Jane 1989). The second phase of the guideway system is scheduled for completion in 199S. In addition, JXTA also contracts out for demand-response services. ff1

PAGE 113

88 PERfORMANCE IMIICATORS County Poj>ulallon M .. ___ ,.M ;,._,.c MI.:..-. ;::;: .._ .. -., . Total Oporoting Exponoe M TOIII $ ) : TotaiMalnlononooExponNPlO) ........................ ..... .-:r .,.; .,. .. .,.,_,' ,.,., ........ ,.,. ..... -_,,...,. ............ .. ,, ._ ... illplojolot --I Wl!dti .. .. ->.,., ......... SparaRallo TO!al Gdont TOIOI Enoogy Conoumocl . ...... ... 1M7 1164.10 -.78 litO Q2.11T 8,ao.IAI ; 415.<5 .,_ .,, ....... ., .. _,.. ,. ...... ... -.. 1 11'1M) 1,117.ecS t ::,.:tl/f\7.8>:! $ 13;1UIIO $14.-.110 $14 ,642.50 $18,D8S.71 $1S,M.54 -1 .. > $12,1188.$4 $ 12,t32.84 $12,774.111 $ 13,440.00 $3.23428 $3.3115.28 $3.376.97 ss.eeo.ss $4,137.21 -. S2 ,te3.78 $3.000.37 $U48.20 . $8.14$.00 $10, 842.40 $16,821..28 387..20 188.00 >. 'na.oo s.sn l.aDI.OO 'a.oeo.tA csi2.7si.....l ..... ..._ .... '"'-.... --$5,244-15 $4,s29 75 nf n/ .,. .... --$4, 788.78 '' .;.:.: 84.<09 .;12 .......... 51 I ... 1102.38 .,._, .. ti:. 24.84% '"'

PAGE 114

V.hlotte AviMabtt tot Maximum S.rvioe Ill Moidmum.s
PAGE 115

INDICA T OllS .... 1M1 1 1110 1 1 &<5.70 864 .10 Uft ? 421.GO I 421.!0 I 422. 50 1 4 13.50., 1 4 20 00 .. . -" '""*' Aoult Mite. .... ,.,.,. TC>1ol Oporlllng (OOOl $13,702-GO $ 1 4,289.GO $ 14,642.50 $18,308 84 S17 ,385 32 I S19.51&.0S I 41.110!' --,.. ___ ,.,.._...,., .. ... A .. .... ,. ,.,. -: 113.147 .eo TOCII Oporllfng $12$8.04 1\2,113284 $ 12;77449 3,143.42 . TOCII-.........,. 1000) $3.2'4.211 $3,3 15.2111 $3,376.97 I3,1M8.&4 $4 ,334 .118 ---- .. :p:lQoi' 1 9&U) $2,-78 u.ooo.m/ $3.304. 54 13,052.0 1 .. .. .._ ---TOCII Copllol (0001 $&.149.00 /TOCIH,ocal / $ 10 : 46 1 $ 12PIIQ.O& I $17,1315..87 ---.. """ ...... ....... x ......... Opor1111ng --!)00) $e,1e8.$3 $ 5,244.1 5 $4 ,629.75 $4,7110.18 M. 178.84 I $5.01!0531 .7011. .... --..-_.,... __ ,. ..... 11' '!"''" -" $4.80 1 53 . $4,377.00 387 .20 38&.90 390.60 41 uo I 4 0 4.5 0 1 ......... ' 27&.90 .. "'""" ...... 84.90 &5.00 110.80 .. f l ... .... (1' .. ... ,.H ... ;' ., '31-10 ;;'' 36.30.>< .. 4 1 :1p ' ... Vohloleo Avoll-1or Mo>tlmum S.rvioo 188.00 .. """'' "'"'"'-""'--""'-="'"" .. """""' SpiloRollo 5 .119% 4 .85% 23.111% 2 4.211% I 2&.36% "'"" 1,501.00 -' . .. TOiol norcrv Conol.l'nod J00 ol kw-bouts l I n/o nt I 138.&5 I 388.e l I 441 .68 90

PAGE 116

i l l! .. i t! -s! H i 110 a o ,t! !o .!t ::11 ... I 'i!'i !f ...... i I s -

PAGE 117

"' > ... ., s. , l p i -.... p ... I I i -! .. u

PAGE 118

.. I u <::il ... &E I -= lol .. "t: I .. s &! o!t"' I -

PAGE 119

Si! i it. Jt ... s l s [;; ""g -. ::: i l'l .. n Bg De ... 3:. I .. a

PAGE 120

b! i -"Ciil oa .. ;; < I -

PAGE 121

.. 'r:t' f! .. !! 'c.. c. 1: --I I -!

PAGE 122

GENERAL QUESTIONS L Wue any far e clw!ges made in fiscal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the pre>'ious fare structure as wcll as the updated fare structure and iodkate wbco the clwJges were implemented. No changes wue made. 2. Were there any significant clw!ges in semcc/semcc area during fiSCal year 1 990 or 1991? None. 3. Have there been any recent change s or significant evuts tiW may help explain the perform ance of the transit system? None 97

PAGE 123

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECTION 15 DATA Dlrectlr.Operaled Motorbus Questloos 1. Total operating expense iJlcreased significantly from $16,899,540 il11990 to $19,007.520 in 1991. Part of this iJlcrease was due to an iJlcrease in maintenance expense from $4,137,210 il11990 to $4,719,920 il11991. Please explain the iJlcrease. in maiuteoance expense as well as the remainiug increase il1 operating expense. System Response: The JTA initiated an aggrCMive new maintenance program in FY 1991 which i.acluded: a new preventative maintenance program; an i.acrease in supervisory positions; and a rehabiUtation program for JTA's 1982 series buses. All of these programs resulted in i.acreased maiutenanoe staffing. The increase in operating costs are mostly in the area of wages and fringe bene fils. Wages increased $600,000 while fringe benefiiS increased $1.2 million; $700,000 of which was for workmen's eompensation insurance. Additionally, fuel C06IS increased $300,000. 2. Passenger fare revenue decreased sligblly from $4,502,380 in 1990 to $4,472,470 in 1991. Tbls decline occurred despite a 7 percent increase i.a passenger !rips (&,804,610 in 1990; 9,403,990 in 1991) duriJlg this time Is there an explanation? System Response: The bulk of the increased ridership oeeurred in the senior citi1.en market for which there is no fare. A sub&antial increase in pre-paid diseoUDted fares resulted in a decrease in revenue. 3. Maiuteoanoe employees increased from 87. 0 FTEs in 1990 to 99.2 FTEs in 1991 Please explain the significant increase in this employee category. Syscem Response: See respoo.se to question till 4. The number of vehicles available for maximum service decreased from 170 vehicles in 1990 to 153 vehicles in 1991. The average fleet age data indicate that older vehicles have been art from the active lleet (7.16 years in 1990 and 6.23 years in 1991). Please explaiu these ebanges in the active vehicle neet and iiS average age. System Response: Two faelors caused a number of vehicles in maximum service to change: Ten 12-passengcr VlUlS were taken out of revenue service with no replacement vehicles. In FY 1991, the number of vehicles available was rcoompwed to take into account the average number of vehicles on hold each day, thus, not available for service. This was not done in FY 1990. 5 The number of incidents increased from 57 in 1990 lo 97 in 1991, an increase of approximately 70 percent. Given the unpredictability of these e\'ents, are there any possible reasons for this signirJCant increase? System Response: FY 1990 was an exception from the norm. 6. The number of roadcalls deereased from 1,807 in 1990 to 1.590 in 1991. To what can this significant deerease be attributed? 98

PAGE 124

System Response: The newly initialed maintenance program is cn:dited with the reduced roaclcalls, added supervision, and an agressiYc prcYCDtalivc maintenance program. Automal..t Gmckway Ques6oas 1. The number or 'ldlicle miles and re>-eoue mile$ decreased slightly from 1990 10 1991. v.iille Yebicle bout$ and re"""ue boOt$ iDcreased ralhcr siaoifi
PAGE 125

System Respoase: This is maiAiy due 10 lhe S)'Siem coming ou1 of warranly. 4. Passenger fare revenue deaeased from $238,480 in 1990 10 $2ll,S30 in 1991. While significanl, Ibis 11 percenl decline in fare revenue is less !ban half !be deaease in ridership discussed previously. Ia fael, !be average fare per passenger !rip increased from $0.59 10 $0.69 despile lhe decline in passenger fare revenue. Please explain. System Rcspoase: Sec response lo question #2. 5. Please explain !be increase in !he lolal amOWII of energy consumed from 389,610 k ilowallbours in 1990 10 441,690 kilowallbollr$ in 1991. Syslem Respoase: Dynamic braking was added in FY 1991 10 reduce !he cos! of brake pads. While increasing power COI>SWDptioo, !be COSl savi.o3s are considerable. S,s!em Tolal Quesdoas 1. Please explain !he signifiCaDI increase in capilal expcase from $7,137,830 in 1990 lo $8,754,030 in 199l Whal capilal purchases were made in 1991? System Respoase: The major source of increased capilal expenses was in !be area of bus purchases. A lotal of 20 new buses were purchased in FY 1991. The norm is 10 10 15. 100

PAGE 126

1 ,000 6 ,000 4,000 2 ,000 0 JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Figureiii-C1 Coo nty Populo tlon ( 000 ) 1 I I I I I I I .ao.l--1 I I I I I I 200 I I I I I I I I o l I I I I I 1-l ttM IMS 19M 1M? IMI tttt 1990 tttl Fig\1,.111-CJ Vehicle Miles and Rewnue Mil .. .. .._""'".,. I I I I $20,000 $15,000 S 1 l.OOO $1 ,000 $4 ,000 so PerformaD<:e Indlaolol'f Flgu.-111<4 To"'l Operating Expe.,. ... .. . ...... h I I I I I Rgureiii.Q p.._ T rips (000) ll.OOO.---,--,--,----,--,--,--, N-I I I 9,000 I ,oool I I I I I I I J.oool I I I I I I I _, .. I ol I I I I I I I ttf4 INS ttl6 1N7 t ,_, ttiiO ttt1 flguN IIIlco I . l .. ... 1 -L L --,,.. 19ft ... .., -"" .,. "" 101

PAGE 127

102 JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY figure IlK& Vehide Miles Per C&pito ::: N I I I I I 1 Go I I I I I I I I o I I I i I I H I I I I I I I o.o I I I I I I 1--l ... ttl) ,,. ,,..., t... ,.., fttO '"' 10.0 1.0 u u 2 0 0 0 Elrtd:iveoess Measures Rgure 111<10 Average Age of Fleet (Y"rs) Agurelll-<:9 ..._ngor Tripo Per R-Mile 2 0 .---.---.-.,--.----r-.---, "'r 1 .... 1 I I P11 u l I I I I I I I oal I I I I I H o.41 I I I I I I I o ol I I I I I I I ttM tMS ttM 1M7 '* tMt ttiO l'ttt r-..... ( NOll t..:-.H,_G..,._4-. ) '"" ,., ,,.. ,,., ,,.. ,.., tttO '"" figu"' IIJ.CI 1 Revenue Miles AcdcMnts/lncldents Agure IIJ.C12 Revenue Miles._ Roadcolls 120,000 90,000 1 I If 60,000 s.ooo 4,000 3,000 2,000 i""' \ / ..,. :10,000 1 ,000 0 ( ttOTt f...:l.do:IJul:ftllooJ ) 0 ,... -,,., ,.. "" ,,.. ,,.,.. 19M tMS 1916 1917 ,,_ ,,.. t9tO 1J91

PAGE 128

JA CKSO NVILLE TRANS P ORTATI O N AUTHORITY SlO.OO $20.00 $10 .00 so.oo flilvro IIK1l Opo $0.40 $0.20 so.oo ' ..,. ... ttiS -ttl1 ,,.. ,,.. '"' flgureiiK19 Hours Per Employee 1 200t t I I +=OL J oool I I I I I I M>OI I I I I I I I 3001 I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ... .. ,.. 1 911 -,,., 1'910 '"' El!icleocy Measures flguN III.C14 Opo
PAGE 129

JXTA SUMMARY 104 System Tclal operating expense iDcreased more than 12 perccDl from $17,385,320 in 1990 to $19,516,050 io 1991, partially clue to a 14 pcl(ICDt iDcrease in mainteaaace expense, which increased from $4,334,680 in 1990 to $4,948,@ in 1991 JXTA aUribut the increases to escalating mclorbus costs that include increases in wages, fringe benefits, and fuel oosts. System Total capital expense iDcreased approximately 23 percent f rom $7,137,830 i D 1990 to $8,754,030 in 1991, primarily due to JXTA's purchase of twenty new buses in FY 1991. System Total maintenance employees ina-eased from 91.8 fTEs in 1990 to 1043 fTEs in 1991. According to JXTA, this 14 percent increase can be attnouted to the inaease in maintenance employees for the mclorbus mode that was necessitated by JXTA's newly initiated bus maintenaace program. Vehicles available for maximum service (System Total) decreased from 172 vehicles in 1990 to ISS vehicles in 1991, a decline of 10 perceot. All of this decrease occurred in the motorbus mode (170 vehicles in 1990; 153 vehicl in 1991). JXTA cites two factors as tbe caUS for this decline: ten 12-passengcr vans were removed from service aad not replaced, aad the Dumber of vehicles available was recomputed in FY 1991 to accouDl for the average number of vehicles on bold each day (this was not done in FY 1990). The lela! energy collSumed by the automated guideway mode ina-eased 13 percent (rom 389,610 in 1990 to 441,690 kilowatt-hours in 1991. JXTA Slat tbatthis inaease occurred because of the addition of dynamic braling to the system in FY 1991to reduce the coSI ot brake pads. Dynamic braking increases the amount of power consumed by the system. The DUmber ot System Total roadcalls declined from 1,807 ia 1990 to 1,598 in 1991, a decrease of approximately 12 percent. Allot this decline is due to a decrease in roadcalls for the motorbus mode. JXTA credits its newly initiated mainteaance program that include$ added supcrvWon aad a preventive maintenance program for the r eduction in roadcalls.

PAGE 130

D. HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Omnlza!la! Strvcture Hillsborough Area Regional Transit is an independent authority. G9Yern!ga BodY and Commllioa HART is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of tea members: four represeoting Hillsborough County, three representing the city of Tampa, one representing the city of Temple Terrace, and two representing the state of Florida. Stn:!ce ,:\!D HART = all of Hillsborough County excluding Plant City. Modes HART provides only fixed-route motorbus to the service area indicated above Contracted services include some vehicle and facility maintenance, janitorial service, and other minor services. 105

PAGE 131

106 TABLE UJ-Dl H llkboroaP Ana ltl2ioaal Traull Puf_._ lUlcalon I'EAFOAMAHC INOK:ATORS 1... 1N7 1118 11110 1111 Coun1y f'o9uldon !JOO) 775.30 801.<40 825.40 140.117 834 .06 1143.203 &7n. '" .. ; l ... I ... '!l!" .. :. ; ;;,, PoOMnoo< MIIH !JOO) 311,170. 40 311,743.50 37,68U)2 4!,581.0'7 113,1182. 34 39,871.0'7 1.-'v.ttlde. Ml ... 7P2Q.@qt i ,,,1r ttt { .. t .............. # "'""'" ....... ... t ..... ), .. ....... -."'$"*'"" ... .. ... ---....s ............. ..:.--n.Y"'ir4. *'** .. \;f:'J:. Aovonuo r.tln (000) O,oell.80 6.481.00 0,746.117 7,007.5!1. 7,1Gjl.24 &.06$311 -7.0'71' ._..., "' . -w"')l'w:t'("r-..... ,._ ..... '!; .j, .,._. "X'.,._ . ,.,.,., -w ,.'rl" .... ;k.' w- < -..... ;,.1, .... -TOCII Oporotlng Elcponoe !JOO) $13 445 .10 $ 13,002.00 $1S,182.05 $18.965-77 120 ,04U3 $10,341.11 .:1.85% I .... &14,1&4. n TOCII r wnoon .... ""-(000) $2.048M $2.7Q6.110 $3. 123.71 $3;4 87.13 $3.107.33 42.2:3% "" .. '...... ... -.,-.... v ::,.. Total .. 12.44U4 $2;.449. 71 ... : 12.8 13.57 S2.78 tAO TOCII 01!*11 ""-(OOOl $ 10.72 4.20 $3,309 .10 $2.443.D7 $1o,G.37 $3.313.10 $1IIIOJIS ;.., $ 10.403.31 $11,s35 .811 $13,7113.17 $18,021.17 $11,()98 lllr : c:; 53..11811 --. \ ------.,..,_ ()pora11ng -(000) $4, 1l'O.S4 $4,DIM.80 $4,097.45 $4,3114.80 $4,eee.Sol $4 ,9211.74 1&00ll. -"'-s -, .. < ::. .. !>: .. ... '#' . ,. .. ...,. ..... .-..(,: J. --;-;----; PIMI"'W F&rt! RlwnukfJOO) . A< ,...,: $3 ,171..82: $3 654 .50 $:U63.40-_, 4 $4.1815,88"' + 1 . . TOIOI 411.00 415.00 382.00 424.20 380 .20 414.50 v ''(. ;<( ;--" ,. ,. """'_,.."' ."'" >:f< '""< ... ,.,. .. __ 1,._, 307...00 300.00,". .. ,._ '"' n. , , ":;. '< : .. ,._. I ._.:,.---.. ,
PAGE 132

TABLE J II-DZ HUJsborougl> Ana R.poaal1i11DSII Effectiveness MusuRS EFI'tCTI'i NESS MEASIIRES 1-1987 1811 1Ht 1110 1tt1 SEIMCE SUPPLY ,._ ' "'11$. ..,,..,., ............ ''\' .... ...... ............ '"'. v.hkH,.. Ptr Ct.pha / .,. :, -!' .. -o.&t -s -: t.ze ? .. o.n SERVICE CONSUMPTION 'l Tt1pa Otplta t 121 to.Bi : 1 0.12 :ti"5":::. !:12.7 4 8.88, ;; . -. -'_, Patuog AtYenue Milt t ,IQ 1 .32 1..32 1.49 1.48 1 C 7 ,.. 1t.48 ....... ,9.44 .... --1&01 19...33--.. OUAL1TY Of SEAl/ICE -...... -,, ., .. ..,..,.,.,... ;.. ........... 1'-l '5. : J3 .S& !:-; 13.01 ... t4.13 Avorogo .IQt of Floot Gn yo11tl 4 .10 4 .10 e.10 8 .23 7.19 75.3711. ... .. li. '11'1''$-;i'> ..... .t .... -... :<;-. -;.. 264.00 ,,.. T01al -11 3.3$3. 00 2,912.00 2,1162.00 2,8111.00 2,IISO.OO 2,901. 00 13.74'11 '11$ ,., ;"-"', > .,...,.--1'1>'"':'111("''" : vw-__ v, ..., '"""''1-< ......, M1it Bttw.en t .. 4;25;02::-r t* zs.ee ,._ .. 22.30 i: 1e.jO-.:: """' .. __ .,_., .lo-. ,;.x>W-.. ---Bo1weon Roodcallo (000) 1.81 2.23 2.37 2 .49 2.4 7 1.115 7.73'11 AVAILABIUTY ..... ,...,Aovtew.$:no) 7 M .. w...... .... .62 -:-4..87 3.&4* l 107

PAGE 134

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made in fiScal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide tbe previous fare structure as well as !be updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. On October 1, 1990, base fares were increased from $0.75 to $0.85, transfers from $0.05 to $0.10, and express fares from $1.00 to $1.50. 2. Were there any significant changes in service/service area during foscal year 1990 or 1991? Service was cut back in March and July of 1990. These cutbacks wue relatively minor in nature. However, a significant amount of service was cut back in November 1990. These cutbacks were primarily in the off.peak. and on SaturdaY> and Sundays. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the trarJSit system? See response to question #2. 109

PAGE 135

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECTION 15 DATA 1. From the data in the table below, it is evident thattbe amoWlt of motorbus service provided has declined significantly since 1990. Please explain the changes in this service (see also question #2 on the survey form) and the reasons for the decline. FY1t90 fYtet1 Pouet>gorTrlpo 10,1522,450 8,338,540 Paa:6tn0tr Mllea $3,992,340 39,871,070 8,117,190 U97,290 Atvtnut Ml .. a 7,159,240 5,688,31150 Vehicle Houi"' 551,300 443,700 Rtvenu. Houra 506,660 393,260 System Respoose: In November 1990, HART drastically cut service during off-peak periods, and on Saturdays and Sundays. Also, in Marcb and July 1990, service was cut whicb was more fully oompoWlded in PY 1991. 2 Despite these significant declines in service, route mileage increased slightly from 1,471.3 miles in 1990 to 1,476. 7 miles in 1991, and the number of vehicles operated in maximum service remained s tab le at 140 vehicles. Is there an e>Cplanatioo for these apparent incoosisteocies? System Response: Service was cut from off-peak periods, Saturdays, and Sundays and, therefore, did not affect route mileage or peak vehicles. 3. Total operating expense decreased from $20,048,930 in 1990 to $16,981,360 in 1991. The majority of Ibis decrease was due to a 59 percent decline in maintenance expense from $3,467,130 in 1990 to $1,407,580 in 1991. Please e>Cplain the decrease in maintenance expense as well as the remaining decrease in operating expense. How mucb of these cost savings resulted from the decline in service? System Response: HART provroed updated operating and maintenance expense data for PY 1991. The corrected operating expense figure is $19,341,108. The maintenance expense figure is $3,767,334. The updated figures result in a decline in HART's operating expense between 1990 and 1991, and an increase in HART's maintenance expense; however, neither change is significant. 4. Passenger fare revenue increased slightly from $4,195,980 in 1990 to $4,243,270 in 1991. This increase occurred despite a 22 percer11 decrease in passenger trips (see previous table) during this time. Is there an e>Cplanation? System Response: HART did DOl p rovKie a response to this question; however, this slight increase in fare revenue can lil:ely he attributed to the increases in HART's base fares, transfers, and C>Cpress fares that went into effect o n October 1 1990. 110

PAGE 136

5. Given the decline in sernce, please el
PAGE 137

112 10,000 t.OOO MOO 4 000 2,000 0 HIUSBOROUG H AREA REG IONA L TRAN SIT FlguN 111-01 County,.,......_ (000) 1,000 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I &OOI I I I I I I I .oo l I I I I I I I 2ool I I I I I I I ol I I I I I I I ttM '* ,.., ,. ,.. nto "'' fi!l"te Ill.()) VohkleMIIesondR_,...MIIes ... -""-' J)OeJ .. --- nsuo.ooo 515,000 510, 000 51, 000 so Paf-.-ID dlcators Flg-111-04 Total Openoting E._ !..,..oo .. .... .. q ----12 000 9 ,000 6,000 J ,OOO 0 FlguNUI-02 ,..,.,... Trlpo (000) ./ 1114 .. t '* ,.., ,. "" '"' t9tl Figure 111-05 r-oger F oro-(000) 54,000 u.ooo ./ Sl.OOO 51.ooo I I I I I I I I SOl I I I I I I I ,.. , " '"' ,,.. ,.. ,,.. '"' '* ,,., ,,. "'' .. ,,.. '"' '"' ttM tilt 1M 1111 1 tW ,,_ "" flguro 111.06 T otal Employees JOOI I I I I I I I 2001 I I I I I I I IOOI I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I ltiOI\ ltiS "" ' ,,.. ,.. ,... 1ttt 200 160 1211 10 40 0 fl!l"rl 111-07 Vehldtt In Mulmu m Sonic. . .. ; .... ... .. ... I I .......... _l I I ,.. "" ' ,.. "" '* '""

PAGE 138

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT 10.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 :z.o 0.0 figure 111..08 Vehicl e Miles Per Copita / --"' 1 M4 tn lte6 IM7 "" "" 1990 1991 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 EtTediveoess Measures Figure 111.1)9 Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile 1.5 1.2 f1 1'1 r 0.9 0 .6 0.3 0.0 191M 1M$ ltlf IJP ltel 1W IMO 1t91 Average Age of Fleet (yurs) fJI Elff 1tM l tiiS 1-tMJ 1M t9tt 1190 tttl Figureiii Revenue Miles Between Accidents/Incidents 30.000 20,000 10,000 I ...... _y_ --------0 19M '"' ,,.. 19f1 ,,.. ,., '"' '"' 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 500 0 Ftvuro Revenue Milos h-Roeclaolls I LH1 __ 19M tMS ,,_ 1 917 t9M "" 1990 1991 113

PAGE 139

114 HIUSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSI T ns.oo $20.00 $ 1S.OO $10.00 $ 5.00 $ 0 .00 flvure Opwotlng l'w CapiQ 111111/1 ,,.. "" ,... 191 1 -.., ,,. ,,., M olntenonce l'w R...,.nuo Mi .. suo 50 .W 50.40 111111 Jl S o.lO $0.00 tiM t M t 1 , ttll tflt tMO lttt 1 500 1 ,200 -wo lOO 0 R H0<1rs...,. fmployM ..,. 1tt4 Itt\ HIM 1 7 1 ttet 1910 ' Etlldao()' Moas,... Rgu .. lli-1)1 4 OjMroting l'w ,__Trip n 50 u .oo $ 1 .50 $ 1 .00 $ 0 .50 $0.00 II lifEr ,.. tMS tW 1 M 1 t ,., ttto 1M1 R vure 111.017 Fe-R ocowry Rotio : r t t t ll J 10111 I I I I I I I ,.. " " ,., -" 1J90 '"' P .... ngo
PAGE 140

HART SUMMARY HART"s passenger trips declined approximately 22 percent from 10,622,450 trips in 1990 to 8,338,540 trips in 1991. It is evideot from the data that the amount of service provided by HART also decreased significantly during this time. Vehicle miles decreased 19 reveDuc miles deceased 21 vehicle hours decreased 20 percent, and revenue hours decreased 22 percent between 1990 aod 1991. According to HART, service was drasti"Cr, HART did not provide any reasons for the significant increases in the individual classifications or the total employment. The total gallons consumed decreased 16 percent from 2,221,980 gallons in 1990 to 1,866,950 gallons in 1991. This decrease is a result of the cutbacks in service that HART made in March, July, and November 1990. The number of incidents increased from 321 incidents in 1990 to 354 incidents in 1991. No reasons were provided by HART for this 10 percent increase in incideots. 115

