USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1995 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part IV : demand-response peer review analysis, 1995 : final report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1995 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part IV : demand-response peer review analysis, 1995 : final report
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida. Office of Public Transportation Operations
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 )
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 - C01-00047
usfldc handle - c1.47
System ID:
SFS0032170:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

" >. '' ' .. ., ; .... ' . ..... . .f, . .. ;' .. ' '' .. :or, ;. .. ' . . .,

PAGE 2

1995 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART IV Demand-Response Peer Review Analysis, 1995 Prepared for The Office of Public Transportation Operations Department of Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Final Report, June 1997

PAGE 4

1995 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF F LORIDA T RANSI T SYSTEMS PART IV-DEMAND-RESPONSE PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS, 1 995 SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS....... ........... .... .............. ..... . ........... ................. ....... ........ ....... ........ iii LIST OF TABLES.. ........ ... ....... ............................... ... ........................... ............. ........... v LIST OF FIGURES . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. vii FOREWORD (. II. Ill. IV. INTR.ODUCTION ......................................................... .......... ........................ .... A The Purpose of Pe.rfonnance Review .......... ...... ................... ............ ................... .... . . B. The Purpose of Peer Review Analysis ............ ............................................................. C Perfo('Tilance Review Data Base .............. ... . ...... .... ..... ........ . . ......... .......... . ... 3 6 7 7 D ihe R.ole of Privatization . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. 10 Peer Select ion Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I J >99 DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY ........... .................... ........................................ .. Metr
PAGE 5

TABLE OF CON T EN T S SECTION PAGE v VI. iv 1 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lee County Transit Manacee County Area Transic Palm Beach County Transportation Aulhority Lakeland Area Mass Transit Discricc St. Lucie County Council on Aging, I nc. Tallahassee Transit Regional Transil System (Gainesville) Escambia Councy Area Transit SUMMARY ........ .... ............ ...................... . ....... ............ ...... ....................... . .... 61 77 APPENDIX A List of Defin i tio n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 APPENDIX B Review ofDala Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 APPENDIX C Contact Listing for Florida Transit Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 APPENDIX D Conlact Listing for NonFior i da Peer Transic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

PAGE 6

TAB LE LIST O FTAB LES PACE INTRODUCTION 1 Petf o rman ce Revie w I nd icators an d Musures, D i reet l y -Opera t ed Demand-R e sponse Transi t Se rvices . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 2 P erfo rmance Review I ndi c a t ors and M easures Pu rthased Demand Response Transit Serv ices . . . . . . . . . . I 0 > 9 9 D E MAND-RESPONSE VEH ICLE C ATEGORY II I P c rfonnance Indicators ............................ ..................................... .. ............ 14 11 2 Effect i v e ness M easures ....................... . . ..... ..... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17 11 3 Effic iency Me,asur es . . .... ............... ............ .... .................. ..... . ......... .... . . . 2 0 S 0 -99 D EMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE C A TEGORY Ill I Perfom1.ance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 111 2 Effectiveness M e a s ures . .. ..... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 I I 1 3 Efficiency Mt.asures. ........ .... .... .... . ............... . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 20 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY J V 1 Perfonnance I n dicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 IV-2 Effeetio;eness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 IV-3 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S2 1 D E M A ND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGOR Y V 1 V-2 V 3 Perfonnance Ind i cators .... . .............................. ............................................. ...... Effectiven ess M e asures . .... ................. .... ..... ......... ............. ..... .......... ..... . . . . ... Efficiency Measures ... .... ....................................... ......... ............. ... ...... ... .. 62 6 $ 6 8 v

PAGE 7

F IGURE INTRODUCTION 1-1 Performance EvaliWio n Slltules ......... 1-2 1-3 1-4 Florida"s Demand-Response Transil Syslems Factors Affecting Trans i t P erfonnance .. Geographic Area for Selection of Peers >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 11-11 11-12 11-13 11-14 Il-l 5 11-16 11-17 11-18 11-19 11-20 Service Area Population Passenge r Trips Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Total Operaling Expense Passenger Fare Revenue Total Employees ...... . Vehicles Available for Maximum Service ... Vehicles ()petaled in Maximum Service Vehicle Miles Pet Capi la ......... Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile Average Age of Fleet ...... Operating Expense Per Capi1a Ope.ating Expense Per Passengct Trip Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Farebox Reeovery Ratio ..... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle Revenue Hours Per Employee Passenger Trips Per Employee Average Fare ........... .. 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY vi IIII 111-2 111-3 111-4 lll-5 lll-6 m-7 Service Area Population Passenger Trips Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Tolal Operating Expense Passengu Fare Revenue Tota l Employees ...... LIST OF FIGURES ............ .... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . ........ . . . -... . . ..... ........ . . . . . . . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... ..... . ... .. .. . .. . ..................... ... .. .... ...... ............ .... ...... .. ...... ...... ... .. ..... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. PAGE 3 5 6 II 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 39 39 39 39 3 9 40 40

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 5 111 111-17 111-18 lf1 111 ll1 111 111 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service ............. ...... . ........... ........ , ..... ....................... . . Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service . .... ........ .... ........ . .......... , ........................ . .... . Vehicle Miles Per Capit a ...................................... ............... ........ ...... ................... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ............. ............ ............ ...... . .... ........ ..... , ........... Average Age of Fleet .................... ............. .............................. . ............. Revenue Miles Bctv.reen Incidents ............. ........ . ... .. ... ........ ....... .... ........... . ............. Revenue Miles Between Intem.1ptions ............................ ............................. ................. Operating Expense Per Capita .... ................................... . .............. . . . ...... .............. .. Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ....................................................... .................... .. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ......... .... ..................... . ......................... ............... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ...... .......... . . ..... ........... ....... ............ .................. . Farebox Recovery Ratio .................... ...... .... ........ . ............... . .... . ..... .......... , ...... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . ... .................................... ............ ..... . ....... Revenue H .ours Per Employee .. ... .... ....... ... ..... . ........ . ........ , .... , . ......................... Passenger Trips Per Employee ............... ................................................................... .. AverageFare ............ ........... ......... ............. ...... . .............. ... ... . .................. 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY IV I JV-2 IV-3 IV-4 I V 5 IV-6 IV-7 I V-8 IV IVIO IV-II IV-12 IVI3 IV-14 IV IV-16 IV-17 Service Area Population ............ . ......... . . . .... . ......... ................... ... ........ ........... Passenger Trips .. , ....... ................. .... . . ........................... ........... ................. Vehicle . ... ............... ............. ........ ... ......... .. . Revenue Miles ...................... . . ............ ......... . ..................... .... ... ....... : .. ..... Total Opera ting Expeose ........... ....................... ......... ................. . ............... Passenger Fare. Revenue ........................ . ............ . . ....... ............ .... ..... ........... . .... Total Employees ............................................................................. .. ....... ........ Vehicles Available for Maxi.mum Service ...................... ... . . ........................ .... ...... ........ Vehicles Operated in tvtaximum Service ... .... .................... ............. ......... ... .......... ......... . Vehicle Miles Per Capita .......................... ............................................................ .. Passenger Trips Per Revenue h-tile..... . ................. . ..... ............ .... ..... . . . ..... . ........... Average Age of Fleet ......... .................................. ...... .... . ............ . .......... ..... Re\'enue Miles Bet\Yeen lnterruplions ................... . ....... ... .................... ... ....... . .......... ... Operating E xpense Per Capita .................................. ....................... ..................... ..... Operating Expense Per PassMger Trip ........... ................................ ................... . .......... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ............. ............ ..................... ....... . .... , , . .......... Maintenance Expense Per .Revenue Mile .................. ........ ............ ......... , ... ... , . ........... PAGE 40 40 41 41 4 1 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 55 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 vii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE !V-18 !V-19 !V-20 !V-21 !V-22 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . ... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle .. RevenueHoursPerEmployee. ... . . . . . . Passenger Trips Per Employee . Average Fare ......................... ......... ............ ......... . .... ......... . ................... 1-19 DEMAN!).. RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY viii V-1 Service Area Population ... ... ........... ...... ... ..................... ...... ................. .... V-2 Passenger Trips ............... ......................... ............. .......... .. . ............. ..... V-3 Vehicle M iles ... .............. ................... .. ... ........................ . ........... . V-4 Revenue Miles ....... .......... .................. .... ................................................ .... ... V-5 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . V 6 Passenger Fare R evenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... V-7 V-8 V-9 V-10 V -II V-12 V-13 V-14 V-15 V-16 V-17 V-18 V-19 V-20 V-21 V 22 Total Employees .......................... ...... .... . . ...... ..................... .................... Vehicles Availablefor Maximum Service .............................. ..... ..... . ............... . .... Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service ............................................ ............................... Vehicle Miles Per Capita ..................... ....... ............ ................................................ Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ................... ................................................ ... ..... Average Age of Fleet ................................ ..... .................. ....... ... .... ........ ..... Revenu e Miles BetWeen Incidents .. .................... . .......... ............... ....... ............... ... Revenue Miles Bet\Veen Interruptions ........ ................................... ....... .... ........................ Operating Expense Per Capita ............................................... 0 0 0 o 0 0 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .......................... . ......................... ....................... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile .......................................................... ........ Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .......... .................................. ......... ........... ...... ... Farebox Recovery Ratio ............ ............................ ...................... ......... ....... ....... Revenue Hours Per Employ ee .... ............................................................. ................. Passenger Trips Per Employee ................ ... ....... .................. ..... .............. . .... Average Fare ............................... ... .......................................... ..................... PAGE 58 S9 S9 S9 S9 7 1 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 73 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 1S 75 1S

PAGE 10

FOREWORD Under contract with the Public Transit Office of the Florida Department of Transportation, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida s trans i t systems This report is based on data from federally-required National Transit Database (NTD) reports (fonnerly Section 15), which are submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for each fiscal year by systems receiving Section 9 funding. FT A, which has required these data s ince 1979, provides extensive documentation on how the data are to be collected and reported, and r equires auditor certification of the submitted data. Section 15 reports are the best single source of data for reviewing transit system perfonnance because the data are standardized, wtdergo extensive review, and are the result of a substantial data collection and reporting process by the transit systems. Some NTD data are used by FT A and by states and localities for calculating formulae for the allocation of funding to transit systems. As a result, the data are extremely important to transit agencies. This report is one of four documents prepared as part of the performance evaluation project. In addition to this report (Part IV, Demand Response Peer Revi ew Analysis, 1995), three other reports were prepared (Part I Fixed-Route Trend Analysis, 1984-1995; Part II, Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis, 1995; and Part III, Demand-Response Trend Analysis, 1984-1995). This is the eighth statewide transit evaluation conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) and CUTR. CUTR would like to thank FOOT and each of the individua l transit systems for the ir cooperation and assistance io the preparation of the memoranda. Center for Urban Transporlafion Research Uni,er$ity of South Florida Telephone : (813) 974 3120 Project Managers: Joel R. Rey Victoria A Perk Staff Support: David Gillett Lois Dowridge Ste'l--en We$/enz:weig Florida Department ofTransponation Office of Public Transportation Operations Public Transit OffiCe 605 Srrwannee Street, Mail Station 26 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0450 FDOT Proj ect Manager : Ike Ubaka A.lC.P. Telephone: (904) 488-7774

PAGE 11



PAGE 12

1995 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT S Y STEMS PART IV DEMAND-RESPONSE PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS,t99S I I NTRODUCTION Rapid growth in Florida has resulted in increastd attention t o public transit as a potential solution to eve r-increasing transportation problems in dte state. A long with the increased emphasis on public transit comes the necessity to assess the effectiveness and efficiency or transit systems Florida legislation requires the Florida Department of Transportation and Florida's tr ansit systems to deve-lop and report petfonnance measures. Th e relevant Florida statutes are noted in Fi gure l-1. FLORIDA STATUTE 341.041 FLORIDA STATUTE 341.071 FLORIDA STATUTE 341.052 FIGURE I -I . 341.0C1 1e90 SUPPLEMENT TO Fl! (3) "'ev$1op, pu b l ish, and administet" stare measu r es ( eoncemi 09 SY$\&m maMgemeot, perJormance. product Mty. cost d!sll ibl.ltlon, and safety 01 gOOJ&rnmentally owned public 1rans.it systems ... ( 1 ) .. each pu bic transit PfOvider .shaM 6Stablish pub lic transpor1ati on deve l optnent plans con.si.slent with approved k!cal governmen t c:omprehensive piMs. (2) eactl public tfansit f:KOYider she\\ estebl\Sh p r0ducti'vi1y and parfounance meas ures, which must be approved by the department and which must be selected from measures developed purs uant t o s 34 U)41 (3)." (3) 'Each public transit ptovkfer sha ll publish I n the locat newspapar of it s area the produc tMty and perfor manCQ measure3 establis.hed for the year ... {4) "To remal:n eigtble to receive tundi ng . elig lble public transit provk:S&Is must compty Wl1h ... s 34t 07 1 (1) by July 1 1991. and .. s 341.07 1 ( 2) by Ju l y 1. 1992 .. .' 3

PAGE 13

Cons.is
PAGE 14

FIGURE 1 -1 Florida' s R esponse Tran.$it Systtms greater than 99 DR v ehicles 50-99 DR vehicles 20-49 DR vehicles t.nci:WI R.inr 1-19 DR vehicles Boy Bay County COACootd Trantportadon Miami Metro-Oade Transit Agency Brevard Space Coast Afaa Transit Ohloon OkaJoosa County CQOrd. Tran.aponatlon lrowrd Broward Courrty Mass Transit Division Ofttndo Lynx Transit Esc,amb'a hc.embili County Ar .. Transil 'lrn Baec:h Palm S..ch County Tr anspottatlon Agncy Ae,ionaf Syn.m .Pasco Peseo County Puble TrMJpOrtIJM Sarvl u H i iiJbOtOUfh Hill:tbotough Af&a A.egiot\111 Tranait Plnebu Pinellu S4.1nco.st Transit Authority ln
PAGE 15

A. THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW Since performance analysis is only one of many means of evaluating perfonnanee and is limited to those aspects included in the analysis. the reader should exercise considerable eaUiion in interpreting lhe results. It is particularly strong in reviewing cosc effectiveness and efficie .ncy; however, it does not report on the extent to which other objectives of the transit agency are being attained. For example., the performance evaluation will not dilectly measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction widt regard to levels of service, taxpayer and public attitudes toward the agency, employee morale, success in auaining minority hiring or conttacting goals. quality of planning, contributions to economic development. air quality improvements, or other goals that may be imponant to the agency. In addition. several aspects of quality of service art not measured in performance reviews. These include vehi cle cleanliness and comfon, operator courtesy, on-time perfonnance, quality of marketing and passenge. r infonnation and level of satisfaction with hours of operations, frequency of service, and geographic coverage of the service . In addition to understanding the limits of this analysis, the reader should use caution in interpreting the meaning of the various measures. The performance review does not necessarily provide information regarding which aspects of performance are within d>e control ofdte agency and which measures are not. Figure 1 is a schematic of the factors that ultimately affect transit agency performance. Perfonnance reviews are a useful and important tool in monitoring and improving transit system perfonnance. However, it should be recognized that lite results of trend .and peer analyses are only a staning point for fully understand ing the performance of transit systems The issues identified as a result of the analyses provide lite basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced understanding of the "bows" and "whys" of system perfonnance. FIGURE 1-3 Factors Affecting Transit Performance 6

PAGE 16

B. THE PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS A common method of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems is a peer review analysis., which is essentially a comparison of a perfonnance with the perfonnance of similar systems or around the country. While conditions among va r ious properties may vary in some respects, a peer review provides a basis for evaluating relative perfonnance As one of the tools of perfonnance re.view. peer review js very u.seful in that it raises que .stions and identifies areas that may need further review and analysis. However, as mentioned in t he previous section, caution should always be taken when interpreting t he results of such an analysis. S igni ficant differences should be explored to identify the specific operational charact eristics that may explain these d ifferences. The major purpose of a peer review analysis is to provide a general overview of system perfonnance as compared to similar systems throughout the country. An overviev. of comparative performance assists in establishing ini tial hypotheses concerning performance strengths and areas tha t m ay requireadditional attention. The results of a peer therefore, can help lr.lnsit systems better allocate effort and resources. C. PERFORMANCE REVIEW DATA BASE major source -of data for the performance review is National Transit Database -(NTD. fonnerly Section 15) re -ports. To receive federal funds, t ransit propertjes are required to report a variety of data in a standardized fom1at, resultin g in wha t is known as an NTD report. These reports provide standardized measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information bet-.veen properties. Since 1979. when this reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinements i.n data collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and comparability of the data. The d at a are for the fiscal year used by ea ch transit authority For Florida properties, the fiscal year nms from October 1 through September 30. For other properties, the fiScal year may be different For clarification of any discrepancies, it is recommended that the appropriate transit system be contacted to verify data and identify unique characteristics of significance. Data Reliabilih AIJ NTD data submitted t o FTA are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each report is thoroughly examined to identify errors, questions and jnconsistencies FTA identifies problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to these problems before the final re-port is accqned. The qualily of the data published in FTA' s "National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics Section 15 Annual Report" improves each yeas as transit systems become more familiar with collecting and reporting data and as definitions and procedures become more standardized. Despite th e fact that the data are becoming more reliableover time. there still remain problems with the quality of the data for some transit systems. For this study, data were take n from published summary reports ofNTD filings and from individual NTD reports provided by the transit agencies for fiscal year 1995. With the exception of data on the i.nOation rate, all infonnation was provided by the transit systems. CUTR did not collect any original data or conduct any a udits or on-site analyses of the data or data collection procedures. CUTR did, however, rev iew the data in deta i l and corres.pond with the transit systems concerning questions or inconsistencies. Thi s review involved identifying irregularities in trends and numbers that were believed to require additional review and verification, suc.h as reviewing se lected ratios and data trends to identify changes that were atypical, given the overall trends. 7

PAGE 17

Additionally, a completed system data file was provided to each property for review and verification. In many instances. data were changed or signit1cant modifications were made. In several cases, data previously submitted to FTA were changed to reflect new infonnation or refinements in defmitions and data collection. In someinstances. transcription or other errors were discovered in the data. In other instances., erroneous data from previous years which could not be corrected were extrapolated or escimated to provide the most accurate infonnation possible. The level of attention to data review was considerably greater for Florida properties than for peer propenies from outside the state The data used for peer comparison in Pari II of this report consisted of data reported for 1995. Since these data are more recent, they are expected to be of higher quality. The absence oflre
PAGE 18

The substanti a l amount of data available through NTD reporting provides an opportuniry to d e velop a large number of measures Sets of perfonnance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures have been selected tha t are believed to provide a good representation of overall transit system performance. Other measures and categoriza tions may be developed with the same data. Table 1-1 lists the indicators and measures provided in this report for demand-response transit services and also provides sub-categories where appropriate. The extensive list of indicators and measures provides a voluminous amount of data, all of which are required to fully unde,.tand the perf onnanee of a transit system Performance Indicators Service Area Populalion servkle Area SiZe Passer.ger Trips Passer.ger Mi1e:s Vehicle MiSes Revenue Mites Vehicle Hours Revenue Hour s Tota l Operating Expense Tota l Operating Expense (1984 $) Tota l Maintenance Expense Tota l Mai ntena n ce Expense (1984 S) Tota l Local Revenue Operating Revenue Passer.gef Fare Revenue Tota l Emp loy&es Transportation Operating Empk>yees Maintenanoe Employees Admini st rati ve Employees VehiCles Available fot Maximum Service VehJcles Opefated In Maximum Service Spare Rslio Tota l Gallons Consumed TABLE I-I Performance Review Indicators and Measures Dir
PAGE 19

D. THE ROLE OF PRIV ATIZ<"\ TION Privatization is becoming increasingly importan t in the transit industry across the United States aod in Florida In 1984, no Florida transit systems contracted for the provision of fixedroute motori:>us s e rvice However, in four Florida transit systems contracted w ith the private sector to prov i de some flXed-route service. Privatized serv i ce is more common for demand-respo nse service. For those transit systems included in t he dem andresponse reports, in 1995, eig h t systems provided pur c hased de m and-response service five directly operat ed lheir demand-response service, and e i ght provided both purchased and direc. tJy-operated demandrespo nse service. In contrast in 1984, nine f l orida systems provided demand-response service o nly three of which contrac ted for some portion (one system) or all (two syste ms) of this service. The importance of privat iza tion as it rela t es to this r e port concerns dte a vailability of data for these contractual services Many of the measures that can be easily calculated f or serv ices that are directly-operated cannot be calcula ted for purchased motorbus since many performance indica t ors are unavailabl e Table 1 2 indicates generally what pcrfonnan c e indica t ors are available for demand-response, privatized rransit as well as those measures that can be calcu l a ted with these ind i cators. T<"\BL E 1 Performann R eview J ndlea t ors and Measure s P u rchased Deman d R esp o nse TransJt Se.rvic.es Perfonnance Ind i cators Ett.ctlvtness Mtuutes EffiCiency Measures Area Popu lation SHVIee Su!>i>ly Cost Effleln e y Service Area Size Ve h icle Miles Per C-apita Operat ing Expense Per Capi t a Operati n g Expense Per Vehicl e Passenger Trips Service C onsumption Operati n g Expen.se Per Passenger Trip P assenger Miles Passenger Ttil)$ Per C3pi(a Operati n g Expen se PEtr Passe nger M il e Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile Operati n g Expente Per Revenue M ile Vehickl Miles Miles Pauehger Trips P e r Reve n u e Hou r Operating Expenn Per Revenu e Hour Vehi c l e Ho u rs Quality o f Serv ice Opera ting Ratios Revenue Hours AV<>rage SP"d none Total Opera ting E:xpense Avalllbltity V e hlc l o Utilization Totol Operating E>penso (1984 S ) n o n e Vehicle M i les Per Peak VehiCle Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle Vehi c les Availabl e tor Maximum service Revenue Pet Vehi c l e Mile VehiCle$ Operate d i n M ax i m u m Servlc:e Revenu e Mlle& Per Total Vehtcle s Revenue H o u r s Per Total Vehicles Labor Producti v ity none Energy Uti liutio n none Fare none 10

PAGE 20

E. PEER SELECTION PROCESS The methodology for the selection of demand-response peer systems for the -statewide peer review is relatively simple and almost identical to that used for the selection of fixed-route peers. Transit systems operating demand-response service and faJiing into the specified peer groups for the number of vehicles operated in maximum service (I to 19, 20 to 49, SO to 99, and were analyzed based on nine indicators including six operating characteristics (vehicles operated in maximum service, passenger trips, revenuemiles, revenue hours, average and total operating expense) and three exogenous variables (geographic location_ service area population, and service area population density). While the fixed-route peer selection methodology first utilized a geographic location filter during the initiaJ O"aJtSit system identification phase (i.e., only systems that were located within a specified geographic area consisting of 12 states in the southeastern United States, as shown in Figure were considered for possible inclusion in the actual selection process) the demand-response selection process needed to consider the entire United States during its initial system identification phase due to an inadequate number of potential peer systems within the 12 southeastern states. Instead, the additional exogenous factor of''geog.raphic location" was adde
PAGE 21

Three of the measures (service area population density, revenue miles, and average speed} were considered to be of primary importance in the peer selection process. To give weight to systems that we.re-close. to Florida's averages for these three variables, one half-point extra was awarded to peers falling within one or two standard deviations of the Florida systems' means in e-ach of the ve-hicle categories. After lhe total scores were determined, lhe potential peers were ranked in descending order For the 1-to-19 group the top eight scorers were recommended as peers for Florida systems. For the 20-to-49 and SOto-99 groups, the top six scorers were selected as peers. In the greater lhan group, the top five peers were selected. It should be noted that some of the recommended peers elected not to participate in the peer review analysis or were unable co provide their NTD reports in a timely manner. l n these cases, several of the next-highest scoring systems that had been chosen in each category to serve as backup peers were utilized instead. To iiiUSllale the peer selection process, consider lhe example of the City ofEI Paso-Mass Transit Department in Texas. In fiscal yw 1994 (the year on which the selection process was based since this was the most recent year that FTA-validated NTD data were available for all potential peer systems), El Paso operated 52 demand-response vehicles in max.imum service placing it into lhe 50-to-99 peer group. Using service area popolation density as a representative variable, it was dCiennined that El Paso's density of2, t78 persons per square mile was wilhin one standard deviation of the Florida average for this peer group, which was 3,171 persons per square mile. Therefore, El Paso was given one point for this measure. In addition, because density was considered to be one of the three key measures in the peer selection process (along with revenue miles and average speed), El Paso was awarded one-half point extra since its density was within one standard deviation of the Florida average. In total, El Paso scored IO.S points in the analysis, making it the highest scorer in the group. As one of the top six scorers in the 50-to--99 category, El Paso was, then, chosen as a peer for Florida systems operating between 50 and 99 demand-response vehicles in maximum service Comparison of peers utilizing standard deviations is different from the past methodology, which selected systems based on whether they were 10 or IS percent within the Florida averages. It is important to note that the results of this analysjs were not radically diffcrenl than the re. sulls derived from the previous approach. However, lhe use of standard deviations is a widely-employed, statistically valid technique that proved to produce expected, common-sense results. Sections ll, III, IV, and V of this report, which follow, provide detail-ed results of the peer review analysis for each of the four demandresponse vehicle categories. 12

PAGE 22

U >99 DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Metro-Dade Transit Agency Broward County Mass Transit D ivision Hillsborough Area Regional Tran.
PAGE 23

14 TABLE Il-l System T otal Pe r fo rmanttlndieators >99 O.mand-Response V ebide Category PE RFORMANCE INDICATORS M ilwaukee Seattle Total Total Serv ice Area Populat i on (000) 959. 28 1 613 .60 A rea Size (square mil es) 241.50 2.128 00 Passenger Trips (000) 865 .05 619.0S Passenger Mile$ (000) 4,561.25 4 694.69 Veh icle M i les (000) 7 139.53 3 643 .82 Revenue Miles (000) 5 ,4n.87 3 636 .55 Veh icle Hou,. (000) 512 .76 235.93 Revenu& Hour& (000) 466.50 235.40 Route Mile$ nia n/a Total Ot>e\g R"""nue (000) $1 255 .0S nta Passenger Fate Revenue (000) $1 ,255.08 $81.92 Total n/a 9.10 Tranlt)0<1a11on Opera ting Employees n/a 0.00 EmplOyees nia 0.00 Admlnia.ttaliYe Employees nia 9.10 Vehides Available for Maximum Service 411.00 449.00 Vehicl6s Operated i n Maximum SeMoe 242 .00 219.00 S p ate Ratio 69. 83% 1 05 02% Total Galons Consumed ( 000) n/a nto San Antonio E xcl. DRP ln<:l. DRP 1 212.02 1 212 02 1 ,233.00 1,233 .00 784.89 1,109.72 8 643.76 12,857 .45 8,880.84 13,233.13; 7,880 .79 1 0 ,907.56 495.89 679.85 432. 23 583.18 n/a n/a $14, 967 .13 $19,756 .21 $1,820.19 n/a $598 10 n/ a n/a n/a n/a nta $991.16 $ 1 ,17 1 .67 406.30 n/a 339 .80 nlo 33.30 nlo 33.20 nlo 158.00 231 00 141. 00 216.00 10.64% 6.94% 1,649.02 n/a