PAGE 141

E. PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Qnranlzall!)f!ol Strue!utt Pinellas Suocoast TnlliSit Authority is an independen t authority created by special act of the Florida Legislature (Chapter 70-9f17, House Bill No. 5465). Gmmlng Body and ComeosltlonPSTA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of appointees from lhe member mun.icipalities wbo ore either elected officials or private citizeas. Stnlct Am -PSTA generally serves Pinellas County with lhe exception of KellDelh City, BeUair Besch, BcUair Shores, Treasure Island, and St. Petersburg Beach. The service area includes 24 municipalities and aU uo.iocorpnrated areas with no major Ce
PAGE 142

PEilfOAMAHCE INDICATORS VohiCIO ..... ; --1000) -> --. ..... >: .. -n;:i\;,4:;-VINc:6t MoUlt fle!OJ._.., . ---1000) AouiO ..... T otol OporatinQ Expoo110 (001) Toto! Molnttoanco ExponN Total ._._uo(OO!) Oporating -.. 1000) EmP'OYW Vetlletet Avalllblt Fot Maximum Service h Rallo TOtal Gallonl Oon"""*' TABLE lliEI Puf""""DCe lodlcaton ltM 811!.1)0 1117 ... -8 37 U O 4 ,m.20 828.70 41 ,684.30 .. 4,945.80 ---70 340 40 838.QO 44.1537.41 a. 1 52.85 4 ,110..2S -34 1 .84 -357.23 -3811.33 '"I 8&6.78 %Change 1-Uitl 4 .87ll .'I 1 5.18ll 1 4.95111 424.131 -n ...._..... ..,. __ !17.15S1. 73 se,teD.ea $3.34 7.89 349.80 263.00 153.10 136 00 118 .00 1$.25" 1,471.QO $3.()05.22 397 70 291Ul0 55..30 4Uili 131.00 8.507. 1,428.60 $4,087 .37 $ 12, 18 7 .13 $2,i40.88 $U80.25 381.40 257.80 81.80 42.10 128 00 88 00 $3,131.33 $2, 899.97 23 .21" $15,578.78 $3.081544 $3.()08.58 511.10 $4,(128,42 36UO 120.00 I 132.00 20.33ll 20.37'110 4.29ll 2.94ll ;11$,00 I u,.,. ',., > ;;t_$:. 2$.11ll 1,eo2.04 117

PAGE 143

-I :!! -'! I .. -.! a i =:s; = -UrJ I c" -n I 4 I

PAGE 144

EFFICIENCY IIASURES OOST EFF1C1ENCY --.... --........ Copila Oporotfng e.ponae Pot FMlt v.l>lclo (000) Trip bo .. .., ......... Operating Ex,penM Pit PaSMngtt Mile .. .. A.wnu."MI .... .. ''"' Ope.atlng ExpenM Pet RlvtnU't Hour 'Mai : : MI .. :i .. .(I Maintt....,. Exp. Exp. OPERATING RATIOS '"'""-"lf'$!1-,_., .. :' <' Locol Aovonuo i'or Oporf.ting Elq>onN --.... .... "+ . Oporf.ting Pot Oporadng ExponM VEHIClE UI1UZATION lollio.'P.or --10001 ----Ibn""' --10001 _....._.""'-Milos ---.. Amlnuo MIH Pit Toal V.-(IXlO) ( '1 .y .... ,. ..,. lllli. ;;( 1084 1>1 '' $0.&41 --\Oil 18 40% 20.60% 21 .65' 19.711% ... -., '' V ......... .... 25.83' ., 1ua 17.1ft .... ,-:':'-.. '' 78A3'll 81 .42'% 88.04, 82.70'll ... 28.57'!1 22.!13'X. 3).761' 18.33'!1 -"' 4$.!6 42.78 52.88 44.87 3 16 2.93 3.11 3.37 0.93 0.94 0 .113 ().113 38.57 37. 75 37.39 35.38 2.60>-: 2.SI! . 2 67 2 .89 . '1-; ._ ... 1.01 . 0.86 : ., O .fl6 M8 it":'.' . 1.39 1.14 1 .33 1 19 ..... ft ... . -. .. .. . .. 8.62 ._,_"1) ['t-. 8.53 .,;.< .-,; .... .... 8Jl5 7.95 8 .tt 8 .83 ' .... <': ,o.; 83.7o '"*' . 95.96 .: ... "',. < 27JXJ 21 .99 23 00 21.19 .. : 2.37 / .. .;; ... .. 2 .08 3.11 3.06 3.04 2 .84 3.65 3.611 3.73 3.84 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 1990 tn1 ----$20.82 ....... $22.$1 $ 152.ll9 $183 81 .. .9a < ,,.,_ ;;;-., : .. --.t. .. .. 44 .1n. ""-.. -. .c.x """"" ......... --$0-35 $0.33 32.71' .. -,. .... .. ... -'" ...... 43.14' .,. < $f .. ,. $48 17 $48.13 44.4n. .. .; (:'''' ........ ..,. ... ,... .... "' .. ,.,_ """' :,.,_, 19.-20.15' 9 .54, W! ., .... . ; "' .. 28.85S _;. . 68.72'!1 15 114, &.8711 ; ' -.... 29.44" I 5U5 --.......... :-. .. 11.48 4.(15 ().113 -.....---. OJt2 .O.IK 42.84 43.31 .... ;1-irl; :-i.ili:W ._;. ao:J"'.. $""1-' f'. 17.35' ;:-:.oz::e .. -,. ... <'I 1 ; 10 U1lt.' ':-.1 .... ;-1.50 1.50 7 .110' )< ........... ,. '\t,(,-/ .'!$' f!f21it,. ,! .; .0. 38'1: 8.29 10.89 35.26lt. .. >i<" ...... 102.48"r ,r-l':'M> 0.78' ,. . .. 2M2 29.62 g,44, 2.2$;;:, ?'---...... ,.. -.... ,. -.0.<':. >< 2.:17 a.otl'll .. ... ... ,. ---2.75 3.111 15.28 ., ., .. &5e .,. 3.e5 .0.1" -____ ,..,_ so.sJ 5-An 119

PAGE 145

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made in liscaJ year 1990 or 1991? If so, p!Cl!SC provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare slruclure and indicate wben tbe
PAGE 146

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECTION 1 5 DATA 1. A:; indicated in the table below, both passenger trips and passenger miles increased at rates that were significantly higher than the corresponding growth in the al!lount of service provided. Please explain the changes in service (see also question #2 on the survey form) and the reasons for the significant increase in ridership. Dtrectly O.,..oted MoiOrbuo FY 1990 FYIHI l(,Ciwlge Passenger Trips 9 030,070 to.eos. eo 19.7% h.Henger Miles 45,610,870 57,725,630 26.6% Revenue M iles 5 372,850 5 ,716, 870 6 .4% A8venut Hours 360,330 JJ, S80 5.3% System Respoose: The increases in passenger trips and passenger miles in FY 1991 is attr i buted to the modification and addition of four routes to the transit system. The changes were implemented in May 1990, therefore impacting FY 1990 for oaly S months of the year and FY 1991 for the entire year. Two of these routes provide service from the soutbem to the northern end of the county in a shorter time than bad previously been available. In addition, in October 1990, PSTA began operating Route IOOX due to Hartline's inability to continue this route. This is service from Gateway Mall in Pinellas County to downtown Tal!lpa. This route added signifJ.CaDtly to PST A's miles of service. 2 Despite the modest increase in service (sec previous table), route mil eage increased sign.ilieantly from 1,059.4 miles in 1990 to 1 703 0 miles in 1991, an increase of over 60 percent. Please explain this increase in route mileage. System Respoose: The increase in undupUcated directional route mileage is also attributed to tbe modified and new routes. A:; stated previously, two of the new routes ran from one end of the county to t he other end. One of these new routes sen:es U.S. 19, wbicb, with minor e x ceptions. bad not bad service previously. This route had a significant impact on the increase in undupUeated dire
PAGE 147

4. The increase in passenger fare revenue from 1990 to 1991 is eons.istelll with theW percent increase in ridership. Operating revenue and total local revenue also ioere&ed during this time, in part due to the increasing fare revenue. Is the increase in fare revenue solely anributable to the ridership growth? Also, please explain the remaining increases in operating revenue and total local revenue. FY IMO FY1tf1 l(, Change PuM,.ger Fare .....,ue $3.006,S< $3.615.320 :lll.:l'll Oporating RoYonue $3.065 ,4-40 $4,028,420 31.411. T...,l.ocel FloYonuo $15 578,1ll0 $17,531,680 12.$11. System Response: The fare revenue incre ase was anribttted to both a ridership growth and an increase in the base fare from $0.60 to $0.75. Additiooally, the mo.t significant increase in operating revenue was in the non-transportation revenue category due to the gainfloss on the sale of fixed assets. In 1990, a loss of $113,312 was indicated while in 1991, there was a gain of $166,044 for an increase of $279,356. Advertising revenue increased by $64,000 due to the implementation of an elCierior advertising program. Ad valorem taxes collected by the Authority increased 8.1% from FY 1990 to FY 1991. The sel"\'iee provided for the Oearwater Beaeb troUey was increased, thereby increasing the revenues eoUected The increase in total local revenues of 12.5% is therefore attributable to a eombination of the above listed items. S. Admini.trative employees decreased from 45.9 PrEs in 1990 to 36.8 PrEs in 1991. Please explain tbe signifieaOI decrease in this employee category. System Response: During FY 1990-91, PSTA bad several significant administrative ebaoges. Two of tbe moot important whieb affected the employee equivalents were the Executive Director and the Director of Transportation. PSTA contracted with a managemelll eompany to liD these positions while a nationwide search was completed to fmd permanent replaeements. With the hiring of a new Executive Director, additional organizational ebaoges w.:re made accounting for this decrease The Director of Marketing position was also vacant for approximat ely four molllbs of the year. 6. The n umber of vehicles operated in maximum sel"\'ice decreased from 115 vehicles in 1990 to 105 vehicles in 1991 despite the increases in sel"\'iee provided and route mileage. Please explain. System Response: The sel"\'iee modifieatioas implemented in the l atter half of FY 1990 and eoatinued through FY 1991 w.:re developed to enhance the efficiency of route sel"\'ice. The efficiencies sought were accomplished 7. The average age of tbe vehicle fleet increased from 7.40 years in 1990 to 10.45 year in 1991, an increase of over 40 percent. Please explain. System Response: PSTA provided a corrected Revenue Vehicle Inventory (Form 408) from which an updated average age of the vehicle Oeet was ealeulated for FY 1991 (9.63 year). This updated aver age age still reOeets a 30 percent increase in this measure between 1990 and 1991; how.:ver, no additional explanation was provided. 122

PAGE 148

8. Despite the increase in service, the number of incidents decreased from 169 in 1990 to 103 in 1991, a decline of 39 percent. Given the unpredktabilily of these events, are there any possible reasons for this decrease? Could operating fewer vehicles in maximum service have had an impac:l on this decline? System Response: Operating fewer vehicles in maximum service could have made a difference in the number of incidents; however, operator training and an increased awareness for safely po&ibly made a larger impact. 123

PAGE 149

124 8,000 6.000 .ooo 2,000 0 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Flgu11111H1 County Population (000) 1: L I I I I I I I 600! I I I I I I I oool I I I 1 I I I 200 1 I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 11114 IJIS ltM t"J IMI t 9Jtt ltto IHI flgurelllVohlde Miles ond llov $1,000 I I I I I so IJM ttn 1M "" 1W t!IM IMO '"' ,.. "" -,,., ,.. ttlt '"" "" ,.. ttU ,. ,.., ,. ,., tftiO '"' 500 600 lOO 200 100 0 Figure 111 TotoiEmployMS 19M ,.s '"' ,,., '* ,,., 19to ,,., 150 120 90 60 30 0 flgu .. lll. Vohides In Maximum Sen.tc. ... ... \'ttl("" Olloef*' ,.. titS 1M6 tMJ ,.. ,., tttO 1991

PAGE 150

PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0 .0 Figure Ill-ES Vohkle Miles Per Capita .... ---....... ,,... ttn 19M ,,., ,,.. ,., 1990 '"' Elfectlvtllt.Ss Measures Figure 111-E10 Average Age of Fleet (yean) Figure 111Passenger Trips ,., Rewnue MIJ. 2.5 2.0 .... 1.5 1.0 -----0.5 0 0 19M 1915 ttM tM7 "" Ita tttO t WI 10. 0 IIJ R I f1 1.0 6 0 4 0 2.0 0 0 1JI.4 tMS, 19M tttJ t9N ,,.. tMO tt91 Ffllure IIIE11 Revenue Miles &.tween Acddentsfinddents Fflluno 111Revenue Miles Between R....X.ns 60.000 40,000 I I 5,000 4,000 ),000 l7ll+'fH 20,000 v I 0 2,000 1,000 0 ttM I,.S 1,e6 IM1 1-19tt 1990 lftl fJI.4 1JtS, ,,.. ,,., .,.. "" 1990 '"' 125

PAGE 151

126 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY ns.oo $2 0 00 S1S .OO $10 00 ss.oo so.oo flglniiJ. o.-.tlng c.,; ... III J iff ttM IMS tJ "" t919 1.0 tMt Agureiii-E 1 & Mol....,.. ... PorR_,. Milo SO.IO S0.60 SOAO / / so.20 so.oo ,.. ., ,.. ,., ,. ''" ,.. ,,., 1.200 too 600 lOO 0 Flgu,.III-E1 9 Revenue Hours Per Employee ' / ,.. ,.. 1.-I ,_ ,.,. 1MO "'' Emdtocy MtaSUres RgureiiJ. o.-.tlng Expense Pe< P.._TII p SLOO suo suo SO.I4 S0.40 so.oo II bH1T' ltM 1 11M "" 1M 1MO IMI -,.,, 011 F...box Recovery Ratio EIJ] ,.. ,., ..-r ,,.. tillt ttiO '"' 40,000 lO,OOO 20 1 000 10.000 0 Figure III-E20 P-ngor Trips Per Employee FRJ][j: ,.M ttiS ttM U C 7 ,,_ " ,,_ ' flgon II J.15 S4.00 Sl.OO $1 .00 I .... ...... I Sl.OO so.oo tiM t.S -,.,., .. ,. ,... ""' Vehicle Miles Per PMk Vohldo 60,000 l/N:Y 40,000 20 .000 0 ,.. ,.. "" "" w. ,.. ,,. '"' Rgu,.IIJ. A-FaN so.40.,--.-.--.---.-.,--,.--, SO. lO I I I I I so.zol I I I I I I I so. 1 o I I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I ,,... ,.. .,. .. ,_ ,., ,,.. ,.,

PAGE 152

PSTA SUMMARY PST A's passenger trips increased 20 percent from 9,030,070 trips in 1990 to 10,805,160 trips in 1991, while passenger miles increased 26 percent from 45,610,870 miles in 1990 to 57,125,830 miles in 1991. PSTA attributes these increases to the modification/addition of four routes to the system. Sinoc these changes were implemented in May 1990, they only impacted FY 1990 for live months; however, FY 1991 was impacted for the full year. Directional route mileage increased from 1,059.4 miles in 1990 to 1.703.0 miles in 1991, an increase of 61 percent. PSTA also atlributes this increase to the modified and new routes. Total operating expeDSC increased 10 percent from $17,559,730 in 1990 to $19,279,210 in 1991, partially due to a 12 percent increase in maint>anee expeDSC ($3,458,240 in 1990; $3,885,680 in 1991). A. PSTA attributes these increases to a combination of the following: ridership growth and a fare increase; a gain i.n nontransportation revenue; an inaease in advertising revenue; an increase in ad valorem taxes coUected; and increasing revenue from the expanded Clearwater Beach TroUey service. The number of administrative employees declined 20 percent from 45. 9 FTEs in 1990 10 36.8 FTEs in 1991. PSTA cites the administrative ebaoges that occurred during FY 1991 concerning the positions of Executive Director Director of Transportation, and Director of Marketing as the reasoas for Ibis decline. Additional org;miution ebaoges occurred after a new Executive Dire
PAGE 153

F. LYNX (ORLANDO) SYSTEM PROFILE Ornalmlll)!!ll St!3ICSJ!rt Lynx, formerly Tri County Transit, is an independent authority created by interload agreement to prc>Yide public transporta tion services. Gmmlne Body pd Composltlog Lynx's Board of Directors is comprised of members appointed by parties involved in the interlocal agreement including Onu>ge COWity, Seminole County, OsrtatiooSery!g: Acta-Lynx provides service to Orange County (including Orlando, Winter Park, Maitland, and others), Seminole County (including Altamonte Springs, Casselberry and Sanford) and Osceola County. Modu Lynx provides foxed-route motorbus services and purchased demand response services. 128

PAGE 154

PERFORMANCE IIIOICATORS TABLE 111-Fl Lyax (Orlando) Dlre<:llyOporattd Motorbus PtrformaDCe Indicators 1981 90Leo 1967 1981 .... 1990 I till 19815-1991 129

PAGE 155

I I ;t I a .. fs = 0 I I f

PAGE 156

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 19M TABLE III F3 (Orlaado) System Total Performaoce Indicators 1 987 -198t lttO I ttl 131

PAGE 157

. .... f l; *'i . Hl f i ; "' i f i f l !I" t f< %ti .... tt 52 f',t'$ >'{1-b v: "J.A it I ;., !9' ":0.' tt -... .., !; -li 8 8 '!:i. c. ;.t.i 0 ? ,. .. 1 l I ... ... a .. .. t I ' '$\t 4 ;a = :t-:t'i It i! ' -t -\ I .. & : !> -Sit" .. & 8 !!:: is & I '$o l gg -,. I -;I !> .. i .. .. 8 !! !!: IR I!! a .. .. .-, to r: ..... .. r ''" .. i' ... < 4<'4 I ;j;l, Ill -1'-i. :: rn H. .. - I G -lt v l -"#-... u ''"lScl !f 3 . :"" l l I , ..

PAGE 158

!3 t i B ;,;; -"'i: i .... -. "1i -= a!i = c ;,;; ] 1:: &: I -

PAGE 159

EFRCTMHQS MEASURES -SEJMCE SUPI'I. Y ... y r ,.,.,.,. of............. .. --_,_ .. ........... -... --T 01111 Al>ldc ... ......._,.... Btb. .. -AVNVaJlY --p;,.fb.10 -tooal I 1.34 TABLE Dl-1'6 Lyu (Ortaado) s,..._ Meuoua -.... lilt -'"' I"'' '..,_., IU$ --.,. I .,. I _,... r----"' ... : .... nf I ,..,. n.f .. llo -.... ... ..... .,. ., nt .,., 3'$1.00 .. -----'" .-.:. ... .,. 133.40 I .,. .,. < 1 4.2!5 nio I I l' (I "-5:49 ; e .23 1 1.37

PAGE 161

> l h:. o ._, u. ... 4P 4 I

PAGE 162

EFFICIENCY MEASURES C OST EFFICIENCY . 1 986 TABLE 111'9 Lynx (Orlando) S)'slem Total Emcleoq Measures IM7 ,... t?' 1986 11181 1190 .... 137

PAGE 163

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare clw>gcs made in fi$Cal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare Slructure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. No changes were made 2. Were there any significant changes in service/service area during fi$Cal year 1990 or 1991? LYNX discontinued all express routes in FY 1991, increased crosstown routes and night service, and extended weekend service routes. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit &ySiem? 138 In FY 1992, LYNX implemeated a comprebe!Wve sySiem performance moaitoring sySiem. In this transition, LYNX has been able to identify and utilize information sources to improve the performance of the system. LYNX also received inaeased local funding in FY 1992 for the largest service expansion in its history. This resulted in a 21.5 percent inaease in ridership in FY 1992 over FY 1991. Flutber expansion will be implemented in FY 1993.

PAGE 164

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECT I O N 1 5 DATA 1 Passenger trips increased at a greater rate than did passenger miles from 1990 to 1991. This resulted in a IS percen t decline in average trip length. as indi<:ated in the tab l e below. Is there an explanation? Dl..-r-Opemed M otorlMI I FY 1990 FV 1991 PuaengetTI'ips 8.028,790 9,641,6&1 Putengr Miff s 36,473,060 31,283,340 AYerago T rlp Lor>g11l 4.54 m l l n 3 87 miles -------------------------------System Response: LYNX d i d not identify an explanation for this dec l ine in average trip length; however, it is believed that the discoatinuation o f aU express routes in FY 1991 may have played a role in Ibis chan g e. 2. The number of vehicle miles d ecreased between 1990 and 1991 revenue miles, vehicle h ours. and revenu e hours all showing slight in creases (sec table below). Is t here an explanat ion? Dlr-y()pof-M FY 1990 FY1991 "Cttnt Vehlde Mlfet 5 1 32 490 .O.Sll Revenue Mitts 4,802,320 4,.831, 530 0 .611 v.tt lclt foburs 366, 990 311,390 1 .210 Revenue Hours 345, 510 350,100 1 .311 System R es ponse: I n FY 1991, vehicle miles d e creas e d as all o f LYNX's express ro u tes were eliminated. R evenue miles, vehicle h ours, and reveoue hour s all increased due to improved r egular ftxedrout e service. 3. T otal operating expense increased from $12,216,320 in 1990 to $13,507,31 0 in 1991. A portion of this increase was due to a 17 percent increase in maintenance expense from $2,667,020 in 1990 to $3,1 2 1,910 in 1991. Please explain the increase in maintenance expense as weD as the remaining increase in operating expense Sy.tem Response: Oper ating expenses increase d due to expanded regu l ar fixed-r ou t e service. Maintenance expenses increased as a new preventive maintenance program was implem ented. A significant part of this program improved the documentation o( associated maintenance costs. 4. Please explain the significant increase in capi tal expense f r om $1,335,420 in 1990 to $ 5 ,473,090 in 1991. What capital p urchases were made in 1991? System Response: LYNX purchased 18 new fiXed-r oute vehicles (1990 Neoplan 35foot buses) in July 1990. 139

PAGE 165

S. Pas.seoger fare revenue decreased stigbtly from $4,183,950 in 1990 to $4,083,120 in 1991 despite the signifoc:ant increase in ridenhip di$cussed previously. This resulted i n a decline in averilge fare per passenger trip ( $052 in 1990; $0.42 in 1991). Is there aa cxplaaation? System Response: LYNX could not identify any reli50DS for Ibis decline 6 Operating revenue increased from $4,664,010 in 1990 to $5,164,590 in 1991 and total local revenue increased from $10,149,500 in 1990 to $11,214,620 in 1991. Both increases ocxurred despite the stigbt decrease in passenger fare revenue discussed in question # S. Please explain the increases in operating revenue and total local revenue. System Re s ponse: According to LYNX, operating revenue increased due to the installation of new fiXed routes and improved nlght servia: routes. Total local revenue increased as ocw routes were requested by local funding sources 7 The average age of the vehicle fleet decreased from 6.17 years in 1990 to 5.24 years in 1 99 1 a decline of lS percent. Please explain the reasoa for tbis decline. System R esponse: As discussed previously, LYNX purchased 18 ocw vehicles in July 1990. 140

PAGE 166

C,OOO 4.000 2 ,000 0 F igure 111-1'1 County Popula tio n ( 000 ) 1 : L I I I I I I i 600 I I I I I I I I 1001 I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 1914 IMS I W 1M1 1 111 ltlt ltto 1t91 Figure 111-Fl Vehicle Mil" end Rewnue Mil" ... ... P.!'"= 'ottt ...... OQ .. - ... S 15,000 su.ooo St.OOO $ 6 ,000 u.ooo s o LYNX (ORLANDO) l'erfoi'1D8Jict ladlcators 10,000 1 000 6 000 4 ,000 2,000 0 Figure lll.f2 P-Trips ( 000 ) ......... v 1/ 11114 ''" '"' "" ,,. ,., ''" '"' Figure lll-f4 Total Operodng ExponJI ....,.. v r .. _...,.,cr... ..... .. [....;' ,__ s s .ooo $4,000 Sl,OOO n .ooo S t ,OOO so Agure 111-FS Passenger Foro R-( 000) l.o' ( 1<'11 ...... I ,.. 1-.5 t 916 111t7 "" lttO "" ,,... s '"' ,,., ,.. ""' '"' ,.. -... ltl1 ... "" "" 300 200 100 ( 0 Figure II I-F& Total Emplov-.., ,... 1'tn -"" -,., ,,. '"' Flgu,. 111-F7 Y eh l e ... I n Maximum s.Mce 160 J \ If I. .. .. ... .. ... 120 10 .......... 40 .......... 0 ttM ltn -,., ,., ,. ,.., 141

PAGE 167

_o I I I ; I i i i i i ""' r r t I 1-' _o i i i i "' l f I ....... \ i i i I i ""' r-... '-' _g t c i i i i i f ( r / '-.. I ,. 0 ff i ; !1.: ::!!4; h l -0 .. i i i i i i i j ,. 0 / \ b I tf t'' 1 : r n a c 0 --I I '\

PAGE 168

S 1 5 .00 S12 .00 S9.00 S6.00 Sl.OO so.oo figurolll-!'13 Operating Elcpense Per Capita / I ,,.. ,,., ,,. "" ,,.. ,.. 1990 '"'' FlguN 111-1'16 Melnt nnce Expense Per Revenue Mile $(1.80 $(1.60 .... / $(1.40 ,. $(1.20 ( N()l( so.oo 19M ,., ,,. '"' -,,., tttO ,,, 1,500 1.200 900 600 300 0 flguN lll.f19 R.,.nue Hours Per Employee ,.. ""' .... I ( JoiO'l lllcW!S "'''t...S w t9t4 1911 1911 tMJ 1 911 tttt t t9Q tttt LYNX (ORLANDO) Emdell(y Measures F igure IIIF14 Operating Expense Per Possenger Trip suo suo S0.80 k1+1Jif S0.40 so.oo ... ,..., '"' ,,., -''" 1 990 1991 % ...... 30% 20% tO% ( 0% Flgurolll-!'17 Farebo Recovery Ratio ....... ;-.... 01()11 .... ........ ) ,.. I'M'S 1 916 1917 119M t990 Uti 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Rguro III-I' 20 Pauenger Trips Per Employee .... ./ { Llrln '-7><'5 4 h ttst INS nM 1911 19M ,_,., 1990 "" Flgureiii-F15 Operating Expense p.,.. Revenue Mile SJ.OO l,....-S2.00 .... S1.00 $(1.00 ttM '"" t9M ,,., ... '"" ,.., '"' Rgurelll.f18 Vohldo MRos Per Puk Vohlde 10,000 .--.--,--.-,--.--,---, :::tl I I I t 1 j 2o.oool I I I I I I I ol I I I I I I I ltM "" '"' "" -"" ttiO '"' S0.60 suo .... S0.20 ( so.oo Flgu"' lll.f21 Avtrage fiN I ....... N()ft ... "\ "" ,,., '"' 191 1 "" ,., tttO '"" 143

PAGE 169

LYNX SUMMARY 144 Passenger trip$ increased 20 percclll from 8,026,190 in 1990 to 9,641,660 in 1991. No explanation was ideotilied for this increase; increased crosstown routes and night service, as wdJ as extended weekend service routes, may all have served to increase ridership. Total operating expense i.ocreased 11 percent from $12,216,320 in 1990 to $13,507,310 in 1991, due in part to a 17 percent increase in maintenance expeose ($2,667,020 in 1990; $3,121,910 in 1991). LYNX cites expanded regular fiXed route services as the reason for increased operating expenses. Additionally, maintenance expenses increased due to LYNX's implemenwion of a new preventive maintenance program. Total eapital expense increased sigAilicaotly from $1,335,420 in 1990 to $5,473,090 in 1991, an increase of 310 per
PAGE 170

G. PALM BEACH COUNlY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORilY SYSTEM PROFILE Orpniza!loaal Structvre Palm Beach County Transportation Authority is owned by Palm Beach County. However the system management and employment are provided under contract by Florida Inc. Govemtna l!odx aad CnmposiiiQ!! The five. member Palm Beach County Board of C oun ty Commissioners oversees the transit system and must 8JlP'Ove PBCT's budget as well as major projects undertaken by tbe system. Sen'lq Am PBCT provides transit services to Palm Beach County. Mosles modes include fvcedroute motorbus services and feeder bus services for the TriCnuntyCnmmuter Rail system. OriginaUy, tbe feeder bus service was oontracted out to National Services, Inc., 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, PBCT also provides purchased demand-response services under contract with Palm Beach County Paratransit. 145

PAGE 171

146 TABlE 111-GI Pala ._,. AaiAorif1 Dll'lldly.()poral.rf.,....e l dlc:atGn PEII10AMAHCE IHDICATOAS ... County (000) 7112.10 VoNoio ...... \ -... Mil .. (000) I --I ... 1"-w .f. ''41ii+'i>"' .1M.70.; -.-n---,.., -... Hourt (000) .. ,.. ... .,..,,. .... .. Toto! Opordng &pt.-f) Total-""-llOO) Oporoting -.. llOOI fw o --............... Vtfitd., .. .... . ___ .., ________ .._\ .. SparoAotlo Totol S5,a28. 00 10 " $1 ,158.37 S1-.s7 SIIUO $3,5011.85 S t ... $1,070.78 48.00 S57.20 -189.!10 $5, 903.90 $5,343.15 $ 1,245.72 $ 1 127 .-tO S613Jl0 $4;21222 $1$2.77 St,ce$ 68 t28. tO 1111 1111 1tl0 '"' 831. 10 86S.41 103.112 883 04 .-SS.791 n .,.. .... $ 1,177.34 $1,1)27.15 $44 .1 1 $1,6t4. 6S $6,207.58 $5 103.70 $ 1 334.18 $ 1 110.21 $447. 4 7 $4 784.53 $1,7t8.!!0 1-.... t ........ '' ... 36.36" S4.cG1t. 653.68 .. se.ase. $5.471 .J'! $ 1 ,483..18 $1 ,1 81.8 1 $t,78S.Ot t28 tO 74.00 I ...... .... -"'"""" 81.00 '' .' !!'! -! .
PAGE 172

-., bj I i lc -=:a
PAGE 173

11: 1 1 1n u n K 1 f i .,, 1 ... ; 'i! I f 1 : I i I I il ,.,a l[ .., .. i i ., .. (i 0: -s I i I 8 8 8 8 is 8$;30:! Cj }8 ; -f.! I -Cj 8 8 :.. if 0 I I I

PAGE 174

ElfECTNNESSMASURES SEIMCE SUPPI..Y saMCE CONSUMPTION ...... OUN.JTY OF SEIMCE . iH! >.y';.,;' .. AYerege Ago <71 Flool (in )'Nil) > '' ., ... -,.,. ......... .,_ ... .,. ____ .... ..... l .. < Totol-11 --------Miio.eOto'Nn'-1000) AVNUBLITY < < TABLE 111-<>4 l'al,. Baldi Coval)' TraasJH>r1atlOD Amllority Dlftdly.()perated Motori>us Elredl....., MMsUJU 11M 1181 1' .15.02' ,w;;..:1Uiy; 15 .77 ;. ,..15.&1' t ......... .. < < '"' -;.. . 5.110 TSl 7.10 &12 .............. 173.00 102.00 80.00 859.00 811.00 m.co 182.00 .. 13.38 21 .47 2 4 .1)8 -_..,.. ... -. 2.65 2.81 2.77 2.77 s.81 I SeQ I s.
PAGE 175

i I n f! is; = I d .. I " s 1:1 ....... li" I I

PAGE 176

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SEJMCE SUP!'!. Y TABLE IIIG6 P alm Beach Couoly TnosportaUon Authorily System Total Measures IQ86 1987 1918 INt .: \} : : ... .,.,, .. ,,._, . .. > ,.v,._ ""' .... I iff.._,;;.;. _-: ". \' .... .., y ->< Revenue Mil" a-tween Roadealls AVNI.ABIUTY ..1-.. ', : r-.."-""''l ; .. I f>u <> --2.65 19$0 1991 % Qwongo 198&-1991 151

PAGE 177

I b f[ -n I ... i (;; g-.= I !l.-!i fi I Ms. a

PAGE 178

UfiCIEHCY MEASURES COST EfflCIENCY t-4-le"""mno Ex!*l.O !'of ""' t.;-\ ..... _.; Oporallng For Peak Vthlolo (000) ... .. , <1-f'd Ex ... Pef p h .. '. ri ... ,... ..... .:. Oporallng E>tl*lM Pof Pa-Milo ., -.}. .. .. . Opo;&llniJ ><-.,., -Milo ---' ...... -./' --Opo;&llniJ ><-.,., -Hour -1011-E>tp. "" epo;.,;ng >tp. OPERATING IYITIOS ..... ... -""-' "$<' _,. .. ... TABLE 111-CB Pa l m ll
as Measures .... 11117 -', ... <. A I' nla I -,'-" ' : -- I I I .. --':I:P-.. ''1$>"' ...., .... .. I ... -_,_._, n 't!.f*r. "'"*x I>:. .. : J -t . ., .. I I I I I I nf I n f ., n j a 1 --nl I n f a I ......... r ;;.'$0/1 ... i' IM9 litO .. .87.'' .,._

rt-i<:oUI$642 w .. ,. :.. $5.39 $1 .35 : 13.08 --$45.96 $31.52 I --nJ I IIIII nli; "'I ., nl ., Tl-.... t t -... ...... \, I I I .. nf n l a %CIIo-1-IHI :t:P: :tJK -.... 1 !1/t;.; I I .. ;t; ... $4f ot '; njt .... ... I . 'f 4-'< -I nf ---. -.,.-, I ... ,_ - I fto/ & .. .. nla k>l< l .w ....,.........., .. Locol Atw nuo For Optrlllng ExpoI'!P,.r .. t';; I I I I -" 1 -,>; ' I I nl ----t --I I jq:,i'.i il .. .. n It.,. ... n/a n f a l*it _$ VEHICI.E UTILIZATION ..... Hr PNic VMid.1to00>7-: ;; . ., llohldt Hovro For Peak Vehicle (000) ___ .,.. __ -.uoMlloo Pof Tolal-PlO) lABOR PAOOUCTMIY Hovro Pot frn _P,IoyN -.,. Hovro For Optr frnpl"1" (000) '. . ,.,.. Roveouo Hovrt For Admin. Employee (000) Pa< MalnL,frnP"""(OOO) Paooangar T rlpo "" Empl"1" (000) .. . .,_ .., < T--p., I!Mrt. E'mplojee Total Vwh1c:6t:t Pet Admin. E-UTIJlATION I !' vO..!Oi; 1111oa .,., Go1ion FNIE ,MriU.fll. ., -. ,, __ > I I I I I I: I nl. I I I I I I I >f 1''1'' n a I r I nja : I i I ... -.; .. 1>. "Ud' '*' nf I I I n f & I nja. nt8: 1 I I I I I I I I I I n l I I I I ... ,_ .... ->-4< ,., 1.48 OJlO &D4 o.e8 I "l nl 2.44 0.153 111.18 1.411 nf I ... ,.,_._,, -I"-Nr-<1! ... .. tlji.{ )c. ' nfa ..,.,.. ... I n/a I . nl I .,. .,. I -... I I I I I I --;_ n, ,.; ;;.;,._ n/a ' '' .. .. ---.. 1 ft/&.0 .A -:
PAGE 179

EffiCIENCY MASUAES COST EfFICIENCY 154 TABLE IIIG9 Palm Beach Couoty Traosportatloo Aolbority S)'lleiD Total Emdeocy Meuurn -1117 ,_ -1190 1111 "a..........

PAGE 180

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made in fiscal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. Effective October 1 1991, l'Bcr increased it fares as follows: Base fare Reduced Fare (Elderly, Handi.,.pped, Student) Transfers Monthly Commuter Pass Reduced Mootbly Commuter Pass QM $0.80 $0.40 $0. 15 $30.00 $15.00 (Due to the effective date of these changes, t heir impact wiU not he evident until the 1992 year.) 2 Were there any significant changes in service/sernce area during fiSCal year 1990 or 1991? &II: $0.90 $0.45 $0.20 $34.00 $17.00 Effective September 12, 1990, PBCf began direct operation of the T ri-Rail feeder bus service in Palm Beach County. The service was previously provided by a private operator. 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant events that may help explain the performance of the transit system? PBcr cites the aforementioned talceover of the T ri-Rail feeder bus service as a significant change. This changed a number of PBCT's operating data, as indi.,.ted in the FY 1990 and FY 1991 Section 15 reports. 155

PAGE 181

QUESTIONS ABOUf 1991 SECTION 15 DATA Dlredly.()perated Motorbus Quesdoas 1. A!; indicated in the table below, aU the performance indicators for ridership and the amount of service provided increased significantly between 1990 aod 1991 Since the data indicat e that purchased motorbus service was discontinued in 1991, it appears that directly-operated motorbus semce was increased to make up for the loss of this service. Is this the case, or is there som e other explanation for the increases? FYIIIO FYitltl 2,213,190 2,712,880 22.6% P .... oger Mlt.a 15,190,250 17,190,100 13.2% Vthlde MI ... 2,529, 020 3 ,1 47,480 24.4t-Atv.nu. Mi ... 2,190,170 2,49t,no 13.8% Vehldt Hours 153,920 25.1% ReYenue Ho\lra W,960 171,090 20.$% System Response: When the Tri-county Commuter Rail Authority (TCRA) began their rail operatiOGS in January 1989, feeder bus service in Palm Beach Co!"'ty was primarily provided by a private company, Natioaal Transit Semccs, loc. (NTS). The data related to their operation was submitted on our Sed ion IS reports as MB/PT (Motorbus/Purchased Transportation) for f1SC81 years 1989 and 1990. On September 12, 1990, t he Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. through majority vote, terminated the contract with m'S for this scmce and PBCT began operating the scmee directly, which has been the ease since that time. Consequently, the differences belween FY 1990 and FY 1991 Section IS ligures retlect this change in the provider of the feeder bus service. Commencing with our FY 1991 Section IS r e port, aU semce that was previously reponed as MB/PT was reponed as MB/DO (Motorbus/Directly Operated). 2. Total operating expense increased from $6,869,680 in 1990 to $8,509, 010 in 1991, while maintenance expense increased from $1,483,860 in 1990 to $1,798,170 in 1991. Are these increases in expense a direct result of the disconti n uation of purchased scmce and the subsequent provision of additional directly-operated scmce to replace it? Please explain. System Response : Yes. See respoose to question #1. 3 Passenger fare revenue increased only eight percent from $1,089, 940 in 1990 to $1,178,700 in 1991 despite the significant increase in ridership indicated in the table above (over 22 percent). This resulted in a decline in the average fare per passenger trip from $0.49 in 1 990 to $0.43 in 1991. Is there an explanation for ibis? System Response: The reason that passenge r fare revenues increased at a smaUe r rate than the actual ridership is that the Tri-Rail feeder bus scmce is a non-revenue producing semee. There is DO fare charged t o the rider on the feeder buses. 156

PAGE 182

4. Operating revenue increased from $1,796,010 in 1990 to $2,063,560 in 1991. O n e-third of this increase was due to tbe incr ease in passenger fare revenue discussed in questi o n #3. Please CJ
PAGE 183

Pltrdlased Motorbus QuesUoas 1. I t is evident from the 1991 Sectioo 15 data that purchased motorbus service bas been discontinued. Please explain the reasons for this change in service (see also question #2 on the survey form). System Response: See response to questioo #1. Syst
PAGE 184

3. Despite the amount of service provided remaining relatively stable between 1990 and 1991, the number of route miles decreased 18 percent from 474.2 miles in 1990 to 390.8 miles in 1991. The difference is the route mileage for the purchased motorbus service operated in 1990. Although directly-operated motorbus service increased in 1991 in an apparent effort to replace the discontinued purchased service, a corresponding increase in route mileage was not realized. 1s there an explanation? System Respoo.se: This figure is also called unduplieated miles. We readily admit that in FY 1990 this figure was reported incorrectly, as it did oonlain duplicity of route miles. Effective in FY 1991, with lhe takeover of the Tri-Rail feeder bus service, this 6gure was re-addressed by PBCf staff, and a new and aceurate figure was arrived at. That is 390.8 miles, inclusive of tbe Tri-Railleeder bus service. 159

PAGE 185

160 4 ,000 ],000 :z.ooo 1,000 0 PALM BEACH C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Figure 111-G 1 County Populodon (000) 1,000 .,--,--,--.---,---,r-...---, IOOL I I I I I I 1 ""' I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I zool I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ,.. ttti -, -,.., ,... 1991 Figure 111-GJ v-Milos and ReYenuo MI ... .. l .... .. "'--"" I StO,OOO se,ooo u,ooo s.o.ooo n.ooo so Perf.,..,.._ ladkaton flgu,.III-G4 Tou.l o.,.roting Expenoe / v .. .. i ... ........... '--r.o:t ....,Ot-.... ._fOCOtl(l,..$1 I I I I I ),000 1,000 1.000 0 Flgu,. 111-Gl P-r Tripo (000) I I I I I I:Y '"" ''" -1111 ,. "" ,,. tth St,200 S!IOO S600 uoo so Figure 111-GS hltengw FaN Rt"Wen'(000) ( loiC>ll ... ,.. ttft '* ,,., ,.. ,.., '"' '"' 1 9M ltiS ttN tMJ '* tltt ttM 19M ... ttiS -ttl1 -,.. ttJO '"' ISO 1 20 !10 "' 10 c. 0 Figure 111-G, Tolol Employeeo l!()q 1/ IJ$4 INS tteS 11117 ,,.. IMt IMO tH1 1 00 .. "' 40 10 0 flgu.-III-G7 VthldeslnMoxi_S_ / r\. !'\.. v W..:llt a.--ltt4 tillS '* INJ ttll ttn ltiO 1"1

PAGE 186

PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 4.0 3 0 2.0 1.0 0 0 Figure 111-GS Vehi cle M iles Per Capita l _l_ l __ tLt 1Jt.4 IMS 1M 1011 tMt tm 1t90 1991 10.0 8.0 6,0 4 .0 2.0 0 0 ElfecUate$$ Measures Flgurelll-(;10 Average Age of Fleet (yeers) ,. 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 Figure l ll-(;9 Pass.nger Trips Per Revenue Mi'e II I I R ,.. ,., ,,.. .,., tM ,., 1990 '"' .,. :=t, / ( HOlt ) ,.. "" ttl1 ,,.. ,,., '"" ltt1 Figure III-G11 Revenue M ilos BetwMn Accld9nts/lnddents Flgu,.lll-(;12 Revenue M iles BetwMn Roeckalfs 1.500,000 4,000 1,2 00,000 ( H()l( loi;I('I'WI .... ) 3.000 !100,000 2 ,000 600,000 300,000 -1,000 / l NOll f.,o
PAGE 187

162 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY $10.00 sa.oo $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 ,.,,00 Rgure 111-GU Operadng Ex-.... CApita ll I I IY ,,.. ttfS '* ,,.., -,., ,... tttl Figure 111-616 Mainte nance ExpenH,.., R......,. Milo $0.80 $0.60 : I $0.40 $0.20 ( H)yt so.oo ,... '"' ,,.. ,,..., ,. ,,., ,,. ""' 1,200 900 600 100 0 Figu,. 111-619 Rownuo Hours,.., Empioyoo ,. ( I ) ltlo4 IMS 1916 1917 '* ttet tHO 1991 Ellld .. cy MtaStlrtS Rgure 111-614 Ope
PAGE 188

PBCT SUMMARY System Total passcngu trips increased nearly 14 percent from 2,386,630 in 1990 to 2,712,880 in 1991. Most of this increase can be attributed to a significant increase in fV
PAGE 189

H. TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROnLE Orpo!glfopal Slruclurc Tallahassee Transit Authority is a department of City government. Goycmlnc Body and Comoosltlon The City Commission serves as the Board of Direetors for TALT and bas five elected members. Suytq Am TALT provides service to Leon County. M.oska The syslcm provides 6xcd-route motorbus services and demand-response services to the community. No 6xed-route services are oootracted to private operators.. 164

PAGE 190

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS County Pl>putotlon (000 ) "",., .. (000) .. . "-"'X ,-' RoYOnuo Mllft (000) ... ... ,. ..... '!'1. : wnlote t10Url 1 ,.. ''*"'"" .. ............ .... : :ft. f>-' RoYOnuoHou--..J-H <'(/ ' ' :. 1,3&1.20 1,412.70 1 404.82 11t90 11t1 192 .!18 192.49 198.27 . 3,0'4:+ 8.$4t.34 "' 1$2.7l. ... .. .. .rl .,.._ klt, ,, 1,485,g() 1 ,449.1 8 1 ,48$.37 t' B;.;s;-."' 1UI, .70\ ; ll_ ,,..,_, w ... ...... ..... ... 99 90 104.eo tto.o3 ..... -' .... . ....... ,. ...,. ... ...,J/>. if>'O."\-206..ou t .<; J .. : 200.80 .. 117 10 11&.91 136.11 .. .. .,. .............. '" .... ... 207,81)\ 4 ... -' ,_.,., "''.. $2,98 1 .!50 1 $2,750.!18 $2,854;i7 --.-; S3,02-4.00 $873-82 "-S81.53 $31881$.18 S3,25U8 $830.07 14,2815.) 14 ,1'87.90 ...... ., ...................... . !3$7 .!9 . .. $834 10 W23.lO S82U3 $ 1 ,065.20 S2,2A7 .77 $1,11 8 .71 -"11.84 se.50 flll.OO 21.!0 ,_, H' --11.00 ( ' .. .. . 48 00 3-4.cx:t., 41. 18Y. 417.11( .... ,.. -$882.34 $106.70 $ 701 12 $322.79 12.&?&.30 $1,322 .65 sl112.21 I s1.-14 $820 .011 ---1423.84 S3MeAO $1,1549.()8 $801.79 --"""!:' . ..,_ se&4.37.:. S*e3. ...... ---' A-1 .70 $1,04$.31) 14-..oo" l 1$.290.110 $89S.AO $947 .l 98. 50 118.!50 103.00 100.00 1 11.00 '''.,._,,.,-yo ............ .... '"' SO:"' W'A"Wo. ,.,.,_,_,. oo. --..n .... ..,.., ... IDQ, "","' "VY, "" ... .. ,,';.-._ ."'!'ll-%f '"':-' 21.50 21.50 22.!50 22.50 26.50 -"'['' '""'',':;:,''I;"' ,., ' .-)''',. 11.CQ,...., r t>'4'- 11.00 \1.00.;: ... t 4<1.00 42.00 .. . '"' .. 3'4.00 .. ,, .. 38 00 ''< . .. .. o032.ai 434.38 45.00 4o.oo" .. 1 2. 501' <14$.95 45. 00 I .e.oo --. .,. '"I "'"* .... n-41 M 't t ,., ,._ -.. .. ,_, . 12.50Yo 12.20Yo .. 448.41 1e.&IY. . 17 .-lel' $,;e;.1 m ..... e.45Yo .... ,-t.l '!f .. 31.8nll '::' ....... ....... .... 50ft SQ.W. ao.enr. 37.01Y. tAft 135.3n 47. 111Yo 33.011Yo 12.e11Yo 11.3ft .. J -4.17Yo 20.-. n/a '7.
PAGE 191

!::'!!! 81 .. ;: ;!S 8 8 s 12 .. -I i -I

PAGE 192

EFfiCIEHCY MEASURE$ COST EfRCIEHCY E>i*-""' CapHa e--Per Pool< Volll cto (1)001 PW P .... nger Trtp ._.,.....,._,.)>;'-...< .. A.<'"' -"' e--Per P-ngor _,.._.._,.-v >><-;.-_.1< OP.OiJoi! AM.<> ,;':>i:';W . < . t MolniOnonoo Exp. Per (lpetoting Elcp. OPERATI'IG RATIOS >(. .. .... .... "' ,._.M ......... .h-" -"''" lOOII Rovonuo Per ElcponM .. ,.._ > .,. ? Opocallug -POr Opetoliog &penH VEliiCtE UTUZATION --Mhi,I'W--"""" --.. Mlloo Per ToW Vohlc:los (000) Total Vtft.ldel (000) U\BOA PROOUCTMTY . ........ (000) Rovonuo Hours Per Opor. EmployH (COO) (000) .. "' ' --Per Admin. (COO) v.l11c4fr.iiH Pli M.ini. employee (000) ........... ,.. """'. ,..._, Tripe Po< ErnployM 1000) TOial-Po< Mm1n. Emp1oyeo EHEAGY UTUZATION Pos .. j, ..;,; $2!1.84 $30.16 ., :<>. .. .... ;. ...... ,. .................. d .nso .. so (" -f057"" >' .. 22 .60'11 23 .90'11. 23.10'11 23JI8' 7 $ .39'11 31.152% -3. 1 7 0.9:1 2&15 2.08 '" 1 .01 '. 1 .51 l ,-: '-_ M<, $ $0 .46 ''"' ... $2.95 .. "" . $3.25 $ ... ,..., -....... _, $2.61'11 30.14'11 211.04'11 47. -$36.49 $3&.o3 17.37'11 .. " ..... .._ .. .. "-" i<*..,,,, _ ---".._.., '' ... .. ;.<,._ ,. ........ .... ... 19 .551(, 19.36'11 14 .33 .. . _ .,.. ........... ""' ""'""" ""''" .. 96.07'11 110.911" 35.410t. :;. 3-M,. 38.0 1 ,. --.. ,-... 30.70 3.()7 3. 46 -. 0.94 -: ;.,, o.M 32.18 31.8il . _____ ..... _. 2.60 ""'' ' .... ,. ., .. 8 .77'11 47.1ft --7 .911'11 10.75'11 9.37'11 0.76'11 13.16' 42. 17'11 ,; , 14"--;.<> .... .. 20.en .. _. .. ,..,,,.__.,.. 1 .68 1.8$ 22.3$'11 -' "' . : _ .,._ .. .. ,. $.20 ... 5t4' '"' ,., _4 < :::.;;""*"''' "\' t' . ... ... "' ..... 10. 63 12.37 38.2S% .ea .. 1J; *,i."\:r'l 5&80 .. ')' ........ 12.68'11 32.60 31.11 4 .24% ... . fll-j -l 2.()0 --.. 1.74 42.2Sll .oo 4 11 -4 .17'11 3.44. t ,.. o..58'l $0.21 $0.21 13.30'11 167

PAGE 193

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made in liscal year 1990 or 1991? I so, please provide t h e previous fare structure as weU as the updated fare slruclllre and indicate when the changes were impleme111ed. No changes were made. 2. Were there any sigllifKalll changes in service/service area during f1Se81 year 1990 or 1991? Acco rding to TALT, only some minor route rulignments occurred. 3. Haw: there been any recent changes or siguiftcant events that may help explain the performance of the transit syslcm? TALT cites the age of their vehicle Out as an important fa<:tor that has affected system performance, speciftcally maintenance expense iDaeases TALT believes that the oew b uses that are expected to arrive during FY 1992 will help to improw: performance as weU as reduce various maintenance expenclilures. 168