PAGE 24

TABLE Il-l (ton tlnued) System Total Performance Jndirators >99 Demand-Response Vehicle Category PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Dallas Miami Total Excl. DRP Service Area PopulaOOn (000) 1 831.70 1,800.00 Service Area Size (square miles) 695.30 285.00 Passenger Tri4>s (000) 81\.95 51 .72 Pas.s.enger M i les (000) 1 0,891.70 652. N Vehicle Miles (000 } 11,255.07 1 ,356.29 Revenue Miles (000 ) 9,180.88 1,016.19 Vehicle Hours (000) 6 4 2.49 79.41 Revenue Houl'$ (000) 553 .80 67.57 Route M iles n/a nla Total Operating Expense (000) $17,601.36 $3 197.15 Total Maintenance Expense (000) n/a $343 .03 Total Capital Expense (0 00) $116 .96 nla Total Local Revenue {000) n/a $3,084.71 Operating Revenue {000) n/a $112.44 Fare Revenue (000 } $428.04 $112.44 Total 68.20 76.20 TransoortaiJon Operating EmP'Oyees 68.20 54.30 Maintenance Employees 0.00 0.80 Admlnis.trative Employees 0.00 21.10 Vehicle$ for Maximum Service 233.00 46.00 Vehicles Operated i n M&ximum Service 200.00 36.00 Ratio 1 6 .50% 27.78% Tot.l l Gallons Consumed (000) 805.58 120.54 Broward Incl. ORP Total 1 ,800.00 1,337.00 285.00 410.00 865. 54 842.86 9 205.34 7,199.89 10,088 .29 6,222.42 8,759.68 4,554.87 633. 35 320 .29 567.27 228.69 nla nla! $16, 776.98 $10,222.43 I ni l nla nla nla1 $1 0 ,738.22 nla $6,040.76 nta! $1.668.25 $742.97 n/1 nlal nla n/a n/a n/a n/a nla 248.00 440.00 187.00 163.00 32.62% 169.N% n/a n/a 15

PAGE 25

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Servi ce Area Population (000) Servi ce Area Size (square miles) Passenger Trips (000) Passenger M iles (000) Vehide M i les (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Rovte Mik!s Total Operati n g Expense (000) Total Maintenance Expen se (000) To1al Cap;tal Expen.se (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Operoting Revenue (000) Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees Tran$portstion Operating Maintenance Employees Employees VehkiH Available for Maximum Sefvioe Vehicles Operated i n Maximum Service Spare Rallo Total GallOns Consumed (000) 16 TABLE ll-1 (continued) Sys tem Total Performa n ce Indicators >99 Demand-Rosponse Category Hillsborough Portland Total Excl. DRP Incl. ORP 864.61 988.28 988. 28 1 ,058.00 591 .71 591.71 669.71 10.87 541.18 4,886.13 14.43 4,681.16 6,288.01 26.24 3 ,443.13 5,158.0<1 23 18 2, 951.45 372.26 3 15 241 .03 281.12 3 0 1 2 2 4 .60 nl a nla nla $270.08 $187.00 $11,365 .33 $5.62 nla nla n/a $2,188 .50 nla nla nla nla nla nla $4,646 .89 $ 39.68 nla $1,161 .33 nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla n/a nla nla 362.00 4.00 132 00 142.00 3.00 105. 00 164.93% 33. 33% 25.71% nla nla nla Orlando Peer Group Total ..... 1 ,219.72 1 .314. 02 2,538.00 1,020 06 483.93 745.42 6,110.65 7 120 81 4 ,135.87 7.271.92 3,894.7 4 6,035 .74 367.4t 445.04 297.62 382. 02 nl a n/a $3,671 .88 $11,039 .05 n/ a nla n/ a nla $2,GS6.10 nla $2,058 10 nla $346.86 $765 .98 4.00 112 .76 0.00 92. 46 0.00 6.82 4.00 13.48 120.00 291.78 1 0 0.00 174.89 20.00% 66.83% nlo n/a

PAGE 26

TABLE Il-l System Total Eff ectiv eness Measures >99 Domand-Rsponse Vehklt Category EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Mllwaut
PAGE 27

18 TA B LE 11-l (continu e d) System Tota l Effectiveness Meas u res >99 Dema n d-Response Vehicle Category EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Dalla s Miami Total E x c l. DRP SERVICE SUPPlY Vehicle M iles Per Capit a 6.14 0 .75 SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Capita 0 .44 0.03 Passenger Trips Per Revenu e Mile 0 .09 0 .05 Passenger Trips Per Revenu e Hou r 1 .47 o.n OUAUTY OF SERVICE Average Speed (RM JR.H.) 16 .58 15.04 Average Age of F leet ( i n ye.al'$} 3.17 1.11 Number ollncldents 212 .00 nla Service Interruptions 1,258 .00 n/a Revenue Miles Between Incidents (000 ) 43.31 n/a Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000) 7 31 n/ a AVAi lABIUTY Revenue Miles Per Route Mile ( 000 ) nla n/a Broward I ncl. DRP Total 5 .60 4.85 OA8 0.63 0.10 0.19 1.53 3.68 1 5.44 19.92 1.27 3 .77 nla n/a nla nla nla n/a nla n/a nla nla

PAGE 28

EFFECTIVENESS M E ASURES SER V I C E SUPPLY Veh icle Miles Per SERV I CE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Caplla Passengar Trips P41r Revenu6 M i5e Passengtr T r ips P e r Revenue Hour QUAL ITY O F S ERVICE Average Speed ( R.MJR.H ) Average AI)O of Flee t (in years) Number of IACidents Revenue Servioe l n teiTUptions Revenue Miles Between lncidet'lts (000) Revenue Mile$ Between Interruptions (000 ) AVAILABILITY Revenue Mil es Per Route M ile (000) TABLE 11-2 (con t inued) Sy stem To t a l EffectiveDess M easures >99 Vehicle Category Hillsborough Port l a n d Toto l Excl. DRP Incl. ORP 1 rT 0 0 3 3 .<4$ 0.66 O.Q1 0 .55 0. 11 0 .47 0 1 8 2.03 3 61 2 4 1 18.35 7 .69 13. 1 4 us nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla n la nla nla n la n/a ---------.Orlando Peer Group Total Mean 3.39 5.69 0 .40 0 .60 0 13 0.14 1 8 3 2 .13 12.41 15 .75 2.18 2 .63 nla n/a nla nla nla nta nla nta nla nla 19

PAGE 29

20 TABLE 11-3 Systera T otal Efficiency Mu .. res >99 Dem aodResponse Vehitle Cotqory EFFICIENCY MEASURES -s.-Tolal To
    b $9. 02 $6.&0 r Ope:rttlng E)(J). nio nil OPERATING RATIOS F atebox Recovery 1 4 .51% 0 7 4 % Lotal Revenue Per Oporoting Expense 39 .85% fil l Pet Oporotklg Expense 14.51 % nil VEHICLE UTUZATION v.-Miles Pet Pook Vohldo (000) 29.50 18 .84 Vehicle Per Pear.: Vehic:to (000) 2.12 1 08 Revenue Miles Per Vehldt Mile o.n 1 .00 Revenue Mile$ Per Total Vehicles (000) 13.33 8 .10 R""'nue Holn Per TOCII Vohldel (000) 1.14 0 52 LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per Empk)yee (000) nlo 25.87 Passenger Trips Per Employee (000) fifo 88.03 ENERGY UTIUZATION Vehicle Mila Per GaliOn fila nil FARE Average Fare $1.45 $0. 13 ----Son Antonio Elect. DRP Incl. DRP 512 .35 $16 .30 $106.15 $91.47 $19.07 $17 .80 $1 .73 $1 .54 $1 .95 $1.81 $3<1.63 533 .88 $0. 24 nio 12 16% ni o 6.62% 5.93% nil nlo nla nlo 62.98 61.26 3.52 3 15 0 .86 0.82 49. 11 47.22 2 .77 2.52 1.08 nra: 1.93 nio i 5 .39 nl a $1.26 $1.06 -----

    PAGE 30

    TABLE 11-3 (contin ued ) System Total Efficie-ncy Measures >99 Dtmand-R
    PAGE 31

    EFFICIEN C Y MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating EXpensa Pe< Operatin g Exp. Pe r Pe ak Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Pnsenger M iSe Operatin g Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenu e Hour Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile Mainlenance Expens.e Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RAT10S Farebo)( Recovery Local Revenue Per Ope-rating Revenue Pet Operatin g Expense VEHICLE UTILIZATION Velllele Miles Per Peak Veh icle (000) Veftlcle Hou,. Per Peak Velllele (000) Revenue Ml\es Per Veh)cte MMt Revenue Mile$ Per Total Vehides (000) Revenue Hours Per Total Vehicles (000) lABOR PROOUCT1VITY Revenue Houts Pet Empk)yee (000) Pa&senger Per Elrc>loyee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles Per Gallon FARE Average Face 22 TABLE 11-3 (cont i nued) System Total E fficiency Measures >99 D emand-Respo nse V e hi cle Category Hillsborough Portland Total Excl. DRP Incl. DRP $0.31 $0.1 9 $1 1.50 $1.90 562.33 $108 .24 $0. 4 7 517 .20 $21 .00 $0.06 512 .96 52.43 $0.05 $8.07 U.85 $0.96 $62 .08 $50.60 $0.00 nla nla 2.04% nla nra 14.69% nla 10 .22% n/a nra nla n/a nla 4 2 65% 44.27 8 .75 32.79 2.62 1.05 2.30 0.62 0 .88 0.86 14.26 5 79 22.36 0.76 0 .75 1 .70 n/ a nle n/a nla nle n/a nla nla nla $0.07 nle $2.15 Orlando Peer Group Total Mean $3.01 $8. 17 $36 .72 $62.77 $7.59 $14.21 $0.72 $1.54 $0.99 $1 .93 $ 12.34 $29.92 n/a nla n/a n/a 9 .45% 8 .35% n/a 66 00% n/a 4 1.36 41 58 3.67 2.61 0 .69 0.84 30.79 2 4.57 2.48 1.59 74.41 22.07 1 20.98 40.71 n/a nla $ 0 .72 $0.99

    PAGE 32

    ... >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure 111 Service Area Population COOOJ Pe-rformance ind icators Figure 11-3 Vehicle M iles (000) 0 3 .000 6,000 9 ,000 $11:1 Antonio "''"" Mlwtuk" 8u)wtrd Rgure 11-2 P assenger Trips (000 ) i. 1.200 FigUfe 11-4 Figure 11 Revenue Mile s (000} Total Oper ating Expense (000) Stft A"'Otllo I ..... 810WOid MfwiiUbt "" -H ab(I(OUG'I .J.. $0 $6,000 uo .ooo 115,000 uo.ooo 23

    PAGE 33

    24 >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY s..tl AIIIOIVO Ftgure 11 Passenger Fare Revenue {000) Rgurell-8 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service $n "'"l"""' .J I Performance lndieators fi9ure IJ-7 Total Employees Rgure 11-9 Vehicles Ope-rated in Maximum Service

    PAGE 34

    >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure 11-10 Vehide Miles Pe-r Capita $,0 12. 0 ffe(:tiveness Measures Figure 11-11 Passenger Trips Per R e venu e M i le ... 0.0& 0 .10 o 1$ 0 .20 Figure 11-12 Average Age of Flet (yea rs ) .. ... 3 0 4.0 6.0 2S

    PAGE 35

    26 >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure U-13 Opera1ing Expense Per Capita Figure 1115 Operating Expense Per Revenue Efficiency Measures Figure 11-14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Ttip Sn Anconoo J $en,.,._,,. J Figure 11-16 Farebox Recovery Ratio

    PAGE 36

    -O,..ndo S tenl o ._.,_ ...... ....... M rw. ... ... H l biiOIOUQf\ -fd >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure 11 Vehitle Miles Per Peak Vehicle 0 + 0 zo.ooo 4o ,ooo eo.ooo so .ooo Rgure 11-19 Passenger Trfps Per Employee 80.000 120.000 160,000 Efficiency Measures o ..... s .. n oet .. S'l\ "'""' ........ hlllw"'* Hiii'"I'OUOh SM 0 Figure 11-18 Revenue Hours Per Employee 20.000 40,000 60.000 Figure 11-20 Average Far e 27

    PAGE 38

    Ill. 56-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Pinellas Suncoast Transir Authority Pasco County Public Transportation S
    PAGE 39

    PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS Service Area Population (000} Service Area Size (square miles} Passenger (000) Miles (000) Vehicte Miles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Velticle Hour5 (000) Revenue HoufS (000) Route Miles Total Opersting Expense (000) Total Maintenance Expense (000) Total Capital Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees Tran$pOitation Operating Empklyees Maintenance Empfoyees Administrative Employees Vehicles Available fof Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Spare Ratio Tolal Gallons C<>nsumed (000) 30 TABLE IllI System Total Performance Indicators 50-99 Demand-Response Vebitle Category Rockville Akron Excl. ORP Incl. ORP Excl. DRP 810.00 810.00 516.03 495.00 495.00 419.92 16.82 166 .92 199 .84 112.45 1 ,046. 1 7 845. 31 217.62 977.14 762.52 108.68 868.21 588.76 15.56 84.09 57.38 7.78 76.30 52.20 n/a n/a n/a $1,653.44 $3,393.56 $2,127.07 $129 .58 n/a $373.40 nla n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla $143.67 $218.01 nla 23.30 n/a 38.70 18.50 n/a 34.60 2.40 n/a 3.30 2.40 n/a 0.80 15.00 84.00 55.00 15.00 84.00 34.00 0.00% 0 00% 61.76% 28.37 nla 199.07 Norfolk Incl. ORP Excl. ORP Incl. ORP 516.03 910.00 910.00 419.92 253.00 253.00 401 .30 246.99 270.69 1 .539.30 1,589.43 1,840.27 1,496.49 2,038.27 2,189.10 1,320 .73 1,013.68 1 164.51 108.09 132.82 144.0 1 102.90 68.77 79.96 n/a n/a nla $3,7 92.25 $1 ,998.66 $2,195.39 n/a $347.75 nla n/a nla nla n/a n/a nfa, n/a nla .,.1 n/a $712.07 $746.87 n/a 87.20 n la n/a 77.30 n/a n/a 6.80 n/a n/a 3.10 nla 115.00 66.00 246.00 79.00 46.00 76.00 45. 57% 43.48% 223.68% nla 178 .39 nla

    PAGE 40

    PERFORMANCE INOICATORS Service Area Population (000) Service Area Size (square m i les) Passenger Tripo (000) M ileS (000) Veh ;Cie MllesiOOO) Reve nue Miles (000) Veh icle Hours (000) Hours (000) Route Miles Tota l Operating Expense (000) Tc>lal Maintenance Expense (000) To!a l Capital Expense (00 0 ) Total Local Revenue (000) OperaUng Revenu e (000) Passenger Far e Revenue (000) Empklyees Transportat i on Operat ing Emp l oyees Mai ntena n ce Emp l oyees Admin i $lralive Employees Veh icles Ava il abkt for Max i m u m Serv i ce Vehicles Operated in Max im um Servic.e Spare Rati o TotJI G&ll ons Cons u med (000) TABLE fll1 (continued) System T otal Per forma nce Indicators S0-99 Demand-Respone Vehicle Category Pi no lias Pasco ExcJ. ORP lnel DRP Exd.DRP 792 31 792 31 305.58 142.69 142.69 745 .00 37.63 169.77 131.44 255.49 1 461.77 969.61 334.08 1,265 .80 658.58 300. 54 1,185 .55 518. 32 40.45 150.18 37.11 3U1 140.93 30. 27 nla nla nla $1,830 .10 $3,232.99 $1,350.86 $400 .42 nla $17U5 nla nla $13. 50 nla nla $502.57 n/a nla $37.49 $170.08 $378.82 $35.26 33.50 nla 33.60 23.00 nla 33.60 SAO nta 0 .00 4.10 nla 0 .00 32.00 107.00 38.00 15.00 73.00 24.00 113.33% 46. 58 % 58.33% 53.92 nla 71 .92 Brevard Incl. DRP Excl DRP lnel DRP 305.58 437.74 437.74 745.00 427.00 427.00 149.50 222.04 339.38 1 184.95 2,374 .82 4 2 2 9 .55 870.10 869.67 2,160 .49 696.77 770 .87 1,773.45 47.07 59.41 132.25 39.27 52.71 113.87 nlo nlo nlo $1, 529.31 $2,417.90 $4,669 .33 n/a $441 .20 nla nla $3<9 .00 nla nla $2,244 .57 nla nla $1,267.82 n/a $44.75 $59 .10 $2,250 .38 "'' 47.80 n/a nla 43.00 nta "" 0.00 nta n/a 4.80 nta 88.00 44.00 78 .00 69.00 27.00 59.00 24.64% 62.96% 28. 81% "'' 218 .60 n/a 31

    PAGE 41

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SoMc:
    PAGE 42

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERV I CE SUPPLY Vehicl e Miles Per Capit a SERVICE CONSUMPTIO N P a sse nger Trips Per Capita Trip$ Per Reve n ue Mile Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hou r QUALITY O F S ERVICE Aver"9e Speed (R.M.IR.H ) Average Age o f Fleet (i n years) Numbe r ot Incidents Revenue Servi ce Interruptions Revenue Miles 8etween l ncidenls (000 ) Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Per Route Mile {000) TABLE 111-2 System Total Effective n ess Measures 56-99 Demand-Response Veh icle Category Rockville Akron Excl D R P lnct. ORP ElCel. DRP 0.27 1 .21 1 .48 0.02 0.21 0 .39 0 15 0.19 0 .34 2 16 2 .19 3.83 13.97 11.38 1 1.24 4.07 n la 2 73 6 00 nla 0 .00 nla nla 351 .00 18.11 nla nla nla nla 1 67 nla nra nla Norfolk Incl. ORP Excl. DRP Incl. DRP 2 .90 2 .24 2 .4 1 0.78 0 .27 o .3o I 0.30 0.24 0 .2 3 3.90 3 .59 3.39 12.84 14,74 14.56 4.67 3.83 nla nlo 2 6 .00 nla nla 3 11.00 n la n lo 38.99 nla nla 3 .2 8 nla nla nla nla 33

    PAGE 43

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehlcl'e MileS Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Capita Pa-ssen ger Trips Per Revenue M i le Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour QUAliTY OF SERVICE Averoge Speed (R.M.IR.H.) Age of Fleet (in years) Number of Incidents Revenue Service Interruptions Revenue Miles Between Incidents (000) Revenue Miles Between Interruptions (000) AVAILABILilY Revenue M iles Pe.-Route Mile (000) 34 TABLE 111-l (continued) System Total Effectiveness Measures Demand Response Vehicle Careeory Pinelt.aa Pasco E>cJ.DRP Incl. ORP E>el. DRP 0 .42 1 .60 2 .16 0.05 0.2t 0..3 0.13 0.14 0.25 1.03 t.20 4.34 8 .21 8.41 17.12 4. 08 4.18 4 82 0 .00 n/a 7.00 34.00 n/a 86.00 n/a nla 74.05 8 .84 n/a 7.85 n/a n/a nla Brevard Incl. DRP E>cl DRP Incl. ORP 2.85 1.99 4 .94 0.49 0.51 0.78 0.21 0 .28 0.19 3.81 4.21 2.98 17.74 14.52 15.57 nla 5 23 4.98 n/a 19.00 n/a n/a 67. 00 n/a nla 4 0. 57 n/a n/a 11.51 nla n/a nla nla

    PAGE 44

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES S ERVICE SUPPLY Vehicl e Miles P et Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passen ge r Trips Per Capita Passenger T,.,s Pe r Reve n u e M ile Passenger Trips P er Revenue Hou r QUAUTY OF SERVICE Aver age Speed (R.M.IR H.) Average Age of Flee t ( i n yeatS) Numbef of Inciden ts Revenu e SeMc::e lntetruptk>ns Revenu e Miles Between I ncidents (000) Revenue M iles Between I nterruptions (000) AVAilABILITY Revenue Per Route Mile (000) Springfield TABLE 111-2 (tonlinued) System Total Effectiveness Measures 50-99 DemandResponse Vehicl e C a tegory El Paso Indian R i v e r Total E x el. DRP Exc l DRP Inc-l. D R P 2.64 2 .99 3 44 2.68 n/a 0 .53 0 .35 0 .46 0.36 0.9 1 0 2 1 0 1 4 0.15 0 .15 n/a 2 .78 2 .33 2 .69 2 .62 n/a 13.14 16.85 17.5 5 17 .21 nla 5.<19 1.92 nla 2 17 6 .12 n/a 20 00 nla 1 00 2.00 nla 275 00 nla 18.00 30.00 nla 68.33 nla 245. 51 n/a nla 4.97 n/a 13.64 nla nla n la n/a nla nla Tucson Pee r Group T ota l Mean 4 .33 2 .90 0 ,53 0 .52 0 1 5 0 1 9 1.90 2.74 1 2 .97 14.14 1 .74 4 18 6 .00 9.56 57.00 148.8 8 305 .71 1 1 3.0 4 32.18 10.49 n la nla 35

    PAGE 45

    EFFICIE N C Y M EASURES COST E FFI CIENCY Operating Expense Per C apita Opefating Exp. Per Peak Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Per Passenger Tr i p Op4raling Expense Per Passenger Mile O p e rating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operat ing Expense Pet Revenue Hour Maintensnoa Expense Pet Revenue Mile Msintenanoe Expen se P&t Operatin g Exp. OPERA TIN G RATIOS Farebox Recovery Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Operating Revenue P er Operatin g Expense VEHICLE UTI LIZATION Ve h ide Mile$ Per Peak Vehicle (00 0 ) Veh ide H o urs Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Mile$ Per Vel\icle Mia Revenue Miles P et T otal Ve hicles (000) Revenu e Hours P et Total Vehicles (000) lAIIOR PRODUCT IVITY Revenue Hours P er Employee (000) Passenger Trips Pe r Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehk:4e Mile$ Per GaUon FARE Average F a te -----36 TABLE III-3 Sys t em Total Effi
    PAGE 46

    EFF I CIENC Y M EASURES COST EFFIC I ENCY Operat i ng E xpe nse Per Capi t a Operat in g Ep. Per P e ak Vehicle (000) Operati n g E xpe nse Per Pas-senger Tri p Expense Per Pa$senget Mjl e Operating Expense Per Revenue Mil e Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Ma 1ntenanee Expense Per Revenue M il e Mttinlenanc:e Expe nse Per Opera tin g Exp OPERATING RATIOS F arebox Recovery local Reve nue Per Operat in g E xpe n se Operating Revenue Pe r Operati n g Expense VEHICLE UT IL IZATION Vehide M ii H Per Peak Veh iCle (000 ) Vehide Hours Per PeaJt Vehicle ('000) Revenue Mile$ Per Vehk:le Mile Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) Revenue Hours PerT ot Vehicles (000} tABOR PROOUCTIV I TY Revenue Hours Per Empl oyee (000) Passenger Trips Per EmpSoyee (000) ENERGY UTIL I ZATION Vehicle Miles Per FARE Aver a ge Fare TABLE 111-3 (continued) System Total Effic.iency MeasurH 5()-99 Dtmand-ResponS< Vehicle Category Pine l las Pseo EJect. DRP Incl. DRP E xcl. DRP $2. 31 $4.08 $4. 4 2 S122.D1 $44. 29 $56.29 $48.63 $19.04 $10.28 $7.16 $2.21 $1.39 $6.09 $2.73 $2.61 $49.99 $22.94 $44.62 $ 1 .33 n/a $0.34 21 88% n/a 13. 2 1'k 9.29'.4 1 1 .n% 2.61'/o nl a n/a 37.20"/o n/ a nla 2.n"'o 22.27 17. 34 2T.44 2.70 2.06 1.55 0.90 0 .94 0.79 9.39 11.08 13.64 1.14 1 .32 0.80 1.09 nla 0.90 1.12 nla 3.91 8.2 0 nla 9.16 $4.52 $2. 2 3 $0.2T -Brevard I ncl. DRP Excl. DRP Incl. ORP $5.00 $5. 5 2 $10.67 $22. 1 6 $89.65 $79.14 $ 10.23 $10.89 $13. 78 $1.29 $1.02 $1.10 $2.19 $3.1 4 $2.63 $38.94 $46.87 $41 01 n/a $0.67 n/a n/a 18.2SY, nla 2 .93% 2.44% 48.19% nla 92.83% nla n/a 5 2 .43% nla 12.81 32.21 36.62 0 .88 2.20 2 .24 0 .80 0.89 0.82 8 .10 17.52 23.33 0.46 1.20 1 50 nla 1.10 n/a nla 4 .85 nla n/a 3.98 n/ a SD.30 $0.27 $ 6.63 -37

    PAGE 47

    EfflCIEtiCY MEASURES COST E FFIC I ENCY Operating Expense Per Capb Operating Exp. Per Peak. Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Pet Passenger Trip Operating Expenu Pet Passenger M i le Operating Expense Ptf Revenue Mile Operating Expense Pe r Revenue Hour Main1enance Expense Per Revenue Mite Maint e nance Expe.nse Per Operatin g Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Recovery Local Revenu e Per Operat ing EXpense Operatin g Revenue Per Operating Expense V E H ICLE UTI L IZATION Veh.i cle M i les P e r Peak V e hicle (000) Veh i cle Hour& Per Peak Veh i cle (000) Revenue M i les Per Vehicle Mi$6 Revenue Per Total Veh ides (000) Revenu e Hours Per Total Vehicles (000) LABOR PRO D UCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000) Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZAT ION Vehk:ie Miles Per Gallon FARE Average Fare 38 TABLE 111-3 (ton tiaued) System Total Efficiency Measures 50-99 Vthide Category EIPaso Indian R i ver Total Exd. DRP lnct DRP Excl. DRP Incl. ORP $4.03 $7.09 $7.67 $5.28 $8.15 $39.04 $136.85 $78.20 $47.99 $15.66 $7.65 $20.28 $16.83 $14.70 $9.00 $1.75 $2.30 $1.84 $2. 15 Ilia $ 1.62 $2.80 $2.58 $2.15 Ilia $21.28 $47.24 $45.24 $37 00 Ilia $0.27 $0.45 n ta $0.21 Ilia 18.69% 16.04% nla US% Ilia 9.48% 5 .85% 6 17% 0.64% 27.08% nla Ilia n ta nla Ilia nla nla nla nla nla 25. 55 57.77 35.07 24.38 Ilia 1.94 3.40 1.99 1.52 nla 0 .94 0.64 0.66 o.u nla 1 6 .97 22.04 18 .48 20.46 nla 1 .29 1.31 1.05 1.11 nla nla 1.05 nla 0 .85 nla nla 2 .44 nla 2.15 nla Ilia 2.71 nla 8.37 nil $0.73 $1.19 $1.04 $0.09 $2.44 Tucson Peer Group Total Mean $8.86 $6.24 $85 91 $48.17 $16.63 $13 10 $2.00 $ 1 91 $2.44 $2.50 $31 .58 $34.68 $0.42 $0.58 17. 16% 15 .59% nla 18 .25% nta nla n /a Ilia 42. 01 25.30 3 14 1.78 0.84 0.84 29.58 15.46 2 .28 1 12 1.09 0 .95 2.07 2 .78 7 .80 6.79 nla $2. 18