PAGE 194

QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SEcnON IS DATA 1. From 1990 to 1991, the number of vehicle hours and revenue hours increased at a greater rate than did the number of vehicle miles and revenue miles (see table below). This resulted in a decrease in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour) from 12.39 mph in 1990 to 10.77 mph in 1991. Is there an explanation? Dtreclly-()perated MOtorbuo FY 1990 FY1H1 "CIIonge Vehicle Mites 1.547,850 1,568,230 o.n. Revenu. Mles 1.448,160 1,465.370 V.hlcle Hours 122,720 142.050 15.8% Aewnue Hours 116,910 136,110 16.4% System Respoose: Aeoording to TALT, the data is eorrect; however, no explanation could be provided. 2. Total operating expense increased from $4,265,600 in 1990 to $4,767,900 in 1991. A portion of this increase was due to an 11 pereeot inerease in m.tintenanee expense from $834,100 in 1990 to $923,200 in 1991. Please explain the increase in maintenance expense as weU as the remaining increase in operating expense. System Response: The increase in maintenance expense was mainly due to the addition of two mechanics to TALT's maintenance staff. The mechanics' salaries and benefitS and the additional work they completed aU served to inerease overall maiotenauce costs. Other factors that influenced the increase in operating expease included an increase in the number of drivers and an increase in the ratio of f1111time employees to parttime employees, thereby increasing salary and &inge benefit expeases. 3. Please explain the significant decrease in capital expense from $2,481,700 in 1990 to $1,049,300 in 1991. Wbat capital purchases were made in 1990? In 1991? System Respoase: 1n FY 1990, two staging areas were coastructed at Florida State University and Florida A&M University at a cost of approximately $450,000. AdditionaUy, renovations on TAL T's building and offices were completed in FY 1990, further adding to that fiSCal year's capital costs. In FY 1991, TALT's decreased capital expenditures included tbe purchase of several DialaRide vehicles. TALT anticipates that capital expenses will increase once again in FY 1992 due to the purchase of eleven new motorbuses. 4. As shown in the table on the foUowing page, the increase in total local revenue far exceeded the increases in either passenger fare revenue or openting revenue. This indicates a significant increase in local operating assi.tance to the transit system. Please explain. 169

PAGE 195

Dl.-.,.clperdodfY 1910 fY1H1 %CIIonge PaJMngtf Fate Revenue $885,<400 $947,<400 5.8" Opolll!ng-.uo $1 510,000 $1.&4UOO &.1,. T otaJ LoeaJ Atvtonue $4.098.000 $5,290.&00 29.1,. S)'Siem Response: According to TAL T, the increase in local operating assistance was due to the start-up of the first year of the Vebide Replacement Fund during the 1991 fiscal year. The firSI year allocation for this fund was approximately $500,000. Additionally, local funds were provided to TALT to purchase a troUey in FY 1991. S. Maintenance employees increased from 22.5 FTEs in 1990 to 26.5 FTEs in 1991, an increase of 18 percent. Please explain the increase in this employee category. Sy5tem Response: TALT had a net gain of four mainteBaDce employees primarily in response to the public's dissatisfaction with the condition of the fleet. The net gain included the two new mechanics dis=ed in the response to question #2 and a general increase in available maintenance labor due to overtime and the shift of several employees from part-time to fuU-time status. 6 The number of incidents increased from 52 in 1990 to 11 in 1991. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for this increase? $y5tcm Response: TALT could not provide an explanation for this occurrence. 7 The number of roadealls decreased &om 960 in 1990 to 842 in 1991. Can the improvement in reliability be attributed to the increase in maintenance or is there some other explanation? S)'Sicm Response: According to TALT, the improvement in reliability can be attn"buted to the increase in mainteDaDce personnel With additional mechanics, it was po5Sible for TALT to increa5e the amount of preven1ive maintenance performed on the vehicles, which improved the overaU condition of the Oeet. 1'70

PAGE 196

1.600 1.200 100 0 TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Figure ill-HI County Population (000) ::L I I I I I I I 120 I I I I I I I I sol I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 1 I I I I I I ttM IMS IM 1917 1HI 110 1990 tt91 Rgure 111113 Vehicle Miles and R....,n.,. Mil .. .k ss.ooo 54,000 u.ooo __ .. ., ... (OOQJ n.ooo $ 1,000 I I s o PerformaDCe Indicators Figur e II J.H4 Total Operadng Ex,.nse ""' .. I I I I I 4.000 l ,OOO 2,000 1,000 0 Figure III-H2 Passenger Trips (000) ./ 19M Ita 1-IMJ ,.. 1M 1990 ,,_, _,. S 1.000 SIOO S600 S400 S200 ,., Figure 111-HS Passenger Fare Revonues (000) l I IJ I ttM ltiS IM \911 1-ltlt 11!10 "" """ ttM ,,.. ttl7 ,.. 19ft ttto tttt 19M 111n 1tWJ 1'"' 1M tttt 120 90 60 lO 0 Figure III-H6 Total Employees -ttt4 ttH tM6 1Ml 1,_ ttQ 1990 1991 so lO 20 10 0 Rgure III-H7 Vehicles In Maximum SeM
PAGE 197

172 TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Figure 111-118 Vehicle Miles Per capita 10.0 .---.--.---.--.--.-... ---, I I I I I ,.ol I I I I I I I .ol I I I I I I I 2.o I I I I I I I I o.ol I I I I I I I 1114 1115 .... ,..., ,. 1990 '"" 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 Elrtivtaess Meuwu Rgurelll l iiO A--Ago of Fleet Figure 111-119 P-Trips Per R..,.nue Mile 3.0 2 0 1.0 o o ,.... lttS -ltt1 "" -1990 lftt .,. ....... .,.,. ltM ,,., ,. ....,. ,.. ,., "'0 '"' Rgurelll-illl Revenue Miles Be-n A
PAGE 198

$25.00 no.oo $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 so.oo Flgureiii-HU Operating Expense Pet' C..plta I I IL I
PAGE 199

TALT SUMMARY Both vehicle hours and revenue bOUt$ increased 16 perceot betweeo 1990 and 1991 despite the relative stability of ve!Ucle and revenue mileage. Vehicle hours increased from 122,720 in 1990 to 142,050 in 1991; reveoue hours increased from 116,910 in 1990 to 136,110 in 1991. ACJCO
PAGE 200

I. REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) SYSTEM PROFILE Orxanlza!lopaJ Structure Regional Transit System is a departme n t of the City of Gainesville. Govemlng Bodx and Composltloa The City of Gainesville has ao elected commission made up of five members, all of whom are responsible lor policy decisions regarding ARTS as weU as other city departments. In addition, ARTS has an advisory board comprised of citi7.ens from the community which provides input to lhe commission regarding the transit system aod its stiucture. Sm!ct Am ARTS serv<$ the city of Gainesville and parts of Alachua County. Modes -F"JXedroute motorbus services. ARTS also provides all of Alachua County with demand-response services. 175

PAGE 201

I 0 !-)-:fl iii 8 Cl ltt I i:! i -I g -

PAGE 202

i 1e c! I
PAGE 203

$ m -z !l Q z i I I .. I I l i .. 111 ll i = i;: .. It -

PAGE 204

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made in fiSQll year 1990 or 1991? If so, p l ease pr
PAGE 205

QUESTIONS ABOtrr 1991 SECTION 15 DATA L As iDdicated iD !be table below, the 1991 Sedioo IS dala [O< ridenbip and service iDdica!O<$ were idelllieallo !he clala reported for 1990. Wby was tbere ao c1w>ae iD this clala? Dlr....,.op.-Mo-. FYIIIO FY lltl PulongTrlpt 2,!569,580 ueuao --Milot 7,eeQ,O:edin& iofWloo, from $2,844,500 iD 1990 to $3,011,810 iD 1991. To what cao dais ioc:rease be attribuled sjYeD !hat the amOUllt of service provided remaiDed c:oasi&DI and maiate.....,.,. expeose dedioed? S)'Siem Respoose : The inaease iD opesating expe115C resulted from a Luge inaease iD tbe COSI of geoeral iDsuranc:e. ARTS ioaeased its geoeral iDsutaoce lransfer 1 0 cover the actual COSI of iDsurance coverage. 3. Passenger fare reve11ue ioaease 43 pereeot from $523,170 iD 1990 10 $749,950 io 1991 despite ridership remainiog coiUW>t. This resulted io an iocreasc in average fare per passcDger trip from $0.20 io 1990 to $0.29 in 1991. Was a fare increase implemenled or is there aome other ....,..ioD? System RespoDSc: Th e iocrease occurred beeause passcoger fares were not brokeD down between lhe mo1orbu.l and dcmandre>poose modes in FY 1991. Sioc:e the slaff persoo primarily respoosibl e for the Sutioo IS dala and its reportiog is no loDger wilh ARTS, the current staff was Dol able to provide the fare revenue breakdown between modes. 4 Total gallollS consumed inaeased lrom 280,7&1 gallons i11 1990 10 289,240 galloDS io 1991. Wby were more gallollS of fuel coosumed despite oo change in service? S)'Siem Respc115C: ARTS cites !be use of more Orion buses oo the road than Blue Bird buses as !be reasoo for the iDcreasc io fuel ooeswaptioo. Aecordiog to ARTS, !he OrioD buses are less fuel effi cient and, hence, consume more gasoline thaD the Blue Bird vehicles. 1&1

PAGE 206

S. The number of incidents increased from 34 in 1990 to 56 in 1991 Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any poss i ble reasons for this increase? System Res ponse : ARTS could not identify any reasons for this increase. 6. The number of roadcalls decreased significantly from 941 in 1990 to 747 in 1991. To what can this decline be attributed? System Response: The decrease in roadcalls resulted from improvements in ARTS' s maintenance prevention program since 1990. 181

PAGE 207

.o f i i i i j o I i i i i j N 0 .. 0 -N 0 0 =I H A A H s :!l t 3 .. 0 .. 'i 'i.: ii; 0 i i i r-r-.o i i r-! r-i r-i r-j ! i i i j i i ;! : I n i 1 !I H H H p f T --N t .. N s 8 .o 0 0 i' i i Cl'f li i = ''
PAGE 208

REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) 10. 0 8.0 6 0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 11148 Vehicle M i les Per Capita I / '* 1M$ 19M ,,.., ,,.. ''" 1990 1991 12 .0 EITedlveDeSs Measures Flgu"' 111110 Average Age of Reet (y
PAGE 209

184 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Flgu"' n OpereUng Expense Per Capita $20 .00 ..----r-..----r-.,---r-.,--, :::::t:l 1?1 rtt j : : : I I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I ,.. ,,., ,,.. ,,., ... ,... lttO ,,., RgureiiH16 Maintenance Expense Per Rew:nu. MUe 50.50 $0.40 50.30 50. 20 50.10 so.oo -----,... ttiS ... ,,., -,.. 1990 1991 1.500 1.200 900 600 300 0 flgu"' 111119 Revenue Hours ,., Employee "" v 1914 IMS 19M ltf1 lMI tta9 t9tO ltt1 Emdeaq MoasurtS Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip n.oo I suo $1.20 $0.80 ./ $0.40 --so.oo 1* t.S 19M 1911 1"* 1!119 IMO lt91 -20" 0" Figure 17 Farebox Recovery Ratio ' r-... --L. ttM tMS 1tl6 ttt7 ,.. ttlt ttt0 1911 lO.OOO 20,000 10.000 0 Figure Passenger Trips Per Employee '* tM\ 1916 1ter tMI " 1990 1991 Figure 111-115 OperoUng Expense ,., R......,. Milo SJ.OO II L+l sz.oo $1.00 50.00 ,.. " ,,.. "'' -,,. ,... '"' Vehi
PAGE 210

ARTS SUMMARY Operating revenue increased 16 percent from S1,ll0,640in 1990 to $1,292,790 in 1991. All of this increase was due to a 43 percent increase in passeager fare revenues from $523,170 in 1990 to $749,950 in 1991. According to ARTS, passenger (are reV
PAGE 211

J. EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSIEM PROFILE QmolgtiODal S!n!cturt Ea$t Volusia Transit Authority was established by county ordinance and is therefore a divisi011 of the county. Gonrnlpc Body and Comml!lon VOLT is governed by the Volusia County Commissioners who all serve as members on the seveo-member Board of Directors. The scveu-member Board includes rnoe district members and two albrge members. Servltt Am! -VOLT provides public l!a.osportatiOCI services in eastern Volusia County. MOJ!et-VOLT CODoentrates its efforts on providing fvced-route mOiorbus services to the community. In adclilion, VOLT oontracts for demand-response services. 186

PAGE 212

TABLE ni J l East Volosla Traatll Authority Perfor-aooce ledlt'<. l<" ... ..... To


    PAGE 213

    I E' "'" "2: : = = eI .. a[ q I

    PAGE 215

    GENERAL QIJESTIONS 1. Wue any rare dlauges made in foscal year 1990 or 1991? 1r io, please provide tbe previous rare structure as well as the updated rare slrUdUre and indicate wben the dlauges were implemented. No changes were made. 2. Were there any significant changes in service/service area during 6scaJ year 1990 or 1991? None. 3. Have there been any recent dlauges or significant events that may help explain the perrormance or the transit system? None. 190

    PAGE 216

    QUESTIONS ABOUf 1991 SECI'ION 15 DATA 1. from 1990 to 1991, the number of vehicle miles and revenue miles increased while the number of vehicle hours and revenue hours declined (see table below). This resulted in a slight inaease in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour) from 13.86 mph in 1990 to 14.36 mph in 1991. Is there an explanatioo? Olrectly.Qplted Motorbua FY 1990 FY1991 '!(, Chango V.h lc le MUtt 1,504,590 1,614,360 7.3 ... Revenue MOet 1,402_.410 1,<430,440 2.0'1o V.hlet. Hours 106,460 103,790 .5'11> Revenue Hours 101,220 99,&40 -1.6'11> System Rcspoosc: Two routes were adjusted so that mileage was added but time was not iDcreased, which deaeased the layover time of these two routes. In addition, there was a detour that oootinued for about six months. 2. Total operating expense decreased from $3,772,190 in 1990 to $3,722,800 in 1991 despite an 11 percent increase in maintenance e>
    PAGE 217

    System Respoose: Ia FY 1991, four diesel troUeys replaced four gas troUeys; the dieseltroUeys get fewer miles to the gaUon. Also, the increase in mileage correlates with an increase in coosumplion. 6. The average age of the vehicle Oect decreased from 7.85 years in 1990 to 6.95 years in 1991, a decline of 11 percent. Please explain the reason for this decline. System Response: Three 1990 buses replaced three 1968 buses. 7. The number of incideols increased from 28 in 1990 to 55 in 1991. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for this increase? System Respoose: Form 405 was changed in FY 1990. Much of the information required for this form was oOI available. In FY 1991, we revised oar safety reports and were able to obtain the necessary informatioo to complete Form 405. 8. The number of roadcalls decreased from 465 in 1990 to 340 in 1991. Is there an explanation for this decline? 192 System Response: Three new buses were introduced into service. Also, the summer of FY 1990 was espcciaUy hOI wbKh caused an increase in problems with the cooling systems and air conditioning systems.

    PAGE 218

    2.000 uoo 1 ,200 100 -0 EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY flgu .. Ul l1 County PopenM / .. ""'It I I I I .ooo J ,OOO l,OOO 1,000 0 Flgu,.III J2 p.._ Trips (000) I '/ "" IMS IMI 1111 "" ''" lttO tltt or. r-Passenger fo,.llownues ( 000) St,ooo,..,.-,-..,--,r-'T"'-r-, : b I -H I I 11 scool I I I I I I I uool I I I I I I I 101 I I I I I I I ,,... t1IS '"' ,., ,,.. ,... ,,. '"' '* t.S '"' ,,.., -.., ""' '"' ,.. ltn -,.1 ,. ,.. ,.... "" figure III J6 Toto l Employ-:1 1 -d=-=11 1 I I '"I I I I I I I I ..ol I I I I I I I tol I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I .,... tteS '"" ,., ,.. "" , flgu"' IIIJ7 VoNcl.s In MOld mu m SIMc4 40 ... 10 ............ 10 0 I ,.. ttn ,.,. "" ,.. ,., """ "'' 193

    PAGE 219

    194 EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Rgure IIIJB Vehicle Milos...,. Capita 5.0 .--.---,,-,--,---,,-,---, 40 r I 1 I t I I 1 l.ol I I I I I I I 2 .01 I I I I I I I 1.o I I I 1-I I I I o.ol I I I I I I I ,... t-.s "" 1911 -.,., ,,.., .,.,, 8.0 6 0 c.o 2.0 0.0 Elfc
    PAGE 220

    Figure IIIJ13 Expense P
    PAGE 221

    VOLT SUMMARY 196 Total mainteoance expense incrused 11 percent from $1,067,040 in 1990 to $1,187,340 in 1991. According to VOLT, maintenance costs increased beuwe Volusia County's Council on Asing contraas with VOLT to perform maintenance on their vehicles and the number of Yehides which VOLT maintained in FY 1991 inaeased. T01al capital expense decrused 1 0 percent from $1,657,400 in 1990 to $ 1,491,050 in 1991. This decline occuned because VOLT had no major capital purchases in FY 1991. In FY 1990, VOLT purchased three l>wes and replaced their fuel island, farebox system, and radio system Vehicles operated in maximum se rvice increased 21 percent from 28 vehicles in 1990 to 34 vehicles in 1991 VOLT attnl>utes this increase to a change in the reporting of this indicator. Every year, VOLT experiences a two-month seasonal peak in vehicle use during which the DJBjority of the fleet is used. In the reported figure for FY 1991, VOLT included this peak we of Yuses with three 1990 bwes. The number of incidents increased from 28 incidents in 1990 to 55 incidents in 1991, an increase of96 percent. According to VOLT, the incident data for FY 1990 may not have been correa since much of the infonnation required for the updated Fonn 405, which was changed for FY 1990, was nOI available. The FY 1991 incident data was reported correctly. The number of roadcalls decreased nearly 27 percent from 465 in 1990 to 340 in 1991. VOLT cites two faaors as the primary reasoas for this improvement in reliability. the replacement of old vehicles with newer ones, and a decline in vehicle cooling system and air conditioning system problems that were caused by an especially bOI s ummer in FY 1990.

    PAGE 222

    K. ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM SYSTEM PROFILE Organlzpt!ooal S!n!cture Es<:ambia County Trans it System is a department of the county government. Governing Body and Comoosltlon ECI'S is governed by the Board of County Commissioners, wbich is comprised of five members who are el
    PAGE 223

    I f i I ! i i i !!!'!! i

    PAGE 224

    EfnCTJYENESS MEASURES SEFMCE SUPPlY Yol1ld. ..... P8i Copi,a SERVICE CONSUMPTION '+ ., ; ...... ... "" _. . :-Puttnger Trfpe Pet Al'o'enot Mil e Hb ,., . .. tout ..... OUALl1Y OF SERVICE ' "'' .,. '<"<'lf'-M-''"<..,. .,, -.;. I'(J/o ol -Oct yoatl) -' ... -Tolol-----... ... .., . -,... _,.,. lnddonto (0001 -.............. Rtvenue Mllel Btt-.en {000) AVMNl!UfY ii..wM 1.1100 f.'i<,Roulo ) .. ... 3 21 ' ...,, ., ...... 1.29 TABLE 111-KZ E.....,bla Coua!y Tnasll S7Jtem Eftfdlveoess Me.sures tNl' ... '" . 3.28 "''W/11! W"t' _,.10 ... 3 72 -">10'/c"" '<"'i"' 1.24 1.17 ... 3.28 3.78 .. 1.18 .,. .. .. ' --16.83,' . I! 'V -... I ,. ... ir :i!b'il 14.99 h"' t5.28 I '1' . <-14. 1$.!10 17 .85S : ,..;: 1U:O .. .. > ., 211.00 219.00 4 .11S -.-,. -"i4i 1 a_ lliUS' .... 52.18 343.13 ----- 4.27 4.10 I &.OK uf, --...-- $je -2.10S 199

    PAGE 225

    -i f B -o! !l. (') i; raj;; -I ;:: i w .. ei a = 9 -I

    PAGE 226

    GENERAL QUESTIONS l. We re any fare cbanges mad e in fiscal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please p rovide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare .uucture and indicate wbeo the changes wtre implemented. No changes were made. 2. Were there any si8nificant changes in service/service area during fJSeal year 1990 or 1991? None. 3. Have there bee n an y recent changes or significant evenLs that may help explain the performance of the transit system? None 201

    PAGE 227

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECOON 15 DATA 1. In the 1991 Sec:lion 15 report, it was stated that the slight decline in the amount of service supplied (revenue miles declined from 900,310 in 1990 to 898,630 in 1991) resulted from the diseonti nuanee of one route at mid-year (Form 005, page 3 of 7). Why was route mileage 1101 aff
    PAGE 228

    1,000 aoo 600 .000 200 0 ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Figureiii-KI County Pop
    PAGE 229

    . o i ; I i i i i I .o I i i i i i J .......... 1 / i i i I \ 0 N t: t o 0 0 ! I - J;.f r i i '!!. i f f ff 1 .3. 1 \ \

    PAGE 230

    $12.00 $9.00 $6.00 $3.00 so.oo Flgul9 IIIK13 Oper a ting Expense Per Ceplta ,,.. "" '"' ... 1 ,,. '"" 1990 1991 Figure 111-1<16 Maintenance Expense Pr Revenue Mile $1.20 $0.90 .... v $0.60 SG.JO $0.00 tiM s t w ,,., ,,.. "" tM '"' FiSJUre II 19 Rewnue Hour< P e r EmploY" 1: k l i I f f I &ool I I I I I I I 3ool I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I liM t.S '"' "'' ... ''" 1990 '"' ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Efficiency Measuru Flgureiii-K14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Sl.OO .... $2.00 v ./ $1.00 -. -$0.00 19M '"' 19M I fill' 1 9M 19f9 1990 1ttt o 30% 20% 10% "" FareboK R.covery Ratio f11f\l ,,... INS '* t .. J ,,.. 1M9 1990 tJtl Figu re 111-1<20 Passenger Trips Per EmployM 25.000 .,.-,---,,,---.--.,-,---, 20.000 ._j; I 4 I 15.ooo I I I I I I I I 1o,ooo1 l I I I I I I s.oool I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I ,,... '"s '"' '"' ,,.. "" "" Agure 111-1<15 Operadng Ex-Per Revenue Mile S4.00 $1.00 I I II U F $2.00 $ 1.00 so.oo ,... ne "" ,,. ,,.. 1990 '"' Flgu.-.111-1<18 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vohlde 60,000 .,.-,---,-.,.-,--,-.,..., 40.oool I I I I I I I 20,000 I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ,.. ttiS ,,.. 1Jil' -,., ,,. ,,, $0.10 $0.60 so.co $0.20 so.oo Flgu.-. 111-1<21 Average fore kflfN 1 M4 IMS 19M l "l' tM ,_, 1t90 tt91 20S

    PAGE 231

    EC'I'Ii SUMMARY 206 Total capital expense decreased 52 pcrceDI from $390,690 in 1990 to $187,740 in 1991. ECI'S attnoutes the decline to the ending of a five-year bus rehabilitation program in 1990. Operating revenues increased by approximately 13 percent from $714,Z70 in 1990 to $804,890 in 1991. ECI'S cites additional COIIIraol maintenance work on aU county Volunteer F"Jte Department vehicles as the reason for this increase. The number of incideols increased from 13 in 1990 to 17 in 1991, and increase of 31 percen t. According to ECI'S, there is no known reason for this increase.