    PAGE 48

    50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Rgure 111 1 Service Area Population (000) Figure 111-4 Revenue Mile s 1000) Nlll"'olt Tuea611 ...... .. l>lllfl ........ .. lnclltl' ,...., Performance Indicators F igu re 111 Vehicle Mikts {000) Figure 111 P a s s en ge r Trips (000 F igu re 111 Total Operating ExpeMe (000) 500 39

    PAGE 49

    40 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY luOft Figure Ill 6 Passenger Fare R6venue (000) so $500 $1,000 $2.000 U,600 Figure 111 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Performa n ce I n dicators Figure Ul Tot;ol Employee Figure 111 9 Vehicles Operated in Service

    PAGE 50

    50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY ltofYIII4 T"c:.o n EIPuo Abon P .. eo Figure 111-10 Vehicle Miles Per Capita &.0 fiQc::ll."''l .... ,,..,...td tndl11n Alv" Fi9tJ:re 111-13 Revenue Miles Between lncldents 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Effectiveness Measures Figure 111 Average Age of fleet (years) F igu re 111-11 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 F igure 1114 Revenue M i les Between lntenuption s 41

    PAGE 51

    42 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure Ill 1 5 Operating Expense Per Capita Efficiency Mttsures Figure 111-17 Figure 111-16 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Rev&nue Mile Figure 111-18 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue M ile Figure 111-19 Farebox Recovery Ratio

    PAGE 52

    50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure 111-20 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle 0 10,000 20.000 30.000 40.000 60,000 Figure tu-22 Passenger Trips Per EmpJoyee ;i, ; < ; @ ; ; :;::; ; .. lr:l\@:-"'rrP%JI 1 Nolfolk i EIPuo lndlloll AIV'fl lltnCII'u ....... ......... l-I I I 4,000 Efficiency Measures 0 Figure IU Revenue Hours Per Employee 300 $00 900 1.200 1,$00 Figure 11123 Average Far e 43

    PAGE 54

    IV. 20 DEMANDRESPONSE VEifiCLE CATEGORY Okaloosa County Coordinated Transportation, Inc. County ofVolusia dba VOTRAN Bay County Council on Aging Bay Coordinated Transportation (Panama City) Sarasora County Area Transit Jacksonville Transportation Authority City of Awleton (Valley Trans it ) City of Kokomo Nonhwcst Alabama Council of Local Governments Lowell Regional Transit Authority Greater Richmond Transit Company Peninsul a TranspOrtation District Commission (Hampton) 45

    PAGE 55

    PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS Service Area Pulation (000) Sef'\lk:e Atea Size (square miles) Passenger Trips (000) Passenger MiJes (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route M iles Total Operating Expense (000) Total Maintenance Expense (000) Total Capital Expense (000) Total Local Revenue (000) Operating Revenue (000) Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees Transportation Operating Empk)yees Maintenance EITC)Ioyee$ Administrative Employees Vehicles Ava liable for Maxinum Service Vehicles Operatect In Maxmum Service Spare Ralk> Total Gallons Consumed (000) -46 TABLE IV-I Systtm Total Performance Indicators 20-49 Demand-Response Vehicle Category OkaJoos.a Vol usia Exel. DRP Incl. ORP Exel. DRP Incl ORP 162.44 162.44 396.63 398.63 200.00 200.00 1,207.00 1,207.00 107.59 11o.t3 165.99 47.71 1,050.&9 1,093.99 1,685.85 469 .90 783.86 850 .08 1,196.99 &41.27 718.42 761.7 2 997.01 634.39 50.08 52.08 71.14 27.71 45.20 46.87 60.72 23.65 nta nla nla nta $966.76 $1,006.17 $1,289.55 $1,755.50 $180.40 nla $186.76 nta $265.67 nla $391.77 nta $664.04 nla nla nta $664.04 nla nla nta $627.06 $628.89 nla nla 42.00 nla 63.10 nta 35.60 nla 66.90 nla 4.10 nla 4.20 nla 2.30 nla 0.00 nla 38.00 39.00 40.00 123.00 38.00 39.00 31.00 38.00 0.00% 0.00% 29.03% 223.68% 66.23 nla 143.48 nla -Panama City Total 122.90 78.50 160 .99 1,772.78 746.72 694.20 47.74 42.69 nla $780.34 $63.99 $699.51 $511.91 $511.91 $501.92 37.10 34.60 1.00 1 .50 42.00 38.00 16.67% 88.70

    PAGE 56

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Population {000) SetVice Area Size (square m i les) Passengef Tnps (000} Passenger Miles (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) Revenue Hours (000) Route Mites TOial Expen>O (000) T ola1 Maintenance Expense (000) Total Capital Expense (000 ) Tota l local Revenue (000} Operating Revenue (000) Pusenger Fare Revenue (000) Total Employees TraMpOrtatiot'\ En\91oyeu Maintenance E,..,loyees Admlnb.tratlve Employee-s Vehides Available fot Maximum SeMoe Vehicle$ Operated in Maximvm Servioe Spare Ratto Total Gallons Conwmed (000) -----TABLE IV-I (continued) System Total Performance Indicators 20-49 Demand-Response Vehicle Category Appleton Sarasota Kokomo Total Total Excl. ORP Incl. ORP 150 .78 238.21 65. 00 65. 00 59.80 96.20 110.00 110 00 115.52 47.86 42.70 \06.42 417.04 439.18 149 .87 3\4.32 635.97 270.99 1 96.96 413.02 443.18 249.31 168 .72 286.89 41.22 18.47 13 .39 27.26 31.46 16.99 12 .10 19 .66 nla nla niB nla $816.50 ssoo.oo $359.33 $62\.\1 $11.13 nla $4.87 nla nla nla $84.53 nla nla nla $206.41 nla nla nla $17.82 nla $138.11 $47 .36 $17.82 $126.53 0.90 nla 8 00 niB 0 .40 nla 6 20 niB 0 00 nla 0 10 niB 0.50 nil 1.70 niB 41.00 37.00 10.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 10.00 30.00 17 .14% 5.71% 0.00% 0.00% niB nil 21.21 niB NWAiabonlll Total 72. 00 112 .00 193.74 833.03 487 .60 460. 81 45.36 40 .83 nla $606.78 $75.58 $145.33 $311 .53 $11.09 $11 09 23 .70 2UO 0.00 1.90 31.00 29.00 6.90% 46. 27 47

    PAGE 57

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Popul olion (000) service Alea Size (square m iles) P assenger Trips (000) Passeng e r MiiM (000) Veh icle Miles (000) R011enue Miles (000 ) Vetl;cle Houro (000) Revenue Hours (000) Rout e MiSts Total ()pefallng Expense (000) Tolal Maintenance Expense (000) Tot a l Capital Expense (000) Total local Revenu e (000) Operating Revenu e (000) p....,nger F ar e Revenue (000) Total EmplOyees Transportation Operatiog Employ ... Malnteoarw:e Employees Administrative Employees Vehicles Available for Maximum SeMoe Vehicles Opeta ted i n Maximum Setvioe Spare R atiO Totti Gallo n s Consumed (000) 48 TABLE IVI (co nti nued) System T otal P erformance I nd icators 20-49 Dema n d-Response Veh i c l e Ca t egory L owell Jaoeksonvtll e Richmond Total Total Tota l 2$4 28 7t9.72 308.51 2 .t 2.00 374 .19 90 17 127 97 93 .59 342.85 1,519 93 929 73 395.34 1,663.:Z. 9 1 5 96 391.S5 1,336.72 824.4 2 33.56 n.37 33. 20 63.72 46 .16 nla nla n /a $602 42 $1,835.95 $1, 397 .28 nla nla nta nta nla n ta nta nla n/a nta nla n /a $5 7 .93 $ 173.04 nta nta nla n/a nta nla nta nta nta nta nta nla nta 2 6 00 202.00 29.00 26 00 2 4 00 24.00 0 00% 741. 67% 20.S3% n/a nta n/a Hampton Peer Group Excl. ORP lnc:l. ORP M ean 300.59 300.59 254 64 116 00 116 00 82.11 64 25 10 7.30 812. 60 814.48 948 95 962.90 716 64 479.49 493.44 588. 79 57. 46 58. 2 5 43. 66 27. 25 26.03 35. 75 nta nta nla $8 8 6 1 6 $906.29 $ 1 002.58 $106 .35 nto $59.87 $35. 99 nta $270 .50 nta nta nta nta nta nta $110 .82 $114.54 $199 94 36.30 nta 30. 16 34.20 nta 27.39 2.10 nta 1 64 0 .00 nta 1.13 28.00 62 00 60. 18 21.00 24. 00 30.91 33.33% 158 33% 108 27% 128 .48 nl a 82.40

    PAGE 58

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle M iles Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Capita Passenger Trips Per R e venue M i l e Pas.unge r Trips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Avetage Speed (R.M./R.H. ) Average Age of F$eet (i n years) Numb et of tnOidents Revenue Servloe I nterruptions Revenue Miles Between Incidents (000) Revenue Miles Between l nterru,ptions (000 } AVAILABILITY Revenue Mile$ Per Rout e Mile (000) TABLE IV-% System Total Effectiveness MeasurH %0-49 Demand-Respons e Vehicle Category Okaloosa Vol usia E xcl. ORP Incl. ORP Excl. DRP Incl. ORP 4.83 5.23 3.02 U2 0 .66 0.68 OA2 0.12 0.15 0. 14 0 17 0.09 2.38 2.35 2.73 2 .02 15.89 16 .25 16 42 22.60 2.76 2.82 3.60 2.72 16.00 nla 8.00 nla 20.00 n/a 57.0 0 nla 44. 90 n/a 124.63 n/a 35.92 n/a 17. 49 n/a nla nla nla nla Panama City Total 6.08 1.31 0.23 3.77 18.28 2 .52 36.00 33. 00 19.28 21.04 nla -49

    PAGE 59

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY V ehicle Miles Per SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE (RM. IR.H ) Average .A.Qe of Fleet (it\ years} Number of tncidents Revenu e service lnterrul)(iOns Revenue M iles Between lncldenlS (000) Revenue Miles Interruptions (000} AVAILA81LITY Rev&nue Mile$ Per Route (000) so TABLE IV-Z (tonlinued) System Total Effedivene:ss Measures Z0-49 Demand-Response Vehicle Calegory Appleton SaruOia Kokomo TOial Total Excl. DRP lnc:l. ORP 4 22 1.14 3.03 6 .35 0 .77 0.20 0.66 1 .67 0 .26 o.n 0.25 0.38 3 .67 2 .82 3.53 5 .52 14.09 1U7 13.95 14.59 4 1 2 3.75 1.60 5.50 nla nla 3 .00 n la nla nta 5.00 nla nla n/a 56.24 n la nla nla 33.74 n la nla nta nla nla NWAlabama Total 6.77 2 .69 0 42 4 .74 11. 29 4 .55 2 00 12 00 230.41 38.40 nla

    PAGE 60

    E FFECTIVENESS M EASURES SERV ICE SUPPlY Vehicle Miles Per Capita S E RVICE CONSU M PTION Ps Per C apita Passen ger Til's Pe r Reve n u e M il e P&Ssenger T,.,s Per Reve nue Hou r QUAU7Y OF S ER V I C E Spee d {R.M. IR H ) Ave rage A g e of Aeet (rn years) Numb e r of Incident s Revenu e Service I nterruptions Revenu e M iles 86twoen Incidents ( 00 0) Revenue MilOs Between I n terruptions (000) AVAilABI LITY Revenue Mites Pet Route Mi l e (000) TABLE IV-2 (contin u e d ) Syslem Total Effectiveness MeasurtS 20-49 Dem a ndR esponse V e h icle Cat egory Lowell Jacksonvill e Richmond Total T otol Total 1.50 2.t7 2.97 0.34 0 1 8 0 .30 0. 23 0.10 0 .11 2.72 2 .01 2. 03 11. 79 2 0. 9 8 17 .88 3 .42 3.78 1.00 nls nla nla nls nla nla nla nla nta nla n/a nta nla nla nla Hampton Peer Grou p Excl. ORP Incl. ORP M ean 3 1 6 3 20 3 75 0 .2 7 0.28 0 78 0 17 0. 1 7 0 .21 3 .01 3. 0 1 3.15 17 .60 17.60 18.18 3.14 n/a 3 .39 nla nla nla 1 8 .00 nla 24. 17 nla nta nta 26.64 nla 28.87 nta nla nta 5 1