    PAGE 232

    L. LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYS'IEM PROFILE Omnlzatlonal Strusture Lee County Transit is a division of the Lee County Department of Transportation and Engineering. Goyeml!!!! Body and Comnoslllon LCfS is governed by the Lee County Board of Commissioners, a five-member public policy body responsible for overseeing all of Lee County operations. Servlct Ara LCfS provides public transportation services to Lee County. Modes LCfS operates fvred-route motorbus services and eontractually provides handicapped transportation services. In the future, LCfS e>
    PAGE 233

    208 Pt:RfOAIWICE INDICATORS -... Milot (000) ... :l ; .. ,;( Vft*H HoU,.,(OOO) -.t 'w ''"""" """'" RtwnuoHoutl '{' "' TOiol ()pofotno ....... ... -7 TOiol ()powollng J) TOial--PJO) T .... IGM J ) ... TC>UI TOiol ()powOIMQ --PJOJ TOWEmptoyMt <; ... MIAnttnanot .. v' Ratio t TABLE lO-U Lee CoaalJ Trusll Aalllorily Dlndly-()peralecl Molorks Puf.,....._ ledlealors ... m ;o $1, 7SUIO $1,823 5 $$7021 $$l!S,()O $20.(10 $ 1, 412.31 SSII&OO $3&1.-2 110.00 40.00 -20UO 1N1 293.70 1183.10 451Ul0 $ 1 912.20 $1.730.58 $518.29 $46126 175.30 $1,2118. 45 $372M $354.83 1118 307.!i0 """'""''*' "' ,.,. t r .-12.00 $2,298.90 -. $743.93 $649.03 --$159.71 --, ... 324 52 : $2,NU4 1568.76 $475.85 Mll322 :.; $51 3.05 118. 00 ' .-.uv,;.vt :;_ .>.:;.:: :., __ .....,,....., I Y 58.00 201 ,40 ""_,,. ... 31 .82'J. 218.41 32, 00lt. 255.12 I flO 305.11 1,320.05 1, 188,10 5126 $3, 132 .71 sa.$328 .05 12&1.77 881e.75 $543.$4 01.30 4UO 55.""' 2eii .D1 '"' '"' 344.03 24.02'11 $3,121.011 71.13'K --: ... -.a< 17-3ft -,-..... 'UK 21--

    PAGE 234

    PAFOIIMANCE INDICA TOllS Ccunly Pol> .... tion (000) Puatf'lfiif T!\)1 .::_._ PUMnQ Milos (000) "'""' .. ... ...... ,._ -)'; $"!e., . ... ... .:..-AIYOnutMiloa(OOO) v MM'"'""-'''"'""'*'+''' #'*''f 'r ,, $%> -H ( -._ ':' --;; .,,....,; '' l. ' ;j A - AIYOnutHouro(OOO) : .. Fb.lte $( TOporotino &ponlo 1000) .,...,,._ Totaol Opoldng,&ponlo (00!? oi1GIO S ) Totaol --&ponao (0001 ,.---..... '"' r (000ol11164 S ) .... _..._ Totol Caj>l1ol &po!wo fXlOJ ToiOI Local AMc.. .1)00) ..._....,.___,. __ -()pora1lng -PlOl ,. .... PUMngot Fo PlO) ToWEmpqwa T -:;;:r::." -Moln'*>oneo &nplo-Adtnli1 .. -<.a . 1 ,, .. " ... ''" ' )'tH . :r; .. VtNcJ.t Avalloblelo< Maximum SlrYico . .... ;"-:"(""""' ........ ,,_ vahldn s.Moa .... -.... ' .. SpltOAotio Totaol Ool-PlO) TABlE liiLl l..ft CoaD17 Tnoasll Alborlly hrcbosed Molorbu Pur...,._ illcllcolors ... 1117 ... ,_ m .40 293.70 307 .30 3:14.52 0.00 o.ooY 0 .00 .. o .oo .. ' l't 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 o .oo ..... 0.00 ,_,_,.,_,, >H "' -"' "'' .. 1110 335.11 2211.82. I 83.-38., .:;. "* '!$>-.-,, ..... "'' --... ,... .. -', O.IJO;- .. ... o.oo 0.00 0.00 o .oo 82.85 ... ,. "'o.oor i'"' ....... o .oof; + 0 .00 ... t"' ... : $ 0 .00 ............ """"-. ,. / ,. *" o .oo ' "' .. 10.00 so.oo 10.00 10.00 $ 1 95 .118 / ,.. tq..OO so.oo-.. 10.00 10.00 -$0.00 $0.00 10.00 $0.00 nf so..oo $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 n/J so.oo so.oo $0.00 $0.00 nf so.oo so.oo. $0.00 so..oo J ":n J a:_ so.oo $0.00 $0.00 sooo n f "'io.oo so.oo. $0.00 ,so.oo n/o 0.00 0.00 0 .00 o.oo n/1 Q.oo ,. ,. ... ), o.OO -. o.oo: r .. 0.00 "' . 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 .,. .. ., ." .. -. ":;; ... . .,...,. i "'( .A-" ) .. 0 .00 ;;;: o .oo ; I I I I 'nlo 0.00 o.oo, 0.00 0.00 '.> I ttl 30><.03 .ab: ..._ 0.00 nil.. 0.00 I I .... .o. ., .... .. .. 0.00 I ._ ... ...... :::*0.00 "'':: ..... ,, 0.00 I . -'). n/1 t-f*'"' $0.00 I ._...t'4\ -"" $0.0) nl --..... so.oo I ---... .. $0.01) n/ 10.00 .,. ... so..oo !'I ... '!:! so.oo .,. ,, so.oo n/1 0.00 I ...... ...--...--. I ..... 0.00 I . v ., n/1' 0.00 I -f' ,,,0.00 .. & I I v : 0.00 nl 209

    PAGE 235

    I i ai' If .. oj l'l a!!. = .... ':"' I hi: -er !.g_ P: 5 I

    PAGE 236

    EFfCTIVENESS MEASURES SERV1CE SUPPLY TABLE 111-lA 1M County Transit Authority Directly-Operated Motorbus Elfectlmoss M""'ures 1987 1&ea 1181 1990 1911 2.11

    PAGE 237

    I '1 t&' fi s a= :;..-I &: as-.g_ I a

    PAGE 238

    EfFEC'TlVVIESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY ._., "'t.. 'II' ... -.. V.hk!l Mlltt ,.r . SERVICE OONSUMPTION P:J.no-Ptt ... \! .. > ,.. -.... --....... Tllpt Po<--HOu!_ OOAIJTY OF SERVICE -"' --.,... -AG (R.M.JR.Hj ,. ;,..;o.. J --AG 1>90 o l f1Mt On I'M") .. ""\ .. "',. T Olol Roadcallo '""""'-\"'<;! "- .. ';It ;fRMn .. BtiWOoii li\QicUii!O,(CpO) '" ..... H"-V _. ( _.,. Mlloo -on(000 ) AVNA.N!IAlf'f : ..... Pw fbrte ,...(tO)) .. TABlE 111..6 l.a CoUDty 'l'r11Dslt Authority System Total roctl,......,. Measum 18M 1M7 IHI .... lolL SAl ; <'' "'; 09,. <" . 3.A2 *'-/' 3tii* It"" .H . "' .,.,, ..... ..,. .......... .., ..... 2.54 3.70 3. 48 .. 0.7V OAI 1 .14 1.00 ----... --111.7$ 12.65 1 2.85 1!.91: "' "' .... .,.. --ll':'l 21.18 '-' 15.85 .:.z .. 1 5 .97 ._,il-:'.. .... ""-,. 11.70 7.81J 8.80 9.00 ..,,_ .,,. >'')<"' .. t i ...... 1&.00 "'-f 8.00"' ',1 30 .00 ... .. H.,; 'l' '""- A25. 00 737.00 A18.00 31)1.00 tle.33 ..... ........_ .. '\' -...... "F L :' 't -;_53, &.1' ... 33 .12 I "' 2 00 1 .1& 2 .38 3 .71 -..----1 .94 1.87 2.10 2.39", IHO 1"1 '""' -.... ; ;:ii:m-:1 . 4&! --....... ,..,.., N. 3.113 ; "'1'" -55.0..'n' 1.22 r---.. IUS ---20.80 ''"' . ... .a..381rt .... ..:. "'"' 17. 00 --(" _,,..,.,.. .. > .... .. .......... ...,..,'JII;.A. _,.. .,. &.42 .1m. ">\ '" ,il< :; .. '"" ... .. !'I' H nfa t.-t-.;;. .. > ,. ""'!'" .... ,. _., ...... .,. 1118. 00 -eo. ;;. Wj:-#-< '" .. :ra ,-78. ;. ,.. .... _-..._ .,.. ... ..,..,... -.......... .... +'*. I 7 .97 -.- ., - 2.10 3.8A +' 213

    PAGE 239

    TABLEDI-L7 l.ft C... "r.'ll'raaslt Alltborily Dlroc:d)'Opotald otorilas Elfidell<)' MealDI'H EFFICIENCY MEASURES I 1I 1M7 I 1I 1I 1 ... I 1.1 COST eFFlCIEHCY 'i' #"' -'< -L ... >ffP ()pota1lng &Ponio se.s4 Sa.5 1 $7.41 ""tl,82 W M --............ __ "":;.; .. ,.. "*' ......... ()polldng EloponM ,.., --ldo (OlO) $ 119.51 $ 104 .50 $111.117 $1Q.l-A-. -.... ...... Optroting E>pon Por -.... Hour $41.QO $34.89 $26.20 $38.8 3 ' '!::l v: so.Mr :t ....... ,.._ .. ,,,.,...,...,. """"' t'"'"'''so eel' I' .. ... )tt$0.!'!?: .. :nH .. L ..... .;.. ,_ __ .... y.., _;;;,..,...,. .... -.-... #':ir. "' Mol ........ &p. "" ()pofOIIna &p. 3a.40'1 27.00'1 32.36% OPERATING RATIOS ...,..t;.,., .... ..,., ..... ,..,.. 17:-. r ..... 20.&6'1 18.!14'1 .... ;v' 19.2:n. 17.38'1 I ... : .... ..C. ?rA ,.,.. Local -"" Opordng e.po,. ll3.ee'l 66$'1 62.55'1 58-53.34'1 77. 84'1 ,.,. -,.., .;e.--zt...-. 22,05'1 111.48'1-!''ta.w4 \IEHClE UTIUZAllOH r .... .....,..__,.... .cr.-. ... --,.., ega .ee.n 47.82 .. 4&012 ---,.., --1000) 3.&1 3.&1 4 10 2JIII 3.21 3.82 5.12'1 -Miloo .. :o:-94 t ... 0.04 -. ":-Li"ott-i;;>! .. :rr -454'1 =r-"'-'"' .... -MIIOO Pw Totol-.s (OlO) !7.01 34.31 34.211 34. 14 32.11 37. 18 0.28'1 .. -uo _,.Pot PlOl 1.78 2.19 3 03 2.1 1.82 *"" .... LABOR PROOIJCTMTV """'<"''!>',__ A .. :t '" ;;f;:, .. "' t.St "111' ()4 -nuo Houro ;a, 1 1R # . 1-. ,, ><..:.>IJ:., W9 < -*-> ... .: ... t ,.,._.,.,-" ., N _..,... -"" Houro Por ()por. Elnployoo (000) 1.011 1.41 2.04 1.211 AtYt' .. .......... "' . ,.... >;' ,_",.. '"""'".... . ..... .. '8.(111 0 '41 ,ra : f"" : ...... ... -,.._... '\--' 5,215-' ' '"' ,,.,. "''t ..... >.-t>!HA--Y"-' '-''' + "'" .... *'' .' -nuo Hours Pw Admin fniployM(OOO) 2 1.00 27 40 17 .55 70.1!6 v.hldt """ ,.; (em) "!!i; ....... .; 120.150 ..... 1<10.83' ,.,,_, ... -< ;.. . 105.20 (00.1 4 P-noor Tfl4>< Pot (000) 14.07 t3M 18.51 l 18.81 TOiol Vol>-Pot . a .oo 2.'18 ... .. 2.90 3.00 2.10 14 28'1 ......... --......... ---TOiol-Por-Ernployoo 12.00 12.50 s.ao :noo 8.1 7 4.32 -4 7.37'1 HEAGY UTLIZAllOH --...... --I YtHdt Milt Pw Gllon t 4.7$ I < .s1 I (.86 I 4.71 I I 4.361 J! :! ':-: ... "'"" FN'E. L 10.81 I SO.l51 I so, ... I so. I ... ,,.r : :: S0.4$!"> 214

    PAGE 240

    TABL E 111-U Lee Co11nty Tran.stt Authority l'llrclwed Motorbus l!llklency Moasura EI'FICIENCY MEASURES 11Ml' 1-11190 1111 COST EF1'1CIHCY --..-.. -. --,_ .... Opotatlog Po< Cojlila .,. .... . . IO.S$; ,.. I .,._ . -. + .. O,..allog E.1 ......... .,... __ .. ..... ()ptr&ti"'J ElM Po< Aownu. Hout n f a I n{a I $27 .50 n{a n{a Mil !''"' !!tn/i t nJI : 1 nija :,, l'" v.<-x--,.;,,,_)>_ ,; I, '*' 1'! lll'-*-""" .:... -.--. ... ' o -v >01 ,_:,.:. 'If,..., .. Malnttnance Exp. Por ()ptratlng Exp nfa nfa nja nja nja nfa nja OPERATING RATlOS Fw.bo x nfa n/ ''"vhi a -nJ "I ftt Local Amtnue Pot ()ptrating e-.. I nja nja I I I n/t ,..,.,... ., -+' ;... ..._ ... -.. Po< O,..atlt>Q e-aa I I .. f I I ,,.. I VEHIClE IJT1UZATION .. ..,....,.... --....... tMM I'W -1/ohlclo PlO) nJ - I nfa n/a 21185 ,.;. . ,nJ n f '-- .e .. -.-.. -Houto Po< --PlO) nJ I I U9 ""' Alwnue..._ _,_v.nitit,... n J -n l -nJ n f nja Alvtnu W.. Per Total V.hid" px)) n/1 n / nf n/ a 20 11 n J n f a . ... .... -... .. .,.,.Total VohicHo 10001 I I I nl 1 .111 I I LAilOA PROO\JCTMTY . _.,,. __ .,. _,..... ., ___ rw f$ .. (000) '7. nf._a h>-nja i., r!l :ttl ... Amtnue Hou" Pot ()ptr. EmploY" 10001 I I I n{a nl f I ;: , nt a it) i'-nf .. '*.W.'"'" .. .:f r .. _..._ .l' '--_ . ,>C;.>o->-M..,.., ., .y ... .,.a.......,ji.j.;+"- , 1 Amtn Houts Pot Admin. Ennployoo (0001 I I f I I f I ). .. :-,.,. 'i't.i :;;;; n/1 __ ftja .......... ..(.;, ... ,.... .. .. -ngtr Trips I'll< 1000) I I n{o I I n{a I ;. . ., Total V.hktts n{a "/1 ft/1 n/a ft/ a nt a ...... -'*-><<'<--......... TOial Vohlcltt Po< Admin. n / a n{a n { a n f a I nJ n f ENERGY UTLIZATION .. ::.;.;,__ ........ ...,.,., II- ..... -lliloO PW Oollon n / a ,. n/a I n l a ., rfl a nJ n { a . FN ... -. -.... ._ lwerage '*'flo'"$, n / : n/a " I n / 1 ,... n/a ,; n/ 1 .. n f 215

    PAGE 241

    -I f!i -Bn ol! ;"D -.. !---. I !:S llg' ;:L a.q -i

    PAGE 242

    GENERAL QUESTIONS I Were any fare changes made in fiSUI year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare Slructure as weD as the updated fare Slructure and indicate wbeo the change$ were implemented. There were DO fare change$ in FY 1990. In FY 1991 the Service Demonstration Project on Fort Myers Beaeb was oompleted and the route was incorporated as part of the IA:e County Transit System. During the Service Demonstration period, the fares were $0.50 for full fare$ and $0.25 for baH fare$. When the route was made part of the regular lee Couoty Transit System, the fare$ were adjusted to the level of the system at $0.75 for full fares and $0.25 for baH fares. 2. Were there any signifieaot changes in service/service ar ea during fiSUI year 1990 or 1991? In FY 1990, the Service Demonstration Project on Fort Myers Beach, whieb in prior years had only run during peak season (December April), continued through the offseasoa period at a reduced level. This service was operated during one peak season in FY 1990 as purchased transportation. After evaluation, it was found to be more oost effective to directly operate. There were no significant change$ during FY 1991. 3. Have the re been any recent changes or significant evonts that may help explain th e performance of the tra.G$it S)'litem? Since October 1990, there have been key personnel changes in adminislration )>OOtions a t IA:e County Transit. The$0 key change$ have included: Acting Director October 1990 July 1991; Director, July 1991 November 1992; and Acting Director, December 1992 Current. Although these change$ have not significantly affected the service offered to the public, growth and development of the transit system are restricted without the cootinuity of this position. 217

    PAGE 243

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECI'ION 15 DATA Dlredly.Operatecl Motorbus Questions 1. From 1990 to 1991, the number of passenger trip$ and passenger miles decreased significantly despite increases in the amount of rCYCDue service provided (see table below). Is there an explanatioa for this decline in ridership ? FY litO FY1te1 "a....,. P.-ogor Tripe 1, 828,410 1 ,352,410 -2$.0'11. PNaenger Ml&n 12, 798,840 8,890,390 -30-&" Revenue MiSet 1, 188,160 1 338 440 1 2.8"-Atvenu tbu,. 87, 250 101,360 50.7"-System Response: The erroneous figure of 1,828,410 (for FY 1990) is thought to have been derived from the reported farebox reveave of $639,940 dMded by t he average fare of $0.35. However, the $639,940 amoun t is not a true farebox total. This has revenue received from other local governments used as operating assistance for the provision of additiooal mass transit fixed route service that would not be provided without this assistance. The actual farebox should be $543,942. With the ridership correctly reported at 1,320,055, there is no decline in the rider ship. In fact, this would 6t into the ridership trend existing in the prior years. Passenger miles reflect the same incorrectness and should have been reported at 9,964,573. 2 As indicated in the table above, the number of revenue hours increased at a greater rate from 1990 to 1991 than did the number of rCYCDue m.ile$, resulting in a signifiCant dedine in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour) from 17 67 mph in 1990 to 13.21 mph in 1991. Is there an explanatioa? System Response: The number of revenue hours indicated for FY 1991 is not what the fmal submittal to FTA stated. It was revised to 88,117. (LCTS also provided an updated vehicle hours figure for FY 1991 of 91,771 hours ) 3. Despite increased service, route mileage decreased from 458.0 miles in 1990 to 368.2 miles in 1991. Please explain. System Response: It can only be assumed that prior to 1991,the interpretation of the deflllition of route mileage was incorrect. II appears from calculations that routes traveling over the same roadways were counted twice when, in fact, they should have only been counted oace. For FY 1991, the information was physically tested and recorded. 4. Maintenance expense more than doubled from $328,650 in 1990 to $669,340 in 1991, an increase of 104 percent. Is there an explanation for this significant increase? System Response: In FY 1990, it appears that amounts for service and materials and supplies were reported under 160, General Administration. In FY 1991, these were properly directed to the Vehicle Maintenance category. 218

    PAGE 244

    S. Total local reveaue increased significantly from $1,670,950 in 1990 to $2,428,580 in 1991. Please explain this increase. System Response: Tbe largest increase in local revenue from I'Y 1990 to I'Y 1991 is auributed 10 contributions from local governmeots in the increased amount of $610,087. The remaining increase of $147,543 was from increased sales of fares and auxiliary and oootransportatioo reveaues. 6. Despite the significant decline in ridership, passenger fare revenue ooly decreased slightly from $639,940 in 1990 to $611,590 in 1991. This resulted in an increase in average fare per passenger trip from $0.35 in 1990 to $0.45 in 1991. Was a fare iocrcase instituted during this time, or is there some other explanation? System Response: As oOied in tbe response to question #1, passenger trip and passenger fare reveoue data were corrected for FY 1990. As a result of these changes, LCI'S's ridership and fare revenue treads actually increased between 1990 and 1991. Tbe corrected daia result in a FY 1990 average fare per passenger trip of $0.41, thereby making this measure's trend betweeo 1990 and 1991 more reasooable. 7. Transportation operating employees increased from 41.6 PrEs in 1990 to 55.7 FfEs in 1991, wbile maioteoance employees decreased from 13.7 FfEs in 1990 to 10.5 PrEs in 1991. Please explain why these changes occurred io these particular employmeot categories. System Response: In FY 1990, the purchased transportation accounted for 3 43 employees. lo FY 1991, there was ao purchased transportation. The services were still in place as weD as increases to the existing services. Tbe purchased transportation in FY 1990 was also for service during peak season only. In FY 1991, this service was operated the eotite year. 8. Total gallons consumed increased from 295,910 gallons in 1990 to 334,160 gallons in 1991. Can this increase be aunbuted solely to the iocrease in service provided? Syslem Response: The increased fuel usage ean be auributed to increased service and for directly operating the service that bad been purchased transportation in FY 1990. 9 Tbe number of roadealls decreased signilieantly from 218 in 1990 10 168 in 1991. Is !here an explanation for this decline? System Response: In October 1990, 14 new buses were added lo !he fleet replacing exisling buses !h at were 10 years old and exceeding !heir useful life. Purdlued Motorbus Questions I. It is eYident &om !he 1991 Sectioa IS data that purchased motorbus service bas been discontinued. Please C"JJIain the reasons for Ibis change in service (see also question #2 on !he survey form). Syslem Response: The change in service from purchased transportation resulted from tbe evaluation of the completed project. It was found !bat for cost and accountability reason.s, it was in the best interesl of Lee County Transit lo resume directly operating this service at this time. 219

    PAGE 245

    220 1.500 1,200 too 300 0 LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Figure County PopuAdon (000) -L I I I I I I 1 2001 I I I I I I I 100 I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 1114 11115 -, .. ,.. ,... ,... .... Flg..,.III.U VoNdoMllesond -Miles f!'.: ""'- 14 ,000 $), 000 Sl,OOO SI,OOO $4 Paf..,.._ ladkators Flgu
    PAGE 246

    LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Figure 111-LS Vehicle M iles Per Co pita : : : t t+Jd?tl l 2.o I I I I I I I I 1.o I I I I I I I I o.o I I I I I I I I ,,.. ttiS ,,.. 19t7 ,,.. " 1990 '"' 10.0 8 0 6.0 EITectlv....,ss M .. sures Figure 111-1.1 0 Average Age of R"t (yoa11) .I ..,. 1 \ 1. 5 1.2 0.9 0 6 0.) o.o Figure 111-1.9 Passenger T rips Per Revenue Mile / ....... 1MA INS ltef 1M1 1twt 1990 1991 / ..,. 4.0 2.0 c NOrt .. w. ) 0.0 ,,... s ,,. ,,.,. ,,. '"' .,. "" Flgur o iiH.I1 Revenue Miles Between A
    PAGE 247

    222 $10.00 sa.oo $6.00 $4.00 $2 .00 $0.00 Figure 111-LU Operating Expense Per C.pito / ..,. 1.. ttiS ttli IM7 1"" 1990 l't91 Figure lll-l16 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue MiJe $0.80 $0.60 1/ 1\ !;" SOAO / l\ J v $0.20 ( ltl)ft """""""" ...... .. to.o. """ so.oo ltM Itt$ 1916 _,., 1911 t... 1 990 tttl 1,600 1.200 800 -0 Figure lll-l19 R....,... Hours Per Employee A\ / ( HOlt ltM tMS '* tMJ ,,_ ,,_ 1990 1191 LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Measures Flgurelll-l14 Operating Expense Por Pa ... nger Trip Sl.OO $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 UIM ttl$ ttM tttJ ttM tMt "90 tttt 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% ( 01( Flgu re lll-l17 Ferebox Recovery Ratio ........ NOI\ Wlodft ..,. ) ttM ltfS '"' 1111 ,,.. ,,., tt90 "" Figure lll-l20 P .... nger Trips Par Empioyoo 25,000 ""' / r-... v 20.000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ( ..011 0 19141 IMS 19M ttl'7 1-19ft 1990 lftt Flgurolll-l15 Operating Expense Par R ... nue Mile SI .OO ....... $2.00 ..,. S1.00 so.oo ,.... t.S ,. ,., ,.. ..,. '"' '"' Figure 111-1.18 V-Miles Par Paak Vohld 80,000 60,000 lii+Jit 40,000 20.000 0 ttM IJK ttM ltt1 t IW ttto tttl $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 so.oo <. Figure 111-1.21 A-hre 1()1 1 ) ''" ttiS ,. ,,., -..,. tttO "''

    PAGE 248

    LCTS SUMMARY System Total passenger trips dccli.oed 34 percent !rom 2,055,230 in 1990 to 1,352,410 in 1991. LCfS atui bu tcs the decr ease t o an erroneous 1990 passenger trip figure for t he directly operated motorbus mode; the corrected number was provided (1,320,055). System Total vehicle hours increased 35 percent from 77,730 in 1990 t o 105,010 in 1991, while revenue hours increased 36 percent during this same period (74,380 in 1990; 101,360 in 1991). The increases were due to incorr ect FY 1991 data for these two indicators. LCfS provided revised vehicle hour (91,771) and revenue hour (88,117) data. System Total route mileage de creased 22 percent f rom 471.0 i n 1990 to 368 2 in 1991. LCfS believes that prior to FY 1991, the interpretation of the definition of route mileage was incorrect and some of the route miles were duplicated. Total maintenance expense for the directly-operated molorbus mode increased 104 percent from $328,650 in 1990 to $669,340 in 1991. According to LCTS,this increase occurred because expenditures for service, mater i als, and supplies were reported under an incorrect expense category for FY 1990. In FY 1991, these expenses were reported in their proper category. System Total vehicles available for maximum scrvioc decreased 12 percent from 41 vehicles in 1990 to 36 vehicles in 1991. This decline was a direct result of LCfS's decision to discontinue purchased motorbus services, and resume directly operating the service. Total roadealls (directly-operated motorbus only) decreased 23 percent from 218 in 1990 t o 168 in 1991. LCTS attributes lhis increase in reliability to the replacement of older buses with 14 new vehicles in Octobe r 1990. 223

    PAGE 249

    M. SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Orpnlgtiona! Slll!Ct!!re Sarasola County Area Transit is a department of Sarasota County government. Gcmmfpo 89dr d CQm!!OJ!tloe SCAT is governed by the Sarasola County Board of County Commiss;<>Ders, wiUcb is comprised or live members representillg dislti
    PAGE 250

    i -.. .. i !e :a -..:. .. --b8 "" .. ..:I !-' I e.t I -

    PAGE 251

    I hi .:<-:ti = II I ar -I

    PAGE 252

    I -a a I "' 51 r= ::1 .:. :! -;j t' "' g .. < U-! ... "" se I -e c;! i -

    PAGE 253

    GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made in foseal year 1990 or 1991? U so, please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare Slructure and indicate wbea the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2. Were there my signifJeaDt changes in servioe/serviee area during fiSCal year 1990 or 1991? None. 3. Have there beea my recent changes or &igllifieaat events that may help explain the penormanoe of t he transit system? SCAT cites the purchase of 13 lift-equipped Orioa I buses. 22S

    PAGE 254

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SEC110N 15 DATA 1. From l99Q to 1991, the number of passenger trips and passenger miles increased despite the amount of revenue scrncc prcMdcd remau.ing relatively stable (see table below). Is there an explanation for this increase in ridership? FY1910 fY11t1 SCNftge Putengtf Ttlpt 1.1152,410 1,110,980 13.0ll. Po-rMltoo 4,188,810 4,1'83, 810 13.711 Revtnu Ml)tt 1,024 ,400 1,024,830 0.1'4 69,790 70,300 o.n System Respoooe: Tbe increase in I he molorbus passenger miles is direclly auributable to the 13 percent illcrease in ridership (No explanation wu given to explaill this illcrea.se in ridership .) 2. Maiotellallcc e xpeme increased from $379,610 in 1990 to $433,420 in 1991, an increase of 14 percent. Please explain this in<:reue. System Respnooe: ADDual merit raises increued oalaries and wages by 3 pereeot with an accompanying increase ill FICA and retirement eontribvtioos. Spcci6cally, the FICA cootribulioa in FY 199() w as 7 .S1 percent from October 1, 1989 to De
    PAGE 255

    S. The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from 37 ..,bicles in 1990 to 4<) ..,bjcJes in 1991, an increase of nine vebicles. Since thirteen new ..,bicles were purchased in 1991, please explain any other changes made to the vehicle inventory. System Response: Four buses are awaiting sale. 6. Total consumed increased from 219,680 in 1990 to 258,750 in 1991 despite the amount of service provided remaining stable. Please explain. System Response : The Sldllcraft fleet averaged five miles per The Orion I replacement fleet and Olhcr buses a..:rage 4 miles per 7. The oumber of incideots increased from 21 in 1990 to 28 in 1991. Giv.:n the Wlpredictabilily of these e..:ots, arc ther e any possible rearoos for this increase? System Response: Ally response would be speculative. 8. The number of roadealls decreased sigoifieaolly from 8S8 in 1990 to 613 in 1991. Is tbere an explanation foe Ibis decline? System Response: Twenty lhree ..:bicles in the Oeet were 1982 Skillcraft buses with which we experienced se..:ral mechaoical problems. We purchased thirteen 30-fOOI Orion I buses and placed them in service January 1991. 230

    PAGE 256

    uoo 900 -lOO 0 SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT flgu,. 111-Mt County PoP"'odon (000) lOOL I I I I I 1 1 NOI I I I I I I I 100 I I I I I I I I o 1 I I I I I I I ,,... 11a$ ,... "" ,... '"' 1990 '"' fi!IU 111-MJ Vehicle M iles end Rewnue M iles SJ,OOO /. :-S2,000 ---f'Cq i 1,000 I I ---i O PafonuaD
    PAGE 257

    . o i I I I i j i i i / r--. e> --.o '8 i i i i j i "' I i i i i \. 1\ 1'1.. ff -f. Sl.: r! .. l 0 .o i i i -I i i i i i i -0 0 w 0 t J lf r_ il 1: \

    PAGE 258

    Figure 111-MU Operating Expense Per C. pita s1o.oo I I I I I C: I I ::::t I PI n I I S4.ool I I I I I I I s2.oo I I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I '"' ,,., 1916 19t1 ,,.. ,.., 1990 ,,, Agure III-M16 Maintenance Expense P e r Revenue Mile ::kbJ J E so.2o I I I I I I I I so.1ol I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I 19M INS IJI6 ltl7 ,.. 1-1990 ''" Figure III-M19 Revenue Hours Per Employee 200 !""" :PI I I I I I 9001 I I I I I I I 6ool I I I I I I I 1ool I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I ttM tMS 1M6 I!IU ltN ltt9 1 990 1 991 SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT E IIIcltocy Meas ures Figure iii-M14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $2.50 $2.00 / i""'-o $1.50 $1.00 $0. 5 0 $0.00 19U IMS It" I'M7 19N ltlt 1990 1991 Flgureiii-M 17 Farebox Recovery Ratio I 1 ... 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 19M tMS '"' lft1 19.. '"' tm ttt1 20,000 16.000 12.000 8,000 4 ,000 0 Figu re III-M20 Possenger Trips Per Employee .... / i 1914 ,,.,. 1916 1tl7 ,. ''" 1 190 1991 Figure III M15 Operating Expense Per Revenue MUe $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 ,,... 191.1 '"' ltf1 ,,. 1919 '* ., Figure II I-MII Vohklo Milos Per Peak Vohkl e 60,ooo F 9 1 1 1 I I I ... oool I I I I I I I 2o.oool I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ,.. IMS t IS 1,_, 1990 1911 $ 0.60 $0.40 $0.20 SD.OO Agureiii-M21 Aver-. Fan ./ ..... 111M HIS 1916 IWf "" IM9 t9PO lf'tt 233

    PAGE 259

    SCAT SUMMARY 234 Passenger trip$ increased 13 percent from 1,052,410 in 1990 to 1,189,380 in 1991. SCAT could not identify a reason for this inaease in ridership MainteDaDce expense increased 1 4 pcrcem from $379,610 in 1990 to $433,4W in 1991. ACf thiJteeu new transit buses in PY 1991. Other misocUaocous equipmeot was also purchased during this time Total local revenue increased more than 18 percent from $1,564,660 in 1990 to $1,854,380 in 1991, mostly due to a 12 percent inaease in operating revenue. SCAT aUnbutes inaeasiog revenue to increases in passeoger fare revenues, interes t earned, and local government oootributions. Vehicles available for maximum service inaeased from 37 in 1990 to 46 in 1991, an increase of 24 percent. This increase in fleet size resulted from the purchase of 13 new vehicles in PY 1991. Also, four buses were awaiting sale during this time. Total gallons consumed increased 18 percent from 219,680 gallons io 1990 to 258,750 gallons in 1991. Aoeording to SCAT, fuel COCISumplion increased because the uewer vehicles are less fuel efficient than the vehicles that were replaced. The number c>f iocidents increased 33 percent from 21 incidents in 1990 to 28 incidents in 1991. SCAT could not identify aoy reasons (or this increase. The number of roadcalls declined 28 percent f rom 858 roadcalls in 1990 to 618 roadealls in 1991. SCAT attributes this decrease to the fleet replacement program started in 1991.

    PAGE 260

    N. LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT SYSTEM PROFilE Qmnly!lonal S!rvctare Lalceland Area Mass Transit District is an independent authority (special taxing district)Govemlne J!9dy ond Comoos!Jioa lAMT is governed by a five-member Board of Directors comprised of three City Council members and two County Com_miss.ioners. Seo1tt Am lAMT serves the Lakeland urbanized area. Modq Services provided by lAMT intlude fixed-route mOiorbus semces and demand-response semces. ,_ 235

    PAGE 261

    i 1:' rr .. ![g, I .. I!! -= = .. ';/ i i .. :z-Ct i I

    PAGE 262

    i i -., iS., .:::e .,., i ..... = II) = .:t ;fi =r = I -i :J I -

    PAGE 263

    -I 1:' f -.., ... I .. 4!Si -e ':" I c ii: ai a_ --Si! I

    PAGE 264

    GENERAL QUESI'JONS 1. Were aDy fare cha.o8es made in iiSCII year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as weU as the updated fare structure and indicate when the changes were implemented. No changes were made. 2. Were there any s.ignilicant cha.o8es in service/service area during fiSCII year 1990 or 1991? None 3. Have there been any recent changes or significant evellls that may help explain the performance of the transit system? None. 239

    PAGE 265

    QUES"I;IONS ABOUf 1!191 SECTION 15 DATA 1. From 1990 to 1!191, the number of passenger trips and passenger miles increased at rates greater than the increase in the amount of senice provided (see table below). Is there an explanation for this increase in ridership? Dlroolly-Opor-FYI-FYittl "Chango "-ngtrTrlj>t 703.890 182.<60 11.2lr. P-OfMIIes 3,315.810 3,685.480 11.2lr. Mlftt 842.530 sso.580 4 .511. ' Rewnue Hourt 48.790 51.820 (1.21(, i S)'Siem Response: The increase in the passenger trips and passenger miles is a continuation of a trend t h at has been in evidence 5ince lAMT's bus senice was started. LAMT has practically always enjoyed double-digi t increases in ridership on the system. 2. Maintenance expense increased from $167,25() in 1990 to $220,170 in 1!191, an increase of32 percent Please explain this increase S)'Siem Response: The maintenance expenses incurred during the 1991 fiSCal year were higher due to the fact that the of the buses in lAMT's fleet had already surpassed their projected useful life. LAMT expects this trend of increasing maintenance expenses to be curtailed as the older whicles in the Oeet are replaced. 3. Total operating expeose decreased from $1,404,22(1 in 1 990 to $1,373,570 i n 1!191 despite increases in mainte n ance expense and in the amount of senice provided Please explain. S)'Siem Response: LAMT provided an updated fogure of $1,703,888 for its FY 1991 operating expense tOial; howe.er, it was determined that this oew 6gure contains expenses associated with lAMT's demand-response mode. It is anticipated that this dcaease occurred due to the inclusion of demand response operating expense doUars in the reported FY 1 990 operating expense tOial. 4. Passenge r fare revenue decreased from $310,840 in 1990 to $298, 680 in 1991 despite the 11 pera:nt increase in ridership discussed in questioo #1. This resulted in the avuage fare per passenger trip declining from $0.44 in 1990 to $0.38. Is there an explanation? S)'Siem Response: LAMT provided an updated figure of $356,314 for its FY 1991 fare revenue tOial; howewr, similar to the problem encountered with LAMT's updated operating expense f.gure, this new fogure was found to include fare revenue from lAMT's demand-response mode. It is believed that demand-response fare revenue was included in the reported FY 1990 fare revenue total thereby contributing to this decline between FY 1990 and FY 1991. 5. Operating revenue increased from $620,110 in 1990 to $681,540 in 1991. This increase oaurred despite the decline in passenge r fare r e venue. Please explain this increase in operating revenue. 240

    PAGE 266

    System Response: No explanation could be identified for this increase. 6. The average age of the vehicle fleet declined from 5.40 years in 1.990 to 5.38 years in 1991. Please explaiu this decrease since it does noc appear that any new vehicles were added to the fleet. System Response: The average age of the vehicle fleet for FY 1991 was updated to 5.95 years. The original average age caleulation inadvertently include d LAMT's demandresponse vehicles. 7. The number of incideDis decreased from 29 in 1990 to 15 in 1991. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for this decrease? System Respoose: While lAMT bas acted to increase the general awareness of safety issues, the system cannot document any decrease in the number of incidents due to its efforts. 241

    PAGE 267

    242 1,000 800 600 -lOO 0 LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Ag
    PAGE 268

    LAK ELAND A R EA MASS TRAN S IT DI S TR I C T 15 2.0 1.5 1.0 o.s 0.0 flguro Vehicle M ll01 "-' C.pito I ; ..-1 IM-4 INS IM6 IMJ INI ''" 1990 tttt l.O ... 4. 0 J O EfJectirenes1 Measures figure Awwago Ago of Fleet (yoor>) ,I 'I' Rgur III-N9 ,.._, Tllps ,_,II......,. MY. 1 .0 0 1 u !/" O.A 0.1 0.0 ttM IMS t ,.., ltfJ 1990 ttlt I""" 0 0 ,.. ,,. ,., -... ,,. "" Revenue Mil K Botwoon AA:cldenU/Ind
    PAGE 269

    Ul LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT suo Sl.OO S2.00 SI.OO so.oo Flgureiii-NU o,.,.tlng Per C.pha / ltl4 "" ,. ltQ ,.. ltet ,,., ,,., flgureiii-N16 Melnwno.,.. Pe< R...,..,. Mile S0.40 SO.lO 1\ ./ S0. 20 SO.IO so.oo ".. ''" ,.. ttl) ,,. ,., ,,. "" figure III-N19 R_.ue Hours Per Employee : : : c I H1 t 11 eool I I I I I I cool I I I I I I o I I I I I I I ,.. "') -,., 19ft lf'JO '"' ElllcltKy Malsurcs figure III-N14 o,.,.llng E._ Per Passenger Trip u.oo sz.oo / -....... SI.OO ---L_ so.oo ,,... ttiS '* tMJ ltet 190 ttiO 1tl1 20% 10% 0% flgureiii-N17 FarMto Rec:oefY ltatlo ,. ...... "'----""" ltH ttM tWJ' ttll '"' tMO lttt 25,000 20,000 IS,OOO 10,000 5,000 0 figure III-N20 ,._nger Trips Per EmpiO'fO'I 1/ '"' ,,.$ ,,.. ,., ,,.. 19tt tttO 1991 figure 1111115 Operetlng R-MUe S2.00 suo suo so.eo S0.40 so.oo ... v ,,... t-s -,., '* ltlltt ,,.. "" Figure Vehlde M1141s Per Pellt VohidAt so,ooo 40,000 20,000 0 ,.. "" ,. "" ... ,.. ,.. 1tt1 so. so S0.40 SO.lO SO.lO SO.IO so.oo Figure A-fiN f rrf 11114 tteS ,.. "'"' ,,. '"' tiiiiO ""

    PAGE 270

    LAMT SUMMARY Passenger trips inczea.sed 11 percent from 703,890 in 1990 to 782,460 in 1991. LAMT believes that this inczea.se is a continuation of a trend that bas been in evidence since the system began. II is anticipated that the increase in the amount of service provided by LAMT may have resulted in the ridership gains. Total maintenance expense increased from $167,250 in 1990 to $220,170 in 1991, an inczease of32 percent. According to lAMT,tbis inaease can be anributed to the fact that a majority of the buses in the fleet have eroccded their projected useful life span and, as such, are requiring additional mainteDance. Operating revenue increased 10 percent from $620,110 in 1990 to $681,540 in 1991. No explanation could be identified for this inaease. The number of incidents deaeased 48 percent from 29 incidents in 1990 to 15 incidents in 1991. While LAMT bas acted to inaease the general awareness of safety issues, the system cannot document any decrease in the number of incidents due to its efforts. 245

    PAGE 271

    0. MANATEE COUNlY TRANSIT SYsn:M PROFILE Orgaolza!lonal Slrpcturt Manatee County Transit is a division withiD tbe Department of Public Works of Manatee County. Gmrplnc BodY and Comwl!ton Manatee County Transit is go'll:med by the Board of County Commissioners. Stoke Am The system provides service to the urbanized parts of "'!anatee County. Modes MANC operates fixed-route motorbus services as weU as demand-response transportation services. 246

    PAGE 272

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TABLE 111..()1 Man a tee County Transit Dlrectly..()ptrated Motorbus PerformaDce Indicators 11987 1988 198t 18t0 1981 %Dionge 19841-1991 247

    PAGE 273

    i I il () .. ..,o [;; S,li -i il!!. t I -s

    PAGE 274

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1-TABLE JIJ.()J Manatet County Transit Sytte m Total Pmormance Indicators 1 987 uet 11tt1 249

    PAGE 275

    -Si! i i!. ila:: -[i a::li -! _, t = .. -a: I .. a

    PAGE 276

    EffECTIVENESS MEASURES SERIIICE SUPPLY TABLE 111.05 Manatee Couuty Trauslt Purdlased Motorbus Elfectlveom Meuares 1Ne 1H7 1-liMit 1tt0 1tt1 "" Chong 1 ... 1191 251

    PAGE 277

    I f 13: ;! = ;;;i s; -.. -fl4 = i'!:ll e= a I

    PAGE 278

    I a -" = ., .. I l>., = Cl ::1 "' 0 !::S .. n I --9 :/:> I Q -

    PAGE 279

    I J is: -3 :;! (") "' .. g {;; q:;: I ![i 3:= -a

    PAGE 280

    TABLE 111.()9 Manatee Counl)' Tnoslt s,. .. m Total Etllcloocy lttoaSUIU EFFICIENCY MEASURES 1N8 1987 1818 1989 11190 1091 COST EFflCIEHCY ... ---..,.. --... __ OpO)otioog Eltpon l'o< CoPia 97.811 $6..39 $7 .11 $7.03 ., ql/1 IG.Oa -QporalingElido!JQO ) $ 1 25.73 $105.52 $146.15 $1!5QAg $155.1!15 $169.11 34.5011; .... .... --....... ............. ........ .,.,. ,..,.-... ,$2:;'39''', ... .. ._ .,.._ .,.. """ e:"tM r Yl""''"''V Ptr,P,8 """' 1 -...,.,, 12..-,.,; "-'* -'l'f.J "' ,. '>t* t --8.31 4.>. -. ;;s,.,....... "' "'' l"-., . '' ... ""' .-.-..... ............. ...,. ___ ,._ Operating El5;2.98;( Qporaling Expo-""-Hour $40.32 $33.84 $311.59 $41... $4 1 .76 $44115 ll.l!O% r $0.57 so.7 .... !J.S6 ' .:;. ':;. rtJ . Mole-;;'. ,nfa. .,.k-1-Pl'.. .. Rovonuo Hours l'o< ()pot. fmployoo 1 .11 1 .15 1.33 nfa I 1.08 Mt> .. ,._ . .,._._-x"'-lff ,, ., .-,..,r,..-:uh ;_ ;, . <;. < ., __ .,., . <.'-* .:-r-,-n-"---:;, .. -.. ... _,..r,.,.,_ .. : 'UtHoura Ptf MilnCt EmPlOY'" (000)" "'':.' "',-; t-1- nfa nt :; *'!; n/a. n, .l' '!' "'H/1 .. _,.. ; ___ L>4;.__,_, > ...... ,.,. ... _, ... Hours"" .Admin. (000) 7.acl 14.38 10.46 n/a I 12.n !.87% VOhido l'o< 4000) ,, I PI I' ,.. nl n / a n f a --Trtpo ""Emplo,.. 4000) 11.rs 1 7.lll sg.86 I I 18.22 2.62% . "''t'"' -.. lolalv.lllc:IM Por Mslrrt. ; Einplo)'Oo '< , I I n)o nta : I ; 15.(10 rll ... "ii-4 .. -.' i< T""'l v.lllol" Por .Admin. fmployM 4.(); 8.25 4.04 nla I Ue 38. 36% ENERGY UTILIZATION u 4 .&8 n t a nJa FN'E -. ,.,. ,.. . I t*'"
    PAGE 281

    GENERAL QUESTIONS L Were any fare changes made in fiscal year 1 990 or 1991? U so, please provide the previous fare slructwe as weD as the updated fare slructwe and indica t e when the changes were implemented. No changes we r e made. 2. Were there any siguificant changes in service/service area dwing fiscal year 1990 or 1991? Noae. 3. Have there been any receot changes or sig)>ilicant events that may help explain t b e performance of tbe transit system? A multimedia m arkding program seems to have influenced ridership. 2S6

    PAGE 282

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECTION 15 DATA Dlrevided a corrected fJgUre for FY 1991 passenger miles (2,535,435); however, no uplaoation was prc>vided for the increase in passenger trips other than the possible influence that a multi-media marketing program may have had on ridership. 2. Total operating expense increased from $1,325,020 in 1990 to $1,521,950 in 1991; maintenance expense increased from $288,640 in 1990 to $333,760 in 1991. Are these increases in expense a direct result of the diseoatinuation of purchased service aad the subsequent provision of additional directly -operated servioe to replace it? Please explain. System Response: Operating expenses increased due to the cost associated with refurbishing the four vehicles that were returaed from the ooatractor, Florida Trails, Inc. Add itionally, maintenanoe expenses increased because of the continued aging of the vehicle Oeet, which is aearly seven years old. MANC also prc>vided an updated fJgUTe for FY 1991 maintcaance cxpease of $332,681. 3. Please explain the increase in capital expense from $215,290 in 1990 to $288,690 in 1991. What capital purchases were made in 19917 System Response: The increase in capital expense ean be attributed to an increase in major capital items purchased. Capital purchases included eagines, transmissions. and office expansion. 4. Total employees increased from 24.40 FrEs in 1990 to 34.95 FrEs in 1991, priraarily due to a 54 percent increase in transportation operating employees (23.30 FrEs in 1990; 31.30 FrEs in 1991). Despite the overall increase, 01aintenanoe employees decreased from 1.50 FTEs in 1990 to 1.00 FTE in 1991. Please explain the changes in these employee classificatioas. System Respon!e: The total number of employees increased due to MANC replacing staff to re-institute the in-house operation of contracted buses. (No explanation was prc>vided for tbe slight decrease in maintenance employee FrEs.) 257

    PAGE 283

    S. The number of incidents increased from 8 in 1990 to 12 in 1991. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasoas for this increase? S)'Siem Response: No reasons for this increase could be identified. 6. The number of roadealls decreased from 352 in 1990 to 283 in 1991. To what can this decrease be attn"buted? System Rcspoase: The decrease in roadcaUs can be attributed to reduced tire failure due to better heat dissipatioo with aluminum wheels. Pllrcbased MOIbus Questions 1. It is evideot &om the 1991 Section lS data that purchased motorbus service has been discootinocd. Please explain the reasoas for this change in service (see also questioo #2 oo tbe survey form). System Response: Service was generaUy unsatisfactory, unreliable, aod more cootly. An additiooal post-contract utigation Sdtlement further increased CJ
    PAGE 284

    800 600 600 100 0 MAN A T E E COU NTY T RANSIT Figu.-111.01 County Populollon (000) :: I I I I tl I tool I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o l I I I I I I I ..... fillS ,,. ., ,... "" ' Aguro 111.01 Vohi
    PAGE 285

    _ o I i i i i j -! ,.. B f I t '-' i i I r""'-v v I .... 1'-.. 1 / _o i i i f i i i i i i ,.. j f f I ./ ...... -I i i i i ,. -! if n l g t;: t t i I i i i 0 0 ,.. \ 6 I \ t i [ f ;.a-!1.5 n f il -0 0 : 0 o -"' ... ... I f i i lf i I i i J

    PAGE 286

    $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 Figure 111.013 Expen .. Pff C. pita P1 tsk'l I E1 ltM 191S 19M ,,.., -"" 1990 1991 Flg '\ ) ,.... IMS 1tl6 ttll' ''* 1M U90 19f1 MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT EffitiODcy Measures Figure 111.014 Exp,,,.. Per Pasunger Trip $2.50 $2.00 LHi1 $1.50 $1.00 $0. 50 $0.00 tJN !91'S ,,_ 1911 ttM IM9 1990 lt91 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% ( 014 Figure 111.017 Farcobox Recovery Ratio I>Oif {#'Woo 11.011\owod -I 1M4 tMS 19M tMJ 1Mt 1Mt 1990 1H1 25.000 20.000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Rgurelll-020 Passenge< Trips Per Employee .... '\.. ( h(lft ) I 19&4 tHS tte& 1917 ,,.. tMJ IMO tlltl Flgureiii.015 Expense Per Revenue MUe $).00 $2.00 llfJd IJJ $1.00 $0.00 19M 1915 '"' Ito ,.. Uet 1910 lttt Figura 111.018 Vehfdo MHes P
    PAGE 287

    MANC S UMMARY 262 System TO(al route miles decreased 16 percent from 147.8 miles in 1990 to 123.7 miles in 1991. This decline corresponds to the discontinuation of MANC's purchased motorbus service. MANC's capital expense increased &om $215,290 in 1990 to $288,690 in 1991, an increase of 34 percent. MANC attnllutes tiUs increase to office expansion and the purchase of engines and traosmissions. System Total vehicles available for maximum service decreased 12 percent from 17 in 1990 to 15 in 1991. This decrease was a direct result of the discontinuation of purchased motorbus service. The number of roadcalls (direc t ly-operated motorbus only) declined 20 percent from 352 roadcalls in 1990 to 283 roadcalls in 1991. MANC attn'butes tiUs decrease to reduced tire failure due to the use of aluminum wheels, which provide improved heat dissipation

    PAGE 288

    P. SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM SYSTEM PROFILE Qmnlytlona! StrvCW!! -Smyrna Transit System is operated a.< a department of the City of New Smyrna Beach. Ggyunlna BodY end Comoosl!log -The system direetor, appointed October 1, 1989, also oversees the airport and manages the City Industrial Park. Because Smyrna Transit System is a department of the City, it is governed by the Board of City Commissioners. Sery!se Area -SMTS was created to provide public uansporlation services lo lhe residents and visitors of New Smyrna Beach. MgdgTbe system only provides foxed-roule motorbus services, however, SMTS will alter routes upoo request to provide door-to-door service for elderly and handicapped persoos. Prior ootifieation is required for this service because of the oeccssary route changes. 263

    PAGE 290

    &: i! il ..:.. -::s --.. Ill) c .. ""H i = 0

    PAGE 292

    GENERAL QUESTIONS 1 Were any fare changes made in fiScal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structur e as weD as the updated fare structure and indicate w hen t h e changes we r e implemented. No changes were made 2. Were there any $ignificant changes in service/service area during fiscal year 1990 or 1991? None. 3. Have the r e beeo any recent ch anges or significant events that m a y help explain the performance of the transit syste m ? Performance (or lack of) is mostly attributab l e to an aging fleet, which has beco m e less and Jess reliable ove r r ecent years. This bas, over time, created longer trip times which have also disoouraged ridership. 267

    PAGE 293

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECfiON lS DATA 1 As indicated in tbe !able beWw, reveDue miles deaeased more sigoilicantly than did vehicle miles, which resulted in 111 increase in !he number of deadbead miles. Is there 111 expl anation? Dhctly-Oporotocl fYI-fYIM1 "" CIMingo V.llldo Mi'" 87,750 76,870 ,.., Rewnue._.l" 82,SOO 48,830 -41.11rt V.hide HoUft 4,750 5 020 5.7% Atwnue Houra .soo 3,110 -31.Ql> -age Speed 18.33 mph 18.66 mph I< .Sl> Sy.tem RC$poose: Revenue miles decreased more significantly than vehicle miles as a result of two primary fatlors: decreasing semee demand aJid continued deterioration of the llansit Deet. 2. declinC$ in vebicle miles, revenue miles, and revenue vehicle hours increased aearly 6 peroent bct:weea 1990 and 1991 (see table above) Please explain. Syslem RC$poo.se; Vehicle ho= for lhe reporting years 1 990 and 1991 are estimated based on scheduled trip atlivity as !here currently is no ability to record atlual servioe bows logged. 3 The service supply data in 1be previous table indicate 1hat revenue miles decreased at a greate r rate 1ban reveoue hours. This resulted in a decline in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour) from 18.33 mph in 1990 to 1.5.66 mph in 1991. Please explaia System Respoose: See r esponse to question #1. 4. It is eviden t that the amount of service provided bas declined; however, there have been no changes in either ro u te mileage or the awnbe r of vehicles operated in maximum servioe. Please describe the changes in service !hat have occurred (see also qu .. tioa #2 on the survey form) Syslem Response: Tbe decline in service provided is a result of declining ridership, a situation which has been evident for at least the past three years. This dilemma is also compouaded with decreasio& reliability from lhe vehicles which serve the ridership. S. Despite the decline in service and a decre as e in maintenanoe expeose f r om $35,960 in 1990 lo $34,430 in 1991, total o peralillg expense still increased 11 percent from $172,000 in 1990 to $191.,220 in 1991. Is there an explanation for this increase? Sy.tem Response: No explanation was provided. 268

    PAGE 294

    6. No capital expenses were shown for 1991; capital expenditures in 1990 totaled $84,780. What capital purchases were made in 1990? I s the 19911igure correct? System Response: There were no capital purchases made in FY 1991. 7. The number of total employees decrea.
    PAGE 295