    PAGE 61

    EfFIC IENCY MEAS URES COST EFFIC I E N CY Operatin g E xpense P e r C aprta Os>erotin 9 Exp. Per Peok Veh i cle (000) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expen$8 Per Passenger M ile Operating Elcpen&e Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour M aint e n a n ce Expense Per Reve nue M ile Mainten a n ce Expen se Per Operating E:xp. O PERATIN G RATIOS F arebox Reoovety Local Revenue P er Operatin g Ex:pense Operating Revenue Per Opefat ing Expen se VEHI CLE UTil iZATION Vehicle Miles Per Peak V&hicle (000 ) Ve h ide HOOf'S Per Peak Vehicle (000) R evenu e Miles Per Vehicle MiSe R evenu e M iles Per Total Veh ides (000) Revenu e Hours Per Total V ehicles (000) LABOR PRODUCnV ITY Revenu e Hours Per E m p loyee (000) PassengerT<> Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTIUZA TION Vehk:le Miies PM GaM o n F ARE Average Fare 52 TABLEIV-3 System Tota l Effieie ney Measu r es 2 0 -49 De m a nd-Respo nse Vehi cle Cate gory O kaloosa Votusla E x cl. DRP Inc l. DRP Excl. DRP Incl O RP $5.95 $ 6.19 $3.25 $<4.43 $25.44 $ 25 .60 $41 6 0 $46.20 $ 8.99 $9.1 4 $7. 77 $38. 7 9 $ 0 .92 $0.92 $ 0,78 $3.74 $ 1.35 $ 1.3 2 $ 1 .29 $3.29 $21.39 $21.4 7 $ 21 24 $74.23 $0.25 n/a $0. 19 nta 1 8 66% n/a 14.48% nta 64. 86Yt 6 2.SO% n/a nta 70. 76% n/a nla n/a 70.76% n/a nla nta 20.63 21 8 0 38.6 1 16.88 1.32 1 .34 2.29 0.73 o.u 0 .90 0 .83 0.83 18.91 19.53 24.93 4 .34 1.19 1 2 0 1 .52 0.19 1.08 n/a 0.96 n/a 2.5& nta 2 .63 n/a 1 1.94 n/a 8.34 n/a $5. 8 3 $5.71 n/a n/a Panama City Total $6.35 $21.68 $4.85 $0.44 $1 .12 $ 16 26 $0. 0 9 8.20% 64. 3 2% 65. 60% ss .sot. 20.74 1.3 3 0.93 1 6.53 1.02 1.15 4 .34 8.4 2 $3.12

    PAGE 62

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Ope ratin g Expense Per Capia Ope rating Exp. Per Peak Ve h ide (000) 0perJting E xpenie Per Passenger Trip Oper3ting Per Passenger Mite Operating Expense Per Revenu e Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Miie MJintenance Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Recovery loc:sl Revenu e Per Operating Expense Ope rating Revenue Pe r Ope ratin g Expen se V E H ICLE UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles Per P eak Vehicte (000) Veh iete HOUI'$ P e r Peak Ve hieie (000) Revenue Miles Per VehiCle Mile Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles (000) Revenue Hours Per lotal Vehk:IM (000) LABOR PROOUCTMTY Revenu e Hours Per Employee (000) Passenge< Trips P er Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles Pet Gallon FARE Average Fare TABLE IV-3 (cont i nued) System Tot a l Etndeney Me-asures 20-49 Demand Respo n se Veh i cle Category Appleton Sarasota Ko k omo Total Total Excl. DRP Incl. ORP $5. 42 $2 10 $9 56 $23 33 $1'-29 $20 70 $7 07 $ 10..45 $8. 42 $5.73 $1. 96 $1.14 $2. 40 $1.98 $1. 84 $ 2.01 $2. 13 $2 16 $25.95 $29.42 $29 .71 $0 03 nla $0 03 nla 1 .36% nla 1 .36% nla 16.91% U8% 4 96% 20 37% n/a nla 57.44% nla nla nla 4 96% nla 18. 1 7 7.74 19.70 13. 77 1.18 0 53 1.34 0.91 0 .70 0.92 0.88 0.69 10 81 6.74 16.87 9.56 0 77 0 1 2 1 0 66 34 96 nla 1.51 nla 1 28.35 n/a 5 34 nla nla nla 9 2 9 nla $1. 20 $0. 99 so.2 $1. 1 7 NWAiabama Total $20 92 $3.13 $0. 73 $1.32 $14 86 $0 16 12 46% 1 .83% 51. 34% 1 83% 16 81 1 56 0.95 14 86 1 32 1 .72 8 17 10 54 $0 .06 53

    PAGE 63

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Opefating Expense Per Capita Elq>. Per Peak Vehicle (000) OperaUng EXpense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mit& Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Maintenance Expense Pei Revenue Mile Maintenance Expense Per OpeJating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS F arebox Recovery Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Opemiog Revenue Per Operaling Expense VEHICLE UTI UZATlON Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Miles Per VehK:Ie Mile Revenue Miles Per Total Vehic5es (000) Revenue Hours Per Total Vehides (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revonue Hours Per Employee (000) Passenger Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Mites Per Galon FARE Average Fare 54 TABLE IV-3 (continued) System Total EfrK:iency Measures 20-49 Demand-Response Vehicle Category LoweU Jacksonville Richmond Tota l Total Total $3.04 $2.55 $4.53 $30.86 $7&.50 $58 .22 $8.90 $14.3 5 $14 .93 $2.34 $1.21 $1 .50 $2.05 $1.37 $1 .69 $24.17 $28.81 $30.27 n/a nta n/ a nla n/a nt a 7 .22% 9.43% n/ a nta n/a lila nta n/a n/a 15.2 1 65.13 38.17 1.29 $.22 2.14 0.99 0.86 0.90 15.06 8.82 28.43 1.28 0.32 1.59 n/a nta n/a n/a nta lila n/a nta lila $0.64 $1.35 lila Hampton Peer Group Excl. DRP Incl. DRP Moan $2.95 $3.02 $5.05 $42 .20 $37.76 $34 .21 $10.79 $10.7 6 $11.46 $1 .09 $1.10 $1.55 $1.85 $1.84 $ 1 .8 2 $32.52 $32.33 $30.13 $0.22 n/a $0.14 12.00% nla 9.79% 1Vt8% 12.64% 22.74% n/a lila n/ a nla lila n/a 45 19 40.12 24.96 2.74 2.43 1.51 0.51 0 51 0 .83 17.12 7.96 12 .77 0.97 0 .45 0 .64 0.75 nta 6.02 2.26 nta 21.95 7.39 nta 9 .30 $ 1.35 $1 .36 $1.73

    PAGE 64

    20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Ftgure IV -1 Service Area Population (000} Figure IV-4 Revenue Milt's COOOJ 0 300 600 900 1,200 0 Performa nc e IndicatOr$ -,. .... IN Cfty Ohloou .,. ... fllchmoM ,_ .. Hofi'I910n Soc Vobllo Figure IV-3 Vehickt M iles (000} oo eoo 1 ,200 0 Figure IV-2 Passenger Trips (000) 40 eo 120 180 200 Figure IV-5 Total Oper a ting Expense COOO) 55

    PAGE 65

    5 6 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Fia""' IV-6 Pes s.e nger Fare Rtvenue (000) Figure IV Vehicles A v ailable for M a x imum Service ,.,._, Perfo rmance lndieaton H ... ....:.j NW """'--_ I flaure IV 7 Totll Employee Flaure IV 9 Veh ictes Operated In M aximum S e rvic.e

    PAGE 66

    20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY NWAifbll"" Koomo hiiIN Chy ObiOOJ HemptOI\ lllt Figure IV-10 Vehicle Miles Per Capita 0.0 2.0 8 0 Figu re IV -12 Average Age of Reet {years) Effectiveness Me.asures Figure IV11 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 8.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0 3 0.4 0.5 Figure IV 1 3 Revenue Miles Between lntenup tions 40,000 57

    PAGE 67

    s a 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Efficiem:y Measura FlguroiV 15 F"tQ
    PAGE 68

    N W Altii&I!Uo Jc*tolwllt ..... SttMOI& 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Ef'ficitncy Measures Rgure IV -19 Figure IV-20 Vehicle M i les Per Pe.ak Vehicle Revanu e Hours Per Em ployee lYk'"' U Jftl'S7..j&>n;l tiWAIbtlftf Kot.omo hn'""' City Ohloo n I! z Jtc:bOIN'IIo .. -L..a.t.. ..::::] ' ----Aic:llm
    PAGE 70

    V. 1 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Lee County Transit Manatee County Area Transit Palm Beach County T ransportation Agency Lakeland Area Mass Transit District St. Lucie County Council on Aging, Jnc. Tallahassee Transit Regional Transit System (Gainesville) Escarnbia County Area Transit Spartanburg County Transportation Services Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority Savannah-Chatham Area Transit Authority Columbia-South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Litrlc Rock-Central Arkansas Transit Authority Handitran Special Transit Division, City of Arlington Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Chapel Hill Transit 61

    PAGE 71

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area Population (000) Service Ar&a Size {square miles) Passenger Trips (000) Passenger MiJes (000) Vehicle Miles (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vehic le Hoors (000) Revenue Houts (000) Route Miles Total Operating Elq>ense (000) Total Maintenance Expense (000) Total Capital Expense (000) Total Local Revenue {000) Operating Revenue (000) Pas .. nger Fare Revenue (000) To
    PAGE 72

    P E R FORM A N CE I NDICATORS Service Area Population (000) Service A tea Size (squat e miles) P ass enger TriJ>S (000) Passe nge-r Miles {000 ) Ve h<:le M ; les (000) Revenu e Miles (000) Veh<:le Hou01 (000) Revenue Houf1 (000) Route Miles Operating Exp e n se (000) T olal Ma intenan ce Expense (000) Total C a pila l Expense (000) Total Local R e venue ( 000) O perating Reve -nue {000) Passengec Fafe Revenue (000) Total Employees Transportation Operating Employees Mai ntenance Employees Adminls.ttatlve Employee s VehiCleS Available for Maximum Service VehkteS Operated I n Maximum Service Spate Rallo Total G anon s Coosumed (000) TABLE V-1 (co n ti n ued) Systtm Total Perfo rmance lndic:ators 1-19 DemandR esponse Vehicl e Category Birmin g ham Sava nnah Tallahassee Total Total Exel. DRP Incl. ORP 651.53 209 1 7 137.06 137 .06 1.074 .00 431.49 85.23 85.23 76. 61 47.5 2 59.42 81 .15 834 .15 341.49 398.13 405 .32 516 10 350.63 428.75 4 35.18 440 .23 343 .96 388.75 373.89 40.58 28 .14 29.50 30.02 34. 61 27.69 27. 2 5 27.67 n l a nla nla nla $690 .66 $697 .5 3 $710 .80 $731.54 $200 .11 nla $105 .09 nla $7.38 nla nla nla nla n la nla nla nla nla nla nla nla 543.20 nla nla 25.90 19 .20 19.20 nla 22.00 14.30 14.20 nla 3 .90 0 .00 2 .00 nla 0 .00 4.90 3.00 nla 24.00 15 .00 17. 0 0 18.00 15 0 0 14 .00 12.00 13.00 60. 00% 7.14% 41. 6 7% 38.4 6Y. 77.50 28.67 83.63 nla Gainesville Columbia To!al Total 180.00 183.50 900. 0 0 115.00 95.04 68.69 35D.82 664. 0 2 409.24 562 .71 387.25 5 2 6 .85 27.15 36.95 23.57 33.20 nla nla $937.50 $1.0 2 3 17 $108.19 $182 .94 nla $37 .66 nla nla nla nla nla $86 .59 17 .10 nla 14.40 nla 1 .70 nla 1.00 nla 1 3 .00 1 8 .00 11.00 11.00 18.18% 83. 64% 53.28 51.37 63

    PAGE 73

    PERFORMANCE I N DICATORS UttleRock Total Servioe A rea Population ( 000) t85. 7 3 Service A rea S ite (sqvare miles) t17.50 Passenger Trips (000) 78.62 Passenger Miles (000) 161.07 Vehicle Miles (000) 2 80.2 3 Revenue M iles (000) 190.85 Vehicle H ours (000) 16 .95 Revenue Hours (000) 12 .87 Rout e Miles n/a Total Ope111liog Expense (000) $369.40 Total Maintenance Expen$& (000) $46.09 Tol a l Capl lal Expense (000) $0.32 T"otallocal Revenue (000) nla Operating Revenue (000) nla Possenge1 Fore Revenue (000) nla Tolal Emp loyees 15 10 Transportation Opefating Emp$oyee' 11AO M a intenance EmplOyees 0.70 Administrative Employees 3.00 Vehicles Available for Maximum S ervice 10.00 Venld& Operated i n Maximum Service 10.00 Spar& Ratio 0.00% Total Gallons Con s umed (000) L__ 29.46 64 TABLE V-1 ( cont i n u ed) Sys te m Tota l Pe rforma nce Indicators 1 1 9 D e m andR espo n s e V ehicle Category Ar11 ngton Escambia E x cl. DRP Ind. DRP T o tal 267.00 2 67.00 27 4.60 96.29 96.29 42.00 65.35 77.59 29.88 462.42 556. 1 6 220.83 381.79 475.83 2 21 .60 355.95 443.41 2 2 0. 13 27.2 4 32.58 13.43 2 5 .79 30.88 13.37 nla nlo nla $885.60 $963.29 $29o.t1 $62.84 nlo n/a $454 .83 nla n/a $ 2 89.15 nla nta $55.58 nla nla $55.58 $65 .99 $68.94 22 .30 nla nta 19.50 nla nla 0.00 n/a nta 2.80 n/a nta 15.00 17.00 a .oo 9.00 1 1 .00 8 .00 66 67% 54.55% 0.00% 3 5.58 n/a nla --N Kentucky Chapel H ill Pt6r Group T otal Total M ean 207.50 49.83 270.t8 84.40 375.97 35.03 63.22 68.45 319 0 1 2 1 9 .88 537.23 347 14 253 .39 4 2 3 .89 299. 13 244 .04 366 .89 2 2 61 1 5 .97 27.91 19 .53 1 5 .97 24.98 nl a nlo nla $578.72 $597.26 $ 742.32 $51.40 $70.03 $113 .20 n/a nlo $183 .20 n/a nto n/a nta nto nta $35 01 nla $77.02 13.70 1 4 10 1 7.07 12.00 12.20 13 .88 0.90 1.50 1 0 7 0 .80 0 4 0 2 1 3 8.00 7 .00 1 6.13 8 .00 6 .00 1 3 .00 0.00% 16.67% 23.24% 32.47 28.86 47. 77 ---

    PAGE 74

    EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES S ERVICE SUPPLY V ehicle M iles Per C a p ita SERVI CE CONSUMPT I O N Passenger Trips Per CaJ)Ita Pauenge r Ttlp$ Pet Revenue M i)e Trips Pet Revenue Hour QUAI.ITY OF SERVICE Ave tag& SpeGd (R.. M IR.H ) Average Age of Fleet (i.n years) Number of Incidents Revenue Service Interruptions Revenue Miles Between Incid ents (000) Reven u e Miles B e tween I n te r ruptions (000) AVAI LABILITY Revenu e Miles Per Ro ute Mile (000) TABLEVl Syste m To t a l Effectiveness Mea s ures 1 1 9 DemandR osponst Vehl
    PAGE 75

    EFFECT IVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle M iles Per Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenge r Trips Per Capita Pa$$engerTrips Per Revanu e M i le Pass.engerTrips Per Revenue Hour QUALITY OF SERVICE Averoge Speed (R.M IR H ) Ave!'1ge Age of F leet (in years) Number of Incidents Revenue Service I nterruptions Revenue Miles Beween Incidents (000) Revenue Miles Between Interruptions {000) AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Route Mile {000) 66 TABLE V-2 (co n tinued) System Tota l Effectiveness Measures 1 -19 Dema n d-Response V e hicle Category Blnningham Savannah TatlahauM Total T Exel. DRP Incl DRP 0.79 1 68 3 13 3.18 0 12 0.23 0.43 0.45 0 17 0 14 0.16 0 16 2 .21 1.70 2 .18 2 .21 12.72 12.33 13.53 13.51 4 .33 2.00 4.11 4 00 3 .00 1 .00 3 00 nla 179 .00 28 .00 55. 00 nla 146. 74 343.96 122 92 n/a 2 .46 12 .28 6 70 n/a nls nls n/a n/a GalnosviU t Columbia Tota l Total 2 22 3 .18 0.52 0.37 0.26 0.13 4 .03 2.07 15.58 15.93 5.85 2 22 18.00 15 00 12&.00 20 00 20 40 35.2 6 2.9 1 26.44 n/a n/a

    PAGE 76

    EFFECT IVENESS MEASURES Utde Roek Total SERVICE SUPPLY Vehi(le Miles Per Capi ta 1.51 SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Per Caplt3 0.42 Passenger T rips Per Revenue Mile 0.41 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 6 1 1 QUALITY OF SERV1CE Average Speed (RMJR. H.) 14.83 Average Age of Fleet (I n yeatS) 2.70 Number of InCidents 6.00 Revenue Service Interruptions 22.00 Revenue Mii&S serween Incidents (000) 31.81 Revenue Mile:s Between Interruptions (000) 8.67 AVAILABILITY Revenue Miles Per Route Mile (000) nla TABLE V-2 (conti nued) System Total Effectiveness Measures 1-19 Demand-Response Vebicle Category Arlington Eseambla Exel. DRP lnel. DRP Total t .43 1.78 0.81 0 24 0 29 0.11 0.18 0 17 0.14 2.53 2.51 2 .23 13.80 14.36 16.46 2.00 fila U8 7.00 nla fila 14 .00 nla fila 50.85 fila nla 25.42 nra nla fila nla nla N. Kentucky Hill Peer Group Total Total Mean 1 67 5 09 2.13 0.17 1.27 0.39 0 12 0 .26 0.20 1 79 3.96 2.96 15 .31 15.28 14.80 1 .80 3 .60 3.5 1 7 .00 o.oo 5.73 18 00 27 .00 55.50 42 73 n la 99.83 16.62 9 04 14.47 nla nla fila 67

    PAGE 77

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita Operat ing Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) Oper.ning Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expens& Per Passenger Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Maintenance Expense PM Revenue Mile MJintenance Expense Per Opera.1ing Expense OPERATING RATIOS FJrebox Recovery Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Operating Revenue Per OperatiflQ Expense VEHICLE UTILIZA nON Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle (000) Vehide Hour5 Per Peak. Vehic:le (000) Revenue Miles Per VehOe Mile Revenue Miles Per Total Vehides (000) Reven...e H01.1rs Per Total VehQes {000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per Employee (000) Pusenger Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGYUTIUZA TION Vehicle Miles Per Galton FARE Fare 68 TABLE V-3 System Total Effteiency Measures 1-19 D
    PAGE 78

    E F FI CIENCY MEASURES COST E FFICIENCY Opetatin g Expense P e r Cap a s Oper atin g Expense Per Pe3k Vehicle (000) Opetating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense P e r Passenger Oper ating Expense P e r Revenue M ile Operating Expense Per Revenua Hour Maintenance Expense Per Revenue M ile Maintenance Expense Per E)(l)ense OP E RATING RATIOS F a rebox Recovery Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Operating Revenue Per Operating Expense VEHICLE UT ILIZATION Vehicle Miles P er Pe a k Ve hicle (000) Vehicle Hou rs Per Peak V e hicle (000 ) Revenue M i l es Per Vehicle Mile R e ve n ue Miles P er Total Vehides ( 000) Reve n ue Hours Per Tota l Vehicles (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY R evenue Hours Per Empl oyee (000) Passen ge Ttips P er Employee (000) EN E RGY UTILIZAT I O N Veh i cle Miles P er Ga llon FARE Avetage Fare TABLE V-3 (con ti nued) System Total Efficie n cy Measures 1-19 D em andResponse Ve h icle Cate gory Birmingham Sava-n nah T a llahas-see Total Total E x c l ORP ln
    PAGE 79

    EFFICIEIICY MEASURES Utile ROCk Total COST EFFICIENCY Operating Expense Per Capita $1.99 Operatlng Expense Per Peal< Vel!lclo (000) $36.94 Optotating Expense Per Passenger Trip $4.70 Operating Expense Per Pauenger Mile $ 2 .29 Opefating Expense Per Revenue Mile $1 .94 Opefating Expense Per Revenue Hour $28 .70 Malntenanoe Expense Per Revtnue M il& $0. 24 Maintenance Per Operating Expense 12 48% OPERATING RATIOS Fllebox Recovery nil l.ocll Revenue Per OperatiFlg Expense nil Operotiog Rnenue Per ()pe
    PAGE 80

    1 -19 DEMANDRESPONSE VEHI CLE C ATE G ORY Figure V-1 Servic e Area P opulation (000) F i g ure Revenue Miles {000) Performanc e l ndit'AtOrS F igu ra V 3 V ehic l e M l'- 1000 1 f19ure V 2 P .. songer Trij>s (000) Figur e V 6 Tota l Operating Expense (0001 1 2 0 71

    PAGE 81

    n 1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Rgure V-6 Passenger Fare Revenue (000 Figure V-8 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Perfor m ance In dicators Figure V-7 Total Employees Figure V Vehicles Operated in M aximum Service 0 12 16 20

    PAGE 82

    1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY 0.0 Figure V-10 Vehicle Miles Per Capita 2 0 4 0 Rgure V-13 6.0 Miles Between Incidents E ffective n ess Meas ures Rgure V -12 Avefage Age of Aeet (years} Figure V-11 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile o 8.0 Figure V-14 Rt:venue Miloes Between Interrupt ions 0 1 0 ,000 20.000 30,000 40,000 ,000 73

    PAGE 83

    74 1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Efficiency Measures Figtue V -1 6 Fogure V Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $9.00 Fig u re V-17 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Figure V Maintenance Expense Per R41venue Mile ... Figure V-19 Fartbox Recovery Ratio ,.,. .. .. ..... ...

    PAGE 84

    1-19 DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure V-20 Revenue Hours Per Employee o l.OOO Efficiency MtasureJ Ftgure V-21 P as senger Trips Per Employee Figure V-22 Average Fare 75

    PAGE 86

    Vl. SUMMARY In summary> the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida transit systems under contract with the Office ofl'llblic Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation State of Florida. The performance evaluation includes a fixed-route trend analysis (1984 -1995), a fixed-route peer review analysis (1995 data), a demand-response trend analysis (1984-1995), and a demand-response peer review analysis (1995 data). This document (Pan IV} is the demand-response peer review analysis while separate documents (Parts I, II, and lll} report the of the other analyses. re .. iew analysis is a common method of evaluating th.e effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems and is essentially a comparison of a performance wi'h the perfonnance of similar systems or "peers" around the country. This document actually includes four separate demand.response peer reviews as a result of the various transit propcr1ics operating throughout Florida. Each review provides tables of performance indicators and measures as well as graphics for selected indicators and measures. Comments and questions about this repon can be directed to the Office ofPubJic Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation. State of Florida, 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 26, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399.{)450, Telephone: (904) 488-7174. 77

    PAGE 87

    PERFORMANCE INDIC ATORS APPENDIX A UST OF D EFINITIONS Counly}Servjce Arn Popyla!jopFor 1991 and prior years, councy population is us
    PAGE 88

    Thta! Opera tine ExptnseReponed total spending on operations, including administtation maintenance, and operation of service vehicles. Total Operati ne Expense 11984 $1Total operating expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of detennining the real change in spending for operating expenses. Total Maintenance Expen.st -Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expense s; a subse t of total operating expense. Total Maintenance Etpepse CJ984 Sl maintenance expense s deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of detennining the real change in spending for maintenance purposes. Iotal Caoita l ExnenseDollar amount of spending for capital projects and equipment. Iota I Local RevenueAll revenues origi.nating at the local level (ex.cluding state and federal assistance) Operating RevenueIncludes passenger fares, special transit fares, school bus service revenues, freight tariffs, chaner service revenues, auxiliary transportation revenues, subsidy from other sectors of operations and non-transporta tion revenues. P asse necr Fare Revenue-Re.venue generated annually from passenger fares. T otal Rmploms Total number of payroll employees of the transit agency. It is useful to note that the increasing t endency to contract out for services may result in some significant differences in this measure between otherwise similar properties. It is important to understand which services are contrac-ted before drawing conclusions based on employee levels. All employees classified as capital were excluded from this report. Optr;ating EmployttsAll employees class ifie d as ope rating employees: vehicle drivers, supervisory personnel, direct personnel. Maintenance F.mplaytts All employees classified as maintenance employees who are direclly or indirectly responsible for vehicle maintenance. Administrati\'e Employees All personnel positions classified as administrative in nature This report includes aU general administration. ticketing/fare collection, and system security employees as classified by FTA in Fonn 404. Yehic.I.H Available for Maximum Sen ice-Number of vehicles owned by the transit authority rhat are available for use in bus service. Vehic-les Operated j n Maxj mqm Service -Th e largest number of vehi-des required for providing service during peak hours (tYPically the rush period). Spare Ratio-Vehicles operated in maximum service subtracted from vehides available for maximum service divided by vehicles operated in maximum service This measure is an indicator ofthe number of spare vehicles available for service. A spare ratio of approlCimateJy 20 percent ls considered appropriate in the industry. However, this varies depending on the size and age of Oeet as well as the condition of equipment 79

    PAGE 89

    Iota! Gallo ns Consumed To t al gallons of fuel consumed by the vehicle fleet. Jotal 1\nerey ConsumedKilowatt bours of propulsion power consumed by a transit system (rail and automa t ed guideway}. Ave.rage Aee of Fleet Traditionally a standard transit coach is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However longer se rvice Jives are not uncommon. The vehicle age and the reliability record of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the t he sophistication and feaiUres (i.e., wheelchair lifts, electronic destinatio n signs, ere ) and operating environm"'l! (weather, roadway grades, and passenger abuse} all affect the maintenance needs and depreciation of the bus fleet. NumberoflntjdenlsTotal number of unforeseen occurrences resulting in casualty (injury/fatality), collision, or property damage in excess of $1,000. For an incident to be reportable, it must involve a transit vehicle or occur on transit property Reyepue Secyjce lpterruptioosA revenue service interruption during a given reponing period caused by failure of some mechanical clement of the revenue vehicle o r for other reasons not included as mechanical failures. EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle. Miles Per C3pilaTotal number of annual vehicle miles divided by the service area 's population. This can be characterized as the number of miles of service provided for each man, woman, and child in the service area and is a measure oflhe e xt ensiveness of service provided in the service area. Passenger Trips Per Capita w Average number of transit hoardings per person per year. This number is larg er in areas where public transportation is emphasized and in areas where there are more lransit dependents and is a measure of the extent to which the public utilizes transit i.n a given service area Passeneer Trjvs Per Reycpue Milt-The ratio of p assenger trips to revenue miles of service; a key indicator of service effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided. Passenen T rips Per Reyen ue Hour w The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation; reports on the effectiveness of the service since hours are a betcer representation of the resource-s consumed in providing service. Avera&eSpd Average speed of vehicles in operation (includ ing to and from the garage) calculated by dividing total vehicle miles by to ta l vehicl e hours. Revenue Miles Between Incidents Number of revenue miles divided by the-number of incidents; reports the average incerval, in miles, between incidents Revenue Miles lktwecn Jnterruptions-Number of revenue miles divided by revenue service interruptions; an indicator of theaverage frequency of delays because of a problem with the equipment. R eyen u e Miles Per Route Mjle Number of revenue miles divided by the number of directional route miles of service 80