    270 100 80 60 40 20 0 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Flgwelll-1'1 Oty Poj>ulotlon (000) 20 ,---,----,-,..--r---,.-.---, "L I I I I I I 1 n l I I I I I I I e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 19M IMS 1"' IMJ tt 1tn 19110 1991 Figure 111-1'3 Vohkla Miles and Revenue Milas I .... \oell ..... (!)OCt .__M ... tDOQI I ...1 r S200 S160 suo $80 S40 so lodlcalors Figure 111-1'4 Total Operating Expense :-.. .. r .. .. I I 40 30 / 20 10 0 Figure 111-1'2 PMMngar Trips (000) ,.. titS '"" ,.., ,. ,.., ,,.. '"' ..... S2S $20 S15 $10 ss s o Figure 111-1'5 P-anger Fora R-(000) F f Jt; r 11M Itt$ ,,.. tN7 '* ltd lttO tm t l&4 tMS tW tM1 ttll ,.. 1tt0 ttt1 1114 ,,., ,. '"' ,. "" ,,. 1tf1 12 g "" 3 0 Figure 111-1'6 Total Employeft i / ...... """ \ \ ltM IMS '"' 1911 119tt 19110 1991 RguralllVehicles In Maximum SaM
    PAGE 296

    SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM 6 0 4.0 l.O 0 .0 figure 111-PS Vehlde Miles Per C.pito I I 1 I mL J b ,.. t9tS ,. ,,., 1911 "" 19110 ""' 10.0 8.0 6.0 Elfectlveoess Measures Rgurelll.f'10 Average AIJe af Fleet (years) 0.5 0 4 0.1 0.2 0 1 0.0 111-1'9 Passenger Trips Pet' Revenue Mile ) "" ....... L I 19M 19JS .,., IM "" 1990 t911 / "" / """ ./ v 4.0 ./ 2.0 0.0 19M Uti ltM UIJ ttll ltlt ltto 1991 Figure lll.f', Rownue Miles htween Acddents/lncldents Flgu,. 111-1'12 Revonue M U .. .._ Roadcalls 100 ,000 80,000 60, 000 co,ooo 20, 000 \ lr\ \I .... y ( t
    PAGE 297

    :m Flgureiii-I'U Operating xponM Por Copit. '12.00,--,--.--,.--,-..,---,---, n u .ool I I I I I I I u.oo I I I I I I I I so.ool I I I I I I I ttM 1!115 ttM ttll 1... 1tlt IMO lftl Rv-111-1'16 Malnt o nonco xponM Por-Mile SO.to suo SOAO j I ..... "' ..... S0 20 $0. 00 -'"' ,.. tttJ , '"' t1l!tt 2,000 1,600 1.200 800 400 0 Aguro IIH'It R_,... Hours Por Employoo / \ \ .... \ ...,. ,,.. tttS '"' ., ..... ,,.., SMYRNA TRAN SIT SY S TEM Emdctocy Measure s Rgurelll-1'1 4 Oporotlnv Elcponse Por Passenger Trtp '10.00 u.oo suo S2.00 $0 00 --"' ..... -L__ tttt 1tiS ttM ,,., ,,.. "" ,.,. '"' l K U!l 12!1 '" 4" "" Aguro III-PI7 Forobo Recowry Iloilo I ,... ttl& ,_ ,,., tM ,. "" tttl 1 000 5,000 4,000 2 000 0 Rguro 111-PlO P-Trtps Por Employoo / \ / ' I ... .. ,. ,,., ... ., "" "" Rgurelll.f'IS Oporetlng Elcpo-Por R.-.uo Milo 54.00 'l.OO I If Sl.OO $1. 00 $0.00 ,.. 1Mi "" ,.., ,... ,., ,.. ,.., FiguN IIH'1a v-..._,., I'Mit vohldo $0,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 10, 000 0 111M ... -,., -"" "" "'" SO.to $0 50 SOAO $0. 20 $0.00 Flgu
    PAGE 298

    SMTS SUMMARY Vehicle miles dca:eascd 12 percent from 87,750 in 1990 to 76,870 in 1991, wh.ile revenue miles decreased 41 percent from 82,500 in 1990 to 48,630 in 1991. SMTS attributes these declines to decreasing service demand and the continued deterioration of the traosit fleet Revenue hours decreased 31 percent from 4,500 in 1990 to 3,110 in 1991, despite a six percent increase in vehicle hours. No explanation was identified for this change. Total operating expense increased 11 percent from $172,000 i n 1990 to $191,220 in 1991. There was no reason given by SMTS for this increase Total employees decreased 55 percent from 11.0 PTEs in 1990 to 5. 0 FTEs in 1991. According to SMTS, this decline occurred because 6.0 FTEs were misclassifled as transit persoMel in FY 1990, when they were actually City employees of the Municipal Fleet Maintenance Department TOial roadcalls increased 50 percent from 10 roadcaUs in 1990 to 15 roadcaUs in 1991. SMTS cites inCreasing fleet age aod deterioration of lhe Oeet as the causes for this increase. 273

    PAGE 299

    Q. PASCO AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM SYSTEM PROFilE Orpnfydonal Stmtture Pasco Area Transit S)'Siem is a division of Pasco County govornmenl. Goml(lna Body nd Comwl!log -The transit system is governed by !be Pasco County Commission which is comprised of five county commissioners. Sm!ss Arta The Pasco service is provided to tbe West Pasco Urbanized Area. Modes Since June 30, 1990, only demand-response services bave been provided. Prior to !bat time, limited fixed-route motorbus was provided. 274

    PAGE 300

    i i "' ... = !.5 O'C 3: ..

    PAGE 301

    "'l I io .. :ce = Ill'< I 0, .. '"l a; 5

    PAGE 302

    i B &e I q,:; c: =r -! = -{ ,::

    PAGE 303

    GENERAL QUESTIONS Z78 NOTE: No q11e$1iODS e 1990 due lo poor ridc..Wp. This ..Mce bas since been replaced with demllldrespoaae aemce, which begm operaliQg irl 1990. Despi te !his chaoge irl scmce, PCfS wu still irlduded irllhis report so thai its dlrectly-opcraled motO
    PAGE 304

    PASCO AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM Figure 111-QI CQunty PopUlation (000) 300 I I I I I J:OOOOI I 200 I I -1--1--1 I I I 100 I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ,,.,. tteS 19M '911 ttM ,., tM 19tl Figure III-Q3 Vehide Miles and Revenue Miles 120 90 60 -I'XIO) 30 ._ .... 1000) 1--0 ,.. '"s ,.,.. '"' '* ,,., '"" '"' Rgu,.III-QS Passeng&r Fare Revenues (000) S2S ,---,-,---,--,----,--.----, s2o+-l I I s1s I I I I I I I I S1o I I I I I I I I ss-1--1 I I I I I I so I I I I I I I I 19&4 19H "" '"' ,,.. 1919 ,,. ,,., Jndi so ,,... ttl$ '"' 1tt1 ,. ,. tttO ttt1 6 4 2 0 Figure 111-Qt Vellkles In Mulmum Stovl
    PAGE 305

    280 PASCO AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM ... 0.) o.z 0 .1 0.0 Elfectl...,... Measures Flgureiii-Q7 Vehide Miles Per Capito I llllf' ,,.,. t.S "" '"' -"" '"' 1991 0.6 0.4 o.z 0.0 Flgur.lli-QB Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile I I I I I P 1,._. 1111$ 1-It" t ttlt Uto 19ft zo. o 16.0 12.0 8 0 4.0 0.0 Figure lli-Q9 Average Ago of Fleet (years) I I I I I H 1!114 IMS "" l!lt7 I.. I_, 1'990 199 1

    PAGE 306

    PASCO AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM $1.20 $0.90 $0.60 $0.30 $0.00 Figure 111.()10 Operating Expense Per Capita I I I I I N 19&4 tMS tM6 t9l1 ,,.. 19tt 1990 ltt1 Elrociency Mta.Sures Figure 111411 Operating ExpenM Per P-nger Trip $ 1.00 $4.00 $4.00 -$2.00 so.oo 19M IMS 19M 1M1 '* 1919 UOO lt9t Figure 111412 Operating Expen,. Per Revonue Ml,. Figure 111413 Malnt nance Expens. Per R.venu. Mile Flgu,.III.Q14 Forobox Re<
    PAGE 307

    PCTS SUMMARY NOTE: Due to tbe discontinuation of directly-operated motorbus service in June 1990, performaace indicator treads could nol be: analyzed for significant changes from 1990 to 1991. As a result, no summary comments could be: provided. 282

    PAGE 308

    R. KEY WEST TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Organ!tatlonal Sln!dl!rt The Key West Transit Authority is a department of the City of Key West. G
    PAGE 309

    S! I a 1; 1,r s: I =l o-j ... he .. 3:== ->' i o= Iii I

    PAGE 310

    1: i 0 -b.! 51! I -... llol ... : :tc; .. ... t .f I -

    PAGE 311

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS -2B6 TABLE IIIR3 Key Wttt Transit Authoril)' System Total Performuce Iodkators 1117 .... ... litO I ttl

    PAGE 312

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPlY SERVICE CONS\JMPTlON AVAIIABIUTY TABLE IU-R4 Key West Truslt Autbority Dlrtctly-Operattd Molorl>us EITec:tlvecess Measures '* 1911 1988 1188 '"' .&.22 1190 1llt1 %Change 1te7-1llt1 1ir1

    PAGE 313

    EFFEC11VEHSS MEASURES SERIIICE SUPI'I. Y Milot Between Roadeallt AVAII.ABIUTY 288 TABU: IIIRS Key West Tr'IDslt Aulhorll)' Plln:baud MOIO<'bes Elfoctlv..,..s Measures -1N7 -IMI -'"'

    PAGE 314

    i b>"' 1:1! o:;: -s .. i .. ,-
    PAGE 315

    !i! I i : ol .. ::: ;>' ... -I! I & H ::: il I a

    PAGE 316

    e i J ... i -;{&) .. ii!l i--I n .. ... .e I '. ''''{

    PAGE 317

    j m m Q m I: c :D m .. I f a ... I ... s; .. -I a:-a[ I I

    PAGE 318

    GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were ""Y fare changes made in fiscal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as weU as the updated fare structwe 3Dd indieate when the ehaoges were implemented. No ehaoges were made. 2 Were there any significant cb3Dges in service/service area during f
    PAGE 319

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECfiON 15 DATA 1. As ilulicated i4 tbe table below, the owuber of vehicle hours delngo Vthicle Mlln 1T1,800 178 430 0 ,. Aev.enut Mil"' 174,2$) 175,100 o.n Vohldo Hoanced to the transit system from the geoeral fund of the City was sbowo as a transfer into revenue to cover the amount advanced in 1985. It wu 1101 a part of revenue eollected. 5. The nwuber of incidents decreased from S in 1990 to 2 in 1991. Given the unpredictability of these events, arc there any possible reasons for this increase? System RespC>Qse: There was a total of 14 eoDisioos with objects but only 2 resulted in damage in excess of $).000. 294

    PAGE 320

    6. The number of roadcalls increased significantly from 5 in 1990 to 25 in 1991. To wbat can this increase be attributed? System Respoose: There was a signifkant increase in roadcalls due to the age and meebanieal dependability or the buses. We will be receiving six new buses this year and three additional the fltSt part or 1993. 295

    PAGE 321

    296 300 200 100 0 KEY WEST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Figure 111-11 I County Population (000) 301 I I L I I I 1 2ol I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I ,.. i .... '"' ,,.. ,., '* '"' figure 111-RJ Vehlde Miles and R...,enue Mdes saoo "' S600 i"> S400 _ ._""'"'(00)) I- a-....."*'f)Xt S200 HQJt ............ Nl so Perfo"""""" lodlcators figure 111-114 Total Operating Expeme I... r.J;.. H 1-0por ..... .... I I I L_ 300 200 100 0 figure 111-112 Passenger Trips (000) I II Pfl ,,.. ttiS ltM ltiJ '"' "" tHO 1tt1 S160 S12o sao f-sao so flgurelll.f\5 P-nger Fore R-(000) c. N()Jl_ ttM 1tl5 1-1911 ,.. ttet tHO t9tt ltl4 IMS 1tM 1917 19M ''" lfto tttt .... ttiS ,.. "" ,. ,., '"' ,., 15 12 9 6 l 0 ( figure 111-116 Total EmployMS v N;)ll ) 19M INS IMd 1911 1M '"' 1990 tttl Figure 111-117 Vehicles In Maximum SeNko 10 ....... e 6 ... ... 2 0 l l 1984 111ft '* "" - ., 1910 tttt

    PAGE 322

    KEY WEST TRANSIT AUTHORITY 12.0 9.0 6.0 3 0 0 0 Figur e 111-118 Vehicle Mlles P e r C.pilo ........ I"'\ -1M4 t teS t M6 tMJ 19M " tHO 1991 10.0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2.0 0 0 Errecu .. ness Measures Flgurelll.fl10 Average Ag e of FIMI Figure IIIR9 Trips Per Revenue Mile 1 5 1.2 ....... v 0 9 0.6 0 ) 0 0 ( NO It u.-..... ""'""' ..... 00\MJI .. ) 19M ,,.. 1 911 ,. '"" 1990 ,,., c 1'()1\ u.a..;,...,,cA _ ... ) 19&4 ltiS 19M IW7 IM ltet 1190 19ft Figure IIIR11 Figure lll.fi1Z Revenue Miles Between A
    PAGE 323

    298 S30 .00 S20 .00 S10 .00 so.oo Figu re lll.fltl fxpeoue Per CApita I I I F ,.. ltiJ ... '"' ,. ,., fttO Ht'l Figure 111-1116 Mai ntenance fxpen .. Por-Mile SI.SO suo $0.90 S0.60 S0. 30 so.oo ( """ H)yt ,,.. ttes ltM ,,., ,,.. ltlt ,,. "" 1,500 1,200 900 600 lOO 0 F igure 111-1119 Rovenue Houn Per Employee \ ( HOT ) ttM ttiS t116 INl' tMt 1tt9 1990 1991 KEY WEST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Ellki
    PAGE 324

    KWI'A SUMMARY The number of incidents decreased 60 percent from S incidents in 1990 to 2 incidents in 1991. KWT A auributes tbe decline to less severe incident occurrence since only incidents in excess o f $1000 damage are r eported T otal roadealls iocreased 400 percent from 5 roadcalls in 1990 to 25 r oadcaUs in 1991. KWTA cites vehicle fleet age and mechanical dependability of the bllse$ as the primary reasons for the increase. 299

    PAGE 325

    S. SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT (BREVARD COUNTY) SYSTEM PROFILE O:raulatlonal Stl'll
    PAGE 326

    PERFORMANCE INOICATOAS County Population IXlO) TABlE JU.St Space Coost Araa 'l'ralult Oindl ,..Operaled Senlce Puf..,..._ llldlcaton 11Ml' 11Mt 11110 357.00 371.70 387.60 4CXI.50 398.98 5, 10!1.31 1tl1 14 .!ml AovonuoHoora(OOO) ----- ----oii.:; ;tt .,. n/a: $2, 453 .c: .. T Olal Operating Expo ...... ... .... -. ... ...... -anco Employoes 10!,263.24 $489.35 $ 173.70 $911.$2 $373.21 82.20 .. 11.70 4.80 45.00 .... 1-<... .. 38.00 y \' t-$396 20 ... -. ... $SS8.57 $1 670.00 $ 1 $003,M $S76.21 $ 1 ,3$1.46 T.OO 32.00 23.00 113.22 $ 1,807 .73 $t10f;ie; ......._ . . .131o $314.()4 $391.94 $541 1 8 2.031> ,..,., ..... _... -$31 2.94 $312.18 1U11L -$813.41 $817 79 $742.811 321.$1'A $2;318.25.' . :-$2,06888 -""'--" y ... .. $1,-.st $ 1,985.3S $U91.55 35).25!1 S260. 70 51.50 ... 64 .50 0 .00 .......... 301

    PAGE 327

    PfAFOAMAHCE INDICATORS Vehiclet Available for Maximum Stl\lloto ,.,;.. ....... ,. ..... >.rO?"li: -302 TABLE 111-82 s..-Coast Arm Traaslt Purdlaoed DemandRespoase Senlce PerfOI"IIIaD
    PAGE 328

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS '* TABLE 111-53 Space Coast Arta Transit Vaopool Pmonnaoce lodlcoton 1981 1988 I tat 1990 1"1 'JIC'*'
    PAGE 329

    t:t -i I 0 l"' -i] fn ;;! "' -(;; s = -I h -.. -a

    PAGE 330

    .. I --:a J-= i ;;; = @ !j "' .t V.. -!ls I !; a i $ -

    PAGE 331

    . (,1) m 1:: ... '" !< z Ill .. 1: .. Ill S! -f I a: i"' -"'A ;n oo1 -li = I !i -I M ll: e -a

    PAGE 332

    i M 1: .. I! ,. i .. n ... I I "'= ... I = .. l.

    PAGE 333

    "' '" .. "' .. c '" m !: I: i c: .. 1: I ""' ll ,., -.. I" (;i .. all = I itl :. :; ::a =-a I

    PAGE 334

    e :0 I :! ,. d .. -.. !-' I.>,. !;; h .. "'f !l. I -

    PAGE 335

    I f :: B"' >o!'i & g ooj -<"l f;j I C> :-:: e::: .. a l

    PAGE 336

    i -l f M :! ::a ti' i e ' .. c t 5 1:\ i .. "' ;g! .. u u.u ... tc I !.i! "'.!> .. ., .. :!! e !. I ::l J .. :. c lil .. l < "' . :> tti ; :1 1: ,!l t l l l I t. j l j ... ... ... ] a; i! w:$

    PAGE 337

    :!' :! -... I i. L -i:.-g :1 r n :;:! 'S!'"' s; -I a;''" "'" i-" -I 3: ll .. il

    PAGE 338

    EffiCIENCY MEASURES 198e TABLE 111513 Space Coast Area Transit Vanpool Effidmcy Measures 1987 -.... 313

    PAGE 339

    I I l"' d-1 i; r;: "' f'li 3 ... f I l!

    PAGE 340

    i -e .. -u .,. $. ';. i li --v :l ':;;Ill "' !-to .. !.a i -'?'

    PAGE 341

    GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Were any fare changes made iD fiscal year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structwe as wen as the updated fare structure aod indicate when the changes were implemented No changes were made. 2. Were there any slsnificant changes iD service/service area duriog fiSUI year 1990 or 1991? 1n March 1991, S P CI' began a county-wide Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) ProgJam. In August 1991 SPCI' discontiDued its Melbourne Airport shuttle service. 3. Have there been any recent changes or signifieant events that may help explaiD the performance of the transi t system? See response to question #2. 316

    PAGE 342

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1!191 SECTION 15 DATA OlrectlyOperaleurt 74,060 69,220 System Response: No explanation tan be found. 2. Total operatillg expense ineruscd from $2,638,370 in 1990 to $2,789,420 in 1991. Nearly all of this incrc.uc wu due to a 38 perccot incrcue in maintenance expense frOfll $191,940 in 1990 to $541,190 in 1!191. Please explain the increase in ltlainteoance expense a.< weU os the remaining inetease in operating expense. System Response: No explanation tan be found. There was not an increase in other operating expenses. 3. Please explalD llle increase in capitol expense from $677,790 in 1990 to $742,690 in 1991 What capital purcb..,., were made in 1990? In 1991? System Respo.ue: The increuc is due to the first sugc of COI\$Iructioo of SPCT's new Ceatral Traa.sit Facility. 4. Operating revenue decreased IS per
    PAGE 343

    6. The average age of the vehicle fleet decreased from 5.19 years in 1990 to 4.64 years in 1991, a decline of II percent. Please explain the reasoa for !hi$ decline. System Response: Spaee Coast Area Transit is continuing its program of replacing older vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life. 7. Tbe number of incidents increased from 44 in 1990 to 52 in 1991. Given the unpredictability of these events, are there any possible reasons for this increase? System Response: None ean be found. 8. Tbe number of roadcalls decreased from 107 in 1990 to 84 iD 1991. To what can this improvemelll in reliability be atln"buted? System Response: SPCT's vehicle fleet is newer; therefore, they require fewer roadcalls. Purchased De111aad lld()GIIse Queslloes I. From tbe data in the table below, it is evident !bat ridership and the amount of servire provided bas iDaeased significantly between 1990 and 1991. Can these iDcreases be solely attributed to the increase in the number of vehicles operated iD maximum service? PurohaMd O...nd AlponM FV1HO FY1191 "Cbango P._Tripo 134,080 118.0'1<. PUMngtrMilll 1,139,400 1,&48,310 44.7'11. Revenue Milu 632,S20 1,021,340 61.$% Houri 57,500 69,750 21.3% V.hlcltt .. blo 20 30 50.0'1<. Vehldet OptraJed 20 2e 30.0'1<. System Response: In March 1991, SPCr awarded its Medieaid and TD transportation to a single bidder. This bidder bas operated a much more comprehensive service in FY 1991 due to the start-up of TO funding. 2. Revenue miles iDcreased at a greater rate than did revenue hours, resulting iD a significant increase in average speed from 11.0 mph iD 1990 to 14.6 mph iD 1991. Please explain this increase iD speed. System Response: The increase ean be altributed to the new demand-response operator. 318

    PAGE 344

    3. As; indicated in the table above, vebides available for maximum '""ec and vehicles operated in maximum service bavc increased Please explain these increases. System Response: Due to the COIDJIICDCCJIIont of tbe TD Program additional demand response servia: <:d sipificaDtly m resulted in a 59 perCClll increase iD average speed (rCYCCiue miles per revenue hour) from 1.5. 1 mph in 1990 to 25.0 mph in 1991. Please e:q>loil> Lbis iDaease iD s pe ed. System Respoase: See respoase to question #1. 3. Total operatms expense increased from $285,980 in 1990 to $328,070 in 1991. Tbis inere..e may have occurred due to the increase in service suggested by the r evenue mileage data; however, fewer v ehicles were operated in maximum service in 1991 (SS vehicles in 1990; 44 vebicles in 1991). Please explain. System Respo1110: The inaeased expense is due to tbc larger vanpool Oeet. Th e differeocc in vehicles available for maximum Simum setvice. 4. Tbe numbe r ol vebkles available for maximum '""ce iaaeased from SS in 1990 to 68 ia 1991, yet fewer of these vebicles were operaled in maximum service as discussed in question #3. Please explain. System R espoase: See respoase to questioll #3. 319

    PAGE 345

    320 4 ,000 ),000 2 ,000 1 ,000 0 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT 500 ... m 200 100 0 FiguN IIIS 1 County Populotion (000) -ltM "" ,..., ,... ,.. '* '"' Rgu"' IIISl Vehldcp..-/ ..... ....... 800 ""' ... 200 0 Pass a,.... ( 000) I .,.,. 1/ ...,. ... ., , ,.. ,., tttO "" "' ssoo s.;oo $)00 $200 S100 $0 FiguN III.SS __ Fo"' Row,.... (000) 0.,.0.,' d ....... 1 / I r-... ..... v ----------ttM tttS ttM Utl t ltlt 11!10 1Jt1 ,,.. t..S ... .. ,.. ,., ttiO ""' ,.. ttft tw ,., .. ... ,.. ''"' eo 60 40 !-""' lO 0 To!M Employees v i I ... ,,.s ' -.... ,,. '"" Flgu"'III S7 Vehld .. ln Mulmum S..-.ke 150 "'" ,,.._._ .... _......,. / 110 v.: .... I.... /-' _......,""'_ !10 60 )0 ......... 0 ,,.. tteS ,... *1 ,.. ,,., ,,. ""

    PAGE 346

    1 0 0 1.0 o 2.0 o o SPACE COAST AREA TRAN S IT figure IIIS8 Vehlde Mllti Per Capita / / / Etredlveaa MoasurtS _, PIIM-r Trips Per Ke_,... M ile M 1-o. OA r--... 0 2 0 0 I<... t-01t 1'111...,.,._ J I I ttM ,. -,.., ... ,,., ,., "" 118 -,,.,. -tM tttO ,,., 1 0 Flgu,.III S10 Av.nogo Ago of FIMt (years) ,.,. v / ..... u o 2 0 ( IC)ff_ _,. ) O..ood .. IO'IfOIIIvfr o o ,.. ..., ... ,., u. ""' Figure IIIS11 Rownuo Mil" BetwMn A<
    PAGE 347

    322 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 Flgurelll-513 Operating Elcpense Pe< C..pito I ttM t91S ttN ttt1 tMI '"' ,,. t991 Figure Malntenanc Expense Per Rewi'KM Mile $0,60 SOAO I \ '\ I ....... v $0.20 $0.00 ( I()T{ ) ,.. .., ,.. "" ,. ''" ,,., tt91 1,500 1 ,200 900 600 300 0 Rgun 111 1 9 Revenue Houn Per EmployM .I 1\.. lL I" ll.. M:IU ) ,,... '"' '"' ,,.. ''" lttO '"' SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Ellldalcy Measures Figure 111 Ope
    PAGE 348

    SPCT SUMMARY System T otal passeager trips increased 12 percent from in 1990 to 721,250 in 1 991 primarily due to a 56 perceot increase in pweoger lrips for !be purchased demaDd-responsc mod e. SPCT cites !be more comprehensive seMc:c of its new M edicaid aDd TD transpor1alioa prOYider as the reason for the inc:mlse in purchased demandresponse ridenhip. Sy.tem Total vehicle miles increased 18 percent from 3,068,4 1 0 in 1990 to 3,631,400 in 1991, while rcvenll<' miles increased 16 percent (2,904,860 in 1990; 3,378,960 in 1991). These increases are moody due to $ignificaot increases in these indicators for the purchased demandrespoose mode, which also result from SPCT's demand-response prOYider operating more comprehensive &emce. Sy.tcm TOial operating expense increased U percent from $3,558,8'JO in 1990 to $3,986,620 in 1991. The increa&e resulted from a 15 percent increase in vanpool operating costs due to a larger vanpoo l Oeet, and a 37 percent increase in pwc b ased dcmandrespouse operating costs due t o increased semce by the oontract provider. Sy.tem Total vehicles available f o r maximum semce increased 11 perceut from 11 4 v ehicles in 1990 to 134 vehicles in 199 1 The additiooal vehicles result from the increases in vanpool fleet size and pwcbased demand-response fleet w Total roadcalls for the directly-operated demand-response mode declined 22 perceot f r om 107 roadcalls in 1990 to 84 roadcaUs in 1991. SPCT atlributes !be rcductioo in roadealls to the -se of tbe vebicle fleet. Most of the fleet is oewer so the vehicles require fe""" roadealls. 323

    PAGE 349

    T. TAl-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY SYS'IEM PROFILE Omnfyllona! Sln!slun: The TriCounty Commuter Rail Authority is an independent authority established by the Florida Legi.slature for !he purpose of owning, operating. and maintaining a co m muter rail system in the t ri-couoty area of Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties Goytmfox Bodx and Com!IOf!Uoa Tri County Rail is go.emed by a nin e-member board of direaors: four representing Broward County, two reprw:nting Palm Beach County, and th r ee representing Dade County. In addition, there are two ex-officio members, one repre&enting the FDOT District and one representing tbe Higb Speed Rail Transportation Commission. Sen1
    PAGE 350

    PERFORMANCE I NDICATORS County Popu-(000) PaiMftQtt --:* > . ....... -ngo< Mil" (000) ': :" 1': }. ') ... ...... ... . ot-t... ... --... Mllol (000) !'""/_., '+ . ' r ... ;c;; Rovtnuo Hou11 (000) .. '> "> Fi?UM . Total ()pofatlng Exponoo (000) "' ---..,.-........ foal 1884 $ ) ..... -TOIII --Exponso 8100) Total PJI)oltlle41) ---T otal Cop;lol Exponto PJO) TOIII PJOJ ----Opom;ng -... (000) . ....... .... -ng;FIIO -uos T Obi frnl>lo)'Mt Empi"YH ........ +$ . Molntononoo Employ9os .. .. . ... --. . Vth5dta AYal&able for Maximum S.rvlo. 1/llllcloio Sotvlco ""''"- #.o Sp ... RIIIo TC!III TABLE m -n Trl-Couaty COIIIIDUier Rail AullooriiJ' PtrlormOllce ledlaotors .... ... .... "" 0.00 C).OO 0 .00 0 .00 .. oo 'r- o .oo .. < .. ::-... i,., "'* .... ,_ _, . 0-00 Q .OO o.oo 4Q4.80 .,.__, .:-"'"o.:;&r).. '<-W>/IIIIJtW$> ,. ..... IS.Q4 .,.. o.oo; ,J .. -r.. ! ...... . .. 0-00 C).(l() 0 .00 1 2.44 0:00 0.00 . : 0.00 132.110 10.00 10.00 10.00 $ 7 ... 28.15& .. . 10.00 10.00 10,00 $0,215.25 10.00 $0.00 10.00 $448.45 1: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $375.20 -$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IS&IMCIM 10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 103 .45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 103 ..45 $0.00 10.00 10.00 $70.78 0-00 0.00 0.00 15 .00 .-.... O-at ---X j o _oo 1.00 . ... ......... .. 0.00 0.00 o .oo 1.00 "'"'""' 10 .. /:-) >;., t .....,.. ............ 13.op'. "*4>S.j -; ... '* o-;. )<._;,0.00, 0 .00 o.oo 0 .00 23.00 .. ,.., .... +"'--" 0.00 < 0.00 20.00 I I I 15.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 rtf 1-1111 4 ,056 10 4 ,123.12 1,082 : 18 842.0311 .. ... ... "" 32,131.97 !fe7,7211 -Y" .., -:., jcl,208.81l"' It I, 172.62 l,$)3.()e 21)3.7711 ,... ... '" ... ........ P<:-.lf.. '$ .. 204.1Qll ,.;t,y.-It .... f" ...... -. 34.06 38.30 132.8!) : . i $ 12,708.93 $13,030.$3 75Aa -. 1... $ 10.122.77 .; .,, .. $2.252.33 $2.102.70 --------$1,7Mo(l() .-.. _$?f1!4 $2 442-fft $0.00 $0.00 I.Jtt ;oo; "' 1 .00 1.00 0 .00'11 11Ji w .,.,.....,.,. .... .,._ i-""* . : 1110.00'11 < . 23.00 23.00 0 .00'11 .. ('('" 20.00 0,00,. .. if'f<,,._ . 15.00'11 15.00'11 I n/ $ -Jo..t ... ... "1 I NOll!;. Tri.-Raira 1 989 Sediotl u R'port illldi.MSct Ollly m mOntld of ')'otem dltt &intt beJift oe Jan-uary' 1919. Servic:c .. proWckd 1110 (OI.t utiCil luoe 1989, wlltea. RYmUC. bepL N ftAift ODiy one: riiOft1h of rew;MCJ ate indlli6c:d 111 fbi& rtpOit. 32S

    PAGE 351

    &! I II 1 i.f:i i I f t l!l t !!! i f 1 :,1 m l::l 1 m 4-i j l .. : 1: -I < :s 2 :II :l ............. -d 5 -' I .. ................. -! !" -fl! (j :I:I:I:S . li"lr .... i i -

    PAGE 352

    i l> s .., -" i .:. "' -u::;:z -elh B !-' a g i5 i -

    PAGE 353

    GENERAL QUES110NS 1. Were any fare changes made in 1is<:a1 year 1990 or 1991? If so, please provide the previous fare structure as well as the updated fare structure and indieate when the ehanges were implemented. Tri-Rail began serviee in January 1989. A fare was not eharged during the rust six months of operation. Tri-Railthen started eharging $2.00 for a one-way ticket. This fare did not change until July 1992, when the fare increased to $3.00 for a one -way tieket and $5.00 for a daily tieket. 2 Were there any significant changes in serviee/serviee area during fis<:al year 1990 or 1991? At tbe beginning of FY 1990, Tri Rail ran 16 trains per weekday. This increased to 18 trains in January 1990, and increased again in Aprill990 to 20 trains per weekday. As a resul t the amount of service provided by Tri Rail increased significantly between FY 1990 and FY 1991 sinoe 20 trains were operated per weekday for all of the 1991 fis<:al year while this number of trains was operated eaeh weekday for only three months of FY 1990. 3. Have there been any recent changes or signi6eat events that may help explain the performance of the transit system? According to Tri Rail, r idership has increased 20 percent sinoe Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, Tri-Rail maintains an on-time performaDee of89 pereent. 328

    PAGE 354

    QUESTIONS ABOUT 1991 SECTION 15 DATA 1. As indicated in tbe table below, pas.'enger miles increased at a greater rate than did passenger trips from 1990 to 1991. This resulted in a 16 percent increase in a.erage trip length from '19.7 miles in 1990 to 34.5 miles in 1991. Is there an explanation? Commuter Rail FY 1990 FY1ts1 lt.CIIo. PaaMnger Trips 1,082,190 t,870 ,6'10 72.9% PuMng.er Mile.s 32,131,970 64,469,<00 100.6'11. Atv.nue Mitea 1 172. 620 1,ro3.0SO 28 .2% Revenue Hours 34,060 38,300 12.4% System Response: No explanation was identified for the increase in a.erage trip length. 2 The service supply data in the previous table indicate that revenue miles increased at a greater rate than re.eoue hours. This resulted ia an increase in average speed (revenue miles per revenue hour) from 34.43 mph in 1990 to 39.25 mpb in 1991. Please explain this increase in average speed. System Response: No explanation was identified for the inaease in average speed. 3. The data abo.e show that tbe amount of service provided bas grown; however, there have been no changes in either route mileage or the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. Ple ase describe the changes in service that have occurred (see also question #2 on tbe survey form). System Response: Tri-Rail operated 20 trains per weekday throughout the 1991 fiscal year. In FY 1990, this same number of trains was operated each weekday for only three months of the year. Previously, Tri-Rail operated 16 trains each weekday, which later increased to 18ttains per weekday. Service was not increased to 20 ttains per weekday until April 1990. 4. Maintenance expense increased from $2,252,330 in 1990 to $2,702,760 in 1991, an increase of 20 percenL Please explain this increase. System Response: The increase in maintenance expense resulted from Tri -R ail's contract with CSX to maintain the rail corridor. Maintenance expenses also included expenses for non-vehicle maintenance (security and bridge tenders). S. Total operating expense increased only slightly from $12,708,930 in 1990 to $13,030,930 in 1991 despite increases in maintenance expense and in tbe amount of service provided. This increase was below the rate of infiation. Please explain. System Response: Tri-Rail attributes the relati.e stability of operating expense to the increased efficiency of the system. 3'19

    PAGE 355

    6. Pa.sseager fare revenue was sh()WD to be $2,849,120 for 1991. Was any other operating or local revenue received by the system in addition to this revenue? System Respoose: According to Trl-Rail, operating assistance was received from the Aorida Department of Transportatioa HOMMr, the toea! amount of this assistaace was not provided. 7. Total employment increased from 29.50 f1'Es in 1990 to 37.50 f1'Es in 1991 due to a large increase in administrative employee$ (24.50 in 1990; 32.50 in 1991). Please explain the growth in this employee eategory. System Respoose: Due to the increases in Tri-Rail's popularity and ridership between PY 1990 and PY 1991, Tri-Rail increased its marketing/customer service staff, as weD as made plans to increase its f111ance and plaaaiag personnel. 330

    PAGE 356

    1.600 1,200 800 400 0 TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY figure IIIT1 County Population (000) 5.000 ,---,---,-.,.----,--,-.,.---, .oool I I I I 1-I "I 3.ooo I I I I I I I I 2.oool I I I I I I I 1,000 I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I 19$4 I MS 1986 19f1 1-1919 1990 1"1 Figure Ill Tl Vehld4 Mlles and Revenue Miles ,5,000 IIi ,2,000 I S9.000 v-S,,OOO <'1: t:(IO) $3,000 ,.._ ""'"(901ll so Performance Jadlcators figure IIIT Total Ope
    PAGE 357

    332 TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY 0.4 0.) 0 1 0 1 0 0 ElrectlftlleSS MtAsu,... Fig...., lil-TS Vehicle M I ... Per Copita I I / ,.. t.S "" "'' ,. 1190 '"' 1 5 1 1 0.9 0 6 0.) 0 0 Flvure III-T9 ,....._Trips,.., II-MU. v v Ull1 1tM ttiJ 1tll 1,.. lfitQ lftl 3 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 Flgur e iiiT10 ,._Aile of Reel (years) I v -,.. '") 1tt6 ,,., ,,.. ,,.. '* l tt1

    PAGE 358

    TRI-COUNlY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORilY $4.00 u.oo S2.00 $1.0 0 so.oo Figure III-T11 Expense Pe< capita Jl ,,.. 1tiJ '"' '"' ,,.. '"' lttO ,,.,, Figure 111-114 Maintenance Expens Per Revenue M ile $2.00 suo suo J I S0.80 -SOAO so.oo ,,.. '"" -"" ,.. ,,.. 1990 ,,, 1,200 900 600 300 0 Figure 111-117 Revenue Hours Per Employe4 I I I I I l ilt" ,,.. '"' ,., ,,.. "" '"" '"' Efficleoq Measures Figure Ill T12 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $30 00 \ S20.00 S10.00 .... $0.00 ,,.. ,.,.s '"' 19M 19tt lttO 11191 25" -15" 101' 5% "" Figure 111-115 Farebox Rovery Ratio I If 1 / i I 19M IMS 1tl6 11117 1 981 1919 1990 1991 50,000 40,000 30,000 20 ,000 10,000 0 Rgure 111-118 Passenger Trips Per Employee J i -v 1M4 IMS 1-lte'J \911 1989 1990 1991 Figure 111-TU Operating Expen .. Per Rewnuo Mile $16.00 S12.00 \. SI.OO $0.00 so.oo 1* IllS t 11111 1.. 19ft 1 990 19JI Figure 111-116 Vehlde Miles hr Peolc Vehicle 80,000 / J I 60,000 <10,000 10,000 0 ,,.. "" 1tM ttl1 .. ,.. .,. "" Figure 111-119 Average Fa,. suo I I I I I I H suo I I I I I I II I so.aol I I I I 1/1 I so.40I I I I I II I I so.ool I I I I I I I ,,.. lit$ ... ,., -'"' tftO ''" 333

    PAGE 359

    TRIC SUMMARY 334 Passeager trips iDcreased 73 from 1,082,190 iD 1990 to 1,870,670 iD 1991, while passenger miles iDaeased 101 percent (32,131,970 iD 1990; 64,469,460 in 1991). It is expected that the increase iD passeager trips resulted from TriRail operating more weekday trains during FY 1991 than it did for moot of FY 1990. Vehicle miles iDcreased 29 percent from 1,208,890 in 1990 to 1,563,050 in 1991, while revenue miles increased 28 (1,172,620 iD 1990; 1,503,050 in 1991). These increa$0$ may also be altributed to the increased in FY 1991. Total maintenance expense increased 20 from $2,252,330 in 1990 to $2,7fJ1.,7f:JJ in 1991. This increase was primarily due to Tri-Rail'& contract with CSX to maintain the rail corridor. Passenger fare revenues iDereased from $1,634,990 in 1990 to $2,849,120 in 1991, an increase of more than 74 Thia increase has resulted in 69 percent increases in both total local and operaling revenue. oo fare increases have been implemented during the 1991 fiscal year, this increase in fare reveoue may be attributed to the increase in ridership that resulted from TriRail's additional weekday trains. Total employees increased 2:1 from 29.5 fTEs iD 1990 to 37.5 fTEs in 1991, with the entire increase oecurring in the administrative employee classification. The number of administrative employees increased due to TriRail expanding its marketing/customer r.taflto accommodate the syr.tem's additional service and ridership.

    PAGE 360

    VI. SUMMARY In summazy, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of florida transit systems under conlracl with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Depart m ent of Transportation, State of florida. Tbe performance evaluation includes a trend analysis (19841991) and a peer review analysis (1991 data). This document (Part I) is the trend analysis wbile a separate document (Part II) reports the results of the peer review analysis. Tbe !rend analysis reviews the general statewide trend as well as the florida faed-route total system trend from 1984 through 1991. In addition, this report presents the performance trend for each of florida's faed-route transit systems for the same time period. Tbe data is presented in both tabular and graphical formats to enable the reader to more easily evaluate the trends and comparisons Specific comments about the data or modifications that were made to the data are included for each florida transit system, along with summazy comments that identify and explain major changes (a ten percent inaease or dcaease in a performance indicator from 1990 to 1991) in t he performance indicators. Comments and questions about this report can be directed to the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of florida, 60S Suwannee Mail Station 26, Tallabassce, florida, 323990450, Telephone: (904) 488m4. 335

    PAGE 361

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS APPENDIX A LIST OF DEFINITIONS County Powlatlog Used to approximate the suvia: area population for each of the Florida tran.sit systems aad is taken from the Florida Estimates of Population '91, with the exception of Sm)'Tlla Trausit System (SMTS). The population of the city of New Sm)'Tlll Be.ach was used to a pproximate the semcc area population of SMTS. Although the UIUI$it authorities' actual service areas may not correspood exactly with the county boundaries, this mel$ure provides a good approximatioo of overall market siu for comparison of relatl\'C spending and service levels among communities. This is particularly true in Florida where transit systems are, for the most part, county-based. NatlonallnOa!loo Role. Used to deflate tbe operating expense data to eoustantl.984 dollars. lnflatioo-adjusted dollars provide a more accurate representation of spending changes resulting from ageocy decisions by factoriag out the geoeral price inflation. The inflation rate reported is the peroeot"'l" change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (includiag commodities aad semccs) from year to year. Duriag the 1984 to 1991 period, suvia: and labor oosts tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices. Therefore, transit operating expenses, whiclJ are predominantly comprised of service and labor costs, may be expected to bave increased somewhat faster than inflatioo eveo if the amount of semcc provided were oot iocreased. Passenger TrfJ!S Annual number of passenger boardings on the transit vehicles. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a tran.sit oehide. Thus, if a passenger bas to transfer between buses to reach a destination, he/she is counted as makiag two passenger trips. Passmger Mlln Number of annual passenger trips multiplied by the system's average trip length (in miles). This number provides a measure of the total number of passenger miles of transportation service consumed. Ymlclc Miles Total distance tra\'Clcd annually by revenue service vehicles, including both revenue miles and deadhead miles. Rmaue Miles Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number is smaller than vehicle miles because of the exclusion of deadhead miles such as vehicle miles from the garage to the start of service, vehicle miles from the end of service to the garage, driver training. and other miscellaneous miles that are not eon.sidered to be in direct revenue suvia:. Vehicle Hours To tal hours of operation by revenue semcc vehicles iocluding hours consumed in passenger service and deadhead travel. Rnenuc Hours -Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles in adive revenue service. Route Miles Number of directional rou te miles as reported in Section 15 data; defined as the mileage that service operates in each direction over routes traveled by public tnnsportation vehicles in revenue service. Total Oocratlng En!ense Reported total spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, aad operation of service vehicles. 336

    PAGE 362

    Total Qpentlng Emmsn 11984 S l -Total operalillg expenses deflated l o 1984 doUat$ f or pwposcs of dctCilllinin g the real change in speodin g for oper ating expenses. To!al M a llltea a eq; Euea8 -Sum of aU cxpeosu categorizeCI. Melntcgnce Emoloms-AU employees classified as mainlenan oc employees who are dirccJiy or indirectly respoDSJble for veiUcle maintcn&Dce. Admlnb!rai!U E1np!omsAD pel"$0o.ael po6ilions e lassirled as administralivc ia nature T his report includes aU general admi.nistrat ioo employees (markcling, p l anning, aad support) as d assirled by FfA in Form 4()4 Yehi$1U Avolltble for Maximum Scrvi-cmclcs awilable for maximum service divided by vehicles operated ia maximum service. This measure is an iadicatO< of 1hc number of spare vehicl es available for service. A spue ratio of approximately 20 percen t is comidered a p propriate in the industry this varies d epeoding on the size aad age of fleet as well as the co nditiot> of cquipmeot Io!al Gtll01 1 Coesu!Md Total gaUoas consumed by the 'ld>icle fleet. :m

    PAGE 363

    Total KJimH Hqgn oC Pgwor Kilowau houn oC propulsioa power amsumed by a transit system (rapid rail ADd automated guicleway). Aa"" 6ft oC f1nt Traditioually, a standard trwil ClOlch is coasidued to hawe a useful life of 12 )'011$. loagu scnic:c liYes are DOl UD>mmoo. Tbe YChide age aDd the reliabilizy record of the equipmeot, the aumber of miles and hours oa the equipmeal, the sopiUslicatioa aDd featmu (i.e., wheekhoir liftJ, cle<:troaic deslinatioa Ugns, etc.), aad operatina eaviroametll (weather roadway grades, ODd passeaaer abwe) aD affect the mainteaanee 11eet to be reportable, it mUst inro!Ye a transit webic!e or occur on transit property. Total Roodcalh A rewenuc sc:rncc during a gM:a reporting period caused by failure of some mechanical elemeDI or Olher element. EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Ytb!dc Ml!n Ptr Cull!! Total number of annual w:bicle miles divided by tbc sc:Mcc area's population. This eaa be characterized as the 11umber of miles of sc:Mcc provided for each man, woman, 111d ebild in the sc:Mcc area ODd is a measure of the e>1CI>Siweness of sc:Mee provided in the seniee area. Panmm 1)1ps Pu C!IRfta Average number of trwil boardiags per person per year This aumber is larger in areas 'I'll!= public transpot1atioa is emplwized aBd in areas wllete there are more transit depeDCieots, aad is a measure of tbc e>1eot to which the public utilizes transit in a gi>ell serwiee uea. Pausnccr Itt12 Per Bmnue Mile The ra tio of passenger trips to reweoue miles of sc:rwiee; a key indicator of sc:rnee effectiYeBea that is illllueoeed by the kwls of demiJid md the supply of sc:rncc provided Paosoasr Itt12 Ptr !!moue HO!!rThe ratio of paue hours of operation; reports on the effectiveness of the sernee si
    PAGE 364

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES Qperat!na EXI!Oilse Per caQila-Annual operating budget divided by the county/service area population; a measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. Operating Expense Per Peak Vcl!lcle -T otal operating expense per vehicle 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 Expenst Per Passwer ])io Operating expenditures divided by the total annual ridership; a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key indicators of comparative performance of transit properties since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. Qperatlng Expense Per Passmger MileReflection of operating expense divided by the number of passenger miles; takes into account the impact of trip length on performance since some operators provide lengthy trip$ while others provide short trips. Ootrn!lng Expense Per Rttenue Mils -Operating expense divided by the annual revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency with whieb service is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. Operating Per Remt!IC Hour Operating expense divided by revenue hours of operation; a key comparative measure which differs from operating expense per vehicle mile in that the vehicle speed is factored out. This is often important since vehicle speed is strongly influenced by local traffic conditiOll$. Maintenance Expense Per Reyenue Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenue miles. MalnJtnanst Expepse Per Operatlna E!ocnse Calculated by dividing maintenance expeose by operating cxpeose; expressed as a percent of total operating cxpcosc. Farebox Recovery Ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operatiog expenses; an iodicator of the share of revenues provided by the passengers. Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Ratio of total local commitment with respect to total operating expense. 0Dtratlng Revenue Per Operatlng Expense Operating ratio caleulated by dividing operating revenue by total operating expense. Vehle!t Mllet Per Ptak Vehlclt -Vehicle miles divided by th e number of peak vehicles. It is an indicator of bow intensively the equipment is used and is influenced by the bus travel speeds as weD as by the levels of service in the off-peak time periods. A more uniform demand for service over the day would result in a higher number. Vch!de Uoua Per Peak Vebkle -Substitutes vehicle hours for vehicle miles and again reflects how intensively equipment is utilized. 339

    PAGE 365

    Reyenue Mllu Per Vshldf Mile Reflts b ow mucb of the total vehicle o peration is in passenger semce Higher ratios arc favorable, but garage location, training needs. aod other coosiderations may influeace the ratio. Reunue Miles Per Total Vehicles Tot al revenue miles of semcc that arc provided by cacb vehicle available for maximum semce. Bcupue Hours Per Total Yeblcles l a dkates total reveaue bours of semce provided by eacb vebicle available for maximum semcc. Revenue Hours Per EmDiom ReOeers ovoralllabor productivity. Rmnue H011rs Per Opera!lna Emu!om Reflects operating persoanel produ
    PAGE 366

    APPENDIX 8 REVIEW OF DATA SOURCES SOURCES FOR 1984-1987 DATA Nallooal Urban Mass TranSportatloa Statistics 1984-1987 Annual Sectioa 1$ Report$1 D!la Item County/City Population, National Inflation Rate Passenger Trips Passenge r Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Vehicle Hours Revenue Hours Route Miles Total Operating Expense' Total Maintenance Expense' Total Capital Expense' Local Revenue' Operating Revenue' Passenger Fare Revenues' Total Employees Operating Employees Main t enance Employees Admilllstrative Employees Vehicles Available for Maximum Service' Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service' Source Florida Statistical Abstract Table 3.16 Table 3 .16 T able 3.16 T ab l e 3.16 Table 3.16 Table 3.16 Table 3.13 Table 3.07 Table 3.07 Table 3.04 Table 3.01 Table 3.0 1 T able 3.0 1 Table 3.14 Table 3.14 Table 3 14 Table 3.1 4 Table 3 17 (1984), Table 3.16 (1985-1981) Table 3.14 (1984), Table 3.16 (19851981) 341

    PAGE 367

    NOTES: 342 Data Item Total Galloos Co.......,e (denote
    PAGE 368

    SOURCES FOR 19881991 DATA Actual 1988-1991 Section 15 Reports' Pal! Item County/City Population (Florida >yslems), National lnllalioo Rate Pa>seoger Trips Pa>seoger Miles Vehicle Mile> Revenue Miles Vehicle Hours Revenue Hours Route Mile. Total Operating Expense' Total Maintcoaocc Expen>e Total capital Expc=' Local Revenue' Operating Revenue' Passenger Fare Revenues Total Etnployee,;' Operating Employees Maintenance Employees Administrative Employees Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Total Gallons Consumed' Source Florida Estimates of Population '91, Florida Statistical Abslrad Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form 403 Form 006, 310, 312 Form 310, 312 Form 103 Form 201, 202 Form 201, 202 Form 201, 202 Form 404 Form 404 Form 404 Form 404 Form 003 Form 003 Form 402 343

    PAGE 369

    NOTES: 344 Data l!em Kilowatt Hours of Propulsion Power' Average Age of Fleet' Number of Incidents' Number of Roadcalls9 'All statistics are for directly-operated motorbus service unless otherwise noted. Soum Form 402 Form 4(18 Form 405 Form 402 'operating expense excludes all reeonciJing items includ i ng interest expense, leases and ren1als, and depreciatioa. 'This figure is reported as a transit syslem total and therefore may include purchased and/or lransportatioo setviccs. 'Local r e venue includes all revenue except federal and stale revenue. Operating revenue includes lransportation revenues, nonlransportation revenues, and subsidy from other sectors of operations. Revenues are reported as a lransil system total and therefore may include purchased and/or demand responsive uansportation services. However passenger fare revenues for fJXOd-route service can be eiUaCied from lhe data source 'Employees are distributed among lluee categories as identified in Form 404: rows 1 transportation operating employees, rows 4-8 maintenance employees, rows 9-10 adminisua tive employees. FTA assumes that Form 404 DO-MB excludes purchased uansportation services. 'fT A assurnu that energy consumption reported on Form 402 excludes purchased uansportation services. 'The following vehicle types were included in t he calculation of average age of Oeet: motorbus (BA, BB, BC), articulated motorbus (AB), double decked bus (DB), trolley bus (TB), and school bus (SB). Also, age of rail Occt includes two vehicle types: rapid rail (RR) and streetcar (SC). II should be recognized that some of these vehicles may be used in the provision of demand-responsive transportation services as these vehicles cannot be identified on Form 408. 'Includes incidents involving collisions, derailments, personal casualties, and fires. FT A assumes that Form 405 excludes purchased transportation services. 'Includes mechanical failure and other reasons. FTA assumes that Form 402 (roadcalls) excludes purebased uansportation services.


    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 C01-00039
    040
    FHM
    049
    FHmm
    2 110
    University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
    0 245
    1991 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part I: trend analysis, 1984-1991
    260
    Tampa, Fla
    b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
    c 1993 March
    650
    Bus lines--Florida--Management
    Local transit--Florida--Evaluation
    Bus lines--Florida--Evaluation
    1 773
    t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
    4 856
    u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.39