    PAGE 90

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES Onerating Exnense Per Capita Annual operating budget divided by the county/service area population; a measure of theresource commitment to transit by the community. Operatlne Expense Per PeBk VehicleTotal 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. Operatine Expense Per Passenger TripOperating expenditures divided by the Iota] annual ridership; a measure of the efficiency oftransponing one of the key indicat ors of comparative perfonnance of transit properties since it reflects both the efficiency wirh whicb service is delivered and the market demands for the service. Ooerating Ex pens Per Passenger Mile-Reflection 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 trips whiJe. others provide short trips. Op:t:ratine Ex pen; Ptt Revtnue MileOperating expense divided by the annual revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency with which service is delivered and is anotber key comparative indicator. Otxratine Expense Per Renoue Hour a 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 conditions. Maintenance Exnense Per Revenue Milt Maintenance cost divided by the reve-nue miles. Maintenance -Exoense Per Ooe-raflng Expense -CaJculated by dividing maintenance expense by operat i ng expense; expressed as a perce -nt of total operating expense. Farebox Recoverv Ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses; an indicator of the share of revenues provided by the passengers. Local Revenue Per Operating Expense Ratio of total local commitment with respect co total ope rating expe .nse . Operating Revenue .Per Opera ling Exoense a Operating ratio calculated by dividing operating revenue by total operating expense. Vehide Miles Per Pe-ak VehicleVehicle miles di\ided by the number of peak vehic.fes. It is an indicator of how intensively the equipment is used and is influenced by the bus lravel speeds as well as by the levels of seJVice in the offpeak time periods. A more unifonn demand for seJVice over the day would result in a higher number. Vehicle Hours Per Peak VehicleSubstitutes vehicle hours for vehicle miles and again refleecs how intensively equipment is utilized. Beveour Miles Ptr Vthiclt; MiltReflects how much of thetotal vehicle operation is in passenger service. Higher ratios are favorable, but garage location, training needs, and other considerations may influence the ratio. SI

    PAGE 91

    Revenue Mjles Per Total VebisfesTotal revenue miles of service that are provid ed by each vehicle available for maximum service. Reve o ue Hours Per Total }Tebjdes Indicates total revenue hours of service provided by each vehicle available for maximum service Revenue Hours Ptr Employee. Retlects overall la bor produ ct ivity. Passeoeer Trips Per Employee Another measure of overall labor productivity. Vehicle Miles Per Gallon-Vehicle miles of service divided by total gallons consumed and is a measure of energy utili.zation. Vehicle Miles Pe r Kjlo:watt-}fuur-Vehicle miles of service divided by total kilowatt-hours consumed and is another measure of energy utilization. Averaee Fare Passenger fare revenues divided by the total number of passenger trips. 82

    PAGE 92

    APPENDIX B REVIEW OF D ATA S OU RCES SOURCES FOR 1995 DATA Actuall995 Notionol Tnnslt (fo rm
    PAGE 93

    NOTES: 84 Data Item Vehicles Available for Maximwn Service Vehicles Opera t ed in Maximum Service Total Gallons Consumed' Total Energy Consumed (kWhoun of propulsion power)' Average Age of F leet< Number of Inciden1S7 Number of Revenue Service Interruptions' 1AII statistics are for demandresponse service unless otherwise noted. Source Fonn406 Fonn406 Fonn402 Fonn402 Fonn 408 Fonn 405 Fonn 402 2Qperating expense excludes all reconciling items including interest expense, leases and rentals, and depredation. )Local revenue includes all revenue except federal and state revenue. Operating revenue includes transponation revenues, transportation revenues, and subsidy from other sectors of Revenues are reported as a transit system total and therefore may include porchased and/or llxed-route lr.ltlsporunion It can also be difficult to t Xtract passenger fare revenues for directly-operated demand-response service from the data source, as well. "Employees are distributed among three categories as identified in Fonn 404: rows 1-2 -transportation operating employees, rows 6-7 maintenance employees, rows 3, 4 and 8 administrative employees ITA assumes that Fonn 404 DO-DR excludes purchased transportat ion. 5FTA assumes that energy consumption reported on Form 402 excludes purchased transportation services. 'The following vehicl e types were included in the cal culat i on of average age oftleec automobile (AO), van (VN) motorbus (BA, BB, BC), school bus (SB), and other (OR). It should be recosnized that some of these vehicles may be used in the provision of fJXedrout e transportation services as these vehicles cannot be identified on Form 408. 'Includes incidents involving eomsions, derailments, personal easualties, and ftreS. FTA assumes that Form 405 excludes purchased transportation services. 'Includes mechanical failure and other reasons. FTA assumes that Fonn 402 (revenue service interruptions) excludes purchased transportation servic<:s.

    PAGE 94

    T!Jnsit System Metro-Dade Tra nsit Agency Sroward County Mass T ransit Olvlslon Hillsboro u g h Area Regiona l Transit Lynx Trans it Pinelas Suncoast Trans it Aut1lority Pasco County Public Transportation SeMce Space Coast Area Trans it Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. Okaloosa Cou nty Coordinated lne. County o f Volusia dba VOTRAN Bay County Coun c il on Aging-Bay Coordinated Tran sportatioo Sarasota County A re.a Transit Jacksonv i lle Transportation Aut h ority APPENDIXC CONTACT LISTING FOR FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Address 111 N .W. FirM Slr&et Miami Fl3312 8 3201 W. Copans Road Pompano Beach, Fl 33069 4305. 21S-t Aven ue Tarrc>o. fL 33QOS.2300 1200Wes t South Street Or l ando FL 32805 14640 49th Strt.e t North Clearwat er FL 541 8 Sunset Road New Port Richey, F L 34652 401 South Varr Avenue Coco a Fl 3 2922 694 14th StreetP O Bo x 2102 Veto Be-aCh, FL 32900 207 Hospital Drill& Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 950 Big Tree Road Sou t h Dayton a FL 32 1 19-8815 1 116 Fran kfo rd Avenue Pa n am a City Fl 32401 5303 Pin kney Aven ue Sarasota, Fl 34233-2421 P .O. Drawer 100 N. Myrtle Avenue J.aeksonville, Fl 32203 Directors & Contact Pt!"JJDlsl Mr. Chester "'Ed" Colby Executive Director Ms. Pamele Levin Chief, Mgmt l nformaUon Services Mr. Mlchaej J Scanlon Director Ms. Lorraine Smith Tra n sit Manager Mr. Robert D. Fos.sa, AssoQate Ms. Sharon Dent, Exec utive D i rector Ms. Deborah J Ward Dired:ot of Finance Ms. Olana tarsey, Dir ector of Ptan ning Mr. Pau l Skoutetas Executive Director Mr. Rob Gregg, Msnager o f Planni ng M r Roger Sweeney, Director M s Hardiman, Director of Finance Ms. AMra Cumber. Data Statistica l Superv i sor Mr Mich ael Ctlrroll Transportation Manager Mr. Don R. Lusk, Tra nsit D i re ct o r Mr. James P T ransit P lanner Mr. Thomas F ritz Transporta11on Supervisor Ms. R ut h Lovejoy, Exeoutive Director Ms. Lee MeCallis.ter Fiscal Direct o r Mr. Kenneth R. Fischer, General Manager Ms. E li zabeth N. Coull ie n e Executive Directot Mr. Jay A. Goodwill Executive Director Mr. M ic hael Blay lOCk, Director of Mas s Transit Mr George A. Brown Ill, Mgr., &Moe Devel opmen t Phone (305) (954) 357-8301 (813) 623-5835 (407)841279 (813 ) 53().9921 (81 3) 847-8031 (407) 635-7815 (407) 5690760 ( 904) 833 (904) 756496 (904) (941 )9515850 (904 ) 63().3181 8 5

    PAGE 95

    Tfillnsit svstem Addreu Directors & Contatl.bfl.on(s) fll2ll! Lee County Transi t 10715 E. AitpOd Road Mr James 1. Fetter Di r edor (941) 277-5012 Ft. Myers Fl 33907 Mr Chris Leffert. Transit Analyst Manatee County Area Transit 1 108 26th Ave nue, East Mr Carl Gaites, Tran sit Sect ion Manager (941 ) 747-8621 Stade nton, FL 34208 Mr Peter GajdjiS, Ch i ef Planning EnginM r Palm Beach Coonty T r ansport.tion Agency Bui l d i ng $-1440, P B.I.A. Mr lrv i ng "Bud" Cure, Di r ector (561) 23366 West Pal m Beach, F L 33-C0&-1498 Lakeland Area MaM Transit District 1212 GeOfge Jenkins Blvd. Mr S teven Githens, Transit Director (941)666 Lakeland. Fl 33601 St. Lude County Councit on Aging Inc. 1505 Avenue Ms. Patricia A. Sc:artett, Executive D i rector (407)465 Ft. Pierce, Fl 34950 Ms. Lori Tomlinson Tal lahassee Transit 5SSAppleysrd Drive Mr John L Carter Dir ector (904) 891-5200 Talahassee FL 32304 Mr Wil liam Carter Transit Plan.n81 Regional Tran sit System tOO S E 10th Awnue Mr Perry Maull Executive D i recto r (904) 334-2609 Gainesville, Fl 32602 Mr ChadwiCk Reese. Pgm. Development Mgr. Escamb i a County Are.a Trans.ft 151S West F airllekl Drive M r Kenneth P westbrook RMXienl Manager (904) 436 -9366 Pensacola, FL 3250t Ms. Ramona Cavasos, Admi niWative Aasistant 86

    PAGE 96

    APPENDIXD CONTACT LISTING FOR NON-FLORIDA PEER TRANSIT SYSTEMS Transit System Address O lrecton & Contact Personlsl flll!l! Milwaukee County Paratransit System 907 North 1 Dlh Street Mr. S tephen N K.amuiru Director, Transportation OW. (414) 27s-5096 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Mr. Steven N Nigh, Transponauon Ptanner King County Department of Metropolitan 821 Seoond Avenue {MIS 55) Mr. Rick C. Walsh, General Manager, Metro Olv. (206 ) 684 -1619 ServU.s Seattle. WA98104-1598 Mr. AnthOny L Tony" Longo, Transportation Planner San AntoniO-VIA Metropolitan Transit 800 West Myrtle Mr. John M i lam, General Manager (210) 227-5371 P O. Box 12489 Ms. Barbara E Hassmann, Director of Finance San AntoniO, TX 78212 Dallas AJea R$1)id Transit 140 1 Mr. Roges Snoble Pr&SidentiEXecutive Director (404) 848-5023 DaMas. TX75202 Mr Michael B Levbn, Manager of Busines.s Analysis Portland Tri.COunty Melropolitan 4012 S.E. 17th Avenue Mr. Tom W'tsh, Genera l Manager (303) Transportation District of Oregon Portland, OR 97202 Ms. CWldy Runzk!r Accountant Ill R ide-On Mon t gomery County Gove r nment 110 North Washington Street Ms. Carolyn G Biggins, Chief-Division of Transit Sves. (30 1 ) 217-2184 Number 200 Mr. William R. 5elby, C h i e f-Transit Management Svcs RoCkville, MD 20850 AAronMetro Regiona l Transit Authority 416 Ken mot'e Boulevard Mr, Robett K Pfaff, General Manager (330) 762-7267 Akron OH 44301 Mr. Oetm J Harris, Financial Admin.isltatOf Ticlewater Transportati on C om mission 1500 Mont loelk> Avenue Mr. James C Echols, Executive Diredor (313) 224-2160 Norfok, VA 2350t Mr. Leland J Cartson, Finance Manager Spri ngflekt-Pioneer Va l ley Tumsit Authority 2808 Main Street Ms. Marlene B. Connor, Administrator (413 ) 732-6249 Springfield, MA 01107 Mr. Ke ith Financia l Office-r Mass T r ansit Depa rtme nt-City of El Paso 700-A Sa n F r ancisco Street Ms. Ter esa Murphy, Director (704) 336 Et Paso. TX 79901 Mr. Richar d Morales, Accountant City of Tucson Mass Tra nsi t System P .O. Box 27210 Mr. Michael Btown. City Manager (602) 791-4204 T ucso n AZ 85726 -752 10 Mr. Mario M. Ramirez, Admin. A$SistantTransportati oo City of Appleton (Valley Transit) 801 Whitman Avenue Mr. Chat1es L Ke.mo, Genera l Manager (414) 832-6100 Appleton WI 54915 Ms. Susan Kappell Administrative Services Manager City of Kokomo 100 South Union Stceel Mr. R. Matk Mills, Transportation Oitector (317)45&.2336 Kokomo, IN 46901-4632 87

    PAGE 97

    88 Tonsil Sxs.tam Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments Lowell Regional Transi t Authority Greater Rkhmood Transit Company Pel'linsula Transportatlon District Comml$$1on Spartat\bu.-g Counry Transportation SeMoes County Transit Authority SavaMaJl.Chatham Area Trans.it A u thority Columbia-South Carolina Electric & Gas Little Roc:kCenttal At1 C. Axton, General Manager Ms. Yvonn e L. Reid, Director of Finance Mr Mich aelS. Townes, Chief Executive Officer Ms.. Hien B. Hoang, Director of Finance Mr. Rola-nd H WindN!m Jt. County A

    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 C01-00047
    040
    FHM
    049
    FHmm
    2 110
    Florida. Office of Public Transportation Operations.
    0 245
    1995 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part IV : demand-response peer review analysis, 1995 : final report
    260
    Tampa, Fla
    b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
    c 1997 June
    650
    Bus lines--Florida--Management.
    Bus lines--Florida--Evaluation
    710
    University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
    1 773
    t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
    4 856
    u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.47